Humans may be primed to believe in creation

[nebula]

I had to laugh at how anti-God biased the author of this report is in explaining the results.

But if you can read passed the biased conclusions, it is an interesting find.

(I'll highlight the biased parts, thus you can try reading the results apart from someone else's conclusions.)

~~~~~~~

Humans may be primed to believe in creation

12:29 02 March 2009 by Ewen Callaway

Religion might not be the only reason people buy into creationism and intelligent design, psychological experiments suggest.

No matter what their religious beliefs, college-educated adults frequently agree with purpose-seeking yet false explanations of natural phenomena - finches diversified in order to survive, for instance.

"The very fact of belief in purpose itself might lead you to favour intelligent design," says Deborah Kelemen, a psychologist at Boston University, who led the study

Kelemen has documented the same kind of erroneous thinking - called promiscuous teleology - in young children. Seven and eight-year olds agree with teleological statements such as "Rocks are jagged so animals can scratch themselves" and "Birds exist to make nice music". These mistakes diminish as kids take more science classes and learn causal explanations for natural events.

Quick-fire questions

To see whether education erases teleological tendencies or whether they instead represent our brain's default mode, Kelemen and colleague Evelyn Rosset presented 230 university students with various teleological statements, such as:

[nebula]

Ha!

I believe the Earth has a design and was created. I believe I am a creation. I believe bones are designed to support the body with a framework and to store calcium and phosphates. I believe a single layer of squamous (flat) cells are designed for diffusion and filtration.

And they call this "child-like" thinking.

[Sir Gareth]

Scientists can be so hypocritical, on one end of the spectrum they use Occam's razor, which states that the most simple reason is probably true.

Then they say that Creationism is simple and therefore cannot be true.

If Creation-the idea that God simply willed everything into being-is much more simple than the idea of millions of years of trial and error evolution and several coincadences that just so happened to create life-isn't that one much more likely to be true by the Occam's razor test?

[Xaxyx]

Scientists can be so hypocritical, on one end of the spectrum they use Occam's razor, which states that the most simple reason is probably true.

Then they say that Creationism is simple and therefore cannot be true.

If Creation-the idea that God simply willed everything into being-is much more simple than the idea of millions of years of trial and error evolution and several coincadences that just so happened to create life-isn't that one much more likely to be true by the Occam's razor test?

The Ockham's Razor principle is not a scientific method for determining the legitimacy of a conclusion. It is merely a recommendation: when trying to pick a hypothesis to test, save some time, and test the simplest one first; that's usually going to turn out to be a winner. Usually; but not always.

So, no, any self-proclaimed scientist who asserts that any idea can be disproved because it is too simple or too complex is full of hooey. Conclusions are drawn from evidence -- wherever that evidence points. And that's the bottom line, for any scientist.

Now, given all that: in my opinion, as it happens, I feel in fact that evolution is the "simpler" explanation for life, the universe, and everything. I mean, really: eight thousand species of beetles? It'd have taken more than six days just to name them all...

[OneLight]

Scientists can be so hypocritical, on one end of the spectrum they use Occam's razor, which states that the most simple reason is probably true.

Then they say that Creationism is simple and therefore cannot be true.

If Creation-the idea that God simply willed everything into being-is much more simple than the idea of millions of years of trial and error evolution and several coincadences that just so happened to create life-isn't that one much more likely to be true by the Occam's razor test?

The Ockham's Razor principle is not a scientific method for determining the legitimacy of a conclusion. It is merely a recommendation: when trying to pick a hypothesis to test, save some time, and test the simplest one first; that's usually going to turn out to be a winner. Usually; but not always.

So, no, any self-proclaimed scientist who asserts that any idea can be disproved because it is too simple or too complex is full of hooey. Conclusions are drawn from evidence -- wherever that evidence points. And that's the bottom line, for any scientist.

Now, given all that: in my opinion, as it happens, I feel in fact that evolution is the "simpler" explanation for life, the universe, and everything. I mean, really: eight thousand species of beetles? It'd have taken more than six days just to name them all...

Gee, there's that razor again! What proof do we have that there were over eight thousand species of beetles when God created beetles? You sound like you side with evolution. Is not evolution, through the process of cross breading, as way of creating new species? This part of evolution I can agree with, but the part where we came from a one celled organism out of the sea is much more complex then to believe that there is a God in which we do not full understand.

The chance that all this happened through the process of time is one in ten to the ninety-ninth power, from what I have read, but I am not a scientist. Knowing a little about the probability of statistics, the odds are pretty slim to nonexistent that this is the case.

