Skip to comments.Why People Believe What They Do
Posted on 09/16/2009 3:29:20 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Steve: You're doing really interesting work. You've decoupled sort of, "Is evolution true?", you know, "What are problems with evolution?", from people's interpretations of whether or not they accept evolution. Regardless of evolution itself, we're just talking about the psychological profiles of how you come to either accept or not accept evolution. Some of that work is yours and some of it you're very well familiar with from other people; so let's talk about some of the basics and some of the surprises about the people who accept and don't accept evolution and their reasons for it.
Lombrozo: Sure. So I think one of the most surprising findings has to do with the relationship between understanding the basics of evolutionary theory and accepting it as our best account of the origins of human life. So most people, I think, [or] in particular scientists, tend to think that if people reject evolution and in particular evolution by natural selection, it's because they don't understand it very well; they don't really understand what the theory is telling us. But in fact, if you look at the data from psychology and education, what you find is either no correlation between accepting evolution and understanding it or very, very small correlation between those two factors, and I think that's surprising to a lot of people and in particular to educators and scientists.
Steve: Yeah, it was surprising to me when your data were presented. So what [does] that mean for, you know, education in the country? What should people be thinking about if they have a desire to have evolutionary theory be more accepted by more people?
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
I worked as a stone mason. most of the material was/is sedimentary. Breaking open stones and continuously seeing skeletal remains makes you wonder where they came from.
You’re right, the “guy-in-the-sky”, “magic-apple”, “talking-snake” story is much more credible.
Evolution means different things to different people. Besides genetics and natural selection (which are provable), we have creation theories which is where the schism has divided the two main groups. God (The Creator) can only be believed in by faith, not science. Science may provide statistical odds of His existence but that’s all.
Science can prove that the systems we have for natural selection, etc follow a programmed course. Science may never be able to prove who created that system.
“Science may never be able to prove who created that system.”
That question implies that the system had to have been created by a ‘who’, but there’s nothing to prove that it had to have been a ‘who’.
Only an evo would be surprised at that, because they are so convinced that it's a matter of *proper* education.
And those are so hard to believe, why?
You don't think there isn't life out there that is more highly advanced than humans?
Who said the apple was magic?
Why is a talking snake so improbable?
Maybe a what? A machine rather than an entity?
A who is more reasonable than any other option.
To believe in evolution is similar to believing watch parts can be placed inside a box, shaken and out comes a completed watch.
Just common sense tells us "Intelligent Design" (i.e. God as THE creator) is responsible. Add in Christ's shroud that has NEVER been duplicated, belief in God is a no brainer for anyone with a brain and an open mind.
“Why is a talking snake so improbable?”
Given everything we know about snakes, why do you think that a talking snake in probable?
Actually, it is (though the "magic apple" comment is not a relevant nor intelligent interpretation of the story). I find it infinitely more credible that God created the universe and ordered it according to His principles than that random organic chemicals magically turned into life from nonlife, especially as the proposed mechanisms for this abiogenesis all violate known scientific laws.
Face it - to believe in the evolutionary story of abiogenesis requires a REJECTION of actual science.
Given everything we know about chemical laws, why do you think abiogenesis is probable?
Here is why people believe what they do:
“I will put My laws into their minds,
and I will write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they will be My people.”
Since it was neither a snake nor an apple, I don’t have to worry about a talking snake being probable or an apple being magic.
“Given everything we know about chemical laws, why do you think abiogenesis is probable?”
I never said it was.
For most evolutionists, faith is placed in the scientific textbooks they have either read or others who have studied them and their rational arguments.
Much the same may be said of those who have faith in religion, but thinking through faith in Christ is a different system having rewards directly given by God to the believer.
Science is unable to give spiritual gifts. Nor does science love its own. Science is merely an application of reason to a material world advancing ideas to advocate laws of the Creation, without ever accepting the existence of their ultimate source.
While science may provide many pragmatic solutions for daily mediate cause, it is woefully inadequate in explaining the entire spiritual domain, its persons, and consequences of rejecting it.
It is possible to study and apply science through faith in Christ, but substituting science as a counterfeit for God as the object of our faith is ignorant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.