PE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution

AuthorTopic: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution  (Read 24664 times)

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
I neither endorse or disagree with this article. Quite frankly there is much in it not understood by me. :icon_scratch:

The topics have come up often and I post it in the hope of generating some thoughtful educational comments from our Diner's well studied in this area.

7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
What science can tell us about our not-so-scientific minds.

By Chris Mooney | Tue Nov. 26, 2013 8:31 AM GMT
Social Title:
7 reasons why it's easier for humans to believe in God than evolution

Late last week, the Texas Board of Education failed to approve a leading high school biology textbook—whose authors include the Roman Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University [1]—because of its treatment of evolution. According to [2]The New York Times, critiques from a textbook reviewer identified as a "Darwin Skeptic" were a principal cause.

Yet even as creationists keep trying to undermine modern science, modern science is beginning to explain creationism scientifically. And it looks like evolution—the scientifically uncontested explanation [3] for the diversity and interrelatedness of life on Earth, emphatically including human life—will be a major part of the story. Our brains are a stunning product of evolution; and yet ironically, they may naturally pre-dispose us against its acceptance.

                                                             
446px Editorial cartoon depicting Charles Darwin as an ape (1871) 0
446px Editorial cartoon depicting Charles Darwin as an ape (1871) 0
1871 satirical image depicting Charles Darwin as an ape.
1871 satirical image depicting Charles Darwin as an ape. The Hornet [4]/Wikimedia Commons
                                                                   
"I don't think there's any question that a variety of our mental dispositions are ones that discourage us from taking evolutionary theory as seriously as it should be taken," explains Robert N. McCauley, director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture at Emory University and author of the book Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not [5].

So what can science tell us about our not-so-scientific minds? Here's a list of cognitive traits, thinking styles, and psychological factors identified in recent research that seem to thwart evolution acceptance:

Biological Essentialism. First, we seem to have a deep tendency to think about biology in a way that is "essentialist"—in other words, assuming that each separate kind of animal species has a fundamental, unique nature that unites all members of that species, and that is inviolate. Fish have gills, birds have wings, fish make more fish, birds make more birds, and that's how it all works. Essentialist thinking has been demonstrated in young children [6]. "Little kids as young as my 2 and a half year old granddaughter are quite clear that puppies don't have ponies for mommies and daddies," explains McCauley.

If essentialism is a default style of thinking [7], as much research suggests, then that puts evolution at a major disadvantage. Charles Darwin and his many scientific disciples have shown that essentialism is just plain wrong: Given enough time, biological kinds are not fixed but actually change. Species are connected through intermediate types to other species—and all are ultimately related to one another. :icon_scratch:

Teleological Thinking. Essentialism is just one basic cognitive trait, observed in young children, that seems to hinder evolutionary thinking. Another is "teleology," or the tendency to ascribe purposes to things and objects so as to assume they exist to serve some goal.

Recent research [8] suggests that 4 and 5 year old children are highly teleological in their thinking, tending to opine, for instance, that clouds are "for raining" and that the purpose of lions is "to go in the zoo." The same tendency has been observed in 7 and 8 year olds who, when asked why "prehistoric rocks are pointy," offered answers like "so that animals could scratch on them when they got itchy" and "so that animals wouldn't sit on them and smash them."
                                                             
                                                           


Title page of the Reverend William Paley's 1802 work Natural Theology, which famously propounded an argument for God's existence based on the appearance of design in nature.
Title page of the Reverend William Paley's 1802 work Natural Theology, which famously propounded an argument for God's existence based on the appearance of design in nature. Wikimedia Commons [9]

Why do children think like this? One study [8] speculates that this teleological disposition may be a "side [effect] of a socially intelligent mind that is naturally inclined to privilege intentional explanation." In other words, our brains developed for thinking about what people are thinking, and people have intentions and goals. If that's right, the playing field may be naturally tilted toward anti-evolutionist doctrines like "intelligent design," which postulates an intelligent agent (God) as the cause of the diversity of life on Earth, and seeks  to uncover evidence of purposeful design in biological organisms.

Overactive Agency Detection. But how do you know the designer is "God"? That too may be the result of a default brain setting.