[Xaxyx]

Gee, there's that razor again! What proof do we have that there were over eight thousand species of beetles when God created beetles? You sound like you side with evolution. Is not evolution, through the process of cross breading, as way of creating new species? This part of evolution I can agree with, but the part where we came from a one celled organism out of the sea is much more complex then to believe that there is a God in which we do not full understand.

And as I thought I was very careful to note, Ockham's Razor is not a reason to draw a conclusion. It is only a recommendation, a time-saver -- a hunch. Hunches and shortcuts are not scientific methods. Gathering and analyzing evidence, and drawing a conclusion from that evidence, is science, irrespective of whether the "simple" or "complex" answer turns out to be the right one. Indeed, if the evidence leads invariably to a conclusion, however seemingly unlikely, then that, and that alone, is the conclusion that can be drawn, and no other.

The chance that all this happened through the process of time is one in ten to the ninety-ninth power, from what I have read, but I am not a scientist. Knowing a little about the probability of statistics, the odds are pretty slim to nonexistent that this is the case.

Those sure do sound like long odds. Crazily long odds. But our opinion of the likelihood of an event has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it occurred. Nevertheless, let's explore the notion a bit, shall we?

Let's go with 1 / 10^99, for lack of a better number. That's the "odds" of ambiogenesis occurring at any given moment? What time span are we talking about? The Earth's 4.54 billion years old. That's a lot of dice rolling. And the Earth's a big place. 500 million square kilometers just on the surface. 1.37 billion cubic kilometers of ocean water.

Furthermore, Earth is not the only planet in the universe. This galaxy alone has billions of stars in it, many of which have planets of their own. And there's plenty of galaxies out there -- so many, in fact, that we've no way at the moment of counting them, or even seeing many of them.

So let's compare: 1 / 10^99, to the total volume of the oceans of all the water-bearing worlds in all the galaxies in all the universe over the billions of years that these galaxies have existed. Those odds are looking less and less slim by the moment.

But once again, whether or not you or I think the odds are good or the odds are not good, is wholly irrelevant to the analysis of evidence and the drawing of conclusions. Ockham's Razor notwithstanding.

[OneLight]

1/10^99 is the probability of that the big bang theory happened, which leads us to evolution, does it not? Sorry for not being as clear about this as I could of been. As stated, I am not a scientist, biologist or even smart enough to continue this discussion. This is what I have read when researching different theories. Being a creationist, I did not further my research beyond what I could understand.

[MorningGlory]

Of course humans are primed to believe in Creation....we are primed by the Creator. Honestly, some of those scientists can't think clearly enough to brush their teeth.

[Xaxyx]

1/10^99 is the probability of that the big bang theory happened, which leads us to evolution, does it not? Sorry for not being as clear about this as I could of been. As stated, I am not a scientist, biologist or even smart enough to continue this discussion. This is what I have read when researching different theories. Being a creationist, I did not further my research beyond what I could understand.

Whether or not you feel you're qualified to converse with me is up to you. All I require of you is patience and an open mind. I'll proceed at whatever pace you desire, and address any topics that interest you. Being a scientist, it is my honor and privilege to guide you in research beyond what you already understand.

The Big Bang Theory is a theory regarding the formation of the universe itself. In the beginning -- as it were -- a huge explosion occurred; particles flew in all directions; some gathered to form stars and black holes; these all eventually coalesced into galaxies. Some bits were too small to be stars and became planets, trapped in the gravity wells of stars. Billions of years later, the surface of the Earth cooled, water condensed to form oceans. That sort of thing.

That whole bit has no direct correlation with ambiogenesis, or evolution. Ambiogenesis theory has to do with how the earliest forms of life come to exist on a planet. And evolutionary theory has to do with the changing characteristics of species over long periods of time in particular areas (or the planet as a whole).

Who was it who claimed to be capable of calculating the "odds" of the Big Bang, by the way? That whole thing sounds rather odd to me. A probability claim belies a comprehension of the circumstances, and events like oh, say, forming an entire universe seem a bit out of the grasp of the average scientist, even a cosmologist. I'd be curious to know where it originated.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Xaxyx

[MorningGlory]

The Big Bang Theory is a theory regarding the formation of the universe itself. In the beginning -- as it were -- a huge explosion occurred; particles flew in all directions; some gathered to form stars and black holes; these all eventually coalesced into galaxies. Some bits were too small to be stars and became planets, trapped in the gravity wells of stars. Billions of years later, the surface of the Earth cooled, water condensed to form oceans. That sort of thing.

Nope; the Big Bang was when God spoke the universe into being. Check it out. Read Genesis.