Studies Suggest Humans Evolved to Deny Evolution

The deny of evolution is closely based in the USA, not anywhere else!


What do you say, your brains developed different to European brains?
I didn't think so, too. It "might" have something to do with brainwashing steming from very conservative religious organisations..


Btw: isn't saying "brains developed to be able to deny brain-development" something illogical?

reply to post by Ghost147

Lets bypass that, though. What I find most confusing is why the concept of the Theory of Evolution, is apparently so complex, in the eyes of the article at least.

I find the theory to be immensely simplistic, and the natural phenomenon of evolution to be fairly straight forwards as well.

I find it fairly simple as well but that doesn't seem to be the case for everyone. It seems there is a large group who have the very basic concept of of it but must have missed the actual nuts and bolts. As an example just look in this thread. It seems people dismiss the theory without actually learning what it says or maybe they never learned the difference between monkeys and apes.

Either possibility is sad. Those people have taken the mental shortcut at some point it was to much for them to wrap their head around so they dismiss the theory and stick to what was writen thousands of years ago.

This isn't about faith. I have no problem when people are following their faith but they should understand by definition their faith fills in for actual evidence. I have met people who believe in evolution and have faith as well. It doesn't have to be one or the other but for many it is.

When people take the mental shortcut they have ceased to continue learning which is why so many think abiogenesis is the same as evolution. Almost every time there is a debate involving evolution it has to be explained some times repeatedly that evolution explains diversity at every level of biological organisation, also it has to be explained evolution is scientific theory. On the other hand abiogenesis is still a scientific hypotheses about the origins of life and there is no scientific theory of abiogenesis.

No matter how many times it gets explained there is always someone who will try to present those two as the same. There have been times I have seen the same person try to preset it that way in several threads when I know it has been explained to them.

Is it willful ignorance or did they turn their brain of at some point I really don't know but that's why this article makes a pretty good point.

Come on I know you have seen what I am talking about in these threads there is almost a set formula of misinformation people try to present while claiming evolution is stupid. Oh the irony.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


The PEW study definitely showed political affiliation has some correlation but as the article states that isnt the only factor. The question is why do so many Americans take the mental shortcut compared to other developed nations.

I did read another study that said uncertainty and fear is good business for religion and one of the possible side effects of everyone gaining health coverage will be that people turn away from religion for answers however that's a subject unto itself. Anyway point I don't think it will ever be one thing that explains whats happening but I think this does apply to quite a few.

Astrocyte
reply to post by Ghost147

 

lol @ neurologist would be different.

The mind is a fact. Therefore, psychology is a science.

Yes, the mind is fact. However, psychology does not apply the same process that science requires in determining facts about a phenomenon. Psychology solely uses speculation that is often difficult or impossible to justify at a repeatable level. It may eventually combine with neurology in the future, but only then will it become reasonably accurate.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Why is it so this way or that way for some.

Care to consider that both the Monkey, and the Human DID come from an experiment, but that Neither are actually connected in nature at all.

My Ford Focus, and my Mustang are created from similar sets of materials, parts, but they NEVER WERE meant to be the same, and they NEVER COULD BE.

The fact is evolution doesn't align itself with atheism or materialism. The reason that there's a "God of the Gaps" is because there's big gaps in evolution that can't be explained by a strictly materialist interpretation.

The problem is atheist and materialist have tied evolution to their belief system. So telling them there's gaps in evolution is like telling a Muslim the Mahdi doesn't live in the bottom of a well in Iran.

Natural selection is a blind process that occurs after the fact. It only applies when genes make it to the environment, it doesn't dictate the process that gets the genes to the environment. The transcription, translation and regulation of protein production. There's zero evidence that this process evolved or the instructions that regulate the process evolved.

reply to post by neoholographic


Sorry but you do not seem to understand what God of the Gaps is. That is why I linked an explanation for those who didn't. Please go back to the OP and click on the link provided as you will see your post has lost all meaning by misappropriating the term.

BTW the study is not about atheism or aligning to it this is about the rejection of evolution. Please do not take the mental shortcut assigning value indiscriminately to such things as it only does you a disservice. Even if you don't believe in such things you should at least understand the terms you are trying to use.

ParasuvO
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Why is it so this way or that way for some.

Care to consider that both the Monkey, and the Human DID come from an experiment, but that Neither are actually connected in nature at all.

My Ford Focus, and my Mustang are created from similar sets of materials, parts, but they NEVER WERE meant to be the same, and they NEVER COULD BE.

With your analogy your a bit off. Is your bicycle and ford mustang made by the same company? It could be I don't know.

