Jan 27 2012
Genesis Weak
I advise you to please turn off your irony meters before reading further or clicking the link to the video I will be discussing today. You may also want to take a couple of deep relaxing breaths to help preserve your neurons from the irrational assault they are about to suffer.
I was recently asked to take a look at Genesis Week with Ian Juby (Wazooloo), a slick YouTube series in which Juby takes us on a mystical journey through the looking glass of creationist nonsense. In his world science and reason are flipped completely upside down. It is, as they say, a “target rich environment” – too rich for any one blog post, so I will pick out a few gems.
The title of this episode is “I’m hooked on a feeling,” referring to new research showing that acceptance of evolution is strongly influenced by a gut “feeling of certainty” that people have about the theory. Juby makes much of this study (without, of course, putting it into any context) concluding that people believe in evolution despite the evidence (what he describes as overwhelming evidence for creation) rather than because of it.
The study itself reviews prior research on this question, summarizing it:
Despite the variety of studies that have been reported, there are no convincingly clear findings about the relationships among knowledge level, beliefs, and acceptance level regarding the theory of evolution. While some studies have provided evidence for a robust relationship between knowledge level and level of acceptance (Paz-y-Miño & Espinosa, 2009; Rutledge & Warden, 1999), others found no evidence of a straightforward relationship (Sinatra et al., 2003), and little evidence that instructional treatments affect acceptance levels (Chinsamy & Plagányi, 2007), even when learning gains have been substantiated (Nehm & Schonfeld, 2007). It has also been suggested that the nature of relationships change when acceptance of evolutionary theory is framed in the context of macroevolution rather than microevolution (Nadelson & Southerland, 2010).
So – it’s complicated. Results of research seem to depend upon how the study was conducted, meaning that confounding variables have not adequately been controlled for so they determine the outcome of individual studies, which therefore have conflicting results.
However, at least so far there does not appear to be a clear relationship between teaching students about evolutionary theory and their acceptance of it. This is actually not surprising and in line with the consensus of psychological research, which shows that people form opinions largely for emotional and ideological reasons, and then cherry pick the facts they need to support those opinions.
The findings of the current study are therefore nothing new, and there is no reason to think that this phenomenon is unique to belief in evolution.
But to put this study into its proper context – this is about affecting the opinions of students by confronting their emotional reactions to evolution. It is not about how scientists form their opinions about evolutionary theory.
This is a common logical error that creationists make – confusing public opinion with expert scientific opinion. Juby tries to make it seem that this study shows that acceptance of evolution in general (including among scientists and educators) is about feeling rather than evidence.
He then goes on to another common claim of creationists that reflects their astounding intellectual dishonesty. He lists a few biologists who are creationists – as if their opinions are evidence based, and contrasting them with the emotion-based acceptance of evolution.
Among scientists, however, >99% accept evolutionary theory – a relevant fact that Juby failed to mention. This is also in line with other research, showing that only at the highest levels of science education do facts trump emotion in forming our beliefs about controversial or emotional topics. Among the experts there is a strong consensus – the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that all life on earth is related through an evolutionary process. Juby, however, rattles off a couple of creationist exceptions as if they are the rule.
It is hard to imagine that Juby is not aware of these facts. We are left to conclude that he is either living in a creationist bubble or is flagrantly dishonest in dealing with the question of scientific acceptance of evolution.
Eventually Juby gets around to listing some of the alleged overwhelming evidence for creation, including irreducible complexity and lack of a mechanism for increasing genetic information. He lists a bunch of old long-discredited creationist canards, and that is his “overwhelming evidence.”
Creationists proposed the notion of irreducible complexity over a decade ago, and really it was just a reformulation of arguments they have been putting forward for a century and a half – since Darwin proposed his version of evolutionary theory. It has been debated and discussed among scientists, and found to be a fatally flawed idea. It’s flat out wrong – disproved by numerous counter examples. I first wrote about it myself in 1999, and the arguments haven’t changed.
The alleged lack of a mechanism for generating new genetic information is nonsense – not a serious scientific or even philosophical argument. (I first debunked this one in 2002.) The combination of random mutations and selective pressures, combined with gene duplication and other genetic mechanisms, are fully capable of increasing overall genetic information and creating new information.
Creationists like Juby have no counterarguments to the scientific consensus clearly demonstrating that irreducible complexity and creationist abuses of information theory are false. They simply trot out the same discarded claims over and over again with arrogance and casual dismissiveness of the scientific consensus – a consensus slowly built on a mountain of evidence.
I’m not bothered by the fact the people like Juby can promote their nonsense on an open forum like YouTube. He is unlikely to change anyone’s opinion. He also provides yet another opportunity to point out the terrible logic and questionable honesty of the creationists. They do make it easy in that they have nothing new to say. Science changes and new ideas and new evidence are brought to bare. Creationism is stuck in its prescientific conclusion, and continue to rely upon long discredited arguments – even when dressed up in a slick YouTube video.
24 Responses to “Genesis Weak”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Gee thanks, Steve! I *just* bought that irony meter.
But really, creationists have no choice but to make these kind of justifications to fit their own beliefs. When you are uncompromisingly religious, you KNOW your information from God is correct, so what other explanation is there? It’s like everyone else is arguing from a false premise, so all the evidence is nullified.
A lack of appreciation for how vast scientific acceptance is pretty common, I suspect. You always speak about the falsely weighted distribution of different camps; it seems like all it takes is one contrary opinion to make an issue “controversial.” In this case, I like to bring out the absurd arrogance it takes to declare that these many thousands of scientists whose job it is to study evolution don’t know, but YOU do. To Juby, I’d say it’s like an born and raised atheist coming to the Vatican to argue the Bible after skimming it.
