In this short essay I would like to ask why many people reject and deny science, especially the theory of evolution Is it because a clear alternative model, theory or explanation for the origin of life has been put forward? Or are there perhaps other, personal reasons for rejecting it?
Yes, there are scientific disagreements about the details of the origin of the universe and life. What caused the Big Bang? What exactly happened in the first moments ("Planck epoch") of the Big Bang?
There is disagreement as to whether there was an inflationary period. In models such as the cyclic universe or the bounce model, the universe could have emerged from a previous contracting universe. There is disagreement as to whether the water on Earth originated from comets, asteroids or from the outgassing of rocks. There is no scientific consensus on whether life originated: the "RNA world hypothesis" suggests that RNA was the first genetic material, but it is incredibly difficult to produce RNA spontaneously. Some scientists argue that metabolism arose first or that proteins and nucleic acids evolved together.
It is also clear that paleontologists and evolutionary biologists do not know every nook and cranny of the intricate evolutionary processes in the history of our world. Was Lucy a direct ancestor of humans? Paleoanthropologists don't know. Even if she wasn't, that wouldn't prove that Adam and Eve were a real historical human couple.None of these disagreements in themselves support the existence of God; the RNA world hypothesis for the origin of life is no more theistic than the membrane world or the protein world. The Big Bang could be part of an even larger cycle of expansion and contraction. If that were so, it would not prove the existence of God or change the fact of the Big Bang.
One could spend years learning what science knows about the origin of life, the mechanisms of evolution and the fossil record or the formation of the universe after the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies and stars, protostellar disks and abiogenesis. There are billions of fossils that document the origin of life and are preserved in museums and universities around the world. There is ample evidence that evolutionary processes have taken place on this planet over long periods of time. One could examine the various mechanisms such as natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, epigenetics, the Baldwin effect, niche formation, and so on. Mind you, these are still ongoing processes in the universe. Evolution is constantly taking place and has been observed by scientists. There are still stars and planets condensing in space - astronomers have observed countless protostellar disks. You could spend the rest of your life going through the data and still not fully understand it all.
Human evolution has, of course, been studied in much more detail than that of any other species. It leads up to our own existence here and now. There are human fossils, but there is also evidence that is unique to humanity: Millions of Oldowan, Acheulean and other stone tools left over from human hunting and butchering activities. So you would think that the creation of mankind at a particular time and place would be visible and verifiable for us in archeological records. But unfortunately this is not the case.
Creationists cannot even begin to say what happened, how life came to be, if not through evolution. They usually reject biological evolution and abiogenesis, and sometimes even the Big Bang. So how did everything come about? The rejection of science in itself is not proof of the reality of a particular religious creation story. Deflecting and denying the evidence for the Big Bang or evolution does not make the creation story of Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Yoruba, Zoroastrians, Scientologists, Cao Dai or the Urantia Book true. They all have different versions of how humanity came into being. Even if the scientific enterprise on the origins of humanity could be torn down, there would still be a lot of work left to do: what did happen, how did we get here? I have asked countless creationists these questions over the years. What alternative model, theory of origins or cosmogony is there? The depth of explanation on the creationist side is one word, or perhaps three in one, the holy trinity of creationist answers: "Genesis / Design / Goddunnit". Their answers are not something that can be elaborated, analyzed or systematically presented. That is also their appeal. It is easy to accept things on faith.
Nothing remotely resembling an alternative explanation of what happened in the past and how life and humanity came to be on this planet has been presented. Creationists have presented no evidence that God interacted with the world and created new species, whatever that may be. The discussion about the origins of humanity focuses solely on evolution and what it can or (in their opinion) cannot explain. Because it is the only game in town. There is no alternative model of how the universe came to be, no cosmogony and no creation account.
Religious Science Denial
The motivation behind creationist science denial is obviously not scientific, but religious. Creationists have deeply held religious beliefs that put them at odds with reality. They believe that if humans are the result of “natural selection of random genetic mutations”, then we came about through blind and mindless biochemical processes and therefore life can have no purpose or meaning. They believe that evolution is an explanation that denies God, creation, meaning and its sacred texts. Creationists believe that the universe is a creation, and the only being who can supposedly do this is God. The only ones who claim that evolution is inconsistent with the truth are those who appeal to the Holy Scriptures, which they regard as the final authority. This scripture presents stories of the origin of man that contradict evolution, such as the idea that man was created from dust and woman from his rib. Their thinking appear to be: "If evolution took place, God could not have been responsible for it. Therefore my religion cannot be true, and with it my identity, my community, my value system and the meaning of life are lost".
