1. Comment #18738 by kfrancist on January 22, 2007 at 5:37 pm

hmmm...this conflicts with the poll in the "unscientific american" article. i wonder which is more accurate?

Other Comments by kfrancist

2. Comment #18742 by MIND_REBEL on January 22, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Looks like Dawkins should mind his own backyard.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

3. Comment #18743 by DavidJMH on January 22, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
It matters not how the various surveys differ, what is notable is the number of people who do accept Darwinian evolution as fact. Considering less than 10% of any given population are well educated, it is amazing that after thousands of years of religious dogmatism, as many as +/- 40% do consider it valid after only 150 years.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

4. Comment #18745 by Scramble on January 22, 2007 at 6:25 pm

A worrying statistic, but it is a year old (26th Jan 2006). I hope there has been some change since!

Other Comments by Scramble

5. Comment #18746 by denoir on January 22, 2007 at 6:33 pm

This was probably not a very well constructed poll. The terms 'intelligent design' and 'creationism' are American and not commonly used in British public discourse. When people are not interested or are ignorant about the issues, minor variations in the poll questions will yield completely different results.

In the US you have some 80-90% believers of which 40-50% are fundamentalists. So creationism is an important issue. In the UK you have 40-50% believers of which 5-10% are fundamentalists, making such issues less relevant. People are not interested and don't know so a poll produces arbitrary results.

The producers of Horizon should really know better.

Other Comments by denoir

6. Comment #18747 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Comment #18743 by DavidJMH "It matters not how the various surveys differ..."

Whilst agreeing with the sentiment of your post, it actually does matter how (and WHY) the various surveys differ. Whilst standard survey methodologies (with strict adherence to stratified random samples) tend to control response deviation to within 6%, many media "straw polls" (and, I'm sad to say, many university research-inspired polls) have no accurate sampling methods, or no sampling at all. Consequently, you might find one survey with 10% support and one with 10% disagreement for the same proposition, and both could be completely inaccurate.

ICM is a respected organization and their methods are published. For the point in time of the survey this will accurately predict the opinions of the population were they all asked. Personally, as a Brit living in the USA, it's the most depressing item I've read for a week. I've come to accept religious nutcases over here as par for the course, but my secular roots in the UK are looking decidedly shaky.

As for MIND_REBEL "Looks like Dawkins should mind his own backyard"

...well, I don't think Dawkins is under any doubt about the nature of the challenge of raising the public understanding of science above the dark ages imposed by "modern" religion. I'm sure he will express his gratitude for your strong and undying support.

Other Comments by Dogbreath

7. Comment #18751 by Jack Rawlinson on January 22, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Okay, that's surprising and depressing. What the hell has happened to my country?

We live in the Dim Ages.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

8. Comment #18756 by mmurray on January 22, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Before you read any poll you should read this famous quote from the British programme `Yes Prime Minister'

[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

9. Comment #18758 by Zaphod on January 22, 2007 at 7:49 pm

# 22% chose creationism
# 17% opted for intelligent design

so 39% opten for creationism.

They are the same thing.

Other Comments by Zaphod

10. Comment #18759 by Zaphod on January 22, 2007 at 7:49 pm

1 more thing. 1 stupid opinion pole doesn't mean shit. They are usually biased and skewed to make them more likely to sell newspapers.

Other Comments by Zaphod

11. Comment #18767 by Satanburiedfossils on January 22, 2007 at 10:21 pm

A biblical apologist's guide to Intelligent Design:

The earth started out as flat (these things are only possible on a flat earth):

Daniel 4:10-11 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

More specifically, the earth was a flat disk:

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Or maybe the earth was more like a pie pan since God could invert it and shake out its inhabitants like crumbs:

Isaiah 24:1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

Or maybe the earth was more like a round table top:

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

Since biblical authors could reach no clear consensus, God decided to lop off some of the earth's sides to create four corners:

Ezekiel 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Squaring the earth got him nowhere, so God returned to the proverbial drawing board and saw fit to bend the earth into a sphere. What shape he decides on next is anyone's guess (what about a dodecahedron? -- that would make the earth look really cool!)

A curious structure called the "firmament" once supported the heavens (the sky also appeared blue for an entirely different reason -- there used to be a huge ocean up there):

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Ezekiel 1:22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

Daniel 12:3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

Psalm 150:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.

