Saturday, January 31, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution

by Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Telegraph UK

Reposted from here.

Belief in creationism is widespread in Britain, according to a new survey.

More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a "designer" must have lent a hand, the findings suggest.

And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years.

The survey, by respected polling firm ComRes, will fuel the debate around evolution and creationism ahead of next week's 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, said the findings revealed a worrying level of scientific ignorance among Britons.

In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that "evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages"

A further 40 per cent disagreed, while the rest said they did not know.

The suggestion that a designer's input is needed reflects the "intelligent design" theory, promoted by American creationists as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.

Asked whether it was true that "God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years", 32 per cent agreed, 60 per cent disagreed and eight per cent did not know.

The findings – to be published tomorrow in a report by Theos, a theology think-tank – follow a row over the place of creationism in education.

A recent poll of science teachers found that one in three believe creationism should be taught in science classes alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

However, Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican cleric, was forced to resign as the Royal Society's director of education after suggesting that creationism should be discussed in lessons "not as a misconception but as a world view".

Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool last year, Professor Reiss estimated that about one in 10 children was from a family which supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.

He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories, rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.

The research for Theos shows that the level of support for creationism is much higher than Professor Reiss's estimation, but also indicates that many people who believe in God also consider evolution to be the most realistic explanation for the origins of living things.

Paul Woolley, the director of Theos said: "Darwin is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause.

"The result is that, given the false choice of evolution or God, people are rejecting evolution."

While many fundamentalist Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible's account of the earth's creation, the Church of England last year issued a statement conceding it had been over-defensive in dismissing Darwin's ideas in the past.

The Church launched a website promoting the naturalist's evolutionary views on which it said: "Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still."

Prof Dawkins expressed dismay at the findings of the ComRes survey, of 2,060 adults, which he claimed were confirmation that much of the population is "pig-ignorant" about science.

"Obviously life, which was Darwin's own subject, is not the result of chance," he said.

"Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very antithesis of chance.

"The error is to think that God is the only alternative to chance, and Darwin surely didn't think that because he himself discovered the most important non-theistic alternative to chance, namely natural selection."

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, accused Dawkins of evolving into a "very simple kind of thinker".

He said: "His argument for atheism goes like this: either God is the explanation for the wide diversity of biological life, or evolution is. We know that evolution is true. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

"I'm an evangelical Christian, but I have no difficulties in believing that evolution is the best scientific account we have for the diversity of life on our planet."

Posted: Saturday, January 31, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 139 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #331263 by ewaldrep on January 31, 2009 at 5:47 pm

The most troubling bit of information in this article is that some of the misinformation of the intelligent design movement that originated here in the US has spread to England apparently. During the presidential election, Bill Maher had a running series of where reason and self-respecting Americans might consider moving in the event of another Republican elected president. I had considered this as an option and England was at the top of my list because I thought it may be possible to escape some of the spreading insanity that took fire here. Somehow, reason and the analysis of evidence must become more of a respected manner of gaining knowledge somewhere.

Other Comments by ewaldrep

2. Comment #331265 by Ed-words on January 31, 2009 at 5:51 pm

I'm sure that in The God Delusion,Prof.
Dawkins makes it clear that accepting evolution
does not mean excluding religious belief, per se.

And he applauded using only religious witnesses at the Dover trial so evolution
would not, BY NECESSITY, be equated with atheism
by the judge. Lord Carey is another "flea".

Other Comments by Ed-words

3. Comment #331266 by Damien Trotter on January 31, 2009 at 5:53 pm

"His argument for atheism goes like this: either God is the explanation for the wide diversity of biological life, or evolution is. We know that evolution is true. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

Congratulations to Carey - False Dichotomy, Straw Man and Poisoning the Well - three logical fallacies in but three short sentences.

... it may well be a world record. The man can have no shame. Still, that's religious thinking for you.

DT

Other Comments by Damien Trotter

4. Comment #331273 by mordacious1 on January 31, 2009 at 6:00 pm

I just dropped by to get some fresh air in my lungs after being on youtube watching that cesspit of a "film" Expelled.