When people are not biassed by this “ultimate authority" and instead simply look at where the evidence leads, they come to the conclusion that the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are most likely true and consistent with the evidence.
Christian fundamentalists are more opposed to the theory of evolution than nuclear engineering, as evolution directly contradicts the Bible. Muslims also see more conflict between religion and science than Hindus, possibly due to different creation stories. Therefore, creationism could be described as a religiously motivated denial of science. This reflects motivated reasoning: faith creates a motivation to reject scientific conclusions that confirm one’s religious worldview (Ding et al. 2024)
Researchers have found that people's fear of death can lead them to support theories of intelligent design and reject the theory of evolution. They show that the reminder of one’s own mortality promotes relative support for intelligent design and skepticism towards the theory of evolution. People respond to existential threat by accepting a theory that gives a higher meaning to human life by presenting it as an ultimate purpose. They are less likely to support the theory that is the true pillar of the scientific worldview because it offers little existential comfort (Tracy et al. 2011).
Creationists are constantly trying to “outwit" the theory of evolution with their objections, often without understanding its foundations. They have a vested interest in not understanding and accepting evolution. This vested interest is their religion, which does not allow evolution to be true. If evolution is true, then there can be no divine plan. Therefore, they willfully misinterpret it and place impossible expectations on it.
They actively do not want to understand evolution as it is. One way to accomplish this is to use religious sources of information about the universe to validate their assumptions. The religious motivations and presuppositions are evident in the creeds of various creationist organizations. Many creationist organizations openly declare that, for them, the Bible always takes precedence over all scientific evidence. If you look at creationist websites such as Answers in Genesis, The Institute for Creation Research, Evolution News of the Intelligent Design movement, and Creation Science, you will notice that they have a preamble stating that all submissions, articles, and posts must be written under the assumption that the Bible is inerrant. The ID creationists’ Discovery Institute seeks to discredit 'scientific materialism'. In other words, the scientific method’ has been abandoned and the conclusion has been drawn before the research.
The second reason for the rejection of evolution is the lack of analytical thinking skills and poor understanding of science. In one study, supernatural beliefs correlated with low systemizing, poor intuitive physics skills, poor mechanical ability, poor mental rotation, poor grades in math and physics, poor general knowledge of physical and biological phenomena, analytical thinking styles, and especially attribution of mind to non-mental phenomena. Religious beliefs correlated with poor general physical functioning, a factor that encompasses most physical abilities, interests and knowledge. Religious beliefs were also correlated with intuitive thinking style. Intuitive thinkers are less willing to scrutinize arguments and distinguish between weak and strong evidence for a claim. As a result, intuitive thinkers are more prone to reasoning errors such as illusory recognition of patterns and effects, which is typical of religious and conspiracy theory belief systems, forcing them to hold unsubstantiated beliefs (Jedinger&Stiers 2024; Lindeman&Svedholm-Häkkinen 2016)
Religiosity has also been associated with lower levels of scientific knowledge, more negative attitudes towards science and less trust in scientific information sources. These results suggest that religiosity is associated with a less positive attitude towards science, leading to lower science learning. Growing up in a religious household may lead to less positive attitudes towards science, which translates into lower levels of scientific knowledge and less trust in scientific information. It could therefore be argued that religiosity leads to a more negative attitude towards science and less scientific knowledge (McPhetres&Zuckerman 2018).
Beacuse of religious attitudes towards science and poor capacity for anaytical thinking, many people have a poor understanding of the world that surrounds us. Although many know about the Big Bang and the universe, they may not have a deep understanding of the subject. They may have difficulty understanding the details of the Big Bang and the formation of the celestial bodies in the universe. For example, a study of first-year physics students revealed that the students believed that the universe has always had the same shape since its creation. Furthermore, the students were unable to give definitions for celestial bodies, galaxies, planets, solar systems, stars and the universe. In one survey, astronomy students had difficulty describing the hierarchical nature of the structure of the universe: A correct description of the structure of the universe would be that solar systems are in galaxies and galaxies are in the universe. Only 18% of students were able to correctly describe the hierarchical structure of the universe. They were unable to analyze the idea of the expansion of the universe and the existence of a center of the universe (Christonasis et al 2023; Coble et al 2013; Conlon et al 2017)
Regarding the evidence for the Big Bang theory, one in five students spoke of expansion or redshift, one of the three pillars. Almost 40% could not give an answer at all. A minority (5%) also mentioned the extinction of the dinosaurs as the big bang theory. In surveys, only 11-31% of students gave the correct age of the universe. 6-41% gave the answer that the age is infinite (Aretz et al 2016).
