Half of Britons do not believe in Evolution
Filed under News, Philosophy & Science on June 24th, 2009 by Marc Thomashttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
Guardian – 50% of Britons do not believe in evolutionism while only a quarter say it’s definitely true. Ironically, the results of the ‘Rescuing Darwin’ survey also reveal that 25% believe evolution is only ‘probably’ true.
The survey was conducted by ComRes (http://www.comres.co.uk/) whose clients include several of the biggest British banks, the BBC and the General Medical Council.
10% of British people felt that Young Earth Creationism was the best theory and a further 12% chose the idea of Intelligent Design. However, one critical voice from the academic world, James Williams (Sussex University) responded to the results, “Creationists ask if people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief.”
Tags: creation, Creationism, Darwin, evolution, evolution darwin, evolutionism, Guardian, intelligent design, James Williams, science, theory of evolution, young earth
Possibly Related Posts:
Hugh Ross recently published a book called “More than a Theory” which attempts to create a testable model for creationism. I’d be happy to see some real scientists test the model if possible.
A model is key.
One thing that all too much gets looked over, is depite Richard Dawkins’ disdain for creationism, religion and the idea of God himself, he does acknowledge that evolution isn’t perfect, it’s just the best model we have for now.
He says (paraphrased) if we found a cat buried in sediment from the cambrian era, that would disprove evolution, for one thing. There are other ways it can be falsified as well.
What’s possible besides evolution and creationism?
Well for one thing, there could be animals transported from other dimensions. Sounds sci-fi, but equally as possible as creation. After all, things need a beginning in this universe, but not necessarily in others which have different rules, laws, etc.
I still think evolution is by far the simplest way to explain how things are, given the evidence, but that doesn’t disprove God, it just makes Genesis non-literal, which old-earth creationists already acknowledge anyway, especially given the huge generational gaps in geneaologies.
–Dan
Was that a serious suggestion for an origin of man, Dan? Just wondering.
In any case, I find this an interesting thought. “After all, things need a beginning in this universe, but not necessarily in others which have different rules, laws, etc.” To a certain extent, this is the Christian claim about God, not that he comes from another dimension, just that He is in no dimension at all.
Marc
Marc,
It wasn’t a serious suggestion, but merely another possible option. It’s not even my own, but taken from a rebuttal to Geisler/Turek’s book. You can see the original long article here http://www.kellanstec.com/faithatheist.html . It’s entertaining, and thoughtful to say the least.
I do think that saying we were created be a being in another dimension or no dimension says very little about what occurs outside of this universe. Outside of our world, there could be thousands of beings with the ability to create life. Placing the animals from another dimension here doesn’t sound too bizarre when looked at that way. I’m just saying that there could be other possibilities we haven’t thought of yet. It’s not a foregone conclusion that if evolution fails, creationism is the next best bet.
Remember that all foreign scientific theories sound like a bad sci-fi movie, and all foreign religious beliefs sound like bad mythology. The idea of a mama hippo god laying an egg and out comes mother earth sounds silly to us, but the idea of mankind having to die because our earliest ancestors ate the wrong piece of fruit would sound equally bizarre to another culture.
–Dan
You got to be kidding me, Lol.
You can watch evolution happen in a petri dish for gods sake. Why the hell do you think you need a new flu vaccination every year? Because the virus has evolved and the old cure is no good anymore.
Jessica,
Of course species evolve in the manner you’re referencing, the question is whether all living things evolved from a common single-celled organism without aid of a designer.
Jessica,
A lot of creationists acknowledge micro-evolution, meaning changes within a species. A flu virus can develop immunities, and a finch’s beak can grow longer.
Macro-evolution is the idea that a species can become another one after millions of years, or that they come from a common ancestor.
“Without aid of a designer” is NOT macro-evolution. That’s a theological question, not a biological history question.
When creationists try to say darwinists are non-believers, they are either ignorant or intentionally trying to make religious people uncomfortable with embracing evolution.
Dan,
When have I ever said that darwinists are non-believers? Have I not done positive articles regarding Francis Collins and his book “The Language of God”? But even Collins admits that Darwinian evolution has no room for a designer at any point along the path, he simply believes that what we view as random is in some way that we can’t see orchestrated by God. Thus in Darwinian evolution (specifically regarding common descent) there is no room for a designer, though God could somehow be behind it in some mysterious way that science will never see (a point I continue to give careful consideration to).
Marcus, I must have misread your statement:
” the question is whether all living things evolved from a common single-celled organism without aid of a designer.”
I thought you meant that evolution was a question of whether God took part or not.
When you consider the chances of us being able to communicate in black and white specks on a screen across the country from each other, all due to miniscule biomatter doing it’s random thing, I think that the case for divine aid is pretty good, whether there’s evolution or not.
Dan,
Gotchya.
And I’m with you that the case for divine aid (or design) is pretty good!
