Evolution and the wisdom of crowds

[Tonington]

Came across an interesting article today. The introductory paragraph:

Conventional wisdom says that the primary reason why so many people do not accept Darwin's theory of evolution is that they find it threatening to their religious beliefs. There is no question that religion is a big part of the reason behind the large number of people who reject evolution. But I am convinced that just as often, the cause and effect is reversed: people hold onto their fundamentalist religious beliefs because evolution by natural selection -- the strongest argument against an Old Testament-type creator -- is so counter-intuitive to so many.

The article uses three examples of 'wisdom of crowds' systems, which the author asserts have similar functionality to evolution:
1. Wikipedia
2. Prediction markets
3. Recommendation systems

It's a bit of a read, but I think well worth it.
http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-and-wisdom-of-crowds.html

 

[Sal]

Hm interesting. My partner is a fundamental Christian. He rejects evolution. At least he did when he met me. He seems to be wavering now.

I was raised Catholic (although would no longer label myself as Christian) so have no problem thinking that evolution does not contradict theological belief.

I had never even heard of people thinking evolution created a problem with their religious beliefs for the first 30 years of my life. Seriously... no one in my circle or anyone I had run into ever had a problem with it. I thought I had gone back to the stone age when I realized people were serious in seeing a contradiction. I was aghast.

Oh well, live and let live.

 

[Curiosity]

Interesting Tonington..... ack...I got to a certain point where he had written the wrong word for the phrase 'fares quite well ' and my head stopped working. It is a terrible thing this brain I have if I find a glitch it makes my brain glitch too and I only concentrate on the misspelled word.... I'll have to read it later

Of course, it is true that Wikipedia has been vandalized often, that many of the entries contain poorly written sections, and that some of the facts presented are dubious. I don't suggest anyone use it to verify that the mushroom they found in their backyard is safe to eat. Nevertheless, the science journal Nature published a study in 2005 concluding that Wikipedia fairs quite well when compared ...

 

[Curiosity]

I would question the wisdom of any religion if it disregarded evolution as fact.

 

[Tonington]

What interested me was the way in which he framed consensus or mob functionality, as he calls it the 'wisdom of crowds.'

I don't really have any knowledge of the prediction markets, but I found the comparisons interesting. The group think implications he makes are interesting.

 

[Minority Observer84]

It's funny all these people that don't believe in evolution still go to a medical doctor when they get sice although medicine is based primarily on the theories of evolution by natural selection .
Evolution unlike creationism made solid testable predictions :
1) The earth was much older than anyone at the time though , so was the solar system .
2) Darwin predicted that microbes when exposed to antibiotics would mutate and eventually develop immunity .
3) That more evolved life forms will always be found in recent rock strata , as of data no one has located a modern animal fossil in preCambrian rock for instance .

And yes evolution does contradict and rule out the Abrahamic religious model of life . Of course in the face of fact theologists have done what they do best abstract concepts to the point that they are untestable and redefine words to allow their faith to somehow incorporate evolution .