God once sat on a throne atop the firmament:

Ezekiel 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

Later, God tore down the firmament (perhaps it looked really tacky over the balled up earth) -- a fact for which NASA is no doubt eternally grateful. (Interesting note: God's throne sometimes turns up at flea markets.)

The earth once had a foundation and did not move:

Psalm 18:15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Job 38:4-6 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.

1 Chronicles 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Little know fact: The sun orbited the earth in biblical times:

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Isaiah 38:8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

God, the fickle renovator, eventually pulled the earth off its foundation and set it in orbit about the sun. He probably got the idea from Copernicus; however, it is unknown whether the Almighty first tested the changeover with focus groups.

He also made some radical alterations to the universe, such as greatly increasing the size of stars and planets, which in biblical times were just tiny little lights a few miles above the earth (Job 22:12, Isaiah 34:4, Daniel 8:10, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, Revelation 12:4), and moving them into deep space. He probably did this in the daytime so that no one would notice.

As a final touch, God -- shrewd craftsman that he is -- gave the earth and the universe that antique look, most likely to increase its collector's value.

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

12. Comment #18768 by robives on January 22, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Out of interest; does anyone in the UK know anyone who believes in creationism?
Rob

Other Comments by robives

13. Comment #18771 by Russell Blackford on January 22, 2007 at 11:04 pm

One thing that is a cause for slight optimism is that it is the over-55's (a group which I am, alas, getting closer and closer to joining) who are most favourable to unscientific viewpoints. Us baby boomers tend to worry that the generations following us will turn out more like our parents' generation in their values and worldviews, but thankfully there is no real evidence of that happening. I'm always cheered by my dealings with younger people.

All the same, one might hope that evolution would, by now, be completely uncontroversial in a country as economically and socially advanced as the UK.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

14. Comment #18774 by Homo economicus on January 23, 2007 at 12:36 am

I had a letter published about that court case and how ID was creationism and should not be in the the science classroom. A little old lady read my letter.

When I asked her what she thought about the issue she said "I have never liked cremation."

"Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" rocks. I have never relied on polls when I took part in a MORI poll and to balance the survey I had to be 'Jane'. Thinking about transport issues from a female perspective was interesting but it does not strengthen my feelings about polls.

Having said that since when should we allow polls to dictate the science curriculum? I would rather have science do that. I guess the story is never be complacment in the battle of ideas.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

15. Comment #18777 by scottishgeologist on January 23, 2007 at 1:10 am

Hey satanburiedfossils (cracker of a handle BTW!) I refer to your question about the earth as a dodecahedron - yes that would be cool. but I remember reading in Arthur Mees "Childrens Encyclopedia", years ago, about the earth as a Tetrahedron.

The same picture and the same piece can be found in this article:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/tetra/tetra.htm

Actually, there is something rather disturbing about that tetrahedron pic. The interesting thing about this article is that it was written pre-Plate Tectonic Theory.

Interesting that some people thought that the earth was evolving from a solid shape that has the GREATEST volume for a given surface area to the solid shape that has the LEAST volume for surface area. (Have I got that right....?)

;-)

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

16. Comment #18778 by Richiechivz on January 23, 2007 at 1:19 am

What I think is a key point this survey highlights is the majority of people who seem to support ID/Creation 'theory' are over 55 years old. As we all know, religion has dropped in interest over the generations. Younger people seem to be more rational and logical in their approach.

What needs to happen is that the religous fundementalists are stopped from reaching our younger generations first with dogma that effects their future ideas.

If children are taught to be rational and logical just as easily as they are taught relgious stories at present - theres a good chance that religion can diminish even further. This is surely where we can all come in.

Rich

Other Comments by Richiechivz

17. Comment #18786 by KeithMcW on January 23, 2007 at 2:18 am

Reply to Comment #18768 by robives on January 22, 2007 at 10:38 pm
"Out of interest; does anyone in the UK know anyone who believes in creationism?
Rob"

I used to work with someone from Carlisle that did. Luckily he moved off to the USA. He was a young earth believer. He even got rid of his TV as it was showing material that contradicted his world viewpoint and was destroying the minds of his kids with its blatant lying against God! I think it was when his kids were watching a program about fossils that he decided to get rid of it. They were beginning to ask too many questions!

Other Comments by KeithMcW

18. Comment #18789 by robives on January 23, 2007 at 2:31 am

Carlisle! I used to teach in Carlisle before I escaped from the classroom. I did once teach a Jehovah Witness - they had some very weird beliefs.

