About half of Britons doubt. From the UK Examiner:,
Lewis Wolpert is not just a (be thou impressed) prominent scientists, emeritus professor of biology but the Atheist vice-president of the British Humanist Association (Humanist is a denomination of Atheism; see here).
Wolpert is appalled at the ignorance of those who, unlike he, do not reside atop an imitation ivory tower. Intelligent design and creationism are the very premise upon which science was established in the first place; anyone with any knowledge of the history of science would know this (keeping in mind that curiosity and observation is not the same as the rigors of the scientific method).
They may be “religious concepts” but not “purely.” Firstly, intelligent design is agnostic which is why there are Atheist (such as Francis Crick), Agnostic (such as David Berlinski) as well as adherents to various different religions who hold to intelligent design. Creationism (aka Creation Science aka Scientific Creationism, etc.) pertains to the specific God of the Bible; YHVH’s creative act. And yet, even then, it does not merely assert “Gaaaawwwwwd dun it” but seek scientific manners whereby to elucidate the matter. Thus, even Creationism is not a purely religious concept when it seeks to apply science to itself.
Lewis Wolpert simplistic dismissal of any and all intelligent design and creationism discoveries as “There is no evidence for them at all” is no less than an intellectual embarrassment and that he insists that “They must be kept out of science lessons” shows why he is the vice-president of an Atheist activism group.
It’s classic that the obvious political implications of the fact that so many prominent Darwin defenders are atheists (see here, for example) does not raise any questions among the shrill but vacuous punditocracy that dominates dying mainstream media. The same people happily conduct inquisitions into the beliefs of those who doubt Darwin. No wonder so many look elsewhere for news today.
Ammi’s choice of atheist Nobel winner (for double helix) Francis Crick as an ID supporter needs some clarification: Crick did not think that life could have arisen on Earth purely by chance. He and Leslie Orgel, among others, suggested an extraterrestrial origin for life on Earth, possibly via intelligent beings (directed panspermia). If sincerely held, this is an ID position because it identifies the need for intelligence to produce high levels of complex, specified information. But it’s not clear how often it is a position arrived at on the basis ofreflection, as opposed to frustration.
Why the frustration? See The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (origin of life)
See also: Memo to Dawkins: Half of Brits probably don’t believe in Darwin anyway