Psychological roots of science hatred (creationism)?

Question

In the newest issue of SciAm, an article reports that the reason many people resist scientific facts is because they develop assumptions about the physical world at an early age, and that as people obtain new knowledge from others, they judge the claims based on how much they trust the source of the information. Charles Q. Choi (author of the SciAm article) goes on to say "It suggests that science will meet exaggerated resistance in societies where alternative views are championed by trustworthy authorities, such as political or religious figures." The original research was done at Yale and was published in the May 18 edition of Science.

My quesiton is, does it really matter? Those of us teaching in these fields (especially in biology and physics) have already had this notion for quite some time. Does this go on to suggest there may be something that can be done about it? All comments welcome.

I agree, BiologyGeek...but I do have to deal with parent phone calls (teaching at the high school level), and, what is worse, the fact that more than a few students just decide to "shut down" during evolution, some even claiming that since they didn't believe in it, they don't have to learn it.

Secret--the "trustworthy authorities" quote was from the author of the article (Choi), and I believe it is he who is suggesting this from the research (the way it reads)...that if these influential people adopted these ideas, there would be less resistance to science education. It would seem to me (in America today) that young people identify more with the likes of LeBron James, Tiger Woods, Christina Aguillera, and Jessica Alba...maybe some organization can get them to do some print and TV adds for science education...

secret--thanks. A lot of this question stems from methods I might be able to use to improve what I do, being in a position to directly affect some of these poor, misinformed, happily ignorant souls. I just want to do my job better, and maybe shed a little light...

Anyway, I do start evolution units in each class with 5-10 minute discussion of what the difference is between "belief" and "theory", and that it doesn't matter to me what any student believes, but that in my science classroom we devote time to evidence and reasonable deduction and not simple belief.

And I understood what you meant about the paradoxical quote...just wanted to (try and) clarify what I had written for anyone else.

Jim--love the input, and I do agree...I've even been guilty of placing blame a couple of times (I can admit when I have been wrong or weak or lost), but usually only after using every device I know (and after discussing with other teachers) of how to get through to them. But, from personal experience, it has never been from a lack of trying on the teacher's part, whether from teachers I've had as a student or past and present colleagues. Maybe I've been more fortunate than most.

fastest73torino--Thanks...if I wanted responses like that, I would have posted in R&S.

Dr. Evol--great insights...I've argued the same point in a few R&S posts I've made (that the clash between science and religion stems primarily from the threat to authority on any subject).

Answer 1

Phenomenal question! I haven't read the SciAm article yet (so I'm sorta commenting blind without seeing the research), but I will.

What I find paradoxical is that political and religious figures are described as "trustworthy alternatives." Since when do any Americans call politicians (even politicians they support) "trustworthy"?? And this distrust would seem to extend to religious figures. After the embarassing fall of so many big-name religious leaders (Tim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Haggard), it would seem amazing that the rank-and-file fundamentalist finds people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson ... or even (tax-felon) Kent Hovind, as "trustworthy".

Why would *ANY* American call these groups (politicians and religious figures ... even ones they support) more "trustworthy" than scientists on *any* topic, much less ON MATTERS OF SCIENCE?!

In other words, there has to be more to it.

I agree that the groundwork is laid from childhood. That is what allows these figures to be "authorities" in the first place. And even when the Bakkers/Swaggerts/Haggards fall ... the faithful just turn to more of the same. They do not see a systemic hypocrisy ... they see fallible human leaders who succumbed to temptation ... but the obvious lesson that *ALL* such authority figures can be equally fallible is too disconcerting to consider.

The answer is that these religious leaders are succesfully spreading the BIG LIE.

What is the BIG LIE? That SCIENCE IS ANTI-GOD.

Why do they spread the BIG LIE? Because both political and religious leaders know that science is ultimately more persuasive than they are. The Church exercised both its political power and its religious authority to attack Galileo. They beat Galileo completely ... forced him to "recant" ... and yet his ideas eventually triumphed. Reason is relentless.

Both political and religious leaders know that if scientists are considered authorities on any topic ... even science ... these scientists are *powerful* enemies. So they have systematically attacked scientists with the BIG LIE.

Unfortunately, as science teachers, you are in an awkward position to diffuse the BIG LIE, because you are unable to discuss God at all.

So you say the "e-word" in class ... and the programming kicks in, and many of your students think "teacher said 'evolution' ... so what follows is anti-God ... so I must not listen."

What can be done about it? Wow. Where to start.

First, I really wish that early (primary and high school) science education was more about *general science* than specific concepts. Based on the questions here, I get the impression that there are kids who can answer multiple choice questions on the difference between anaphase, metaphase, and prophase ... or recite the damn Krebs cycle ... but don't know the difference between the words "evidence" vs. "proof" or "theory" vs. "law."