Another trait, closely related to teleological thinking, is our tendency to treat any number of inanimate objects as if they have minds and intentions. Examples of faulty agency detection, explains University of British Columbia origins of religion scholar Ara Norenzayan, range from seeing "faces in the clouds" to "getting really angry at your computer when it starts to malfunction." People engage in such "anthropomorphizing" all the time; it seems to come naturally. And it's a short step to religion: "When people anthropomorphize gods, they are inferring mental states," says Norenzayan.

There has been much speculation about the evolutionary origin of our anthropomorphizing tendency. One idea is that our brains developed to rapidly assume that objects in the world are alive and may pose a threat, simply because while wrongly mistaking a rustle of leaves for a bear won't get you killed, failing to detect a bear early (when the leaves rustle) most certainly will. "Supernatural agents are readily conjured up because natural selection has trip-wired cognitive schema for agency detection in the face of uncertainty," write Norenzayan and fellow origin of religion scholar Scott Atran [10].

                                                                 
485px Descartes mind and body 0
485px Descartes mind and body 0
Illustration by Rene Descartes of the pineal gland, which he believed to be the location of the soul within the brain.
Illustration by Rene Descartes of the pineal gland, which he believed to be the location of the soul within the brain. Wikimedia Commons [11]

Dualism. Yet another apparent feature of our cognitive architecture is the tendency to think that minds (or the "self" and the "soul") are somehow separate from brains. Once again, this inclination has been found in young children, suggesting that it emerges early in human development. "Preschool children will claim that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, typically those involving deliberative mental work, such as solving math problems," write Yale psychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg [12]. "But preschoolers will also claim that the brain is not involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo, loving one's brother, or brushing one's teeth."

Dualistic thinking is closely related to belief in phenomena like spirits and ghosts. But in a recent study [13], it was also the cognitive factor most strongly associated with believing in God. As for evolutionary science? Dualism is pretty clearly implicated in resistance to the idea that human beings could have developed from purely natural processes—for if they did, how could there ever be a soul or self beyond the body, to say nothing of an afterlife?

Inability to Comprehend Vast Time Scales
. According to Norenzayan, there's one more basic cognitive factor that prevents us from easily understanding evolution. Evolution occurred due to the accumulation of many small changes over vast time periods—which means that it is unlike anything we've experienced. So even thinking about it isn't very easy. "The only way you can appreciate the process of evolution is in an abstract way," says Norenzayan. "Over millions of years, small changes accumulate, but it's not intuitive. There's nothing in our brain that says that's true. We have to override our incredulity."

Group Morality and Tribalism. All of these cognitive factors seem to make evolution hard to grasp, even as they render religion (or creationist ideas) simpler and more natural to us. But beyond these cognitive factors, there are also emotional reasons why a lot of people don't want to believe in evolution. When we see resistance to its teaching, after all, it is usually because a religious community fears that this body of science will undermine a belief system—in the US, usually fundamentalist Christianity—deemed to serve as the foundation for shared values and understanding. In other words, evolution is resisted because it is perceived as a threat to the group.

So how appropriate that one current scientific theory about religion is that it exists (and, maybe, that it evolved) to bind groups together and keep them cohesive. In his recent book The Righteous Mind [14], moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that religions provide a shared set of beliefs and practices that, in effect, serve as social glue. "Gods and religions," writes Haidt, "are group-level adaptations for producing cohesiveness and trust." The upside is unity; the downside, Haidt continues, is "groupishness, tribalism, and nationalism." Ideas and beliefs that threaten the group or the beliefs that hold it together—ideas like evolution—are bound to fare badly in this context.
Everett Collection [15]/Shutterstock

Fear and the Need for Certainty. Finally, there appears to be something about fear and doubt that impels religiosity and dispels acceptance of evolution. "People seem to take more comfort from a stance that says, someone designed the world with good intentions, instead of that the world is just an intention-less, random place," says Norenzayan. "This is especially true when we feel a sense of threat, or a feeling of not being in control."

Indeed, in one amazing study [16], New Zealanders who had just suffered through a severe earthquake showed stronger religiosity, but only if they had been directly affected by the quake. Other research suggests that making people think about death [17] increases their religiosity and also decreases evolution [18] acceptance. It's not just death: It's also randomness, disorder. In one telling study [19], research participants who were asked to think of a situation in which they had lacked control and then to "provide three reasons supporting the notion that the future is (un-) controllable," showed a marked decline in their acceptance of evolution, opting instead for an intelligent design-style explanation. (Another study [20] found that anti-evolutionists displayed higher fear sensitivity and a trait called the "need for cognitive closure," which describes a psychological need to find an answer that can resolve uncertainty and dispel doubt.)

