Is this part of why so many people reject evolution and global warming, GW?

Question

Both evolution and global warming are complicated topics, with a lot of uncertainties. We aren't certain of the exact evolutionary relationships between various lineages, or the exact progression of the evolution of features like bird flight. We don't know exactly what will happen to things like crops and natural resources in a warming world, or exactly how fast the world is going to warm. There's a lot you need to be an expert to understand, and a lot that even the experts don't really understand yet. Perhaps even more so than a lot of other branches of science, there's a lot of "probably" and "best estimate" and "plausible" and so on.

It seems like there are a lot of people who are deeply uncomfortable with uncertainty. They would rather have a definite answer that is probably wrong, and believe that answer whole-heartedly, than entertain the possibility that the working assumption they are accepting as true is in some way flawed.

"God did it" is certainly a definite, and easy to understand, answer to "Why are there all these different life forms?" It doesn't require any uncertainty, it doesn't require any waiting for new evidence to come in, it just requires, well, blind faith. Similarly, "Human beings can't affect the climate" is definite, and simple. No reflection required.

So, how much of a part do you think this fear of uncertainty plays in creationists' and denialists' thinking on evolution and global warming?

Answer 1

<>



I think this is an accurate explanation for conspiracy theorist tendencies. Most psychologists agree that conspiracy theories tend to arise when people fear a reality or otherwise cannot accept it. AGW hits at the core of what most conservatives are passionate about: it in some ways chastises the remarkable industrial revolution and threatens small government ideals. So, enter a conspiracy theory about scientific fraud, and poof, threat averted.



I think rather than complexity it is mostly about AGW and evolution being threatening to an individual's deep, emotionally-powered core self. Other theories in science are equally if not more complex than these, and do not have a campaign against them by the general public. Few people find their values threatened by relativity.

Answer 2

Yes

Answer 3

Personally, I get confused on evolution because if we evolved from monkeys then why are monkeys no longer evolving into humans OR why do monkeys still exist. I'm just a stupid teenager so please correct me.

Answer 4

No, CF, it is not.

Answer 5

I do not reject evolution, I do however reject global warming, why do I reject global warming? Because they only evidence offered is a computer model, and as with all computer models, garbage in-garbage out. The data being fed to said model has been proven to have been faked at least twice.

Answer 6

How bout al Gore's stuff was junk. Sensationalized hype.

Answer 7

.

Answer 8

Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change and Evolution are shaky claims at best. Here's why.



In the 60's we had Global Cooling. Everyone was worried because the temperatures were dropping. We then saw a rise in temperatures during the 80's and 90's. Then claims were made that the ice caps would be completed melted by 2005, 2010, 2015 (and so forth). The constant claims that never come to pass are teh equivalent of religious zealots saying the end is coming then pointing to prophecies that never pass.



The truth behind Climate Change is that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Long before people arrived on the earth, we saw these cycles. The unknown is that there are very few long term studies showing exactly how humans impact the climate. This uncertainty gives good reason for us to be skeptical toward policies meant to prevent a certain outcome. Who's to say that if a nuclear holocaust occurs and all of humanity is set back to the stone age, who's to say that the climate won't continue to change.



It's not a religious issue, but a skeptic issue. There's not sufficient evidence to merit the requirements made by Climate Change.



Another strong factor is that Climate Change is highly politicized. This causes push-back by people who just want to live their lives. When Leo DiCap is flying around in a personal jet and telling us that we need to reduce our carbon footprint, I have higher respect for Bernie Sanders who at least flies commercial airlines. The hypocrites at the top of the pro-Regulation to prevent "Climate Change" show that no one is really taking this seriously.





On to Evolution.



There exists a false notion that the "God did it" answer is good enough for religious communities. The counter to this is that the atheist and "science-based" communities are more consistent for accepting evolution. Here's where they're wrong.



Before I continue, there has to be definitions laid out. There are 3 definitions that are conflated and cause confusion that allows for stark misrepresentation of the actual views of communities. These are:



Evolution - Change over time

Micro-Evolution - Small changes to a species that do not change the family of an organism

Macro-Evolution: Large changes to a species that changes the family of an organism



The scientific method is based on what's testable and reproducible within a controlled environment. Pick up a pencil and drop it...boom... gravity. Right? This isn't the case with Maco-Evolution. In tests, scientists have taken fruit flies (which have a very short reproductive cycle) and put them through generations of selective breeding to create a new creature. After thousands of generations, the most that scientists have been able to produce is sterile fruit flies. Even so, the most radical mutations were still fruit flies.



So, even with intelligent, selective breeding, we still get fruit flies.



Now you look at the claim that Macro Evolution only takes place over billions of years. Billions of years. Before I go further, let's have a consistency check. If a theist said that given enough time, God will do X. In other words, trust us that it takes time to show that x will happen. If you're honest with yourself, a theist saying this will be laughed out of lecture halls.



