Researchers found a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism

[SpiritualBeing]

The new study from the University of Fribourg, published in Current Biology, provides evidence that links teleological thinking, conspiracy theories and the rejection of scientific facts about evolution. Perhaps more than any other well-established scientific finding, evolution has been in constant combat with misperceptions arising from teleological thinking.

In fact, teleological reasoning is so pervasive that there is much evidence that it impairs people’s ability to learn the concept of natural selection in the first place.

It is tempting to think that giraffes needed long necks to reach leaves at the top of the trees, and so evolution provided them with those long necks. This teleological notion is in conflict with the fact that natural selection had no such goal in mind.

There was natural variation in the population and those animals with longer necks had greater reproductive success in an environment with tall trees. So the giraffe evolved and longer necks became standard.

The Fribourg researchers conducted three studies with more than 2,000 participants overall. Echoing previous studies, the findings showed that teleological thinking was associated with the rejection of evolution and the acceptance of its pseudo-scientific alternative, creationism.

But the researchers also showed a strong association between creationism and conspiracism.

People who believed in creationism also tended to believe in conspiracy theories, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. Conspiracism was also associated with teleological thinking.

This confirms that seeking purpose in random events, such as the death of Princess Diana in a drink-driving accident, or natural phenomena such as rain clouds or the necks of giraffes, reflects a common underlying way of thinking.

Why we deny science
These new results mesh well with other research that has linked conspiracism to science denial across so many domains. Conventionally, the use of conspiracy theories to reject scientific accounts has been explained as a way to avoid accepting an inconvenient truth.

A chain smoker who is confronted with frightening information about his habit might find it easier to accuse the medical establishment of being an oligopolistic cartel than to quit smoking.

Likewise, people who feel threatened by climate mitigation, for example because it might raise the cost of petrol, may be more willing to think that Al Gore created a hoax than to accept 150 years of research into basic physics.

The new study takes the role of conspiratorial thought in creationism a step further. It suggests that creationism itself could be seen as a belief system involving the ultimate conspiracy theory: the purposeful creation of all things.


Researchers found a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism

 

[SkyWriting]

The new study from the University of Fribourg, published in Current Biology, provides evidence that links teleological thinking, conspiracy theories and the rejection of scientific facts about evolution. Perhaps more than any other well-established scientific finding, evolution has been in constant combat with misperceptions arising from teleological thinking.

In fact, teleological reasoning is so pervasive that there is much evidence that it impairs people’s ability to learn the concept of natural selection in the first place.

It is tempting to think that giraffes needed long necks to reach leaves at the top of the trees, and so evolution provided them with those long necks. This teleological notion is in conflict with the fact that natural selection had no such goal in mind.

There was natural variation in the population and those animals with longer necks had greater reproductive success in an environment with tall trees. So the giraffe evolved and longer necks became standard.

The Fribourg researchers conducted three studies with more than 2,000 participants overall. Echoing previous studies, the findings showed that teleological thinking was associated with the rejection of evolution and the acceptance of its pseudo-scientific alternative, creationism.

But the researchers also showed a strong association between creationism and conspiracism.

People who believed in creationism also tended to believe in conspiracy theories, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. Conspiracism was also associated with teleological thinking.

This confirms that seeking purpose in random events, such as the death of Princess Diana in a drink-driving accident, or natural phenomena such as rain clouds or the necks of giraffes, reflects a common underlying way of thinking.

Why we deny science
These new results mesh well with other research that has linked conspiracism to science denial across so many domains. Conventionally, the use of conspiracy theories to reject scientific accounts has been explained as a way to avoid accepting an inconvenient truth.

A chain smoker who is confronted with frightening information about his habit might find it easier to accuse the medical establishment of being an oligopolistic cartel than to quit smoking.

Likewise, people who feel threatened by climate mitigation, for example because it might raise the cost of petrol, may be more willing to think that Al Gore created a hoax than to accept 150 years of research into basic physics.