Such is the research, and it's important to point out a few caveats. First, this doesn't mean science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. The conflict may run very deep indeed, but nevertheless, some individuals can and do find a way to retain their religious beliefs and also accept evolution—including the aforementioned biology textbook author Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a Catholic.

Second, while there are many reasons to think that the traits above comprise a core part of who we are, it doesn't automatically follow that religion is the direct result of evolution by natural selection. It is also possible that religion arises as a byproduct of more basic traits that were, in turn, selected for because they conferred greater fitness (such as agency detection). This "byproduct" view is defended by Steven Pinker here [21].

In any event, the evidence is clear that both our cognitive architecture, and also our emotional dispositions, make it difficult or unnatural for many people to accept evolution. "Natural selection is like quantum physics...we might intellectually grasp it, with considerable effort, but it will never feel right to us," writes [22] the Yale psychologist Paul Bloom. Often, people express surprise that in an age so suffused with science, science causes so much angst and resistance.

Perhaps more surprising would be if it didn't.

www.motherjones.com/print/239836 :icon_study:

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39144
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2013, 05:26:15 AM »
Belief in God and Belief in  Evolution are not incompatibable concepts.  This article creates a false dichotomy.

The philosophical/architectural problem is not with Evolution, it is with Life Genesis, which is not explained in any meaningful way by EITHER Evolution or traditional Religions.  The kind of thermodynamic arguments Paul Chefurka makes try to breach that chasm, but they fall short by a long shot.

You can believe in God and believe in Evolution also.  What is much more difficult is to explain the genesis of life or following that sentience.  Neither Evolution nor traditional Religion expalin this very well, so you are more or less on your own to develop a set of postulates that works for you in this area.

Your Belief Structure, as it were.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline Bot Blogger

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2013, 11:30:09 AM »
Fantastic article GO,

I agree with RE there is a weird take away delivered by the writer. Arguing for Evolution vs Creationism. That it's somehow easier to be a creationist. Creationists are just lazy etc.

The article is a cop out to basically explain, why we're not converting people into the atheist fold so well.

But the patterns in the studies are very interesting. A lot of them have been discussed here before.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 03:36:42 PM by Bot Blogger »

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2013, 11:53:51 AM »
The title says more about the article than the content.  Whoever decides what news to put on the net, it seems now each and every piece must be "Ten Surprising Facts About      " or "Seven Reason to        ".

When McCluhan said that bit about the medium being the message,  he didn't realize TV was just the beginning of a long slide into infantile journalistic regression.

Most people would rather believe in magic than understand how things work. This is not news to me.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2013, 12:46:51 PM »
Quote
Most people would rather believe in magic than understand how things work. This is not news to me.

Might I suggest that belief in a Creator, and belief in magic are two very different things?

Likewise how things work and what humans are.



Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2013, 01:15:58 PM »
Might I suggest that belief in a Creator, and belief in magic are two very different things?

For some of us, they are. I believe in a Creator, or at least a Great Design, that is beyond my understanding. I don't believe in magic, at least as I understand magic.

I think (and it is simply my opinion) that most people fail to make much of a distinction. They create a God in their own image, rather than vice versa.

God is God, and Evolution is (for the moment at least) the most respected scientific theory about how living things change in relation to environmental changes. These articles that try to create an/either or dichotomy, like if I believe in God, then I shouldn't believe in Evolution, offend me. So therefore I respond by being pissed off.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2013, 01:20:19 PM »
Quote
Might I suggest that belief in a Creator, and belief in magic are two very different things?

Likewise how things work and what humans are.

 :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Might I also suggest to the claim that "creationists are JUST LAZY" by others here that probability and statistics mathematicians are anything BUT lazy.

It is they who accuse you evolutionists of believing in fairy tales and magic. Respond to that instead of hurling abuse at creationists who you try to ridicule by bunching them falsely with the "God created the universe in 6 days and we are only 6,000 years old" NUT BALLS.

You Darwinists are as NUTTY and faith based as the 6 day creationists. You are also as arrogant and stubborn as they are.