So, why do scientists continue to pursue Macro Evolution in labs?



The reason is because at best we have forensic evidence. That is to say, we have evidences that we can use to attempt to reconstruct past events. Here's the kicker.... the evidence is subject to interpretation.



Think about when you were a child. Did you ever get in trouble for something you didn't do? One of my co-workers had this happen with his kids. He came home and found a vase shattered on his front step. Given that his children were not always careful, he assumed that they had broken it. He got upset and threatened to ground them if no one came forth about breaking the vase.



So, did my co-worker's presuppositions lead to a false conclusion?



The truth is that they did. He had a security camera on the door where the vase was. After checking it to see who told the truth, he found that a strong wind had knocked the vase over. He watched the clip a few times to make sure there weren't camera errors. He even showed me the clip.



What changed?



In the case of the vase, there was an ongoing observation that could validate the experience. If not for the camera, the case would've been difficult to prove/disprove.



Apply this to macro-evolution.



There's no one there to have observed a T-Rex evolving into a chicken. At best, we have the fossil record showing different structures preserved in stone.



So now what?



If you start from an anti-theist perspective, you must find evidences that show one creature became another. A good example of this is the nano-rex to T-Rex. It looks like the Nano-Rex was a precursor to the T-Rex. The structures are similar, while the size is noticeably different. This means that the T-Rex and Nano-Rex must be different stages of evolution, right?



Compare an adult human skeleton to that of a newborn. Are there differences? Notice proportional differences between our infants and adults? Paleontologist Jack Horner made this observation in the late 1990's. Very few other paleontologists have jumped on the band wagon because of pressure against the theory. If taken to its logical end, we would only have about one-third of the total dinosaurs that are found in the fossil record. This removes a lot of transitional stages that have been used as evidence for macro evolution.



So, the hardcore, macro-evolutionists push back against this theory.



Like climate change, macro-evolution is highly politicized. Failure to agree with certain fundamentals cuts funding to scientists. As a result, the macro-evolution model isn't as much fact as people claim it is. It's just a theory that's loosely based in the observable science of taxonomy.





I don't believe it's actually fear that drives the deniers of Climate Change and Macro Evolution. I believe it's the inconsistency and dogmatic approach to evidence. Until scientists are able to recreate the macro-evolution of a complex species within a lab, we're still looking at speculation. Until human influence is shown to be the absolute cause of the current Climate Change, we're still looking at speculation.

Answer 9

I would have guessed it's more likely that Christians and Republicans don't like to hear that Genesis is wrong and big oil is causing problems.

Answer 10

A lot of people in the US are just looking for a fight. In particular Christians have been 'useful idiots' for the Republican Party because the Republicans have convinced Christians that their right to 'religious freedom' has been denied them. Abortion, prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments, and evolution/creation have all been re-cast as religious issues when they are really political issues. The GOP has co-opted the American fundamentalist Christian movement and uses it only for its own power. That's what the rejection of evolution is about. I don't think most of the leaders of Creationism really even believe it, but they keep the fight going for political advantage and self-aggrandizement. For many believers it's simply an unquestionable tenet of their faith.



Global warming is more commercial. You know those questions that high-schoolers pass around? Like 'Would you shoot one person if it saved 50 lives?' In this case, the question is: Would you like to be a billionaire, even if it meant that the earth would become totally unlivable 50 years after you died? The sad fact is that most corporate types would answer an unqualified YES to that question. The Grand Oil Party is basically run by people who have made fortunes from fossil fuels. So they deny global warming and try to stop any measures to limit carbon emissions because they simply don't care if they destroy the earth after they're dead.



Look how old the Koch Bros are! Bill is 78, Fred is 84. What do THEY care if hurricanes and tornadoes kill thousands a year and sea levels rise to destroy coastal cities ten years from now? They already have more money than they could possibly spend in the years they have left. It's really just a game to them! Likewise our 72 year old president.

Answer 11

I suppose but it's a bit over-complicated. People simply have a tendency to believe what they want to be true instead of what is actually true.

Answer 12

Evolution's not that complicated. Maybe it's too complicated for fundies. As for global warming, I prefer the wait and see approach. Ask me again in a hundred years and then I'll tell you whether or not I believe in it.

Answer 13

You can see the temperature went way up on a simple graph when we started heaping dinosaur goo into big firey engines nonstop on a global scale...seems kind of obvious but sure it could be a coincidence.



I actually stumbled on that graph when researching human evolution a couple days ago. Had to do with population bottlenecking and whatnot...anyway...



Yes lots of people hate uncertainty I suppose. I observationally find it odd that members of my gender are unable to say I don’t know so often. Same thing? I don’t know.