The new study takes the role of conspiratorial thought in creationism a step further. It suggests that creationism itself could be seen as a belief system involving the ultimate conspiracy theory: the purposeful creation of all things.


Researchers found a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism

From the story:
"One study showed that even scientists, when put under time pressure, lapse into teleological thinking..."

 

[DaisyDay]

Theological thinking:

Ask a three-year-old why they think it’s raining, and she may say “because the flowers are thirsty”. Her brother might also tell you that trees have leaves to provide shade for people and animals. These are instances of teleological thinking, the idea that things came into being and exist for a purpose.​

 

[Halbhh]

The new study from the University of Fribourg, published in Current Biology, provides evidence that links teleological thinking, conspiracy theories and the rejection of scientific facts about evolution. Perhaps more than any other well-established scientific finding, evolution has been in constant combat with misperceptions arising from teleological thinking.

In fact, teleological reasoning is so pervasive that there is much evidence that it impairs people’s ability to learn the concept of natural selection in the first place.

It is tempting to think that giraffes needed long necks to reach leaves at the top of the trees, and so evolution provided them with those long necks. This teleological notion is in conflict with the fact that natural selection had no such goal in mind.

There was natural variation in the population and those animals with longer necks had greater reproductive success in an environment with tall trees. So the giraffe evolved and longer necks became standard.

The Fribourg researchers conducted three studies with more than 2,000 participants overall. Echoing previous studies, the findings showed that teleological thinking was associated with the rejection of evolution and the acceptance of its pseudo-scientific alternative, creationism.

But the researchers also showed a strong association between creationism and conspiracism.

People who believed in creationism also tended to believe in conspiracy theories, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. Conspiracism was also associated with teleological thinking.

This confirms that seeking purpose in random events, such as the death of Princess Diana in a drink-driving accident, or natural phenomena such as rain clouds or the necks of giraffes, reflects a common underlying way of thinking.

Why we deny science
These new results mesh well with other research that has linked conspiracism to science denial across so many domains. Conventionally, the use of conspiracy theories to reject scientific accounts has been explained as a way to avoid accepting an inconvenient truth.

A chain smoker who is confronted with frightening information about his habit might find it easier to accuse the medical establishment of being an oligopolistic cartel than to quit smoking.

Likewise, people who feel threatened by climate mitigation, for example because it might raise the cost of petrol, may be more willing to think that Al Gore created a hoax than to accept 150 years of research into basic physics.

The new study takes the role of conspiratorial thought in creationism a step further. It suggests that creationism itself could be seen as a belief system involving the ultimate conspiracy theory: the purposeful creation of all things.


Researchers found a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism

It's good to keep in mind that about 1/2 of Christian believers in the U.S. believe that God used evolution.

This makes sense in that God as the creator of the Universe, of nature itself, of all things, is the creator of...physics. (Physics is merely and only the laws of nature, while we also mean the work to understand, find, state the laws of nature, how nature works; and we have only partly discovered those)

Therefore God as the creator of physics is then of course behind the outcome of that same physics, namely all the universe as it is and operates, in all ways. Ergo, evolution too of course. That's not telling us to what extent, how, when He may intervene to alter the natural physical outcome that would have happened had He not intervened. A large plurality of Christians believe God guided evolution, or intervened at key moments, but that isn't a certian precise number of interventions, just any at all even. For instance, He may have intervened even just the once in to breathe a soul into Adam, at one extreme, and at the other extreme He might have intevened thousands or millions of times. Any of these is guided evolution. Even 6 day creationism is...well, an evolution of a kind, though not the same as the mainstream theory. But the lengthier evolution fits Genesis chapter 1 just as well, just as simply and straightforwardly, if you realize it's a vision given to the writer with narration, that is both visual scenes and also spoken words, together (for example, as God gave Peter a vision in Acts chapter 10 with narration; the narration totally necessary in order that Peter could make even slight sense of what he saw; without the narration, words from God, the vision could not be understood even partly by the reciever). In this case you have a number of possiblities, such as that the days are representative, either actual scenes recorded as if from a camera on the surface of Earth (not high in the air or far away from the surface, but from the point of view of being on the surface), or alternatively symbolic scenes that carry meaning, as is more typical of visions given throughout scripture. God uses visions as a normal way to communicate to us we learn in 1 Samuel chapter 3, in the first verse.