This poll, if accurate, is sad news for the state of science education in the UK.

Other Comments by mordacious1

5. Comment #331278 by MadMonkey on January 31, 2009 at 6:09 pm

It's like believing the world is flat.
What's wrong with this people? They obviously don't know the facts... so the honest position would be to say "i don't know". But if they take a position, at least they should fight to know what they are refusing.

Other Comments by MadMonkey

6. Comment #331279 by Border Collie on January 31, 2009 at 6:11 pm

In Texas, being a beer-swilling, pickup driving, dumbass redneck is a 'world view'. So, should dumbass redneckism be taught in classrooms? ID is not a theory. O-F'ing-K?! The children aren't 'wrong'. They're misinformed, usually through no fault of their own. Who cares if 99% of the population believes in creationism? At some point in their lives, probably 99% of people believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Such belief doesn't make those imaginary entities exist. Children are receiving a piss-poor education as it is. Why make it worse?

Other Comments by Border Collie

7. Comment #331280 by Koreman on January 31, 2009 at 6:11 pm

Those 50% probably don't believe in gravity either.

Other Comments by Koreman

8. Comment #331283 by Ed-words on January 31, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Koreman #7

The Bible takes no position on gravity.
No fight there.

Other Comments by Ed-words

9. Comment #331285 by jusdefacts on January 31, 2009 at 6:40 pm

theology think-tank

= fish on a bicycle. What the hell is a theology think-tank? I found a wonderful line in a posting from another thread, by Peribolos on the "Let's talk sense about our origins" thread, where he said

Theology is just closing your eyes, pretending 'He' exists and then quibbling over details

It's a keeper!
Anyway, re this "survey"...it's by something called Theos. It's suspect from the start. I imagine most people didn't understand the damn question. Although the use of the term 'pig-ignorant' by Richard Dawkins, while entirely accurate, isn't going to win him any friends. Sounded like they interviewed him just before coffee.

Other Comments by jusdefacts

10. Comment #331287 by MelM on January 31, 2009 at 6:44 pm

Looks like Dawkins has his work cut out for him right there in the U.K. So many nutters; so little time.

BTW, I've no problem with using terms like "pig-ignorant" and "crackpot". They are concise integrations of facts about the mentalities involved. No good purpose is served by pretending that creationism is some legitimate rational alternative view without a serious irrationalist aspect.

Other Comments by MelM

11. Comment #331288 by Jivlain on January 31, 2009 at 6:48 pm

On the positive side, the way they phrased the question would, if my understanding of such things is correct, be inclined to cause many people who did not know to say they agreed with it, and some who would accept evolution on a differently phrased question to say they didn't know. So some of that is quite simply a product of a lack of knowledge, not creationism.

The 32% for YEC is worrying, however.

Other Comments by Jivlain

12. Comment #331293 by prolibertas on January 31, 2009 at 7:20 pm

"I'm an evangelical Christian, but I have no difficulties in believing that evolution is the best scientific account we have for the diversity of life on our planet."

Sigh. I'm still waiting, agog, to hear how God and evolution are compatible. I hear all the time that they ARE compatible, but no one ever explains HOW. That 'God used evolution by natural selection as his means of creating' only raises bigger questions: Why would God just happen to use the one process of achieving creation that doesn't require his existence to explain it? Is he TRYING to make it look like he doesn't exist? And why would he use a process that inherently guarantees maximum suffering?

It may be a problem, but I really don't think God and natural selection are compatible.

Other Comments by prolibertas

13. Comment #331300 by thelivingbrian on January 31, 2009 at 7:41 pm

#12, when I believed God used evolution, I figured it was part of God's perfect plan. Why waste energy making a bunch of different creatures when you can start with the Big Bang and let let everything else go according to plan? I don't believe that now, but I remember having those beliefs.