Second, as science teachers, remember that your role is not to get students to "believe" something, but to *understand* it. Separate those two processes, *belief* and *understanding*. UNDERSTANDING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVIDENCE. The purpose of evidence is to answer "why do we believe that?" questions. Make it impossible to move on unless they at least *understand* evolution, regardless of whether they accept the evidence for it. Without understanding what the theory *means*, the evidence means nothing. I'm not saying to forget the evidence (as evidence is the bedrock of science) ... but rather to get to the evidence *after* the theory at least makes logical sense.

Finally, find a way to convince kids (and parents) that SCIENCE (INCLUDING EVOLUTION) IS *NOT* ANTI-GOD!

As long as a kid has that idea, they will (understandably) fight evolution (and by extension science) with every fiber of their being ... including doing whatever it takes to fool you into thinking they both understand and believe evolution in order to pass your "stupid evolutionist/atheist test." Don't let them fool you. And try not to give them a reason to try. Honesty should be a part of both science *and* religion ... they should be able to undertand that much.

{edit ... sorry, but it's just such a darned good question!}

The "since they didn't believe in it, they don't have to learn it" comment is telling. Only in religion does belief (or rejection) come *before* understanding.

That right there might be a good topic for class discussion. Without addressing religious specifically, you can preface your class on evolution with a plea: "I really don't care it you 'believe' this evolution stuff ... but in science we at least honestrly try to understand something before we decide what we believe."

... I also understand that the "trustworthy authorities" quote was from Choi, and that he was evaluating the numbers. I don't think it's incorrect ... just bizarrely paradoxical. Americans don't trust politicians or religious figures ... but somehow they trust scientists LESS! Somebody has a better PR machine in place. Maybe you are right ... Christina Aguilera going "I think science is HOT!" might help. :-)

Answer 2

Here are the steps of the scientific method in light of the creation theory. 1. Define the question Where did we come from? 2. Gather information and resources (observe) Look around and notice the complexities of life that scientists still have not been able to figure out. 3. Form hypothesis We must have come from intelligent design. 4. Perform experiment and collect data No scientist to this point has been able to create life. No scientist has been able to make the connection of macro-evolution. No experiment has shown that an accident can create complex life forms. 5. Analyze data That should be self explanitory. 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis There is no proof that a creator exists, but there is much evidence for intelligent design. 7. Publish results 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Answer 3

In a way it sort of does - it is detrimental to society as a whole.

As you may have already read, there have been numerous cases of the abuse of trust by the Roman Catholic church on the most vulnerable members of a community like children. This brings into question the value of 'trust' and the notion that 'who do we trust if the trustworthy cannot be trusted anymore?'.

ill based trust in religion has caused much harm to society, people feel isolated and ostricised, not knowing who to trust. It leads to a mentality of trusting nobody but ourselves - there is an absence of cooperation and society functions less effectively. It is this mistrust of others that drives crime rates up.

I personally believe that science and it's principles are trustworthy. Science works on the foundation of evidence and proof, rigorous peer reviews, quantitative anaylsis, evaluation and adaptation to new ideas etc. A scientist will not get away with 'fiddling with the figures' - there is no place for liars, cheats and abuse in the scientific community, only with hard facts can one disprove another, surely a model for society to follow?

I generally believe that if more people would listen to and accept the advice of the scientific community, would be a benefit to society and the world as a whole.

Answer 4

I teach biology also, and this is a problem. I make it known from the first day of class that I am teaching a science class and not a theology class, so that stops some of it. I teach intro to bio classes to undergrads, so I do not have to deal with parents calling and being upset that religion is not being taught in the science classroom.

I also do not think this is a new phenomenon. As you stated, it has been happening in Biology and Physics classrooms for a long time.

I do not think much can be done about it, in the United States anyway. I think as teachers, the most we can do is educate and hopefully logic will take over and the students will begin to think for themselves.

Answer 5

Well something is very very wrong with American education. Everyday there are 3 to 6 questions ask about why there are still monkeys around if we humans evolved from monkeys. Other question in this same vein are asked. It is apparent to me and many others that many young people are NOT being taught biology and certainly not evolution in biology in high school.

I see plenty of teachers blaming students, parents, religion, society, whatever. But I NEVER see teachers taking responsibility.

When a question is posted repeatedly. Several times a day. That means there is something seriously wrong. High school teachers are not teaching the basics of evolution in biology classes. I believe it is because they either don't know or they just don't care.

The quote you used " championed by trustworthy authorities, such as political or religious figures" seems very suspicious to me. The fact is political figures are rarely trusted. And with disclosure of all this child sexual abuse going on in the Church, religious figures are trusted about as much as politicians.

Answer 6

These are all interesting answers, but it seems to me that somethng is missing here. One big drive in many people is the need for certainty. Uncertainty is scary. Rules and laws are safe. Science is a problem because it doesn't promise certainty - it's all about questions and re-questioning. Nothing is safe! It could change at any time! This is a particular problem, I think, when so much in life is uncertain and scary - religion promises comforting and stable Truths that you don't need to think about and rethink about. It makes life much easier when you don't have to think. Note, by the way, that I am not anti-religion; I'm merely pro-thought.