Science states that either God did it or ET made this biosphere. Either way, evolution is BULSHIT! Live with it or die in denial. Your choice.  ;)

Quote
... information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC Berkeley) realized this problem:

"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers … [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."43

Note that in his calculations, Yockey generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of ‘faith’. He later concluded, "the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions."44

More admissions

Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak plainly on this issue:

"Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows."—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher, University of Calgary, Canada.45

"…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." —Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State University.46

"Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."—Professor Paul Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47

"The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved."— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair, department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.), and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University of California, USA).48

"Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be characterized as the problem of finding the chemical mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor. All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still do not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the magnitude of the problem."49

]"The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself… the gap between such a collection of molecules [amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains enormous."—Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University of California, USA.50

Even the doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how life began:

Richard Dawkins: "We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life—it was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule."

Ben Stein: "How did that happen?"

Richard Dawkins: "I’ve told you, we don’t know."

Ben Stein: "So you have no idea how it started?"

Richard Dawkins: "No, nor has anybody."51


"We will never know how life first appeared. However, the study of the appearance of life is a mature, well-established field of scientific inquiry. As in other areas of evolutionary biology, answers to questions on the origin and nature of the first life forms can only be regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather than definitive and conclusive."52 (emphasis added)[/b]




In nature, DNA can do some very wild things. I have seen what a mosquito larvae looks like under a microscope in a bit of pond water.  Observe the segmentation present also in millipedes and centipedes. Observe the feather/fin like multiple appendages instead of feet. It's a swimming centipede!


Mosquito larvae on left - much smaller than centipede on right

Yet a mosquito is not related, according to the evolutionists, to a centipede. That is, one did not evolve from the other. The insect hordes all show up around the Devonian - supposedly 400 million years ago with a few changes due to "natural selection" and extinction events to arrive at our "modern" insects - Triassic until now (you know, Dinosaurs until NOW  ;)).



comparison of Dinosaurs of the Triassic Period

Quote
Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation  ???
with selective pressures exerted by environment, ???
with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity. ???

It appears ??? that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species, a process that continues to this day, ???
result in insects filling all available environmental niches.

Insect evolution is closely related to the evolution of flowering plants.     Insect adaptations include feeding on flowers and related structures, with some 20% of extant insects depending on flowers, nectar or pollen for their food source. This symbiotic relationship is even more paramount in evolution  considering that about 2/3 of flowering plants are insect pollinated.  ;) 

Insects are also vectors of many pathogens that may even have been responsible for the decimation or extinction of some mammalian species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny_of_insects


I will take the above quote apart in a minute but let me tell you where I'm going with this centipede/ mosquito thing as related to studying hominid skulls.

We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)

The evolutionary scientists DO THAT today saying that, OBVIOUSLY, what we evolved from doesn't exist today so it was incorrect to think we are related to apes or chimps. It HAS to be that we have a common missing link someplace back there, they say. Sniff!

When they do that they step further into illogic. Why? Because Mosquitos and centipedes and dragon flies and MILLIONs (about 12 million total of which most are insects at last count) of other insects STOPPED "EVOLVING" at the time of the Triassic (and the links to their Devonian cousins are speculative due to the NEW forms that were symbiotic with the NEW types of plant life - angiosperms
Quote
The apparently sudden appearance of relatively modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant)!
But they just don't want to address that brazen bit of inconsistency in their flawed theory. Now of course they want to talk about "rapid adaptation" and "evolutionary spurts" and all sorts of silliness that strains credibility in all but the most gullible.

So, back to the basic premise of a truly scientific approach to what is in the fossil record. A mosquito larvae looks like a centipede adult form. Let's check the DNA package to look for similar gene coding sequences. We find, say a 30% identical set of sequences for two creatures that did not evolve from each other. Hmmmm. There is NO fossil evidence of insects before the Devonian. Working hypothesis: Somebody designed them both. Why? Because they have a similar design and did not have time to evolve from anything else because there simply isn't anything else remotely similar to insects prior to that time. To complicate matters further, we have the angiosperms (flowering plants) showing up at the same time as the insects that pollinate AND feed on them(symbiosis).

In the quote from the evolutionary view of insect phylogeny above, observe the following DATA presented and why the conclusions are exactly backwards in an attempt to fit the facts to natural selection (and even that they mess up!).

