It's not surprising at all that people would resist any
idea that
would call into doubt their fundamental world view. Such
an idea would
challenge their values, ethics, morality and their very
sense of what
is significant and has meaning to them.

For some people the great strength of science is it's
objective
value-free conclusions.....

and for some people the great weakness of science is it's
objective
value-free conclusions.

Speaking only for myself I think both positions have
merit.

Pax Cosmos wrote:

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
-------------------------------
"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of

the

earth

can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or

are

resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain

bigotry."

Sounds reasonable to me. Since the evidence is available to

everyone,

and since anyone who is open to the evidence should see how it is
overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, then it makes sense that only
those who are ignorant of that evidence, or who are resistant to

would doubt evolution.

SNIP:

You have the problem with ignorance. Why do people think that
creationist flat earthers or geocentrics are out to lunch, but they
don't have the same flipant response to young earth creationists?

Very few people have personal experience in flying far enough from

earth's surface to determine for themselves that it isn't basically
flat. They have to believe what they are told about the shape of the
earth and the photographs taken from the shuttle, moon and space
probes. before that they had to believe the cartographers and
scientists that had various measurements that they inferred the shape
of the earth from. There was that pole where around 50% of the

didn't know that it took one year for the earth to orbit the sun.

I'd bet that more people would agree that geocentric views were

I'd bet that even some of the guys that didn't know that the earth
orbited the sun would claim that the geocentric view was wrong.
Ignorance is rampant, but science doesn't depend on the ignorance.

Bias is a big deal for ID/creationism. They depend on ignorance to
perpetuate their support. That is just a fact.

Ron Okimoto

Pax Cosmos wrote:

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
-------------------------------
"Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of

the

earth

can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or

are

resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain

bigotry."

[snip]

But what *are* these emotional blocks of which he speaks? And how
exactly *does* "plain bigotry" operate? It seems to me that if

upholding scientific knowledge and method by supporting evolution,

should also do the same when it comes to describing these

psychological

impediments to the acceptance of evolution.

There is a lot of good discussion of these issues in the book "How
People Learn" by the National Research Council. There are probably

science educators here who have read it, but any who haven't, or just
people who are astonished when they hear that people disblieve
evolution, you really should read this book.

[big snip]

To me, what is really astonishing is the fact that, even though we

know

so little about the subjective mind, and why so many people cling

such outmoded ideas, there seems to be so little interest within

scientific community for more research to be done, and so little
pressure from the educated public for them to do it. It's like

either don't care, or are afraid of offending people's religious
sensibilities by asking the hard questions and doing the relevant
research. But this makes little sense to me, since they are at the
same time fighting tooth and nail against the intrusion of
pseudoscience into the classroom. Go figure...

There are numerous studies about how people learn and understand
scientific ideas and theories (most of them summarized well in the
above-cited volume). The bottom line is that all people come to
discussions of evolution with an elaborate mental model of evolution
(or its absence) ALREADY IN PLACE. This is true of the everyone, from
the youngest school child who is hearing about evolution for the very
first time to the oldest curmudgeon, from the scientifically literate
to the neophyte. We always organize new information based on existing
mental models of how the world works. Darwinian evolution, it turns
out, is a rather difficult model for most people to wrap their heads
around. The word evolution, in its common non-biological usage,

progress (one of the reasons that Darwin himself was reluctant to use
it until later editions of Origin of Species). This meaning of the

is part of most people's pre-existing framework for understanding a
scientific explanation. But to REALLY understand evolution we have to
discard the common-sense, dictionary definition of the word. We need

recognize the variability of organisms within species as the

raw material of evolution and downplay the Platonic ideals of "dog"

"Euglena" or "Dawn Redwood." We need to recognize the variability and
selective power of an ever-changing environment that often selects
"for" traits that sometimes defy our common-sense notion of fitness.

could go on, but you get the point. People who have a deep
understanding of evolution work hard building a model of the world

explains a LOT, but which is not at all intuitively obvious to a

observer.

One of the signal contributions of this book (which I urge everyone

read) is that it emphasizes how experts in a field have internalized

model of how the world works, one that is rich and nuanced and
supported by evidence. But lay people have equally rich and nuanced
models that are supported by evidence as well. The problem is that
their models of evolution are often poor caricatures of the real

We cannot teach about evolution until we reach out and try to
understand the models that regular people use to describe it. Then we
have to see through their eyes as we try to teach them a new model.

I'll give one example and then I'll shut up. In my introductory
environmental science classes I try to talk about natural selection,
and it immediately becomes apparent that people think of selection as
directional - it is always improving organisms, right? But if I start
to ask them about selection pressure in the face of things like

change, glaciation, species invasions, competition, etc., it slowly
dawns on them that "better" is neither directional nor predictable.

the end of the discussion I at least have some of them convinced that
the diversity of life is an historically contingent result of
evolution. But THEY have to think it through for themselves to

it. They won't accept me telling them.

I guess that scientists and educated people can be subject to

emotional

blocks as well...

Absolutely!

[snip]

Perhaps in the future, when more is understood about the subjective
mind, these sorts of discussions will seem quaint.

Pax

Perhaps we know a lot right now, but aren't successfully applying

we know!
rbb