At least these students accept that the universe exists. Many believe that the Earth is a flat disk, a ”plane" and not a planet, and that the universe is a ”hoax”. A recent poll found that only 66 percent of U.S. citizens ages 18 to 24 are certain that the Earth is spherical. The remaining 34 percent were either skeptical, unsure or believed it was flat. Most "Flat Earthers" also consider themselves very religious.
Similarly, it can be difficult for humans to imagine large changes in species (macroevolution) over million and billions of years which cannot be observed on a human timescale. Several studies show that the more religious students are, the less likely they are to understand or have a positive attitude towards evolution. One study found that opposition to evolution is particularly high in the US and that the high level of religiosity in the US is the reason for this rejection. For example, 60% of the US public accept that humans have evolved, but up to 92% of some religious groups still reject human evolution. However, there is also a positive relationship between knowledge of evolution and acceptance of evolution. As students with an incorrect or limited understanding of evolutionary theory became more competent, i.e. correctly understood key evolutionary tenets, their acceptance of the theory also increased (Manwaring et al 2015) In fact, most educated religious people consider (biological) evolution to be the way God created life and humanity.
To summarize, there is no other theory for the beginning of the world than the one science tells us. Religious people often reject evolution and the Big Bang because they do not agree with their religious beliefs. They may also have a poor understanding of the science of the Big Bang and evolutionary theory and what they do and do not explain. Fortunately, education and exposure to other worldviews and science can help bring people out of the shadows of ignorance.
Sources
Aretz, Sarah & Borowski, Andreas & Schmeling, Sascha. (2016). A fairytale creation or the beginning of everything: Students’ pre-instructional conceptions about the Big Bang theory. Perspectives in Science. 10. 46-58. 10.1016/j.pisc.2016.08.003.
Christonasis, Antonios & Stylos, Georgios & Chatzimitakos, Theodoros & Kasouni, Athanasia & Kotsis, Konstantinos. (2023). Religiosity and teachers' acceptance of the Big Bang Theory. Eurasian Journal of Science and Environmental Education. 3. 25-32. 10.30935/ejsee/13043.
Coble, Kim & Camarillo, Carmen & Trouille, Laura & Bailey, Janelle & Cochran, Geraldine & Nickerson, Mason & Cominsky, Lynn. (2013). Investigating Student Ideas about Cosmology I: Distances and Structure. Astronomy Education Review. 12. 0102-. 10.3847/AER2012038.
Coble, Kim & Nickerson, Mason & Bailey, Janelle & Trouille, Laura & Cochran, Geraldine & Camarillo, Carmen & Cominsky, Lynn. (2013). Investigating Student Ideas about Cosmology II: Composition of the Universe. Astronomy Education Review. 12. 10.3847/AER2012039.
Conlon, Mallory & Coble, Kim & Bailey, Janelle & Cominsky, Lynn. (2017). Investigating undergraduate students’ ideas about the fate of the Universe. Physical Review Physics Education Research. 13. 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020128.
Ding, Yu & Johar, Gita & Morris, Michael. (2024). When the one true faith trumps all: Low religious diversity, religious intolerance, and science denial. PNAS Nexus. 3. 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae144.
Jedinger, Alexander & Siegers, Pascal. (2024). Religion, spirituality, and susceptibility to conspiracy theories: examining the role of analytic thinking and post-critical beliefs. Politics and Religion. 17. 389-409. 10.1017/S1755048324000130.
Lindeman, Marjaana & Svedholm-Häkkinen, Annika. (2016). Does Poor Understanding of Physical World Predict Religious and Paranormal Beliefs?: Physical understanding. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 30. 10.1002/acp.3248.
Manwaring, Katie & Jensen, Jamie & Gill, Richard & Bybee, Seth. (2015). Influencing highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution: Mormons as a case study. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 8. 10.1186/s12052-015-0051-6.
Mcphetres, Jonathon & Zuckerman, Miron. (2018). Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy. PLOS ONE. 13. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207125.
Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious. Yougov.com.
https://today.yougov.com/society/articles/20510-most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious
Tracy, Jessica & Hart, Joshua & Martens, Jason. (2011). Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution. PloS one. 6. e17349. 10.1371/journal.pone.0017349.
Create Your Own Website With Webador