Other Comments by thelivingbrian

14. Comment #331302 by MadMonkey on January 31, 2009 at 7:52 pm

12. Comment #331293 by prolibertas

The Answer: "God works in misterious ways" :)
In a way i accept this. It Allows a Christian to take any blow from the materialistic world view. So, they won't nag you too much. I Think Francis Collins is like that.

i supose there is some defence of this. A materialistic world view could say that miracles could never ever happend (a miracle here would be a temporary suspension of the laws of phisycs). But no one can disproof this.

Other Comments by MadMonkey

15. Comment #331303 by NewEnglandBob on January 31, 2009 at 7:54 pm

Prof Dawkins expressed dismay at the findings of the ComRes survey, of 2,060 adults, which he claimed were confirmation that much of the population is "pig-ignorant" about science.

Professor, this is not the way to teach people and convince them. Your frustration is getting to you. You do so much better than this. You have an arsenal of hundreds of facts and talking points.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

16. Comment #331305 by Republic512 on January 31, 2009 at 8:08 pm

I blame progressives. Not the societal progressives, but the dehumanizing God-loving, State-loving progressives. Third-way candidates like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. They are all about power and controlling the herds with religious propaganda.

Other Comments by Republic512

17. Comment #331306 by MelM on January 31, 2009 at 8:12 pm

If god did it, then, god did it.
God(s) and science are not compatible at all. If god had anything to do with the universe, then the correct (valid, true) explanation of an event caused by god is "god did it". No naturalistic explanation of the event would succeed; scientists would fail in every attempt they made. This goes for any cosmological events as well as for the recent successful ditching of that plane in the Hudson river. (BTW, some have protested the constant use of "miracle" to describe what happened.)

The Cracker Cult is not a supporter of science.
As for the Cracker Cult, it's not respect for science to tolerate evolution but to believe that a cracker becomes the body of Jesus, or that there are demons and miracles or that there is life without organs of life.

Leaving philolophy to the nutters would be a disaster.
Even if religion could leave the natural world to the scientists (which it can't), there's no reason at all to turn the philosophic sciences over to the nutters. It seems to me that people who support natural science but talk of "compatability" are only trying to chase the fools out of the science departments while pointing them to the philosophy department. What a disaster that would be; the nutters would be defining knowledge and how to get it. And, they would be defining human purpose and the fundamental nature of human life. History shows us where this will lead. Trying to make peace with religion in this way can only achieve a long range disaster. Turning philosophy over to the nutters would give away the whole store.

Other Comments by MelM

18. Comment #331312 by squeegee on January 31, 2009 at 8:43 pm

This is why the Atheist bus campaign is so important. People need to start thinking about reality again and not dissolve into lazy soft thinking, and the more we critical thinkers do to bring the evolution "debate" to a head the better.
It's inexcusable that kids are being raised without knowing the difference between fact and fantasy in a country like Britain, and in the US too.
Hopefully we're at a zenith of current public ignorance and the tides about to change. Obama for one seems to think science education is important so here's hoping.
I wonder though sometimes if we should bring ID into the science room [hears sharp intake of outraged breath from the hordes] as an alternative to evolution so that the scientific method could be demonstrated. This would show kids why ID is a pile of stinking compost [not that I have anything against compost] when it comes to developing a scientific theory.

Other Comments by squeegee

19. Comment #331327 by Divineosaur on January 31, 2009 at 9:24 pm

Sorry England, our bad!

Other Comments by Divineosaur

20. Comment #331332 by MelM on January 31, 2009 at 9:33 pm

I have no objections to bringing any pre-scientific views into a classroom for legit purposes. However, the ID supporters want it brought it as a legit scientific alternative to evolution. That's a whole different matter. All they have to do is create serious doubt in students minds. Filling that doubt with creation myths can come later. The nutters theology depends on believing the creation stories; they MUST leave the students "Jesus ready". The whole "strengths and weaknesses" bullshit achieves its goal if doubt is created. A student doesn't have to accept Jesus in school; 5 years (or more) is just fine. Someone who attends a dupery regularly is going to spend a lot more time listening to a holy man than was spent on biology.

