So a recent page discussing “What might be the spiritual origins of YEC”, noted that there seems to be a certain underlying impetus or inclination for its adherents to further this position beyond what actual facts would support.
During the course of that discussion, I observed yet again what to me is a similar and obvious cognitive habit(for lack of a better word) among defenders of evolution to essentially do the same… an inclination to wildly exaggerate the evidence, or the significance of the actual facts at hand.
I outlined numerous examples I had read in a biologos article some years ago; and there are plenty of others I could note. But in a following discussion on that very thread, I found it happen yet again, in an almost comically obvious demonstration of the same pattern.
These kinds of argumentation errors - that I find both so ubiquitous and so egregious - suggest to me cognitive biases (essentially variations of confirmation bias). And these kinds of approaches enervate my skepticism… If a position is so obviously true, then simply present me with the actual, basic facts - without radically exaggerating either the facts themselves, or the significance of those facts… just present the actual facts and let the actual facts speak for themselves. If the case is so strong, so obvious, so airtight, then just present the facts and let them speak for themselves.
But when I so consistently see such wild exaggerations, regularly overhyping or downright misrepresenting the most meager or trifling of facts as if they present unassailable and final proof of evolution… well, it makes people who are skeptical like me start to wonder if perhaps this emperor isn’t as well dressed as he claims… and makes its proponents appear to me as crusaders committed to propping up a desired outcome, and willing to grasp at any evidence however paltry, rather than being an even-minded scientist who takes a critical eye to all data, willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
So now, as to the most recent example of what seems to me such egregious exaggeration, it is so obvious I would almost think it an intention irony… And note, I don’t mean to call out David specifically, as he has been generous and kind with his discussion and answers to my questions… but nonetheless, the way the discussion unfolded is simply too perfect a demonstration of this pattern; and thus I can’t help but point it out as a perfect example of the very cognitive bias I see in practically every defense of evolution, especially when arguing against ID theories.
So as to my new favorite example…