Okay, so I only lasted a little more than a week without commenting on a scientific study. I simply could not pass this one by: Humans May be Primed to Believe in Creation. I think I’ve never seen an article unwittingly provide so many arguments against itself that it gets tied up in illogical knots to make a point.
The main argument is about defining the world as we know it based on “purpose” vs. “causal” explanations.
“No matter what their religious beliefs, college-educated adults frequently agree with purpose-seeking yet false explanations of natural phenomena – finches diversified in order to survive, for instance.”
Note the prior assumption that an explanation of purpose is automatically false.
“[The researchers] also noticed that no matter how much time they had, test subjects tended to endorse false statements implying that the Earth is designed and maintained for life. ‘The earth has an ozone layer in order to protect it from UV rays’, for instance.”
So while quibbling over the (again assumed as “false”) idea that Ozone layer has a purpose, they overlook the obvious: the Ozone does indeed protect the Earth from UV rays. And finally,
“‘What her work suggests is that the creationist side has a huge leg up early on because it fits our natural tendencies,’ says Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University.”
So… we have a “natural” tendency to believe in purpose, which “science” is desperately trying to disprove. Do you see the inconsistency of that? The science bias is that everything is random – including Evolution and natural selection. But that’s also an illogical conclusion. Evolving “random” mutations actually help promote the survival of a species. And there’s the real problem – survival is a purpose.