Answer 7

Not so much developing assumptions as being evolved with them. Folk physics, psychology and a rudimentary number sense, to name a few. These have to be unlearned, for the most part. Take folk physics; we both know that objects do not have an inherent " oomph " potential, but tend to stay at rest, unless acted on. Many never get beyond the folk physics and other innate, mistaken concepts.
Not so much hatred, as ignorance.

Answer 8

I think your resource as a teacher is what you probably already implement,presenting new data based on verifiable facts.A spouse is told by a mere acquaintance,"your wife is cheating on you; a friend of mine saw her with so 'n so".The spouse will resist this info until he's handed a video showing wife and stranger lip locked.It's all in the way the facts are presented.

Answer 9

The only real thing that could be done with it, is to teach science as early as religion is taught, at the school district I went to science was not taught until 5th grade, which i believe was way to late.

Answer 10

There are lots of excellent comments so far, so I'm not going to go through everything I'd like to. But I did want to mention a couple of things...

Trusted Authorities: Secretsauce and Jim question whether or not politicians and/or religious leaders really qualify as "trusted authorities." As compelling as their arguments are, people often dissassociate their particular religious/political leader from the group as a whole enthusiastically. The current Congress in the US has the lowest "approval" rating of any previous congress, but when the surveys shift to asking people about their particular Senator or Representative, then the approval ratings are quite high. Similarly, recall the disbelief voiced by parishoners each time another priest is accused of sexual misconduct of one sort or another. No one is surprised outside of that particular "flock," but within it... the disbelief is palpable! So I do think that the concept of trusted leaders in these areas make sense.

From a different perspective, you have to ask if *we* (scientists) do any better to engender trust. I'm not sure we do. Of course the media is media and they don't do stories on the news about each car that made it home safely in the daily commute, and we suffer from the same treatment. But the amount of scientific fraud is on the increase (there are some pubs on this in the past few years). Whether it's cloning, stem cells, or theft of astronomical data doesn't matter. The public doesn't differentiate us based on discipline (despite the corrupting effects of big money in some fields...), and unlike politicians and religious leaders, most of the people in the world don't have a scientist that they see as "their own," so we don't get a pass.

Our standards of conduct have to be exceptionally high, and I think that generally they are. But the more people practicing science, the more fraud and misconduct there's bound to be. And without a Sunday morning captive audience, and worse... with science sections disappearing in newspapers and fewer magazine racks carrying magazines like Scientific American, we're facing an uphill battle.

Roots of the Problem:

So as several folks pointed out, this insight isn't new, it's just freshly quantified. The last two years, I've taught a class about the interface between religion and science, in which we spend a bunch of time on what's the source of "conflict" between the two.

Without going into a history lesson on Galileo, the bulk of the literature suggests that the conflict is really about establishing each group's right to be "the authority" on some subject. So Galileo suffered the wrath of the church by claiming to know more than they did, and by and large public opinion supported the church. The same is true today, particularly with regard to evolution. Religions provide creation myths to the youngest children as a means of answering those simple questions like, "Where did we come from?"

While I love the idea of seeing Jessica Alba doing pro-science or pro-evolution PSAs, I think that by the time people are paying attention to her, it's too late. The product marketers show us every year that they can push younger and younger kids to pick-up the early stages of adult concepts. What I think we need are honest children's books about the importance of science generally, the types of questions it can answer, and of course... books that replace the mythology that's been in vogue for the past few thousand years with scientific theory. I think I've seen these in physics to some degree... origin of the solar system kinds of things... but certainly not in bio, though I can envision one. Maybe several of us should collaborate on one...

General vs Specific Science Concepts:

Secretsauce makes an excellent point about what we focus on in early science education. I'm going to add, however, that I don't think this phenomenon is anything other than our own fault (scientists) and also, not limited to k-12 education. First, we scientists write the books in many cases, though I admit that school boards choose them. Nonetheless, if AAAS, for example, stood up and promoted the importance of general principles, then I'd like to think that more authors and publishers would devote more time/pages to such topics.

Second, and I think perhaps more importantly, the lack of knowledge of general scientific principles extends all the way up through the ranks of PhDs! I have met colleagues (which is to say, biologists with PhDs working at universities...) who absolutely clearly don't have the faintest idea about how science works at a philosophical level. Sure... they can design an experiment with control groups, but they lack the ability to articulate what a theory is, where the assumptions in their work lie, and how their work relates to other work. As a consequence, some of these biologists have told me that they don't "beleive" (WRONG WORD) in evolution, or that they don't understand how it could have occured. In all seriousness, these folks teach introductory biology in colleges around the US. Can you imagine the job they do teaching about evolution???

So at some level, the failing lies in graduate level education as well. How many of our graduate programs teach about the theory and philosophy of science? How many confirm that their grad students really understand how science works, rather than just see that they're capable of running a sequencing reaction, reading a gel, or injecting a rat. In the name of "productivity," our grad programs have become focused on publish, publish, publish, at the clear expense (my opinion...) of understanding and communication.

So let's make a concerted effort to fix these problems across the range of education, from pre-K to graduate school.