Hey Marcus,
A friendly inquiry here: Have you, or would you ever, consider the case for Young Earth Creationism? Just to make myself clear, if we were talking about considering the case for intelligent design: going to Richard Dawkins website and listening to all the banter that occurs there is NOT an example of fairly considering ID; nor is listening to the media’s take on the issue (BTW, in speaking of ID: for me, Ben Stein’s Expelled was superb).
I don’t exactly know what could qualify for “considering the case” for Young Earth Creationism … maybe it would be reading one or two of the more representative books on the issue. Personally, I give out a (data) CD called “Creation in a Nutshell” which is a compilation of some of the best, but brief and to the point, articles making this case. Such as Russ Humphrey’s “14 Reasons for a Young Earth”, or “Highlights of the Los Alamos Origins Debate” by John Baumgardner. So on a scale from 1 to 10, would you ever consider the case for Young Earth Creationism?
Best, Nick
Nick,
Just watched a couple trailers and explored the Expelled website. I’d be more into it if he wasn’t admittedly rying to put his religious idea of God back into the classroom. I know he’s Jewish, but that big red cross in the title signifies that this isn’t a scientific progress or education problem he’s worried about, this is a religious problem he’s worried about.
From what I’ve seen, the creationists claim that just like our courts hold a suspect innocent in proven guilty, that the same thing applies for creationism.
Just like the defense lawyer points out holes in the prosecutor’s case, witnesses, and evidence, the creationists point out holes in evolution research, gaps in fossils, etc.
The underlying frame here is that Creationism is the DEFAULT belief, and Evolution is the challenger. Therefore, if evolution is proven to be an incomplete theory, then our next best bet is Genesis 1.
This seems like an odd standard to me. Why not let our teachers teach their theory that we’re in a computer matrix simulation? Or that we are all illusions in the mind of a greater deity, that matter doesn’t exist at all? How about the idea that aliens came here from another dimension who deposited organic matter on earth, and then left, without us knowing where organic matter from the first dimension came from?
The reason they’re not bringing up these other possibilities. is because the intention lies on that big red cross on Ben Stein’s movie. This isn’t about scientific freedom, it’s about putting religion in the classroom. If all these “expelled” scientists pooled together and went out to make a scientific case for Intelligent Design, I”m sure they could find church funding, do some digging, and put together a scientific case…. if one was possible.
To this date, there is no real study published. A lot of Ben Stein’s trailer looks like conspiracy propaganda “Big Science,” as he calls it.
Hello Dan,
It’s funny to me that you mentioned the issue of “innocent until proven guilty”, but then immediately went on to judge a movie, the intelligent design movement, and whoever else might be thrown in there (young earth creationists, etc), as guilty… guilty of fraud in a word I guess, without ever having watched it. You also talked about conspiracy propaganda, hoisting that charge on someone you haven’t even listened to (have not listened to their case) … You even felt the red “X” on the cover must refer to the cross. Talk about reading in conspiracies! Really, “X” can mean “X-ed out”, as in … “Expelled!” Yes, the letter “X” is in “Expelled”, and as I look at my own Dvd cover of it (which I’ve watched maybe 7 times by now), that’s exactly where they put the red “X”.
It’s also funny to me that you said this:
<How about the idea that aliens came here from another dimension who deposited organic matter on earth>
Ummm, you really do need to watch the movie Dan, because this exact issue got brought up (minus the “from another dimension” part), but it wasn’t by Stein, it was by Francis Crick, and (at the very climax of the film), put forth as a ‘very interesting possibility’ (my memory quotation) by … Richard Dawkins.
Nick
Nick,
I was completely forthright with my experience watching a couple trailers, reading Ben Stein’s website and gave the reason why I didn’t go further. That red X’s shape does look very much like an intentional “cross” symbol to me, but that might be my marketing background.
If I misread Ben Stein’s intentions, then I’m sure I have his forgiveness.
One thing to keep in mind is that while Evolution is a Theory, Intelligent Design is merely a Hypothesis.
If you know the difference between the two, (many adults do not), theories have a heck of a lot more evidence to them. A hypothesis is just an educated guess, and does not require research. You and I are qualified to make biological hypotheses. However, we cannot make a theory if we don’t put in a ton of work in. A theory actually has hard research behind it. If Intelligent Design proponents want it in the classroom, they need to put more original research into why the earth had an intelligent designer instead of why Evolution isn’t good enough.
The only evidence I’ve heard for ID is statistical improbabilities, and the researcher always happens to be worshipping the very designer, almost always the Christian God. That’s why it’s not taken seriously, and why it’s not put in schools.
Nicholas,
Absolutely! At this point, I’d say I’m at a 5 on that scale (I was somewhat YE by default until recently, when I really started researching things). Feel free to send me an email at editor@voiceofrevolution.com to be in contact further regarding this.