Too funny. I’d swear that this guy was a skeptic pulling a creationist-mocking parody if I didn’t know better. Same old rehearsed, cliched, predictable and boring non-arguments that we’ve been hearing for what seems like half of eternity, delivered by a homunculus of eveybody’s favourite eccentric half-uncle who only gets noticed when drunk at family weddings.
By definition, everytime one individual’s DNA sequence is different of his parents’ and siblings, and of any other human’s, then it’s “new information”. QED.
Holy shit, you werent kidding about taking a few deep breaths. That was classic Gish Gallop.
“He is unlikely to change anyone’s opinion.” That is so true.
It’s just providing a place for the believer to go, so they can feel justified in a belief that would deteriorate rapidly if such material was not available.
I wonder why Fundamentalists fight so hard against Evolution? If they had quietly let the reality of evolution settle in, I don’t think they would have lost any of the congregation. I don’t think belief in creationism is a pivotal point for most, if any, believers. I doubt anyone became a believer because of the creation story.
To me the fight to hold on to it becomes exponentially more absurd as each silly theory is proposed, and each video, pamphlet or book is produced.
“I wonder why Fundamentalists fight so hard against Evolution? ”
It’s because they see, correctly, that acceptance of evolution is incompatible with religion.
…as opposed to theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists who completely miss the point.
“Science changes and new ideas and new evidence are brought to bare. Creationism is stuck in its prescientific conclusion, and continue to rely upon long discredited arguments – even when dressed up in a slick YouTube video.”
This is a quote that bears repeating.
Billyjoeism: *It’s because they see, correctly, that acceptance of evolution is incompatible with religion.*
Not if the religion was compatible with evolution.
“This is STILL one of the most talked about show on YouTube.”
Somehow I’d missed it.
Gotta love the cartooney garishness, ugh. I’ve guess they’ve done their demographic research.
“the consensus of psychological research, which shows that people form opinions largely for emotional and ideological reasons, and then cherry pick the facts they need to support those opinions.”
See “Why do humans reason?” Mercier and Sperber.
http://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/MercierSperberWhydohumansreason.pdf
I find it funny that creationists are also opposed to climate science. I just don’t see the connection. A universal distaste for facts maybe?
Good job debunking the video Steve, I’m sure the the hardest part was actually watching the video. This guy is so insufferably smug I long for the return of banana man, Ben Stein, or Egnorance. The only thing I enjoyed about this video is irony of a creationist claiming people believe in evolution for a feeling of certainty, while simultaneously claiming science proves god and the bible.
@DS1000
It’s politics, group identity, and the climate denier narrative so perfectly matches their own. Those evil big city scientists and their fancy ideas are a threat to everything they hold dear, and so on.
cwrongism: “Not if the religion was compatible with evolution”
Unfortunately, religion is not compatible with evolution.
This is what the fundamentalists have correctly seen and that is why they oppose evolution by hook and by crook. The religionists who argue for an accommodation between religion and evolution have been gradually backed into a corner from which there is no escape except to give up on religion altogether.
Evolution – and cosmology – are sounding the death knell.
Neo-confucianism, as an example, is quite compatible with evolution – and as to cosmology, we have Hawkingism. So as usual, your ignorance has got the better of your discretion.
cwfong,
True to form, you have simply taken comments out of context.
Here’s the context:
The article by Steven Novella: “Juby takes us on a mystical journey through the looking glass of creationist nonsense”
Hint: Juby is…a Fundamentalist Christian.
Sara: “I wonder why Fundamentalists fight so hard against Evolution?”
Hint: she is making a comment on the article which is about…a Fundamentalist Christian
My comment: “It’s because they see, correctly, that acceptance of evolution is incompatible with religion.…as opposed to theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists who completely miss the point.”
Hint: theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists.
Hey, maybe, just maybe, that’s about the religion of a Fundamentalist Christian as well!
Goddamn, who would have thought?
In my follow up post, although I initially use the generic term “religion”, the following paragraph clearly is about Fundamentalist Christianity (comparing it to accommodationist Christianity):
“This is what the fundamentalists have correctly seen and that is why they oppose evolution by hook and by crook. The religionists who argue for an accommodation between religion and evolution have been gradually backed into a corner from which there is no escape except to give up on religion altogether.”
cwfong;
“and as to cosmology, we have Hawkingism”
Stephen Hawking is an atheist.
The origin and evolution of the universe is adequately expained without God.
Even Stephen Colbert gets it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3szIxyPcF30
Hawking is a “many worlds” religionist. His beliefs have been referred to as Hawkingism.
I didn’t make that up, although I did add it in part to provoke you. Since obviously you are unaware that there are a number of religions that have no Gods in their philosophy. And that’s my point.
There’s nothing wrong with the post from Dr. N. What’s wrong is your usual innate commentary when you pretend that you have understood the initial post.
Was there a contention that there is “no escape except to give up religion altogether”? No, that was your ignorance speaking.
No. As usual you don’t read comments in context.
It really is that simple.
Many world religionist!
As usual you make comments out of context.
Out of your understanding of context. Which was about religion and not just theism.
simply for c.
wrong for wfong.
simply wrong for cwfong.
My mistake, all religions are theistic. It’s a BillyJoeism.
Fundamentalist Christians will never accept scientific evidence. It contradicts their insistence that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of god.
If they accept Darwin, the Bible is in error. If the science on the climate is accepted then Darwin may also be true. So any science is suspect because it undermines their belief in a factual Bible.
No evidence of any kind will shake a belief in which they are so heavily invested. It would frighteningly destabilize their very ground of being. That would be to scary to admit.
Creationism is like conducting a management review.
Never hold an inquiry unless you know what the answer is going to be.
artwoman,
In other words, you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
Another simplistic BillyJoeism that fails to meet the reason test.