Abstract
“Cognitive creationism” is a term for ideologically based rejection of concepts from differential psychology or behavioral genetics. Various authors have compared this practice to young-Earth creationism, but the parallels between the two have not previously been subjected to an in-depth comparison, which is conducted for the first time in this paper. Both views are based on a similar set of psychological needs, and both have developed epistemologically similar worldviews, which draw certain conclusions ahead of time and then interpret all evidence in light of these assumptions. This reversal of the scientific method leads both young-Earth creationists and cognitive creationists to reject large swaths of otherwise well-established research due to its potential to support conclusions they have chosen a priori to reject. Both views also tend to rely on nonparsimonious ad hoc explanations, which are usually not able to reliably predict any future results. The risks posed by cognitive creationism will be discussed, along with potential implications for science education.
Highlights
Science denialism exists on both the political right and the political left
Shields’ hypothesis is able to explain the paradoxical relationship between genetic influences on religiosity and religiosity itself: the result of this genetic trend may have been for politics to increasingly take on religious elements, even as traditional religions decline in popularity
The central idea underlying both cognitive creationism and youngEarth creationism is that ideas are accepted or rejected on the basis of their compatibility with one’s worldview, but this epistemological basis is not always presented as bluntly as it has been by Answers in Genesis, Turkheimer and the Harvard statement
Summary
Science denialism exists on both the political right and the political left. A pair of studies by Ditto et al and Washburn and Skitka have found that conservatives and liberals are about likely to deny scientific conclusions that conflict with their political views.[1,2] these studies did not examine whether science. In this paper the term “cognitive creationism” is used exclusively for the denial of established psychological science, such as denying that genes have an effect on individual variation in cognitive ability, as well as for the rejection of hypotheses on moral rather than empirical grounds. While support for ID comes primarily from the religious right, ID’s proponents hold a wide variety of religious beliefs, including a few nonChristian ones.[20] Unlike the YEC movement, the ID movement generally does not make arguments for the literal existence of Adam and Eve, the occurrence of a global flood, or a young Earth It is YEC, rather than ID, that has the most in common with cognitive creationism. The similarities between these two worldviews run far deeper, as will be shown in the two sections
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