Other Comments by MelM

21. Comment #331336 by mdowe on January 31, 2009 at 9:40 pm

We live in a time when we have far, far, stronger evidence for evolution by natural selection than we have for the existence of Elvis Presley. If anyone were going about spouting that Elvis never existed, we'd have them in a straight-jacket. And yet, 51% of the population (much more is some places) expresses doubt about evolution ... it is so absurd, I can only laugh.

Other Comments by mdowe

22. Comment #331339 by robotaholic on January 31, 2009 at 9:46 pm

Prof Dawkins expressed dismay at the findings of the ComRes survey, of 2,060 adults, which he claimed were confirmation that much of the population is "pig-ignorant" about science

haha Professor Dawkins you can be 'strident' sometimes - and it's awesome!

Other Comments by robotaholic

23. Comment #331345 by Richard Dawkins on January 31, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Here's my e-mail exchange with Jonathan Wynne-Jones, in which you can see the context of my 'pig-ignorant' remark. He sent me the raw findings, which I have here extracted and interspersed with my comments, which are in bold.

Only half of the UK population consistently choose evolution over creationism or Intelligent Design, according to a major report published today by Theos, the public theology think-tank.
This is in line with previous surveys, for example the Eurobarometer Survey of 2005, and the MORI poll commissioned by the BBC in 2006.
Nick Spencer, the director of studies at Theos and co-author of the report, said:
“The problem is that evolution has become mixed up with all sorts of ideas – like the belief that there is no God, or no purpose or no absolute morality in life – which people find very difficult to accept."
This may well be true, but it is illogical. Whether evolution is true or not should depend on the strength of the evidence, NOT on whether people find palatable something else that they perceive to be "mixed up" with it.
“The tragedy is that this was never Darwin’s position. Three years before he died he wrote ‘it seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.’
“And in one of the last letters he ever wrote, to the philosopher William Graham, he said, ‘my inward conviction [is] that the Universe is not the result of chance'."
Obviously life, which was Darwin's own subject is not the result of chance. Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very antithesis of chance. The error is to think that God is the only alternative to chance, and Darwin surely didn't think that, because he himself discovered the most important non-theistic alternative to chance, namely natural selection.
“Sadly, however, Darwin’s own beliefs have been ignored or misused by some of his modern disciples. Today too many people associate Darwin and his theory with a bleak and brutal vision of life, which is why so many people are sceptical about evolution."
Once again, it is totally illogical to say, "X is bleak and brutal and I don't like X, therefore X must be false". The truth is the truth, whether you find it bleak and brutal or not.
Paul Woolley, the director of Theos, said:
“Darwin was a truly great natural scientist – not a theologian or a philosopher. Both his theory and the tragic loss of his favourite daughter played a role in his own loss of Christian faith. But, by his own admission, even in his wildest fluctuations he was never an atheist."
Darwin described himself as an agnostic. His son Francis recounts an interesting conversation that Darwin had, toward the end of his life, with the atheists Edward Aveling and Ludwig Büchner. Darwin asked them why they called themselves atheists. They replied that they neither denied nor affirmed God. Then Darwin gave what his son Francis described as a 'thoughtful response', concluding, "I am with you in thought, but I should prefer the word Agnostic to the word Atheist." When Aveling replied that 'Agnostic' was but 'Atheist' writ respectable, and 'Atheist' was only 'Agnostic' writ aggressive, Darwin "smiled and responded, 'Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?"
“Unfortunately, he is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause. The result is that, given the false choice of evolution or God, people are rejecting evolution."
For the third time, this is illogical. The evidence for evolution should be the sole criterion, not whether it is associated with something unpalatable. Unpalatability is irrelevant to truth.