 

1. RAPID ADAPTATION can ONLY occur when the DNA PACKAGE has latent coding sequences that respond to environmental pressures. Think of an aircraft fliying through the air. It has a landing gear that NEEDS TO BE HIDDEN or the plane won't fly as well. However, when it has to land, the landing gear has to come out for the plane to survive. The landing gear is in the ORIGINAL "DNA" package design of the aircraft and environmental conditions cause the "landing gear gene" to be expressed. This is NOT EVOLUTION. This is adaptation from a pre-planned DNA design.

The SLOW ADAPTATION to environmental stresses from mutations in natural selection CANNOT produce RAPID ANYTHING because 98% of mutations are harmful. I've discussed the math before. When Positive mutations occur, it is a glacially slow process. That process becomes MISSION IMPOSSIBLE when we have multiple symbiotic mechanisms occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY between two extremely disparate life forms (flowering plants and insects). 


2. After they emit all this silliness, "Insect evolution is characterized by rapid adaptation 
with selective pressures exerted by environment,..." , they jump to the old 'evolution through multiple generations' trick,   ;)
"with rapid adaptation being furthered by their high fecundity." .

WHY is this not logical, or truth based? BECAUSE the flowering plants arrived at the SAME TIME in the fossil record as the insects that feed on them AND pollinate them. If fecundity had anything to do with natural selection or any other "evolutionary" species modifying mechanism, we would have VERY DIFFERENT insects than the "modern" ones we have that are virtually UNCHANGED from the Triassic!

So fecundity works when it is CONVENIENT to the theory of evolution and doesn't when they don't need to explain some "difficulty" in their procrustean bed?  I don't think so.



After that package of pseudo-scientific assumptions above, they go ALL OUT into speculation to make a giant assumption,
"It appears  ;D that rapid radiations and the appearance of new species,...".

Let's correct that statement to state the FACTS,  "It appears  that rapid radiations and the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection".



Finally, they make the final leap of Darwinian faith to the present despite not having ANY significant change in insects morphology since the Triassic to indicate "evolution" is in progress,
"a process that continues to this day, result in insects filling all available environmental niches."   

Let's correct that last bit of wishful thinking to reflect the facts on the ground: It appears  that  the rapid simultaneous appearance of new species depending for their existence on multiple symbiotic mechanisms cannot be explained by natural selection, indicating a (still unexplained) process occurred in the Triassic period that resulted in insects filling all available environmental niches of the present biosphere.

The symbiotic angiosperm/insect relationship is not rapidly adapting to the present level of planetary industrial toxins. Therefore, whatever the unexplained rapid adaptation mechanism that occurred in the Triassic Period was, there is no evidence that it is present today because we are experiencing a high level of species extinctions affecting, but not limited to, insects and angiosperms.


THAT is honest science.


To do HONEST SCIENCE as to our origins, I would proceed from my observation that mosquitoes and centipedes and angiosperms appeared simultaneously to find out when WE appeared. I would need a clock. I would start with Carbon-14 (up to 100,000 years accurately IF the carbon radioactive decay clock hasn't changed over that period but I would start with it just the same). WHY? Because we have items with organic carbon that we KNOW the date of like Egyptian mummies that we can crosscheck for accuracy.

Crude oil, for example contains NO carbon-14, indicating that, since the plant life form that became that oil decayed, all the C-14 has radiated out. That means crude oil is technically older than 100,000 years.

I would proceed to more higher scale dating methods only if I couldn't get C-14 data.


THEN I would start looking at DNA sequences.

Only after I was convinced our closest relative was not the one that looks most like us would I dig further. During that time I would study the tendon bone attachments, anatomy and physiology of hominid skulls. I would go where the data took me.

Yes, I have a working hypothesis that we are a package DNA deal (created by God) and I would certainly want to find proof. But it is far more logical to start with that hypothesis than the Darwinian one  because evolution doesn't have proof of their most basic premise! (the self assembling amino acids for the first cell).

Furthermore, I have fossil evidence that millions of species popped up out of nowhere in more than one strata.

I think I'm being more scientific and empirical than the Darwinists "it's all a crap shoot" arrogance, don't you?


It isn't "EASY" to believe in Created life versus Evolution; it is LOGICAL and Science BASED. It is also HARD to accept that we owe our existence to a supreme being much smarter than we are. But it is REALLY EASY to pretend we can do whatever the fuck we want using a Darwinian Fairy tale to ignore ethical behavior. In Fact, there is NOTHING EASIER or LAZIER than saying life is a crap shoot. How fucking convenient for you arrogant fucks.  ;)  Have a nice day.  :icon_mrgreen:
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 06:48:14 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2013, 01:36:37 PM »
Yeah, yeah, all you  armchair experts should give it a rest in my opinion.