Rob

Other Comments by robives

19. Comment #18796 by Luthien on January 23, 2007 at 3:25 am

12. Comment #18768 by robives on January 22, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Out of interest; does anyone in the UK know anyone who believes in creationism?

Sadly I know 2 people, one whom I have had long discussions with on the issue (because I enjoy a challenge :-P).

On the bright side, many people in work have asked to borrow "The God Delusion" from me, and every person who reads it recommends it to someone else. My sister is reading it, I bought the audio book for my dad, my mum is going to read it too. My partner bought it for his mum who loved it, now his dad is reading it and his brother has gone out and bought it too. My dad says that there is a guy where he works that is lending it out to people too.

Other Comments by Luthien

20. Comment #18804 by BaronOchs on January 23, 2007 at 3:44 am

As someone in the UK I have known several people who were creationists of a particular sort, including a high school english teacher. None of whom seemed to have read a book about either evolution or creationism and will not commit themselves to a value of the Earth's age or a specific account of what actually happened like the genesis account for instance.

The British anti-evolutionist seems motivated by indignation at "descending from monkeys" and more or less complete apathy towards our origins.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

21. Comment #18813 by Chris Davis on January 23, 2007 at 4:05 am

This is a year-old poll, and has been rather superseded by a more recent one with less horrifying figures. Should be somewhere hereabouts.

When these figures came out it shocked the hell out of many here. I immediately began drawing up plans to fly a hang-glider into St Pauls. The newer figures were more reassuring. I think the big difference in the approach of the new poll lay in not presupposing that the respondents had a religious attitude.

If asked what religion they are, many Brits will say that they're CofE. If asked whether they have a religion, most Brits say they don't.

When asked about cosmogony, biogenesis etc., I think the answers are often a mess. Many Brits don't have a firm clue either way, but don't want to be among 'don't knows' in such an important matter. So they'll clutch at whatever straws are offered. Most have heard - thanks to Discovery Institute propaganda - that there's a 'controversy' over evolution, so they might not grasp at that one too enthusiastically anymore. The '[something] did it' argument sounds simple and reassuring, and doesn't specifically mention de Lawd, so perhaps they choose that.

The education system here clearly has a major task ahead. Even simply literacy seems a hard goal to reach.

CD

Other Comments by Chris Davis

22. Comment #18815 by jeepyjay on January 23, 2007 at 4:11 am

This is old news, and it was a badly flawed poll. During 2004-5 I tried to get some views about the evolution / creationism debate from the bishops of the Church of England and it was apparent then that many of them did not understand the issues:

http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/creationism_cofe.htm

It is perfectly possible for religious believers to believe in both evolution and creation (in fact that is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church). So they can call themselves both evolutionists and creationists.

Of course what is now meant by most commentators when referring to "creationism" is not merely belief in a creator, but "young earth creationism" (YEC) that takes Genesis as literal, in some interpretation, including the chronology based on the biblical genealogies back to Adam and Eve, which Bishop Ussher famnously traced back to 4004 BC. However most modern creationists are now extremely vague on the actual date of creation, possibly because they deny the validity of all scientific dating methods, so have no reliable way to decide the issue.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

23. Comment #18821 by NJS on January 23, 2007 at 4:37 am

On the point of the respondent age aspect I remember remarking at the time that it was good to see the dogamatic ignorance "dying out" with entrenched generations.

I know this a terrible generalisation but I equated this with racism amd hompohobia to a certain extent as well.

Other Comments by NJS

24. Comment #18841 by jesus_christ_himself on January 23, 2007 at 6:41 am

Does this mean that we can't be smug about America anymore?

Other Comments by jesus_christ_himself

25. Comment #18843 by Alan Stewart on January 23, 2007 at 6:51 am

Truly outrageous! This is a UK survey! Is this really what the general public think? This maps out clearly the enormity of the task ahead for the RDF. We need to start thinking of ways to counter this almost unbelievable level of scientific ignorance.

Other Comments by Alan Stewart

26. Comment #18847 by BaronOchs on January 23, 2007 at 7:41 am

"It is perfectly possible for religious believers to believe in both evolution and creation (in fact this is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church)"

The Catholic Church's official position is ambiguous. Christoph Cardinal Schonborn nailed his colours to the mast in his NYtimes article:

"Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

He seems to be suggesting evolution owes its success to a planning office in heaven and that is an affront to science.

The full text of his article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804823e49fb832&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Other Comments by BaronOchs

27. Comment #18848 by padster1976 on January 23, 2007 at 7:42 am

Dear everybody,

this is a duff piece of reporting.