Saying evolution is false is wrong. Religion doesn’t like it sometimes or considers alternatives perhaps to be contentious. I have thought fast adaptation might need to be incorporated somehow for example.



The scientific community tends to dislike new fangled ideas or things contrary to their published papers with their name at the top. (Like Einstein saying particle exist in only one spot recently proved plausible. Lots of wasted time when it was not hip and cool)

Answer 14

Your an ignorant gop batard mother nature gonna kick yo ****

Answer 15

It is part, but only part.

Answer 16

It takes millions of changes for evolution . How many generations of a land animal that somehow decided to go back to live in the water ? What does it take to make a whale ? New Eyes , live in high pressure with dying from the bends , feet to flippers , hind legs fusing to become a tail fin , and dorsal fins where do they come from . Learning to hold breath for a long time .and the skin would somehow change .

Answer 17

Partially, but even your question is too sciencey for Deniers

Answer 18

You are very correct that there is a LOT of uncertainty with regards to both. None of this means that "god did it", but it does cause problems when people use these theories that have so much uncertainty to make claims that simply do not even follow from the given theories.



Evolution does not preclude a god. Indeed, evolution does not even give reason to believe no god exists at all. These two are actually independent. While it may place limits on how a god might have done it, it does not say whether or not there is a god. It would be like figuring out how a clock works. Figuring out how a clock work, in no way means that the clock had no creator. Atheists make too much use of evolution to attack religion.



Similarly, with global warming, while there is little doubt that some warming is occurring, the future amount of warming over the next 100 years ranges from 1 degree to 10 degrees and the recent evidence places the increase at the lower end.



As per the case with evolution where people make claims that have nothing to do with the data, people are making vast claims about what should be done, AS IF you have to agree with every idiotic plan discussed or you are an evil denier.



Solar power and wind power is not in a position to take over no matter how much we wish they were.

Answer 19

Idk

Answer 20

Evolution is tied to Religion, AGW is tied to Politics both are known inhibitors of Science, when you throw in Propaganda or "brainwashing", total knowledge chaos occurs which is the agenda set by the true controllers of World order...........

Answer 21

Firstly, the word "science" is derived from a word meaning "knowledge". Knowledge implies lack of uncertainty.



Secondly, I am by no means sure that people who reject evolution are exactly the same people that are climate sceptics.



The trouble with old people is that they have been conned by the powers that be for many years longer than young people. They fell for the "lone shooter - JFK" deal. They believed that Saddam Hussein caused 9/11 etc. Then they stood back and looked at how the world works. The government is not in charge. Most of them have been compromised in some way. The blackmailers are the real ones in charge, or more accurately, the blackmailers' bosses.



What is it that these bosses want? They would like to reorganise the world so that they do not need to find a different solution for every country. That is unnecessarily tiresome. Why not have a "one size fits all" solution. A new world order. That would need a one world government. They have been growing and nurturing that since at least the end of WW2 - they think very long term. It is called the United Nations.



How to fund such a large organisation? They won't spend their own $trillions so the peasants (i.e. us) need to pay. Some kind of global tax would be required. Why would anyone contribute? How could every government be made to comply?



Why not create a global problem that can be fixed by throwing money at it? The Paris Accord was one step along that path. The UN/World Bank would administer the taxes and, progressively, more and more of the UN would become self-sustaining.



The science is purely incidental. They pick out the papers, scientists and institutions that support their idea and suppress, fire and ridicule the others. (Who has just been fired from James Cook university in Australia?) The media have already been infiltrated so they can be relied upon to support the bosses so how would the peasants know any different?



The scientists do not need to be complicit. The system works even without their help. The scary papers are hyped in the media and the others are not mentioned.



When you do look at what the suppressed scientists have said then you do start to question things. How could all those well-qualified scientists all be wrong. Why have many of them lost their positions? Why is it hard for them to publish or even get funding?

Answer 22

Well, let me answer this in my usual round-about way ...



I was never any good at learning languages. I was never the sort of person who could sit in a class and learn off all the irregular verbs in French. I also can't draw to save my life, and anything I try to represent ends up looking like a distorted mutant version of the real object. My brother, for all his delusions, could *never* have been a contender. He could never have played for a Premiership football club because, God love him, he lacks the raw talent and looks more like a baby giraffe taking its first steps on a pitch than a sleek gazelle moving effortlessly.



The point is we all accept that each of us has individual talents and weaknesses. But the history of psychology has taught us that this is also true in terms of how people process information. For a start, we know that people generally believe that they have an 'above average' ability and tend to underestimate the ability of others. A good example are surveys showing that 70% of people believe they have an 'above average' driving ability, which clearly means lots of people are deluding themselves! We also know that people make poor decisions, are biased, form opinions quickly, and tend to judge information not on its own merits but on how that information fits into the decisions and opinions they already had. For example, when you remove the name of the college that people attended on CVs or the gender/name of the candidates for jobs, we know that reviewing panels make completely different selections. We know that anonymous marking of exams can impact the results awarded.