Your ability to cut and paste doesn't impress me. When a reasonable minority of real scientists in the world change their views, I just might too. In the mean time, you're entitled to your opinion, and I'd suggest you respect mine, especially if you're within range.

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline Bot Blogger

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2013, 03:18:03 PM »
Interesting read Thanks AG. I always enjoy the hard work you put into your posts!  :icon_sunny:
I also enjoy reading your thoughts on ENERGY

Did you read the article that GO posted at the top of the thread?

SORRY.  :'(  if you took offense at what you imagined I said, as you're wont to do.

The ARTICLE implies that creationists are lazy of thought. The article is making the claim that people need to get over their natural tendencies to orient towards creationism.

I am not saying such a thing.
No one here did.

Or in AG speak:

I also enjoy reading your thoughts on ENERGY  :emthup: :emthup:  :icon_sunny: :kissing2:

The ARTICLE implies that creationists are lazy of thought. BOO! HISS!  :WTF:

But impressive draw on that bazooka.  ;D
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 03:28:11 PM by Bot Blogger »

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2013, 03:28:24 PM »
Seven (unwarranted) assumptions made by materialist evolutionists (def: those who believe that species come and go strictly through chance and natural selection):

1. That all mentality is the spatiotemporal activity of the brain.

2. That all reports of religious and paranormal experiences are either lies or delusory.

3. That consciousness can emerge from that which is not consciousness.

4. That the process of perception can be explained in terms of the products of perception.

5. That physical laws never change.

6. That space and time exist independently of the perceptual process (this in spite of the radical difference between quantum reality and perceived reality.)

(From (5) and (6) we get the consequent assumption that ages past can be thought of unproblematically in terms of our current perceived reality.)

7. That homo sapiens throughout its existence, or at least in recorded history, perceived nature and had the same intellectual capability as contemporary humanity does.

BTW, some theistic evolutionists and creationists also accept some of these.

Offline Bot Blogger

  • Bussing Staff
  • **
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2013, 04:06:50 PM »
KA

I love the way these flip back n forth between a belief in a static reality and a dynamic reality:

How evolutionary thought can basically involve thinking that evolution has stopped and we have arrived at the top or the end or some such terminal.

Evolutionists and Atheists do not seem to offer a way forward for evolution. Or an understanding of how evolution is dynamic. We really don't understand what nature is. We just know we should remain on top the food chain.

Hence super bugs and the way nature responds to humanity's complete reckless dominance. Hopefully a natural balance to us effectively becoming GOD in our own minds.

And yet the interior experience is approached as if there was no one home. We are vessels of mental addictions and somatic reactions.

I especially like this one:

Quote
(From (5) and (6) we get the consequent assumption that ages past can be thought of unproblematically in terms of our current perceived reality.)

7. That homo sapiens throughout its existence, or at least in recorded history, perceived nature and had the same intellectual capability as contemporary humanity does.

However I don't agree with Barfield that any change-over has happened en Mass. If there has been an evolving version of consciousness, an awareness of inside experience, it's not something that is complete nor is it necessarily wide spread. There is plenty evidence that we hold our beliefs inside of one another. So as we get older we bring with us the 3 year old that believes in Santa. We just ADD on another layer that believes in consumerism. An Onion layer of perception.

I only became aware of an inside when I was 35 and it had been my job to relate the interior experience on stage. It is still something I am coming to terms with.





« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 04:57:14 PM by Bot Blogger »

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2013, 04:10:24 PM »
BTW, some theistic evolutionists and creationists also accept some of these.

I'd say most people, regardless of their particular stance on evolution, creationism, etc., fall into those traps. Yeah, me too, I'll admit it, and I know better.

Number two is more common with atheist types, I think. For myself, I only see religious and paranormal experiences "through a glass darkly." But I have experienced things I cannot explain. Like...I will (quite often, in fact) have a thought about someone I take care of in the practice. Might not have seen them for years, but then, they are in my head. Generally, it isn't long before they show up in my office. I can only assume that I think about them...because THEY are thinking about me. I don't have a rational explanation for that...but it has happened many times.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2013, 05:24:33 PM »
Quote
We have centipedes and we have mosquitos. How come such analogous shapes are allegedly NOT related? BECAUSE they show up at the same time in the fossil record. Why do they assume (no proof, just Darwinian based speculation) something is not related to something else when they appear at the same time? Because the Theory REQUIRES a distance in time for one thing to evolve into another, period.