Here's my interpretation....

Over half of britons UNDERSTAND and except evolution. = MAJORITY!

39% think there is a god (note they were unchallenged and we don't know how the ?'s were posed)

48% (MAJORITY!) UNDERSTOOD evolution and hence it's beauty in explaining the way variation and selection produce evolution.

(Note that creationism got an explanation at this point and evolution didn't - this is duff journalism and slants the entire piece in a biased way)

69% Wanted evolution in the classroom.

Now look at the report at this point. I'm thinking that the author may have leanings towards a biblical view - i.e stooopid.

44% + 41% + 69% = 154%!!! Duh!

Just ignore it - file it under fiction.

Other Comments by padster1976

28. Comment #18873 by don malvado on January 23, 2007 at 11:05 am

Padster1976, If you look they were allowed to pick multiple answers, which while it makes it a poor question will allow a total of 154%

Other Comments by don malvado

29. Comment #18900 by Russell Blackford on January 23, 2007 at 2:39 pm

The multiple answers point applies to the "what should we teach in school"? question. However, it's still true that an awful lot of people want creationism or intelligent design, or whatever, taught, even if they also want evolution taught. The fact that it adds up to more than 100 per cent (which is not uncommon with polling) does not make it less worrying.

The other question, the one about the respondent's own explanation for life does seem to be one where they had to make one choice, so it should actually add up to 100 per cent. Here, it's worrying that so many people did not give support to evolution. Of course, they were asked for what "best described" their view. Some could actually believe in all the options - i.e. the world was created by God, who intelligently designed things so that certain things would happen that cannot be explained naturalistically, but it is also true that evolution by natural selection accounts for most of the diversity and history of life on Earth. That could actually be quite a common position. A person with that combination of beliefs might well choose "intelligent design" or even "creationism" but would not be a nutty young-Earth creationist.

We really need to see a figure on the simple question, "Do you accept the evolutionary account of the history of life on Earth?" Any question will have some ambiguity, but that one would get a lot of "yes" answers from moderate Christians.

What I really want to know is how many people totally reject evolutionary biology, based on a literal reading of Genesis (or some other holy book, such as the Koran). We have reason to think it's a high percentage of Americans; I wonder how high it is in other Western countries.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

30. Comment #18930 by MIND_REBEL on January 23, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Pretty funny to watch all you brits dismiss science as "fiction" when you don't like the results. Who's to blame?

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

31. Comment #18948 by CJ on January 24, 2007 at 12:40 am

For interest the details of the survey can be found here.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml

Personally I would be a little careful about shooting the messenger. MORI do this sort of thing all the time for hundreds of organisations and they are an extremely professional organisation.

While Horizon has dumbed down something chronic over the last few years I still have a little residual faith in the BBC to do a good job.

"There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics!"

"A politician uses statistics in the same way a drunk uses a lamp post. For support not illumination."

Chris

Other Comments by CJ

32. Comment #18951 by Blue State Mike on January 24, 2007 at 12:58 am

sorry, don't trust this poll or its methodology; you brits can't be as ignorant as us yanks, right? well, right?!?

Other Comments by Blue State Mike

33. Comment #18960 by Dr_Robert on January 24, 2007 at 2:42 am

"Out of interest; does anyone in the UK know anyone who believes in creationism?"

I know of one person who totally rejects evolution, a Muslim (very hard work, with very strange discussions!)

However a totally unscientific 'poll' amongst my colleagues reveals interesting results.
I asked several people if they believed that God created the world, the plants and the animals and the bible was an accurate record of the event, four people replied in the affirmative. I then asked the same people if they accepted evolution as the way animals adapt over long periods of time to the environment the find themselves in. The answer was not surprisingly yes. I then ask how these two apparently contradictory positions can be reconciled. Needless to say that there were no coherent explanations.

I suppose the points I am trying to make are firstly, you have to be very careful as to how you ask the question, a slight change in emphasis or even asking the questions in a particular order can potentially skew the answers.

Secondly, in the UK this is a completely unimportant aspect of many people's lives. It's strange that when you start questioning people's beliefs, as I often do how flaky their beliefs really are. As soon as you start producing evidence of the stupidity of religious belief it is surprising how many people will admit to never even giving the issues a thought.

I have to agree with previous contributors, intelligent design is a concept that is virtually unknown over here, and just to pick up on a few other comments.
I don't think it is to do with education, intelligence or ignorance, at least I do not think there is necessarily a link.