Wynne-Jones replied, asking if he could phone me, but I preferred e-mail:

Richard, thanks for your comments. I appreciate it. would it be possible to ask you a couple of quick questions over the phone? Mainly, what do you make of such a large number of people being open to creationism . . . The figures are not so bad as the comparable figures from the USA or from Turkey (and presumably other Islamic countries) . . . and what do you put this down to?
Well, probably mostly ignorance. To put it into perspective, the Eurobarometer survey of 2005 found that 19% of the population of Britain think it takes one month for the Earth to orbit the sun. Nobody could say that this is due to wicked atheists scaring them with bleak and barren philosophy! If you think it takes one month for the Earth to orbit the sun, you are just plain pig-ignorant. Evidently 19% of the British population are sufficiently ignorant to believe that. The same survey found that 28% of British people believe 'the earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs'. With that level of ignorance of science generally, it is hardly surprising if a comparable number believe in creationism.

That was the end of our exchange. You'll notice that my phrase 'pig ignorant' referred to the 19% of people in Britain who think it takes one month for the Earth to orbit the sun. My intention was to rebut the charge that 'aggressive atheism' had driven people into the arms of the creationists, and I did so by pointing out that there is also widespread ignorance about other scientific matters.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

24. Comment #331349 by MelM on January 31, 2009 at 10:56 pm

Wonder how many think that the Sun goes around the Earth? I've seen the view expressed that it was "Copernicanism" that sent the world to ruin before "Darwinism".

There's a survey that says that 68% of Americans believe in angels. I blame that on religion.

Truly, if reason were a cultural norm, religion would have died centuries ago. For me, the end is a world of reason and freedom; smashing religion is one of the means. I wonder if the survey found out how many have any clue about what we mean by reason. There are people who really don't know.

Edit: My big question is: Why don't people understand the nature of reason? They don't even know a few of the classic logical fallacies.

Other Comments by MelM

25. Comment #331365 by debacles on January 31, 2009 at 11:58 pm

"More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a "designer" must have lent a hand, the findings suggest."

It's as if humans have an inate inability to understand the implications of darwin's theory. A floating crane is still a sky-hook no matter how much work the crane performs. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance and thus the undoer of skyhooks. I think Orgel's 2nd rule which says "Evolution is cleverer than you are" applies more than ever in this scenario. Not only are people stupid enough to be looking for sky-hooks, but evolution is clever enough to keep its cranes hidden.

Other Comments by debacles

26. Comment #331368 by RestlessDeviant on February 1, 2009 at 12:12 am

Genuinely ashamed to be English when I read polls like that.......

Other Comments by RestlessDeviant

27. Comment #331371 by Verylee on February 1, 2009 at 12:24 am

Is Richard Dawkins our only champion of reason and understanding? When are we going to hear from Marcus du Sautoy the new appointee to the Charles Simonyi Chair?
Sir David Attenborough, Jonathan Miller, Ricky Gervais, Rowan Atkinson? There must be so many in the public arena who could raise awareness.
Kudos to Ariel Sherrine and the bus campaign.

Other Comments by Verylee

28. Comment #331383 by greenius on February 1, 2009 at 12:57 am

I wonder if a similar survey on some other scientific principle would also bring up the same levels of ignorance.

Something like:
"Gold can be created from lead using a chemical process?"

If that also got 51% of people saying yes, then it would clearly be absurd to then change the way chemistry is taught in schools.

This would then demonstrate that the problem is poor education and ignorance rather than anything to do with religious belief.

Other Comments by greenius

29. Comment #331394 by Richard Dawkins on February 1, 2009 at 1:20 am

I wonder if a similar survey on some other scientific principle would also bring up the same levels of ignorance.

Something like:
"Gold can be created from lead using a chemical process?"

If that also got 51% of people saying yes, then it would clearly be absurd to then change the way chemistry is taught in schools.

This would then demonstrate that the problem is poor education and ignorance rather than anything to do with religious belief.

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say about the 19% who believe it takes a month for Earth to orbit the sun, and the 28% who think early humans walked with dinosaurs.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

30. Comment #331400 by bendigeidfran on February 1, 2009 at 1:29 am

Some nutters think the earth travels in a straight line and the sun bends space!

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

31. Comment #331402 by Keef76 on February 1, 2009 at 1:38 am

He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories, rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.

