Why Argue Against Evolution and a Natural Origin?

[pitabread]

Or do you think it's too hard for the average Joe to understand so that knowledge should be kept to those intelligent enough to understand?

Just to butt in here, but I've also personally believed that in a person has the self-motivation, they should be able to learn the basics of the ToE or any subject for that matter. What really should matter is motivation and the willingness to put in the effort.

Now recently I've been reading some interesting material on the psychology of creationists and the differences between non-creationists. Unfortunately one of the traits which appears common to creationists (high Need for Closure) also directly impacts the ability to learn; especially when it comes to learning something which contradicts pre-existing beliefs.

Wikipedia has a somewhat uncharitable summary of the difficulties:

Yet for students who have high need for cognitive closure, this phenomenon may inadvertently lead to the inhibition of cognitive functions and processes essential to the learning process, so that they can maintain their prior certainty and/or perceived permanence of personally or socially important ideas, even if those ideas or knowledge are distinctly unrelated to any specific content or information being presented in the classroom. In instances such as these, an individual's desire for cognitive closure in another area may outweigh her/his motivation to expend cognitive resources toward learning new information. As a result, the student may appear uninterested and susceptible to under-achieving e.g. poor grades or not performing to expected levels.

Unfortunately, in the absence of understanding and consideration of how need for cognitive closure may influence academic and/or achievement motivation, educators may erroneously conclude that a student does not have a desire to learn or that she/he has a cognitive, psychological, intellectual, or behavioral deficiency that is impeding the learning process. This is not to suggest that need for cognitive closure is a suitable explanation for all learning problems; however, in working with students who appear to be experiencing learning challenges manifested through amotivation or low motivation, it would not be unreasonable to explore need for cognitive closure as a potential factor.​

Closure (psychology) - Wikipedia

I've started to wonder if this may also partially explain the difference in educational achievement between creationists and non-creationists. Previously I'd chalked it up strictly to correlation with age demographics. But if there are other psychological things going on, creationists may unfortunately have the deck stacked against them. It may just come down to differences in the way people's brains are wired. :/

 

[Kenny'sID]

Just to butt in here, but I've also personally believed that in a person has the self-motivation, they should be able to learn the basics of the ToE or any subject for that matter. What really should matter is motivation and the willingness to put in the effort.

Now recently I've been reading some interesting material on the psychology of creationists and the differences between non-creationists. Unfortunately one of the traits which appears common to creationists (high Need for Closure) also directly effects the ability to learn; especially when it comes to learning something which contradicts pre-existing beliefs.

Wikipedia has a somewhat uncharitable summary of the difficulties:

Yet for students who have high need for cognitive closure, this phenomenon may inadvertently lead to the inhibition of cognitive functions and processes essential to the learning process, so that they can maintain their prior certainty and/or perceived permanence of personally or socially important ideas, even if those ideas or knowledge are distinctly unrelated to any specific content or information being presented in the classroom. In instances such as these, an individual's desire for cognitive closure in another area may outweigh her/his motivation to expend cognitive resources toward learning new information. As a result, the student may appear uninterested and susceptible to under-achieving e.g. poor grades or not performing to expected levels.

Unfortunately, in the absence of understanding and consideration of how need for cognitive closure may influence academic and/or achievement motivation, educators may erroneously conclude that a student does not have a desire to learn or that she/he has a cognitive, psychological, intellectual, or behavioral deficiency that is impeding the learning process. This is not to suggest that need for cognitive closure is a suitable explanation for all learning problems; however, in working with students who appear to be experiencing learning challenges manifested through amotivation or low motivation, it would not be unreasonable to explore need for cognitive closure as a potential factor.​

Closure (psychology) - Wikipedia

I've started to wonder if this may also partially explain the difference in educational achievement between creationists and non-creationists. Previously I'd chalked it up strictly to correlation with age demographics. But if there are other psychological things going on, creationists may unfortunately have the deck stacked against them. It may just come down to differences in the way people's brains are wired. :/

I'll take that as another excuse not to do what should be so simple if evolution is absolute fact.

 

[pitabread]

I'll take that as another excuse not to do what should be so simple if evolution is absolute fact.

I'm going to take it you didn't read anything in that post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately one of the traits which appears common to creationists (high Need for Closure) also directly effects the ability to learn;

Solid irony (no offense).

 

[pitabread]

Solid irony (no offense).

What irony?

 

[AV1611VET]

What irony?

I edited my post.

 

[pitabread]

I edited my post.

Ah yes, that would be called a "typo". It's a thing that happens.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah yes, that would be called a "typo". It's a thing that happens.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, evolution has the world on it's side.

