Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
« on: 2009-02-02 13:47:40 »
source: Telegraph Belief in creationism is widespread in Britain, according to a new survey.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
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. [Obviously Dawkins said nothing of the sort --Lucifer]
"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."
« Last Edit: 2009-02-02 13:51:32 by David Lucifer »
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. [Obviously Dawkins said nothing of the sort --Lucifer]
"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."
[Blunderov] Ah the infamous false dichotomy! He accuses Dawkins of having become a simple thinker without, apparently, being at all aware of his own elementary fallacy. A ranking Bishop really should know better - but perhaps he is deliberately perpetrating a sophistry. Probably he is. The only refuge these intellectual scoundrels now have against the wholesale destruction that Dawkins has wrought on their traditional arguments for the existence of "God" is to claim that these (which are stories for the hoi polloi only; a "simple" people) are not in fact the actual real arguments. These arguments, they sometimes go on to say, are simply too complex to be understood by those who are too stubborn to accept as an original premise that the argument must be true. What a pantload.
Quite "simply" the Judeo-Christian Sky-Daddy does not exist quod erat demonstrandum.
But maybe the whole discussion is due to the fact that it is the church; god- believers and all other sorts of religion- adepts are in the wrong over what they believe in !? Let me explain !
To understand this we have to make quite a distinction between religion and belief. Religion is ethymological explained as ' reading again ', repeating things ' , conscientious, painstaking, punctual ( from relegere)_ religion is than typical being observant of everything what got to do with worshipping the gods ( like living by the lines of the Thora by the Jews).
But where the Jews still live by those old guidelines and where Christian fundamentalists ( wet) dream of, the ' religion ' where modern christians belief in and where upon western society is based is one of having critique. It takes me too far back in history to explain all of this, but take it from me_ religion, like we know it, is based upon words, being critical about what is said within the Law_ and moreover that the ' claims ' are ' right '! So we can discuss, change, adjust in order that in the end ' everything' is in place and justified. Religion IS culture.
" Belief ", is what the fundamentalist beliefs in, there is no discussion possible about what is written down in the ancient texts, no adjudgements, no change_ it is taking it or leaving it. Where the fundamentaist ( christian and others) is fighting against is the critique people have about the texts and words. And in such a context it is normal and natural that believers of the worst kind reject Darwinism all together, but also that people in general belief ( are attracted to) creatonism and other fantasy explanations about how life began and evolves. It is not really a matter of being ignorant about science, but more a fact of individualism and being critical. That is a matter of education and of how our society is constructed but also of being aware of his own elementary place in time_ thinking for yourself about yourself and about the place you have in the whole of the social / political universal picture is quite a hard thing to do and is in my opinion not giving to everybody.
Don 't understand me wrong, but in modern society there is so much that we need to account for to fit right in, that being truly an individual _ and fight for that right, is almost impossible. It is in having critique about all the things that surrounds us that we will become individuals _ " about- ourselves- thinking meme- machines "_ we will eventually end up in a ' religious ' society ( a critical society) , but one where ' belief ' in dogma 's and other stupid convictions have no longer a place.
So, if we need to change the public doubts over evolution and natural selection we need more than the best science and Dawkins and other alternatives. We must begin with thinking ( memes) about ourselves for ourselves as individuals.
If we think about the Enlightment- period we naturally believe in guys like Voltaire and Rousseau_ two overrated philosophers according to Philippe Blom_ an Austrian historian. He says that Holback, La mettrie and Diderot are much more interesting, and that due to the fact that those three saw it almost as their moral duty to convince people that there was no life after death, but only a material world of life and death where the struggle to survive was the main course on the menu. Even a hundred yeas before Darwin they realised already that the world was NOT created, but was evolved by chance and natural selection, moreover there was no NO obscure being necessary to do it all_ no GOD !!
Adding is the fact that for Holback and Diderot men and women shouldn 't have to repress ( for no reason whatsoever) their own inner feelings, desires and instincts:_ they may move into this world as free and as whereever equal recognized people. If they saw themselves no longer as sinful beings, but like intelligent machines of flesh and blood they could pinpoint all of their energy into building up their lives and into a society which was based upon empathy, respect and the pursue of happiness.
Even in our modern times those things are quite hard nuts to crack and thus according to Blom the struggle of what the Enlightment stands for is NOT yet complete_ we must continue to fight for the idea that a world without a god, without the hope of salvation is NOT a waste, pointless one. That kind of narcism, says Holback is just the point where believers and non- believers ( atheists and others ) split. We must face the fact that the whole of the universe and thus including we ourselves are totally and complete meaningless and thus subjected to the force of coincedence ! No more- no less !!
That is of course hard to live by and maybe, MAYBE that is a reason why people want to believe in a god, in what a religion/ belief dictates. And like I said, memes of believing are harder to get rid off than letting the memes of rational reasoning in. That is in my opinion NOT giving to everybody, and I stick to that point_ just because people want that god exists just out a psychological need, just because they are mentally " weak " (it is harder and more courageous) to think otherwise. It is a human ( memetic ) condition so to speak that ( some) people has to believe ( must to !?) in order to survive as meme- machines into this world.
Author
Logged