 

[essentialsaltes]

See also this thread.

 

[JackRT]

Over the last while I have been pondering a phenomenon that has actually been going for a very long time. I am referring to Denialists and Conspiracy Theorists. While they might seem to be different behaviours, I think they have a commonality in the sort of mind that subscribes to them. What also struck me as curious is the number of them that are centered around science, technology and medicine. Let me list a few.

>> the link between tobacco and cancer, particularly lung cancer

>> the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay

>> the role of chlorofluorinated hydrocarbons in the deterioration of the ozone layer

>> the build up of DDT in the food chain and its effect on both reproduction success in birds and human health.

>> the link between HIV and AIDS

>> the role of vaccination in causing other health issues

>> the historicity of the moon landings

>>UFOs and aliens

>>flat earth

>> chemtrails

>> the human role in CO2 production and climate change

This is hardly an exhaustive list and it is easy to also point out others that have very little, if any, linkage to science, technology or medicine. For example, the historicity of the Holocaust, of the Twin Towers, of the assassination of President Kennedy and of both President Obama's birth place and religion.

What most puzzles me most is the state of mind of both those who advocate these theories and those who so readily subscribe to them. I will throw out a few random thoughts here in the hope that they will generate some discussion.

>> fear and powerlessness --- people feel overwhelmed by events that are beyond their control and require a scapegoat on which to pin their frustration and their anger.

>> fear and ignorance --- people are frightened by their own lack of understanding of the concepts and issues involved and suggest that 'the intellectuals' are trying to put one over on them.

>> the 'little guy syndrome' --- people fear big organizations, big government in particular, and feel the need to lash out at them by suggesting that the little guy is being somehow exploited.

>>contrarianism --- some people love to be different just for the sake of it

>>special knowledge syndrome --- a form of elitism where people like to feel they have some special or secret knowledge that makes them feel smarter and/or better informed than the rest, even if it doesn't have much practical application.

>> religion and political ideologies --- in at least a few cases the culprit is viewed as challenging religious and/or political beliefs.

To illustrate this last point we could look at two examples.

Political --- the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay was opposed as a tactic by communists to poison the whole nation. This was particularly effective in the days of the 'red menace' but has a modern counterpart in the paranoia surrounding international terrorism.

Religious --- new technologies are viewed as challenging religious understandings. This goes back a long way in history. Two hundred years ago Timothy Dwight, Presbyterian minister and president of Yale University wrote “If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.” Today we see an echo of that religious fear in the debate surrounding stem cell research.

My final observation is that it seems to me that denialists, conspiracy theorists, and biblical fundamentalists / creationists are often the same people.

 

[Halbhh]

The new study from the University of Fribourg, published in Current Biology, provides evidence that links teleological thinking, conspiracy theories and the rejection of scientific facts about evolution. Perhaps more than any other well-established scientific finding, evolution has been in constant combat with misperceptions arising from teleological thinking.

In fact, teleological reasoning is so pervasive that there is much evidence that it impairs people’s ability to learn the concept of natural selection in the first place.

It is tempting to think that giraffes needed long necks to reach leaves at the top of the trees, and so evolution provided them with those long necks. This teleological notion is in conflict with the fact that natural selection had no such goal in mind.

There was natural variation in the population and those animals with longer necks had greater reproductive success in an environment with tall trees. So the giraffe evolved and longer necks became standard.

The Fribourg researchers conducted three studies with more than 2,000 participants overall. Echoing previous studies, the findings showed that teleological thinking was associated with the rejection of evolution and the acceptance of its pseudo-scientific alternative, creationism.

But the researchers also showed a strong association between creationism and conspiracism.

People who believed in creationism also tended to believe in conspiracy theories, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. Conspiracism was also associated with teleological thinking.

This confirms that seeking purpose in random events, such as the death of Princess Diana in a drink-driving accident, or natural phenomena such as rain clouds or the necks of giraffes, reflects a common underlying way of thinking.

Why we deny science
These new results mesh well with other research that has linked conspiracism to science denial across so many domains. Conventionally, the use of conspiracy theories to reject scientific accounts has been explained as a way to avoid accepting an inconvenient truth.

A chain smoker who is confronted with frightening information about his habit might find it easier to accuse the medical establishment of being an oligopolistic cartel than to quit smoking.

Likewise, people who feel threatened by climate mitigation, for example because it might raise the cost of petrol, may be more willing to think that Al Gore created a hoax than to accept 150 years of research into basic physics.

The new study takes the role of conspiratorial thought in creationism a step further. It suggests that creationism itself could be seen as a belief system involving the ultimate conspiracy theory: the purposeful creation of all things.


Researchers found a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism

Generally useful and insightful, just ignore the last sentence you quote -- it's normal for anyone finding a great idea to overextend it for a while, and takes time for them to realize the limits of the range it applies to. Meaning is merely a natural function of the human mind, necessary to survival and thriving (without causal thinking, we'd die quickly in nature). Meaning isn't inherently wrong, but rather it's correct to the extent it works well to improve life. None of that answers the ultimate questions. But it's useful to consider any notion that helps us. Put another way, the errors of whoever don't rule out much. If one finds out the Earth is 4.55 bn years old +/- 1% via radiometric dating of moon rocks and meteorites, we still have the fun ultimate questions to consider and find answers to, and Jesus I can tell you really helps.

 

[USincognito]

If you really get reductionist, the conspiratorial mindset of Creationism can be summed up in the title of Henry Morris' revisionist history The Long War Against God where he claims that evolution is not merely the scientific study of the diversity of life on earth, but a millennia long, coordinated effort by the forces of darkness to attack Christianity - even before it existed!

 

[expos4ever]

From the story:
"One study showed that even scientists, when put under time pressure, lapse into teleological thinking..."

True enough, but lest there be any misunderstanding: the scientific method, as distinguished from the scientists themselves, is designed to act as a counterweight to any personal bias and, in this case, to any inclination to teleological thinking.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's good to keep in mind that about 1/2 of Christian believers in the U.S. believe that God used evolution.

It’s also good to keep in mind that many Christians do not understand or give much thought to evolution, or even creationism for that matter. They only declare a belief in evolution because it has been presented as a scientific fact, in opposition to the so-called ignorance of creationism, throughout their school years... the old ‘it’s in the science books,’ ‘smart teachers believe it,’ ‘it has to be true.’ They just try to find an easy middle ground that doesn’t require much thought or effort to defend, and avoid being called dumb.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It’s also good to keep in mind that many Christians do not understand or give much thought to evolution, or even creationism for that matter. They only declare a belief in evolution because it has been presented as a scientific fact, in opposition to the so-called ignorance of creationism, throughout their school years... the old ‘it’s in the science books,’ ‘smart teachers believe it,’ ‘it has to be true.’ They just try to find an easy middle ground that doesn’t require much thought or effort to defend, and avoid being called dumb.

I think you will find that the majority of all people do this not just Christians. IMO most people take science on faith as well as religion. That is why the "97% of scientists agree" or the similar " the experts all agree" meme is used so often by politicians trying to sell their pet programs to the public. Rather than actually examining the evidence for themselves and making sure that the scientific method has been properly used to come to a particular conclusion , people will simply believe what they are told the experts say. Usually the actual experts are saying something a bit different than what the politician claims they are saying but that is beside the point. The point is that most people take scientific research on faith as much as they take religion on faith even though the scientific method, unlike religion, does not require people to do that. It only requires the basic assumption that physical reality is not an illusion. Something that is, if anything can really be said to be, self evident.