And no, that in itself far from makes it factual. Pin someone down to prove it and watch what happens.

As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.

 

[Astrophile]

I honestly don’t see where you’re coming from with this. For starters, my question includes macroevolution, which is not an observed fact (your post #2), and therefore far beyond basics.

The fossil record shows that living species have changed through geological time; for example, during the Cambrian period there were no insects or land vertebrates. Since all modern living things must be descended from geologically ancient ancestors, the observed change in species from the Cambrian period to the present day makes macro-evolution an observed fact. Discuss.

 

[inquiring mind]

The fossil record shows that living species have changed through geological time;

“Changed” is very broad… where is this evidence showing the gradual appearance of species through steady transformation?

for example, during the Cambrian period there were no insects or land vertebrates. Since all modern living things must be descended from geologically ancient ancestors, the observed change in species from the Cambrian period to the present day makes macro-evolution an observed fact. Discuss.

You said discuss… my belief is that God somehow introduced all kinds of flora and fauna at various intervals in rapid bursts through divine intervention, with no descent from a common ancestor required. So, nope I don’t agree.

 

[Astrophile]

“Changed” is very broad… where is this evidence showing the gradual appearance of species through steady transformation?

One doesn't need to show the gradual appearance of species through steady transformation. If I say that I am descended from people who lived at the same time as Aristotle and who did not speak English, I do not need to show a gradual change in the speech of my ancestors from a 4th-century BC Germanic or Celtic language to modern English; all I need to show is that in Aristotle's time there was no such language as English. The fact that I must have had ancestors who were contemporary with Aristotle should be obvious.

You said discuss… my belief is that God somehow introduced all kinds of flora and fauna at various intervals in rapid bursts through divine intervention, with no descent from a common ancestor required. So, nope I don’t agree.

Thank-you; I now have a better understanding of your interpretation of the evidence. As you say, if God created all kinds of flora and fauna at various intervals, there is no need for descent from a common ancestor. All you need now is evidence for the existence of that kind of God.

 

[Skreeper]

I'll take that as another excuse not to do what should be so simple if evolution is absolute fact.

If only there was a special place where one could go to learn about difficult and expansive topics such as evolution...

I invision this fictional place with people who are experts in these topics (let's call them teachers or professors) teaching these things to people who want to learn.

How unfortunate that something like this doesn't exist

 

[AV1611VET]

If only there was a special place where one could go to learn about difficult and expansive topics such as evolution...

How about Europe?

I invision this fictional place with people who are experts in these topics (let's call them teachers or professors) teaching these things to people who want to learn.

How about Europe, where evolution got its major breakthrough by way of "natural selection"?

How unfortunate that something like this doesn't exist

Don't you mean "some place like this"?

 

[Skreeper]

How about Europe?

America has good universities too I think.

Don't you mean "some place like this"?

Yes. English is my second language so mistakes can happen.

 

[Jimmy D]

“Changed” is very broad… where is this evidence showing the gradual appearance of species through steady transformation?

You're being extremely disingenuous here.

We have discussed the "gradual appearance" of the modern horse is evidenced by the thousands of fossils that show it's the gradual evolution from the odd-toed little Eohippus.

The old creationist amnesia strikes again.

"Look Mummy, it's a horse!"

Said no one... ever.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If only there was a special place where one could go to learn about difficult and expansive topics such as evolution...

I invision this fictional place with people who are experts in these topics (let's call them teachers or professors) teaching these things to people who want to learn.

How unfortunate that something like this doesn't exist

Fortunately there are plenty right here that know enough about evolution to call it factual. As I've said several times, for several reasons, it seems to me the very best over all solution to learning, that is unless it's too difficult/expansive for them, at which point they probably should not be claiming it's a fact.

I already made comment about those that actually believe any of the excuses here for not doing as asked, and are unable to put together the fact they simply can't. So, I'll not get into that.

 

[Jimmy D]

Fortunately there are plenty right here that know enough about evolution to call it factual. As I've said several times, for several reasons, it seems to me the very best over all solution to learning, that is unless it's too difficult/expansive for them, at which point they probably should not be claiming it's a fact.

I already made comment about those that actually believe any of the excuses here for not doing as asked, and are unable to put together the fact they simply can't. So, I'll not get into that.

 

[USincognito]

Presupposition that the laws of causality in evolution are absolute, and not deficient.

Huh???

 

[USincognito]

"Climate Change." Which like the idea of a causally absolute evolution. Is a non-sequitur.

Huh???