Michael Reiss appears to be from the school of thought that says all opinions or beliefs are equally valid and we should not upset anyone's sensibilities by bringing evidence into the discussion.

I can think of no other school subject where the approach he describes above would be proposed. It would be considered a matter of serious concern if one in ten children believed that two plus two equals five, or that Germany is in South America, and surely everyone would agree that these children should be corrected.

Creationism should not be taught as an alternative theory in Science classes for much the same reasons that illiteracy should not be taught in English classes.

Other Comments by Keef76

32. Comment #331408 by Bacchus on February 1, 2009 at 1:56 am

24. Comment #331345 by Richard Dawkins

Richard wrote;

If you think it takes one month for the Earth to orbit the sun, you are just plain pig-ignorant. Evidently 19% of the British population are sufficiently ignorant to believe that.

Jonathan Wynne-Jones wrote;

You have to be careful what phrases you use to reporters. A quite legitimate phrase that described people who thought the Earth orbited the Sun every 28 days, was used by the reporter to imply something else without actually lying. In this context, the phrase "pig-ignorant" seems rather strident

Having the conversation by e-mail rather than by telephone at least keeps a record of what was actually communicated.

Other Comments by Bacchus

33. Comment #331411 by andersemil on February 1, 2009 at 2:11 am

Nowhere in the world are we safe from insane beliefs... Denmark, where I live, is usually considered a country where rationalism and atheism is widespread. According to a recent survey, 4 out of 5 people currently residing in Denmark believe in angels. Not necessarily God, but angels, helping spirits wandering around next to us and guarding us.

Moving to another country is not an option. This is going on everywhere, and always has. Only option is to stand and fight-- preferably verbally.

Other Comments by andersemil

34. Comment #331414 by robaylesbury on February 1, 2009 at 2:17 am

The impression I get, having spoken to friends of mine who happen to be theists, is that most people who don't believe in evolution don't actually know what it is they don't believe in.
Education is the key. I don't think we'll achieve too much by shouting people down, but I think that we as individuals just need to get alongside people and explain what evolution is and why it is such a valid explanation for our origins.

Other Comments by robaylesbury

35. Comment #331416 by Keef76 on February 1, 2009 at 2:18 am

Comment #331411 by andersemil:

According to a recent survey, 4 out of 5 people currently residing in Denmark believe in angels. Not necessarily God, but angels, helping spirits wandering around next to us and guarding us.

I couldn't tell you the stats for where I live in Scotland but I encounter people daily who believe this stuff, along with nonsense about auras and vibes. I guess some people are happy to see the world the way they'd like it to be instead of how it is.

Other Comments by Keef76

36. Comment #331425 by LeroiJones on February 1, 2009 at 2:38 am

What I have found working in schools and when talking to my (mostly very intelligent) friends is that many people still hold a misguided liberal view that we must respect everybodies opinions and cultures and that there is nothing wrong with teaching an alternative. I think the teachers are often afraid of the parents but they are also brainwashed with a 'respect religions and the views of the parents' thing and they also don't want to get into trouble or be accused of anything. It's a horrible situation that's happening in education. (Glad I'm not there). Teachers are taught that they must never question a religion of imply a religion is wrong for fear of being accused of racism and intollerance. It's very hard to teach children about evolution when most of them are getting the opposite message at home and respond to it like it's a threat to their beliefs. I think teachers need to be advised how to do this and given support and encouragement from management and government to do it.

Other Comments by LeroiJones

37. Comment #331429 by thedoctor on February 1, 2009 at 2:49 am

Just walk into any High Street bookstore to compare the size of the Mind, Body and Spirit section to the Popular Science section and it's easy to see how these myths keep being perpetuated.

Other Comments by thedoctor

38. Comment #331431 by Analytical on February 1, 2009 at 2:56 am

No.24 (Richard Dawkins)

To put it into perspective, the Eurobarometer survey of 2005 found that 19% of the population of Britain think it takes one month for the Earth to orbit the sun.

