Evolution vs. Intuition

June 7, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

The May 18 issue of Science, contains Paul Bloom’s and Deena Weisberg’s article, “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” but the authors were kind enough to post a summary of those ideas on the web for non-subscribers. Their thesis is summed up in the abstract in this way: “Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources.” They explain in the article (and its posted version) that “resistance to science” includes skepticism toward the theory of evolution. Likewise, “nonscientific ideologies” includes the dual idea that there is a soul and life has purpose. “Trustworthy [yet potentially misleading] sources” include parents. In the article they exemplify intuitively wrong ideas with the childish idea that the world is flat because it is perceived so in daily experience, but they also acknowledge that this is overcome by about age eight. They give no example of why children are mislead to believe that there is a soul or that life has purpose, but they imply it is cultural by pointing to the United States as a major problem arena, where these ideas persist into adulthood. They make two observations: Interest in science (as they define it) is declining, and increased emphasis on science education will not help. Enough on their intent. I would like to site a confession they make. Toward the end of the posted version we read:

“If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. As our colleague Frank Keil has discussed, this sort of division of cognitive labor is essential in any complex society, where any single individuals will lack the resources to evaluate all the claims that he or she hears.”

It is essential in life to accept without question many ideas without testing, simply because society would never advance otherwise. We’d always be reinventing the wheel. But the next paragraph is the confession:

“This is the case for most scientific beliefs. Consider, for example, that most adults who claim to believe that natural selection can explain the evolution of species are confused about what natural selection actually is—when pressed, they often describe it as a Lamarckian process in which animals somehow give birth to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Their belief in natural selection, then, is not rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments. Rather, this scientifically credulous sub-population are deferring to the people who say that this is how evolution works. They trust the scientists.”

There it is: Most people who “trust the scientists” on evolution have never investigated the facts, and in fact have misconceptions on what evolutionary scientists actually believe. Lamarckism is the idea that the experiences of the parent effect change in the offspring, better equipping them for their environment. That idea was around before Darwin. That idea implies purpose, i.e., that evolution is directed by environmental factors. For example, a colder climate would cause offspring to have thicker fur. Darwinian evolutionists accept no influence beyond random chance, because any direction implies a Director. They (and thoughtful people who don’t accept evolution) say the offspring with thinner fur are more likely to die without bearing offspring, leaving the ones with better adapted fur to dominate. But evolutionists take the concept further to imply that an animal that needs horns for defense will eventually have them by random chance (or at least have horny nubs), and those offspring have a survival advantage. The “intuitive” part for most laymen is that random chance is not enough to bring this about, but evolutionists have been taught to fight their intuition. The fight is because random chance (mutation) has never been observed to bring about new solutions to environmental problems faster than they can drag a species down. Check it out. Type the word “mutation” into your favorite web browser, and see how many beneficial mutations you can find in the history of recorded science. The answer is zip. In the process, you will come across words commonly associated with mutation, such as “deficiency” and “syndrome.” Just looking to probability (and not “trustworthy sources”) says mutation takes species DOWN, and natural selection removes the degredation, keeping species the SAME.

One last comment: Bloom and Weisberg have made a grammatical error, probably because they could not cognatively bring themselves to write the sentence correctly. The way the paragraph above is written, it implies that “this scientifically credulous sub-population” (referred to earlier in the paragraph as “most adults”) have this misconception about evolution because they “deferred” to scientists, who the next sentence specifies are “the people who say this is how evolution works”. I can’t believe the authors mean that scientists teach it wrong, and that is why most adults have it wrong. What they probably mean is that most people have it wrong because their intuition, combined with scant science, breeds misconception. To be consistent with the rest of the paragraph, as well as grammatically correct, the sentence should say, “this scientifically credulous sub-population are deferring to the scientists who say that this is how evolution works.” Do you see how, with their point of view, they could be led to write the sentence incorrectly?

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »