Intelligent Design

51% of UK population sceptical of evolution – Theos report

Spread the love

According to a Theos report, highlighted in the UK’s Telegraph, “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.” Rather amusingly, Richard Dawkins thinks it acceptable to insult half the population expressing “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” ‘Pig Ignorant’ over Darwin . Adam Rutherford follows Dawkins into use of insulting language to describe his fellow human beings. Rutherford’s response  – “Another day, another creationism survey. Godly thinktank Theos have conjured yet another set of figures that reveal just how dim Britain is when it comes to evolution.” He said.

But after 150 years of the hard sell, why is it that so many people haven’t bought into the Darwin myth I wonder? Perhaps because that is how they perceive it – as a myth – some real evidence, instead of the empty rhetoric might help their cause. It is true that most people haven’t studied science in depth, but they do know when someone is trying to sell them a dodgy motor. But what of the arrogance of the militant Darwinists. Clearly ID is tapping into a broad stream of public opinion, but is under sometimes vicious attack from sections of the acedemic community that tolerates no dissent. It would seem that Darwinian science is shaped by an emotional devotion to Darwin that is semi-religious in nature – having left true science outside the door.   

Of course Nick Spencer of Theos is trying to put a positive spin on the findings having written the report with Denis Alexander

The full report can be read here Theos report

23 Replies to “51% of UK population sceptical of evolution – Theos report

  1. 1
    Joseph says:

    Questions for Richard Dawkins:

    1-Is it a strength, weakness or hole in your position that you cannot provide a testable hypothesis pertaining to biology and non-telic processes?

    2- Is it a strength, weakness or hole in your position that you cannot provide any data which would demonstrate the transformations required (for UCD) are even obtainable via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- Is it a strength, weakness or hole in your position that although we know much, much more about eyes and vision systems the “evidence” for the evolution of the eye/ vision systems is the SAME now as it was in Darwin’s day- basically that we observe differing complexity of eyes and vision systems and we “know” the founding population(s) didn’t have either?

    4- Is it a strength, weakness or hole in your position that your position relies solely on circumstantial evidence which lends itself to interpretation depending on one’s worldview?

    5- Is it a strength, weakness or hole in your position that pigs are smarter than you?

  2. 2
    Mats says:

    One can only guess what would happen if darwinism had been taught as a scientific hypothesis and not as a religious dogma. Perhaps the figures envolving the dissent from darwin would be even higher.

    When I read thigns like this, I can understand why darwinists don’t want their religious myth to be questioned.

  3. 3
    GSV says:

    Andrew typo acedemic -> academic.

    I hope we can take something from this conclusion:

    In their correspondence we see everything that the debate surrounding evolution and
    God should be, and everything it has lost. The protagonists are gracious, respectful and
    thoughtful. They are persuaded of their own views but open to criticism. They occupy the
    middle ground between aggressive atheism and dogmatic religiosity, and explore
    possibilities without rancour or ill-feeling.

  4. 4
    Domoman says:

    I just did an experiment in biology lab today where we put our hypothesis to the test. Makes me realize how bad Darwinism and neo-Darwinism has failed their tests.

    If one looks at the current record of natural selection and random mutations, one sees, essentially, nothing but genetic entropy. That is no support for Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism. Period.

    If anything, the theory of genetic entropy has more support than the theory of evolution and neo-Darwinism. Too bad evolutionists (*COUGH*RICHARD DAWKINS*COUGH*) like to ignore this fact. 51% of the UK isn’t “pig ignorant” Richard Dawkins. You are. Go do your homework!

    And, by the way, citing the fossil record and/or supposed biological similarities does nothing to support a theory that does not hold up to present-day experimentation. If the theory is not supported, then the supposed “other” evidence must be explained in a different manner.

  5. 5
    sparc says:

    I just did an experiment in biology lab today where we put our hypothesis to the test. Makes me realize how bad Darwinism and neo-Darwinism has failed their tests.

    Could you outline some details of that experiment and how the results would help the case of ID? Did you finally measure CSI or FCSI, respectively?

  6. 6
    Domoman says:

    Continuing… will biologists also see the theory of evolution as “unfit” to survive?

    Interesting read here:

    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....-for-2009/

  7. 7
    alaninnont says:

    I think that the reasons that scientists who can be so meticulous in their experimentation in their own fields choose not to look objectively at the arguments against evolution are twofold. 1) They don’t want to consider the alternative. It would mean that they can’t do whatever they want but must consider what a creator expects of them. 2) They have the Aristotle Syndrome (my name). They want to believe that humans remain at the center of the universe, that we pulled ourselves up by our evolutionary socks out of the primal ooze and made ourselves what we are today. They don’t want to consider that someone else could have done it.

  8. 8
    Domoman says:

    Alaninnont,

    2) They have the Aristotle Syndrome (my name). They want to believe that humans remain at the center of the universe, that we pulled ourselves up by our evolutionary socks out of the primal ooze and made ourselves what we are today. They don’t want to consider that someone else could have done it.

    Ironically, even if “we” had pulled ourselves out of the primordial ooze, “we” really didn’t do anything. Rather than being at the center of the universe, we’re just a useless bi-product. Like smoke from a fire, we’re here for a bit before we vanish into nothingness, never to be seen again. I think their thinking would be a bit flawed in thinking, then, that we’re at the center of the universe.

  9. 9
    Domoman says:

    A bit off subject, but it has to do with Richard Dawkins, at least, in a sense.

    Halifax transit keeps anti-God ads off their buses. Go Canada!

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-.....ml?ref=rss

  10. 10
    Barb says:

    Let us for a moment reflect on Richard Dawkins’s job title: He is the Charles Simonyi professor of the *public understanding* of science [emphasis mine] at Oxford University.

    So, Dr. Dawkins, if the public is “pig-ignorant” of science, then obviously you aren’t doing your job right.

  11. 11
    halo says:

    EXPELLED IN THE UK

    Off-topic, the Expelled DVD is now available in multi-region format for UK viewers – I heard that CMI managed to obtain a limited number of region-free copies, they only have about 40 left.
    Call 0845 6800 264.

  12. 12
    alaninnont says:

    To Domonan,

    The point I was trying to make was that humans are egocentric. It is difficult for many to accept that someone made us who we are and we didn’t accomplish it ourselves, either through our own efforts or through our fitness to be selected above other animals.

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    To put it into context, the phrase “pig-ignorant” was used by Richard Dawkins in an email exchange with journalist Jonathan Wynne-Jones. He was asked for his opinion on why the poll showed so many people were open to creationism and replied:

    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.

  14. 14
    Seversky says:

    Alaninnont @ 7

    They want to believe that humans remain at the center of the universe, that we pulled ourselves up by our evolutionary socks out of the primal ooze and made ourselves what we are today. They don’t want to consider that someone else could have done it.

    My understanding is that it is Christianity that holds that humanity is the center-piece of creation. Atheist and agnostic scientists are more likely to believe as Domoman put it so colorfully at #8:

    Rather than being at the center of the universe, we’re just a useless bi-product. Like smoke from a fire, we’re here for a bit before we vanish into nothingness, never to be seen again.

    When faced squarely head-on, it is understandable that many people find such a prospect intolerably bleak and hopeless. Unfortunately, that does not necessarily make it wrong.

    Speaking personally, I have no problem with the idea that some sort of intelligent agency may have had a hand – or something – in our evolution, even though Dawkins is mocked for his preference for aliens to deities. But it will take more than just unverifiable claims of divine revelation to persuade me that it is anything other than wishful thinking for the present.

    What is odd, however, is the low opinion of mankind that is held by Christianity and, allegedly, by God Himself, even though we are His Creation and He is supposed to love us. We are supposed to be so irredeemably mired in sin, even down to the smallest and most innocent child, that our only hope is grovel before God and beg for mercy. Now, there is little doubt that we human beings are far from perfect but we have also achieved things, apparently without any outside help, of which we may be justifiably proud. If we are going to be brutally honest about our shortcomings then we should also be equally forthright about our virtues.

  15. 15
    nullasalus says:

    Seversky,

    I think there’s far more reason to believe that something special and intentional went on with creation/evolution in generation, and humanity in particular, than wishful thinking. Inconclusive, sure, but ultimately so much is anyway. (Of all people, I think Emo Phillips put this in fantastic perspective re: Pascal.) In my view, between what we seen in science, natural theology, and otherwise, the court is in favor of ‘something special’ rather than ‘totally blind forces and chance’.

    And, I’d disagree with your estimation of Christianity. There are varying views, controversial ones (Faith v faith and works, etc), but grovelling before God and begging for mercy is not required. There’s a difference between the position of a human relative to God in a somewhat objective sense (‘We are ants’, if you like) and the position God calls humanity to be in relation to Him (sons and daughters, loved despite our flaws, etc.) Not to get too theological in this thread, but caricatures of Christianity abound.

    As for the OP – how can Dawkins tell who is pig-ignorant or not anyway? Why does circling ‘I believe in evolution’ make someone not pig-ignorant about evolution? Plenty of people both believe in it and don’t have the foggiest idea about it.

  16. 16
    alaninnont says:

    To Seversky
    There is a incredible variety of beliefs in the Christian world about humankind’s importance. I can’t claim to understand doctorine enough to make a statement on what the correct one is but, in my experience, there is a lot of egocentricity in both the Christian and Atheist communities. I wonder whether many people really know what they believe or whether they accept what was fed them by schools, parents, media, etc. without thinking it through.

    P.S. I’m new to this blogging thing. How do you put quotes from other people into your comments?

  17. 17
    Domoman says:

    Hey Alaninnont,

    To quote other people just type down the text you want to quote and before the text type,

    and then at the end of the text type

    .

    (Remove the spaces between the ‘s and “blockquotes”.)

    Hopefully that makes sense! ^_^

  18. 18
    alaninnont says:

    I think the program created a quotation and didn’t put in the character which allowed the quotation unless it’s “the quotation marks” in which case those three words should be one.

  19. 19
    alaninnont says:

    Nope, didn’t work. Can you try again.

  20. 20
    R0b says:

    alaninnont, welcome. Quotes are indicated as follows:
    <blockquote>This is a quote</blockquote>

  21. 21
    Domoman says:

    Alaninnont,

    Yeah, I noticed it didn’t work after I posted it (although the preview of my text suggested it would work), but I didn’t have time to finish it because I had to run off.

    R0b apparently figured out how to show you though. Not sure how, but I’m impressed. lol

  22. 22
    Domoman says:

    Spark,

    Could you outline some details of that experiment and how the results would help the case of ID? Did you finally measure CSI or FCSI, respectively?

    It had nothing to do with either evolution or intelligent design. I was simply making the point that neo-Darwinism often fails the experiments done to test it. For instance: most mutations are near-neutral, then deleterious (aka information-losing), and then finally, and certainly least, information-gaining. In fact, information-gaining mutations are so low and near-neutral and deleterious so high (perhaps as high as 1 information-gaining per 1,000,000 near-neutral/deleterious mutations), that based on the experiments it would be completely reasonable to suggest that neo-Darwinian evolution cannot work at all (at least in its overall scope).

  23. 23
    Adel DiBagno says:

    Domoman:

    For instance: most mutations are near-neutral, then deleterious (aka information-losing), and then finally, and certainly least, information-gaining. In fact, information-gaining mutations are so low and near-neutral and deleterious so high (perhaps as high as 1 information-gaining per 1,000,000 near-neutral/deleterious mutations), that based on the experiments it would be completely reasonable to suggest that neo-Darwinian evolution cannot work at all (at least in its overall scope).

    I’m new here, and want to learn. Where did you get those numbers?

Leave a Reply