How about putting figures like these in front of people. There's too much text to fit on the side of a bus, but could you move some of the campaign money to put posters in train stations, so that you get more space; and could you use it legitimately without an explicit atheistic message . I'm thinking of something like the following (figures taken from the European summary, adding wrong answers and don't knows).
-----------------------------------------

Do your children know which of these statements are true ' Here's the percentage of people that don't.

Lasers function by making sound waves converge 64.7%
Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria 60.3%
Evolution explains the complexity lf life on earth 60%
Electrons are smaller than atoms 58.7
The genes of the father determine whether a baby is a boy or a girl 51.8
All radioactivity is manmade 47.4
The Earth goes around the Sun in a month 43.7
The first human beings lived at the same time as the dinosaurs 40.6
Radioactive milk can be made healthy by boiling it 35.8
The Sun turns around the Earth 33.2

Let's get science back into the classrooms.

-----------------------------------------

Other Comments by Analytical

39. Comment #331432 by AllanW on February 1, 2009 at 2:56 am

Hold on, hold on. Let's look at this.

Article written in the Daily Telegraph.
Poll conducted for the think-tank Theos.
2000 people sample size.

Why is everyone treating the poll, the report that surrounds it and the newspaper article that highlights it as worth taking notice of?

Other Comments by AllanW

40. Comment #331438 by Clapton_is_God on February 1, 2009 at 3:18 am

I tend to think that the results of this poll are indicative of a combination of poor science education and an apathetic attitude to religion in the UK.

I know many good and bright people who, when confronted by a pollster are just as likely to say that the earth is 10,000 years old as a sort of throwaway answer, mainly because they do not have the scientific background and haven't bothered to think about our origins. This attitude is similar to those census and hospital forms that ask you for your religion - a lot of people just put C of E having not been near a church for years.

CiG

Other Comments by Clapton_is_God

41. Comment #331458 by davem on February 1, 2009 at 4:29 am

"And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years."

I simply don't believe that this poll is at all representative of the UK. In my circle of acquaintances, I'm hard pressed to find anyone who goes to church, let alone believes in a literal bible. My personal guess would be closer to one percent, not thirty-three.

Other Comments by davem

42. Comment #331459 by Steve Zara on February 1, 2009 at 4:33 am

Comment #331432 by AllanW

Indeed. Let's look at what is written on the Theos site:

what Theos stands for

Society is embarking on a process of de-secularisation. Interest in spirituality is increasing across Western culture. Faith is on the agenda of both government and the media. In the arts, humanities and social sciences there are important intellectual developments currently taking place around questions of values and identity. Theos speaks into this new context. Our perspective is that faith is not just important for human flourishing and the renewal of society, but that society can only truly flourish if faith is given the space to do so. We reject notions of a sacred-secular divide.

Given that this highly questionable statement is treated as a fact, I am not minded to have much trust in their work.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

43. Comment #331460 by UncleVanya on February 1, 2009 at 4:33 am

I would have to say (as someone who lives in Britain) that I found this genuinely surprising. The proportion of people that self-identify as Christians is reasonably high, but from conversations with a fair number the impression I get is that they are easy going and don't perceieve a conflict between their beliefs and things like big bang theory, evolution by natural selection etc. In my experience it's very rare indeed to come across anyone that is nearly fundie enough to express a young-Earth creationist viewpoint.

Do any other UK-dwellers have a very different experience' Am I just moving in the wrong (') circles'

This poll was conducted by Comres, who helpfully post the raw date from their surveys on their website, like this one:

http://www.comres.co.uk/resources/7/Other Surveys/Theos Rescuing Darwin DataTabs Q1 Nov08.pdf

from a recent survey on awareness of Darwin's anniversary. The data is broken down by several factors including age, social class, religious affiliation and political identification. The results from this survey don't seem to be posted yet, but I'll look out for them and it would be interesting (to me at least) to see whether there are certain groups that are the bulk of the 1 in 3, or whether they are spread around all walks of life... It might be easy to assume that the numbers are made up by non-Christian populations, who you might expect to be more hardline in their beliefs, but the numbers of such populations simply aren't high enough to account for much of the 1 in 3.