Of course, everyone likes to believe that they have an innate ability to look at information, process it, and draw a conclusion in an unbiased fashion based solely on the merits of the available evidence. This, we know, is weapons-grade bollonium. It's why we have chains of command in the military and 'rules of engagement'. It's why airline pilots have check-lists and procedural step-by-step instructions in the event of certain failures of equipment. It's why we have a two-tier structure whereby nurses act as primary care givers and patient advocates with doctors attending those patients and guiding their care. We've put systems in place to try to minimise bias, error, and bad decision making.



The way we conduct science today is based on 300 years of trial-and-error in trying to get a system that minimises bias and errors of judgement. Science is never 'I walked into a lab, took some measurements, and I'm going to publish the results'. We expect papers to follow a standard format - there was a question based on previous papers, we are going to investigate this question, here's how we're going to do it, what equipment we used, and the analysis methods we're going to employ, here's the results of that experiment, and here's our conclusion based on those results and how it fits with current models or other experiments. Papers that don't follow the format are rejected. Those papers are typically written by more than one person. Often you have younger researchers conducting the experiments, with more senior academics reviewing the work. This helps to ensure that individuals aren't biased in their approaches. The papers are reviewed by others working in the field who question aspects of the paper. Often scientists respond to the reviewers by having to conduct additional experiments, to clarify some of the methods they used, and the whole process goes back and forth possibly for many months, before journal editors, reviewers and authors are satisfied. The paper can then be published for other scientists to review, to check, to discuss and analyse. Conferences are organised where scientists present the work to others and field questions - and anyone who has been to a conference will tell you that its a tough environment with arguments and disagreements common.



So the issue for me is that the conclusions of scientists have been through a process that helps to eliminate bias and poor judgment. That's not to say that science is never wrong, merely that the process is self-correcting over time. We should have more faith in the conclusions drawn by that process than in the opinions of individuals. When we don't, we end up with personal beliefs based on nothing more than what individuals think in an environment we know results in poor decision making.

Answer 23

I am sure climate change is happening, as it always has. WHat I am sceptical about is how much human activity is influencing it. we had climate change when there were very few humans on earth,not enough to influence anything.

Answer 24

There have been five major extinctions on this planet. After every extinction millions of new species appear. If there was only one 'Creation' then after the first extinction there would be only the few species that escaped left. We know for a fact this isn't true. If the Creationists base their single Creation on the Old Testament, then they can't possibly be correct... unless God did five separate Creations. The Bible doesn't mention that. I find that confusing. Are they saying that there never were any extinctions? We need a Creationist to explain this.

Answer 25

I am an atheist but when I look into the teaching of Christ, I see mainly peace and love, unlike the old testament. Not all Christians reject evolution or AGW. Catholics, the largest Christian denomination officially accepts both. They think that the old testament is partially superseded by the new testament. Many evangelicals believe in biblical infallibility. This is of course not realistic even if we just look at the contradictions in the bible, Jesus himself pointed out how things should be done differently. Some evangelicals can't cope when you can show the bible is wrong and we even see open hostility whenever facts contradict their interpretation of the bible. I suspect that most will accept that the bible was wrong, or that their interpretation of the bible was wrong. Often you will see a lot of twisting and turning and quite frankly I can't be bothered they are free to believe whatever they want and if they don't want



Still the extremists are a scary bunch, their hatred towards homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders makes them pass laws that are petty at best, or when you consider the suicide rate among those groups, outright evil. Christ on the other hand was famous for including people who were different. They are hiding behind the good work Jesus did 2000 years ago and changed his message of love into a message of hate. At least this pope gets most right.



.

Answer 26

97 percent of climate science is a total fraud – an attempt to steal taxpayer money via extortion and fear mongering.

Answer 27

Most people believe what they were brought up to believe.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, yes there are parts of it we dont fully understand, but since the discovery of DNA it looks almost 100% certain.

Unlike AGW which in my opinion is a failed hypothesis.

Yes CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, but it's warming effects are logarithmic once past 100 ppm or so it has very little effect.

http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/MOD2.jpg

Our climate is controlled by water vapor.

Answer 28

Ancient Aliens.

Answer 29

Both ARE complicated subjects and all too many Americans are afraid of thinking. It makes their heads hurt.

Answer 30

It's primarily because those people are ill-educated fools who're too damn lazy to learn!

Answer 31

Hard to say.

Answer 32

Evolution is nonsense, just like feminism.