The reason I say that is we are in the ape family modern apes and humans had a common ancestor monkeys are in a different family all together. At some point every living thing had a common ancestor but you wouldn't compare rabbits and horses.

reply to post by ManFromEurope


I agree with you, entirely. Although, I don't see how humans have evolved to deny evolution, but merely have evolved to hold superstitious ideologies (religion). Applying faith instead of logical examination is to apply a massive bias, and in turn warm reality, thus denying a clearly visible phenomenon.

So, to say we evolved to deny evolution is far too direct. However, to view it from a longer route, then it could be justified to a small degree, just not directly correlated. Simply a byproduct.

reply to post by Ghost147


Would you agree if I were to say at the least that religion was an early precursor to science as it was a rudimentary way of trying to explain life and death? I mean it had to have an earlier function probably starting with death I would imagine.

I still think you would seriously love the book "Discovering God" by R Stark it does have a bit of a religious slant to it however it talks about the evolution of religion from a sociological stand point, very interesting stuff.

neoholographic
The fact is evolution doesn't align itself with atheism or materialism. The reason that there's a "God of the Gaps" is because there's big gaps in evolution that can't be explained by a strictly materialist interpretation.

Considering evolution has been observed and predicted in both the lab and nature, what gaps are you speaking of? I want to learn all about those.

Brotherman
reply to post by Ghost147

 

Would you agree if I were to say at the least that religion was an early precursor to science as it was a rudimentary way of trying to explain life and death? I mean it had to have an earlier function probably starting with death I would imagine.

I do agree with the first point, but that in no way justifies any of their suspicions. It's only purpose, seemingly, was to control the masses, and "answer" then unanswerable questions with imaginative processes. It doesn't succeed in anything other than to give unjustified hope, and control.

In modern times, it can still be used as both, but mainly is simply slowing down the advancement of man kind in whole.

reply to post by Ghost147

gy does not apply the same process that science requires in determining facts about a phenomenon. Psychology solely uses speculation that is often difficult or impossible to justify at a repeatable level. It may eventually combine with neurology in the future, but only then will it become reasonably accurate.

Ahaha! Got ya!

This is why I lol'ed at you. Psychology is already combining with neurobiology. Ever heard of interpersonal neurobiology?

Neuroplasticity is a starting point for a neurobiologically informed psychology. Clients should know that there efforts to change themselves are justified by what we have learned about how the brain changes over a lifetime. These changes can be neurogenic (in the hippocampus, for example), synaptogenic, which occurs throughout the brain, most impressively in the frontal lobes, and myelinogenic - the axons which channel information/energy between neurons become insulated by a fatty glia cell called an oligodendrocyte, which speeds up transmission by up to 100 times.

Each of these process is the brain changing in response to where attention is placed. A particular part in the brainstem seems to facilitate this process by releasing acetylcholine, a neuromodulator which enhances the effect of other neurotransmitters.

Psychology when paired with neurobiology produces a very powerful therapeutic framework. The polyvagal theory, for example, the brain-child of university of illinois psychiatrist, Stephen Porges, basically explains how the autonomic nervous system modulates arousal levels through the vagus nerve. The dorsal vagus conveys information from sub-diaphragmatic areas, such as the heart, lungs, and viscera, up to the basal ganglia. The ventral part of the vagus enervates supra-diaphragmatic areas, such as the larynx pharynx, the cranial nerves, muscles for mastication, as well as the middle ear bone used to discern human speech. The ventral vagus (also called the nucleus ambiguous) conveys efferent information, while the dorsal branch conveys afferent information. Porges pretty much discovered that the ventral vagus is the mammalian adaptation of the unmyelinated reptilian dorsal vagus. In other words, the ventral vagus is the nerve which mediates what porges and more and more psychologists and neuroscientists are calling the social engagement system. The ventral vagus essentially combines all those areas we use for connecting with other organisms: speech (larynx, pharynx), facial expression (cranial nerves), and discerning sounds (inner ear bone).

Unlike reptiles, mammals are social animals. They thus need a nervous system that will implement this more metabolically demanding level of activity. The ventral vagus is this area. Via the cortex (where thinking happens), and ultimately the nucleus ambiguus, the organism is able to coopt the dorsal vagal complex to change heart rate/breathing to execute social behaviours.

In the case of trauma, as in PTSD, the nucleus ambiguus goes offline - or atleast it's activity becomes depressed relative to the dorsal vagus. This means the organism experiences profound hypoarousal and struggles in chronic dissociation. One of the clinical insights that the polyvagal has given is that by exercising the areas that the ventral vagus controls, such as facial muscles, voice and an ability to discern human sound, you can "stimulate" ventral vagal activity.

My point is, this sort of psychological insight is very much grounded in neurobiological theory. As our understanding of the brain increases, so to will our ability to treat more complex psychological issues improve.

As someone who studies this and who also works as a psychotherapist, I consider myself a scientist. i'm in the science of "psychological healing", and I make use of psychological dynamics to effect my healing.