"Pip R. Lagenta" <morbiusatwork@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7cns20l7pctmcrtn04ociqk01bprofe18q@4ax.com...

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 05:15:09 +0000 (UTC), "Not so quick"
<goodideaSSPPAAMM@lvcm.com> wrote:
[snip]

I really would
like to think that evolution makes sense but it
doesn't and the only purpose it serves to me,
is to keep the misguided creationists from
claiming the minds of those who don't think.

The Theory of Evolution can be seen to "make sense", in addition to
seeing that evolution, itself, is required for life on this planet to,
in fact, exist as we see it, if one has an idea of what evolution
*really* is.

You seem to need a little background information. Try here:
<http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html>
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml>
<http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
<http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm>
<http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html>
<http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html>
<http://www.evolutionhappens.net/>
<http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Tenets_of_evolution.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html>
<http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/evo_science.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html>
<http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionVCreation/elementaryfaq.msnw>
<http://www.geocities.com/chastity403/debate/nm-lilith-1/>
<http://www.ooblick.com/text/MsgToCreationists.html>
<http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html>

Even if evolution made sense, in its entirety it still
doesn't change anything.

The literal acceptance of
the Bible was proved wrong a long time ago. In
Genesis the sky is said to be made of water. But
at some points in history fundamentalism was
necessary and may again be necessary. But none
of this proves that the goofy parts of evolutionary
theory are correct.

darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote

How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?

I think you are right that this is a really intersting question. It
applies most strongly to those creationists who, by virtue of their
intelligence and education "should" understand evolution.

Perhaps a "brick wall that keeps them from understanding" is the wrong
way to think about it. Appearances to the contrary, I really doubt
they have some kind of "deficit" at all.

Maybe it would be just as fair to ask, "how have they acquired the
skill that allows them to maintain an adaptive but untrue belief in
the face of evidence that it is untrue?" I find Roman Catholicism
extremely congenial and culturally attractive, but I didn't last as a
Catholic; perhaps I am the one with the deficit, not the creationists.
I was unable to sustain an agreeable belief in the face of
contradictory propositions.

Inside our heads are a whole bunch of inconsistent desires and
thoughts, all the time. Most of the time we are only aware of the
voice that shouts loudest. How do any of them ever come to be in
charge of what our mouth says and the rest of our body does? If an
idea arises that strongly violates everyday experience (e.g. the idea
that I can fly) the external world will take care of correcting it.
But if an idea arises which only very indirectly contradicts everyday
experience it has got a good chance of persisting, as long as it is
somehow adaptive in other ways for the person believing it. Although
many in t.o. might disagree, religious belief is pretty arguably
adaptive for those who hold it. I think a fair number of world-wide
surveys of "happiness" have found the 3 big predictors of
self-reported happiness to be income above a very low poverty
threshold, physical security, and religious faith. That's not an
argument that religious faith gives a correct idea about the way the
world is, but it is a reasonable argument why in the parliament of
voices going on in a creationist's head, the scientific voice might
get outvoted all the time.

Not to be too nihilistic here, but the views we express may often
precede the reasons we give for them. Certainly I think that is true
for the anti-scientific views of the creationists. But it's probably
true for most people about very many things. Only by dint of a good
deal of practice do you get into the habit of asking whether a
particular belief is vaguely congenial to you and then critiquing it
especially hard, just because you suspect you might be biased in its
favor.

So why do creationists seem to have a brick wall in their heads?
First, because inconsistency is a small price to pay for the benefits
of religious faith. They could have religious faith and still accept
evolution. Sure, but an authority-based religion, like fundamentalism
frees them up from having to wrestle with a lot of issues. And maybe
that gives them more energy to invest in other things. Second, and
more relevant to your question about what goes on in their heads, they
are not even really inconsistent, because neither they nor we
scientific types are "one" thing which could even in principle be
inconsistent with itself. We are all "centers of narrative gravity"
with a bunch of mutually inconsistent stories going on competing for
control of out mouth and bodies.

We find them puzzling because we think imagine that there must be one
judge in their heads that sits and evaluates propositions and resolves
inconsistencies to come to a decision about what to believe. But, in
fact, their heads (like ours) are full of a lot of contradictory
voices. There is no single judge who is being inconsistent, who runs
into a mental brick wall. It's just that their little fundamentalist
homunculi vastly outnumber their mini-Dawkins.

Bill

It seems reasonable that species evolve, but I can't see any species
at all coming from inorganic matter, nor any complex species coming
from single celled organisms.

darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0402081143.3cd4b563@posting.google.com>...

How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?

It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.

So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.

DV

I think you are right that this is a really intersting question. It
applies most strongly to those creationists who, by virtue of their
intelligence and education "should" understand evolution.

Perhaps a "brick wall that keeps them from understanding" is the wrong
way to think about it. Appearances to the contrary, I really doubt
they have some kind of "deficit" at all.

Maybe it would be just as fair to ask, "how have they acquired the
skill that allows them to maintain an adaptive but untrue belief in
the face of evidence that it is untrue?" I find Roman Catholicism
extremely congenial and culturally attractive, but I didn't last as a
Catholic; perhaps I am the one with the deficit, not the creationists.
I was unable to sustain an agreeable belief in the face of
contradictory propositions.

Inside our heads are a whole bunch of inconsistent desires and
thoughts, all the time. Most of the time we are only aware of the
voice that shouts loudest. How do any of them ever come to be in
charge of what our mouth says and the rest of our body does? If an
idea arises that strongly violates everyday experience (e.g. the idea
that I can fly) the external world will take care of correcting it.
But if an idea arises which only very indirectly contradicts everyday
experience it has got a good chance of persisting, as long as it is
somehow adaptive in other ways for the person believing it. Although
many in t.o. might disagree, religious belief is pretty arguably
adaptive for those who hold it. I think a fair number of world-wide
surveys of "happiness" have found the 3 big predictors of
self-reported happiness to be income above a very low poverty
threshold, physical security, and religious faith. That's not an
argument that religious faith gives a correct idea about the way the
world is, but it is a reasonable argument why in the parliament of
voices going on in a creationist's head, the scientific voice might
get outvoted all the time.

Not to be too nihilistic here, but the views we express may often
precede the reasons we give for them. Certainly I think that is true
for the anti-scientific views of the creationists. But it's probably
true for most people about very many things. Only by dint of a good
deal of practice do you get into the habit of asking whether a
particular belief is vaguely congenial to you and then critiquing it
especially hard, just because you suspect you might be biased in its
favor.

So why do creationists seem to have a brick wall in their heads?
First, because inconsistency is a small price to pay for the benefits
of religious faith. They could have religious faith and still accept
evolution. Sure, but an authority-based religion, like fundamentalism
frees them up from having to wrestle with a lot of issues. And maybe
that gives them more energy to invest in other things. Second, and
more relevant to your question about what goes on in their heads, they
are not even really inconsistent, because neither they nor we
scientific types are "one" thing which could even in principle be
inconsistent with itself. We are all "centers of narrative gravity"
with a bunch of mutually inconsistent stories going on competing for
control of out mouth and bodies.

We find them puzzling because we think imagine that there must be one
judge in their heads that sits and evaluates propositions and resolves
inconsistencies to come to a decision about what to believe. But, in
fact, their heads (like ours) are full of a lot of contradictory
voices. There is no single judge who is being inconsistent, who runs
into a mental brick wall. It's just that their little fundamentalist
homunculi vastly outnumber their mini-Dawkins.

Bill