The most educated nation in the world also has the highest proportion of believers, I assume they also have a comparable level of intelligence with the rest of the world, therefore I also assume their 'ignorance' is self inflicted. I myself never attended higher education, am of what I would consider average intelligence, but reject totally the idea of creationism.

When you consider how many people in the UK still believe that God is the creator of life, the universe and everything, I find it quite heartening that 48% of respondents reject the idea in favour of evolution. This would suggest that we are on the verge of pushing the God botherers into a minority. If as commented the survey is already out of date, and Richards book has had even the smallest of influence this may already be true. A cause for celebration!

Other Comments by Dr_Robert

34. Comment #19065 by Shuggy on January 24, 2007 at 3:38 pm

If they offer Creationism and Intelligent Design as two options and Evolution as one, then no matter what people really think, they lean the outcome towards C/ID. Can you believe in one without the other?

Other Comments by Shuggy

35. Comment #19075 by the great teapot on January 24, 2007 at 4:42 pm

I hardly know anyone who is religous, and the believers I do know take the bible literally (but they only amount to about 5% fortunately)
But what absolutely baffels me is the fact that a large percentage of the people I know who do not believe in a God if asked their religion still tick C of E (church of England) or Catholic.
They seem to tick this box soley to indicate the fact that they are White and Anglo-Saxon. When you tell them they could have ticked a none or atheist box they are suprised. It is as though they did n't consider this an option eventhough they actually freely admit in private conversation to be non believers (atheist seems to be too strong a term for a lot of people who consider the idea of god laughable).
No wonder the census tells us there are more Jedi Knights in Britain than atheists. (Obviously it would be too presumptuous to assume that the jedi knigts etc are actually atheists)

Other Comments by the great teapot

36. Comment #19244 by VrijzinnigMan on January 25, 2007 at 6:47 pm

I have a very hard time believing that this survey is representative of the British population. For those who indicated that they question evolution and would like to see C/ID considered I have a suggestion. Read Jack Trickler's book!

For a long time I have been looking for a book that explains in layman's terms who wrote the books of the Bible, when they did it and why.

Browsing through amazon.com leads to two types of books: those written by scholars and those written by laymen. The former are an incredibly hard read for people like me. The Bible-bashing books of the latter kind get mixed reviews and very few stars from believers who are involved in Bible study for a living.

So, I continued to look for a readable and objective study and finally found "Who wrote the Books of the Bible" by Jack Trickler. The author is a retired engineer and a religious person. The 2003 version of his book (there is a 2007 version that just came out) consistently obtained four or five star reviews.

I am about halfway through the Old Testament, and it is clear from Trickler's detective work that virtually everything in the Bible is fiction. Each of the many authors had an agenda. Trickler puts the Bible verses in historical context and explains it all in clear easy-to-read language.

Trickler states that it is not his purpose to tell the reader what to believe and not believe regarding his/her religion. However, the open-minded Christian reader can nothing but conclude that he/she has been mislead in believing in a fairy tale. I am sure that the author would be very surprised to discover that his book provides strong support to the atheist's case against Christianity, in particular the fundamental brand.

Other Comments by VrijzinnigMan

37. Comment #19264 by Elliott on January 26, 2007 at 1:44 am

"Not telling the reader what to believe" and pointing out that what the reader believes is unbelievably stupid are different issues. If someone says "I have a right to my opinion" when what was actually being discussed was the stupidity of their opinion what you have is a change of subject. My approach is to point this out and force them to reach a settlement on the subject at issue before accepting a new subject of discussion like, for instance, the right to believe something stupid.

I have no problem believing the poll. I know a number of creationists and I recently met a professional chemist who does not believe in evolution, although admittedly this was a Bavarian. How many people do you all know who read horoscopes and take their content at least partly seriously? Probably a fair proportion of all your acquaintances.

Other Comments by Elliott

38. Comment #19284 by Elliott on January 26, 2007 at 4:47 am

Zaphod: "1 more thing. 1 stupid opinion pole doesn't mean shit." Technically belief in creation and belief in intelligent design are two stupid opinion poles. They both came up in the same poll, though...

Other Comments by Elliott

39. Comment #19412 by alanmackenzie on January 27, 2007 at 1:37 am

Talking of "Intelligent Design", check out the new Wikipedia article on the matter of the manufactured "controversy", courtesy of our friends at "Truth" in Science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Science

Alan.

Other Comments by alanmackenzie