Now you would say, HEY, didn't Darwin think we came from apes (which, of course, exist now too!)? YEP. It was OBVIOUSLY, as Ashvin pointed out in a quote here recently, based on prejudice against negros and had nothing to do with science. If Darwin had been approaching the issue scientifically, he would have to ASSUME that all modern life forms are evolved from something that is not present today. But he didn't do that, did he?  ;)

You got through the skull of the Ox right here Agelbert. I finally get it, or at least think I do.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :Thinkingof_:


Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2013, 07:14:45 PM »
And yet the interior experience is approached as if there was no one home. We are vessels of mental addictions and somatic reactions.

Sometimes I wonder (not really) if the eliminative materialists (those, like Daniel Dennett, who try to explain away consciousness) in fact have nobody home.

Quote
I especially like this one:

Quote
(From (5) and (6) we get the consequent assumption that ages past can be thought of unproblematically in terms of our current perceived reality.)

7. That homo sapiens throughout its existence, or at least in recorded history, perceived nature and had the same intellectual capability as contemporary humanity does.

However I don't agree with Barfield that any change-over has happened en Mass. If there has been an evolving version of consciousness, an awareness of inside experience, it's not something that is complete nor is it necessarily wide spread.

Actually, Barfield doesn't claim that it happened everywhere to everybody: his book (StA) is "a [sketch of a] history of human consciousness; particularly the consciousness of western humanity during the last three thousand years or so." Indeed, part of his argument comes from comparing modern "civilized" understanding of reality to that reported by anthropologists of "primitive" groups, who still have what one of them called a "participation mystique", i.e., original participation.

Quote
There is plenty evidence that we hold our beliefs inside of one another. So as we get older we bring with us the 3 year old that believes in Santa. We just ADD on another layer that believes in consumerism. An Onion layer of perception.

Hence the need for intellectual discipline, as I've been arguing with Impermanence about.

Quote
I only became aware of an inside when I was 35 and it had been my job to relate the interior experience on stage. It is still something I am coming to terms with.

Now this is very interesting. I can't say when I became aware of an inside, but it is the case that my "Aha!" moment (when I realized that ordinary consciousness transcends space and time) happened when I was 37 (and only after that that I read Barfield and Wolff et al). On the other hand, I had been thinking about thinking and perception for many years before that, so I had to have had some sort of ability to introspect. Maybe one just has to be about that old before such thinking can pay off. But then, what's Dennett's excuse?

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17502
    • View Profile
Re: 7 Reasons Why It's Easier for Humans to Believe in God Than Evolution
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2013, 06:02:47 AM »
I only became aware of an inside when I was 35 and it had been my job to relate the interior experience on stage. It is still something I am coming to terms with.

Now this is very interesting. I can't say when I became aware of an inside, but it is the case that my "Aha!" moment (when I realized that ordinary consciousness transcends space and time) happened when I was 37 (and only after that that I read Barfield and Wolff et al). On the other hand, I had been thinking about thinking and perception for many years before that, so I had to have had some sort of ability to introspect. Maybe one just has to be about that old before such thinking can pay off.

I think I went to sleep thinking about this one. Very interesting indeed. I was trying to remember a time when I WASN'T aware of an inside. I'm sure I wasn't at some early point in childhood, but I'm not sure exactly when.

I would say that I was aware by age 16, when I began to seriously experiment with falling down the rabbit hole with LSD. And by age 19 I was turned on to Alan Watts The Book. I've been thinking about dualism/non-dualism since then at least. More time spent thinking about it hasn't made it easier to understand though.

I would hazard a guess that it isn't age as much as personality type that influences the onset of the kind of introspection you're discussing. That and exposure to Eastern thought, at least through books or some other avenue.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
4066 Views
Last post December 19, 2013, 11:11:52 PM
by RE
0 Replies
761 Views
Last post April 10, 2017, 05:58:08 PM
by RE
0 Replies
1192 Views
Last post April 23, 2017, 04:47:02 AM
by knarf