Faith, Beer, and Other Things That Interest Geoff

Psychologist Uses Two-Edged Sword Against Intelligent Design

Rather, they're a reflection of a basic, widespread human tendency: to accept what you absolutely must, but whenever possible, continue to retain your core beliefs, whether true or not and regardless of how much mental gymnastics such retention demands.

I suspect that a Brahean Blunder lies at the core of the widespread refusal (at least in the United States) to accept an evolutionary origin for the human species, even among people who acknowledge the reality of natural selection.

Thus, current promoters of "intelligent design" generally accept the power and primacy of natural selection to generate small-scale evolutionary change. (The evolution of antibiotic resistance among bacteria, for example, is beyond dispute.) But when it comes to their fundamental belief system, advocates of intelligent design, like Brahe, have checked their intellects at the door, clinging desperately to the illusion that human beings are so special that only a benevolent god could have produced them. Therefore, the material world - like Brahe's sun and its five planets - must revolve around them.

The author, David P. Barash, is correct about one thing. Humans have an amazing capacity for self-deception. But guess what? That works for everybody. Yes, it can be a useful tool to show how some people can get answers wrong. But it could just as easily be the the anti-ID folks who are self-deceived.

Let me give an example: Some scientists have recognized that the universe is incredibly fine-tuned to allow for life. That strongly implies a designer. They don't want that. So they postulate multiple universes.

Or...

Someone doesn't want to live a life which they will be accountable for the wrongs things they have done. So they are predisposed to materialist philosophy.

Or...

A certain psychologist wants to be taken seriously by his peers so he is predisposed against Intelligent Design.