In a recent study at The Ohio State University, facts alone were not enough for one to accept the theory of evolution (read press release). Researchers studying pre-service biology teachers at two South Korean universities, all with an adequate understanding of the science behind evolution, discovered that facts had to correspond to one's gut feeling for the theory to be accepted.
Professor David Haury, who co-authored the study, which appears in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, notes that the assumption has been that the acceptance of evolution is primarily a matter of providing a better education. This study shows that this may not be the case.
That an idea feels "true" or not, plays an important role in whether one accepts the validity of evolution. "Research in neuroscience has shown that when there's a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins," says Haury.
Students in this study were given questions that measured their knowledge level, acceptance of the central points and findings of the science on evolution, and their "gut" feelings about its veracity.
More knowledge of evolution did not automatically translate into acceptance.
This is not to say that education has no role in the acceptance of evolution. For example, the common mistake of defining the term "theory" to mean mere speculation, or an unproven idea, must be a barrier for convincing certain creationists. For that reason, in heated conversations one hears the rebuttal that "evolution is only a theory" far too often.
Teaching others the scientific definition of a theory -- as a well-substantiated explanation of a fact -- is still necessary; natural selection is the theory of evolution that explains the fact of evolution. Nevertheless, what this study shows is that, even when subjects are scientifically literate, there is more to it, something more primal or intuitive.
In particular, the research shows that it may not be accurate to portray religion and science education as competing factors in determining beliefs about evolution. For the subjects of this study, belonging to a religion had almost no additional impact on beliefs about evolution, beyond subjects' feelings of certainty.In other words, what one knows must correspond to what one feels.
More studies in this area would be beneficial for several reasons. First, Haury finds that this approach could open the doors for teaching evolution in the classroom "without directly questioning religious views." What does he mean? Awareness of one's decision-making process is crucial. "Knowing that sometimes what their 'gut' says is in conflict with what their 'head' knows may help students judge ideas on their merits." This self-reflection can help us clear the wooded path created by our emotions, so that the facts can be considered.
Secondly, further studies could look at the United States. What would this study look like for creationists who would identify their gut reaction with the voice of God or the Spirit of God or something more mystical? How do these blurry lines between gut feelings and religious interpretations of those gut feelings affect the discussion in a different context? How could this factor of intuitive cognitions be studied?
And thirdly, as The University of Toledo Professor of Law Emeritus, Howard Friedman, notes on his blog Religion Clause, the year has only begun and there are already six anti-evolution bills introduced across several states. If the conversation (or debate) between evolutionists and creationists is to find any clarity, getting at the heart of what really rankles the religious person is paramount and timely.
That's my theory, anyway.
Follow Brandon G. Withrow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bwithrow
Paul Wallace: Opening Ourselves by Opening the Science-Religion Debate
Luckily the classic "On the Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin is freely downloadable. When you read it, you understand why the theory of evolution became so widely accepted everywhere in the civilized world.
Darwin marshals myriads of carefully observed facts about living things (flowers, mice, domesticated animals, pigeons etc.). These facts are quite indisputable; you can verify many of them on your own backyard. As you keep reading, the amount of evidence becomes quite overwhelming.
When presenting the facts Darwin also asks, and answers, questions about what might explain all this. And in the end, when presented with the facts and the theories, it is very difficult for a rational reader to disagree that something like "evolution" is occurring in the natural world.
Darwin knew nothing about genes, chromosomes and DNA. When you add the evidence of molecular biology, it will require extraordinary intellectual contortions to deny the reality of the evolutionary natural processes.
This is why evolution deniers must fight against education; being exposed to the full argument puts you in great intellectual danger. And this is why deniers don't read Darwin's seminal works. Too much data, too much danger and the infallible gut already knows it's all wrong.
But, its so much easier to believe in the myth of evolution and tell yourself youre not in danger of the judgment of God.
this is a most interesting aspect of the human mind that in spite of the evidence or lack of evidence the human mind will let beliefs reject evidence even qualitative evidence. rejection before investigation is a common theme of this phenomenon.
the materialist can see this beliefs over evidence very clearly in many religious beliefs but are unable to see their own beliefs over evidence. the same condition applies to the religious and political folks.
there are many explanations for these phenomena. cognitive dissonance, the herd effect, ego centered comfort zone, and the best yet is the paradigm effect that becomes a paradigm paralysis.
even the person with the most successful paradigm video of all time has his own christian paradigm paralysis. if that is not proof of the paradigm effect then what is. :-)
hariaum
When debating with someone about something like evolution, where the evidence is overwhelming and no clear alternative explanation exists, bringing more facts to the argument doesn't help to win people over. Instead you have to appeal to the person's values and emotion before presenting facts. This way the person is more likely to listen to the facts rather then immediately be defensive of their pre-concluded position and look for ways to deny the facts.
Dont think that turned out so well did it?
The usual religious approach (ie by the loudmouths) is essentially that because they've always been told something, and they think it's been believed for a long time probably because it's enshrined in a book that sounds really old, then something that is essentially magic to them is credible, and the fact that it is not reproducible or predictable is just part of their world view.
I think that when someone truly understands certain concepts (and that means more than passing the final exam), it changes their "gut" bit by bit. Eventually their gut feeling is that evolution HAS to be true.
Each one of these concepts is a piece in the puzzle. Thermodynamics matches up with chemistry and physics. Statistics fits the joint between thermo and chemistry. And genetics nests nicely into chemistry. Biology fits chemistry, too, and archaeology now lines up, showing where history fits in. Additional pieces like embryology begin to fall into place. Eventually you're left with a nearly complete puzzle, with a big hole between genetics, archaeology, and statistics. You look over and see a piece labeled "evolution" and realize it fits that hole *perfectly.* That's the gut feeling; not only does evolution make sense, but nothing else makes sense *without* evolution.
But if you learned child psychology instead of statistics, and political science instead of thermodynamics, you don't have enough of the right pieces of the puzzle. You don't see a neat hole exactly the shape of evolution, you just have several disconnected clumps of puzzle pieces that could fit together in millions of ways - or not at all.
Uhm, no, natural selection is one of the known evolutionary forces, not all evolution (some argue that not even most) happens that way, but by gene drift, for example.
With "2+2=4", because it is a conceptual/metaphysical point [the symbols signify II II = IIII] which we can look out the window to validate, questioning it is not necessary until one gets to the metaphysical consideration. And even then, the conceptual claim has a tautological truth to it making it a non-problematic axiom of reality.
Excuse me, but that's not a "mistake"--it's a deliberate strategy of equivocation by some within the Creationist movement, precisely to grant a "foot in the door" for their so-called "theory in crisis" argument.