Why is it, despite the advances of science and secularist education, so many Americans still doubt evolution? While many blame theism, a pair of Yale psychologists are suggesting another factor – that our minds are hard-wired from birth to see design in the world around us. In "Promiscuous Teleology" — Is This Why So Many Reject Evolution? Al Mohler discusses this idea:
Bloom and Weisberg believe that the minds of children are, in
effect, hard-wired to see design in nature and the world around them.
The "intuitive psychology" they describe means that children infer a
design in the world they experience. They assume an intelligence
behind what they observe, and assume that a creative intelligence is a
necessary part of any explanation of why things are as they are.
This, they argue, leads to a basic resistance to science.
Mohler quotes the authors, who of course, are evolutionists trying to "overcome" people’s resistance to "science" (a.k.a. evolution. please).
One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in
terms of design and purpose. For instance, four year-olds insist that
everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and
clouds ("for raining"), a propensity that Deborah Kelemen has dubbed
"promiscuous teleology." Additionally, when asked about the origin of
animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and to
prefer creationist explanations.
Just as children’s intuitions about the physical world make it
difficult for them to accept that the Earth is a sphere, their
psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for
them to accept the processes of evolution.
Mohler responds to this "evolution is science" and "there is no design or purpose" undercurrent
Just as obviously, Bloom and Weisberg, speaking on behalf of the scientific establishment, assume that there is no purpose or design behind the cosmos.
Mohler argues that these pscychologists have pitted science against faith by claiming that science denies any design, while faith teaches design. And unfortunately for them, childhood psychology sees design in the world. But rather than being a flaw to be overcome, Mohler argues that this may actually be evidence that we are made by God to understand things as being made.
The earliest lessons taught in Sunday School are filled with what
Deborah Keleman calls "promiscuous teleology" — the teaching that
God’s design lies under every aspect of nature. The hard-wiring for
design these psychologists identify as the problem may well be yet
another sign of the imago Dei — the image of God that
distinguishes humanity from all other creatures (another claim directly
rejected by the scientific establishment).
Of course, this "hard-wired" belief in design frustrates evolutionary scientists who deny design or intelligence behind the creation. Mohler alludes to the fact that this "childish framework" may also be present in adults, not because it is childish, but because it is true.
Many polls indicate that a majority of Americans reject the dominant
evolutionary theory and believe in some form of divine creation. This
frustrates the evolutionary scientists to no end. But they are asking
Americans to reject what they learned in Sunday School in favor of a
theory that insists that the universe is a great cosmic accident. It’s
not just children whose brains are hard-wired to reject that.
The developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology. These clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence these are among the domains where Americans’ resistance to science is the strongest.
Continue reading WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?
By Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg
Obviously, the link you provided was provided in the page I linked to. And so what is your point? While the scientists think that the “simplistic” design-oriented approach that children take is wrong, they only do so because they are committed evolutionists.
Mohler suggests that the children are not wrong at all, but rather, are right and evolutionary “scientists” (read “philosophers”) are wrong.
“Obviously, the link you provided was provided in the page I linked to.”
Readers shouldn’t have to dig for a link that normally would have been included in the post. By going to the original article, people can avoid being bombarded with right wing spin and get straight to the point.
I suppose I could include the original article, I just don’t want readers to skip OVER the right wing spin sites because they add relevant commentary. I often ask myself if I should include the original article. Maybe I should?
“Why is it, despite the advances of science and secularist education, so many Americans still doubt evolution?”
I think it’s because Americans are not well educated, and are for the most part, ignorant of science. Looking at this graph, the countries without religious fundamentalists score much higher than countries whose populations believe “The Flintstones” is a documentary.
That’s so pathetic that I couldn’t believe it at first but then I found this Sam Brownback site that says Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine. Apparently, it’s no joke. Creationists are just dumb and/or deluded. Then again, I guess fundamentalists want to teach both sides of the theory: does the Sun goes around the Earth or the does the Earth go around the Sun? Next we can teach children the other side of the Earth is round theory.
But surely Heliocentricism IS an Atheist doctrine?
Preach the Controversy!
;)
On a more serious note…
This whole “creationists think like children” study was discussed recently on Pandas Thumb.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/biblical_inerra.html#new-comments
It’s now mutated into biblical inerrancy.
Interesting stuff.
Remember people, birds are not bats!