 

[46AND2]

It’s also good to keep in mind that many Christians do not understand or give much thought to evolution, or even creationism for that matter. They only declare a belief in evolution because it has been presented as a scientific fact, in opposition to the so-called ignorance of creationism, throughout their school years... the old ‘it’s in the science books,’ ‘smart teachers believe it,’ ‘it has to be true.’ They just try to find an easy middle ground that doesn’t require much thought or effort to defend, and avoid being called dumb.

Oh give me a break. I was raised to eschew evolution long before it was ever brought up in my schooling; to the point that I deliberately chose chemistry over biology in high school for that sole purpose.

I successfully avoided learning anything about evolution (I was still making the stupid "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys" argument into my early 20s) until I studied it myself as an adult.

I don't buy your argument at all. Fundamentalist churches prepare their children well. Particularly these days.

It's simply what you want to believe to make it easier for you to hand wave theistic evolution away, rather than actually looking into it. You're the one taking the easy way out.

 

[Halbhh]

It’s also good to keep in mind that many Christians do not understand or give much thought to evolution, or even creationism for that matter. They only declare a belief in evolution because it has been presented as a scientific fact, in opposition to the so-called ignorance of creationism, throughout their school years... the old ‘it’s in the science books,’ ‘smart teachers believe it,’ ‘it has to be true.’ They just try to find an easy middle ground that doesn’t require much thought or effort to defend, and avoid being called dumb.

I agree (except about the motive to avoid being called dumb -- instead they are so often the more mature and wiser ones that know better than to argue over useless contentions that don't matter), and that helps point to why preaching one version of creationism added ideas (like young earth) as if it can save is so harmful -- it leads to only argument, not the saving Good News. Only the gospel -- the good news of Jesus the Christ, our Savior -- only this can save, through faith in Christ, alone.

 

[USincognito]

They only declare a belief in evolution because it has been presented as a scientific fact,

Well that's because it is a scientific fact.

They just try to find an easy middle ground that doesn’t require much thought or effort to defend...

The funny thing is I see this being applicable to most Creationists. It's based on years of experience where most of them just parrot things they've been told and their most sophisticated argument often consists of "Watch This YouTube".

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They only declare a belief in evolution because it has been presented as a scientific fact, in opposition to the so-called ignorance of creationism, throughout their school years... the old ‘it’s in the science books,’ ‘smart teachers believe it,’ ‘it has to be true.’

I love the way you pick on the last 50-100 years, but ignore the 1900 years before that where it was "the bible says it, so it must be true". And, bizarrely, there are still people who chant that mantra with zero thought to their hypocrisy.

 

[pitabread]

Rather than actually examining the evidence for themselves and making sure that the scientific method has been properly used to come to a particular conclusion , people will simply believe what they are told the experts say.

Generally the whole point of experts is that not every person has the time or resources to actively research and become an expert themselves. This is why we have specialization in different fields.

If you were facing a tax audit, for example, you *could* spend a whole bunch of time reading up on taxation law in an effort to respond to it. Or you could go to a professional tax accountant and leverage their pre-existing knowledge and experience.

For some reason when it comes to science and research that disagrees with people's pre-existing beliefs, everyone suddenly plays the "don't believe the experts" card.

The point is that most people take scientific research on faith as much as they take religion on faith even though the scientific method, unlike religion, does not require people to do that.

In this context, the "faith" in science is simply taking in good faith that people with education and experience in particular field probably know what they are doing. The alternative is to just assume that all the world's scientists are either incompetent or involved in a multi-generational and cross-cultural global conspiracy, which is just silly.