Other Comments by UncleVanya

44. Comment #331461 by Peter_on_Sax on February 1, 2009 at 4:40 am

I suspect the phrasing of the questions in the ComRes poll was biased towards exaggerating support for creationism. However, even if the results are accurate, such high levels of contempt for evolution strengthen the case for teaching evolution in the science class. Education is not a democracy where the teachers must pander to the prejudices of the parents. If (pig)-ignorance abounds, let teaching begin. What would the Telegraph advocate if 90% of parents believed in witchcraft? Should the school curriculum be modified to resemble that of Hogwarts School?

Other Comments by Peter_on_Sax

45. Comment #331463 by alexo on February 1, 2009 at 4:49 am

Who were the people sampled? What social group did they belong to? Is just over two thousand people indicative of the 'public'? Sorry, but for me this article raises too many questions. We've all seen these sort of polls before and with the right kind of manipulation you can achieve almost any kind of result you could wish for. There are lies, damn lies and polls!

Other Comments by alexo

46. Comment #331465 by Apathy personified on February 1, 2009 at 4:51 am

Does anyone know how they took their sample?

My suspicion is that they stood outside churches on a sunday morning.

And I'd like to restate - as many people here have - that scientific fact doesn't depend on public consensus.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

47. Comment #331469 by beanson on February 1, 2009 at 4:58 am

"His argument for atheism goes like this: either God is the explanation for the wide diversity of biological life, or evolution is. We know that evolution is true. Therefore, God doesn't exist."
Carey

But the point is that the diversity of life is cited as design and therefore as evidence of gods work. This is the only 'evidence' widely aduced for belief. The possibility of evolution demolishes that argument's credibility.

We know that evolution is true- this of course doesn't remove the possibility of god but it does obliterate the only credible line of evidence for god.

Therefore Carey should really be saying something like...

"My argument for god rests mainly upon the appearance of design which is actually explained easilly by the theory of evolution which I fully accept- therefore my god is a gonner- oh shit..."

Other Comments by beanson

48. Comment #331471 by scottishgeologist on February 1, 2009 at 5:09 am

alexo

Regarding polls, Tearfund has come up wi this one:

http://www.tearfund.org/News/Press releases/Church is where the heart is.htm

"Churchgoing is not in decline, according to figures released by Tearfund today (30 January 2009) which show that one in four adults in the UK attend church at least once a year."

To which I say "Big Deal" Christmas & Easter always attract a crowd

Secondly, with the number of immigrants into the UK from countries where there is a high incidence of church going, it is not exactly surprising.

:-)
SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

49. Comment #331487 by Lemniscate on February 1, 2009 at 5:40 am

Comment #331465 by Apathy personified
Does anyone know how they took their sample?

http://www.comres.co.uk/page1656527.aspx details their method. I don't think their method is a problem. I would use different questions to those asked and a larger sample, however, before we start basing educational policy on these results.

Also, this only sampled people who've already been educated. Therefore, it's some evidence towards the failure of the education system to teach critical thinking and scientific knowledge, not evil, strident atheists scaring the poor, innocent theists away from the subdued and compatible science that atheists perverted.

I fail to see how this can be interpreted as a case for the introduction of creationism into science. It's a case to stop education being so bloody woolly and pathetic and start teaching evolution and critical thinking properly. Let's get it straight that the kids who don't accept evolution are actually WRONG, and it doesn't need 10 hours of world-view sensitivity training to tell them that.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

50. Comment #331505 by Diogenes of Sinope on February 1, 2009 at 6:11 am

I think it's slightly misleading to say that 1 in 10 children come from a family which "supports" the creationist world-view; as others before have stated, I should think that the majority of those families are simply ignorant of every aspect of science (and the scientific approach to knowledge), rather than deliberately propagating creationism and indoctrinating young minds with mind-closing nonsense.

Other Comments by Diogenes of Sinope

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last