Scary - 40% of British population believe in creationism

rockbeer

I just stumbled across this in the UK Independent.

Scary stuff - 40% believe in literal creationism, and religious students are demanding the right not to learn about evolution, as though the truth were a matter of opinion. As though their beliefs give them protection against exposure to dissenting facts.

Is this the way things are heading? I'd be interested to hear what people think can and should be done to reverse the trend towards ignorance.

iUseVi

rockbeer wrote: »

I just stumbled across this in the UK Independent.

Scary stuff - 40% believe in literal creationism, and religious students are demanding the right not to learn about evolution, as though the truth were a matter of opinion. As though their beliefs give them protection against exposure to dissenting facts.

Is this the way things are heading? I'd be interested to hear what people think can and should be done to reverse the trend towards ignorance.

Scary stuff pretty much sums it up. There has been a large increase in "faith schools" in the UK teaching this stuff, I think that's a large reason that the numbers are rising.

BJC

Why in gods name would someone demand their right not to learn. I had no problem listening to all that Catholic bullsh*t in school because I'm intelligent to know that it's good to understand both sides of the argument. I'm telling you, in another 50 years, the whole world will be members of Westboro Baptist Church.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3_ns8ZhQbI&feature=related

limerick_woody

this sounds like a bull**** poll to me - what questions were asked i wonder? I can't beleive for a second that 40% of any population anywhere, even in the theocracy of the US truly believe such a ridiculous theory. For example in the US recently another poll suggested that 50% of the people were unaware that Genesis is the first book of the bible, no doubt because most people don't waste there time actually reading the bible. I sincerely doubt that a high proportion of any random group would even be aware of the creationists fantasy. I take all poll results with a large dose of skepticism.

robindch

rockbeer wrote: »

Scary stuff - 40% believe in literal creationism, and religious students are demanding the right not to learn about evolution

I'd say that's about right. The UK and their schools have been targeted by various religious outfits (including our favorites, AiG!) and it's a credit to the creationists' Wedge Strategy that they've managed to acquire the market mindshare that they now hold. Tony Blair supported creationism as a means of "teaching diversity", and Brown got so many other problems, that creationism doesn't really figure and probably won't until it's too late.

rockbeer wrote: »

Is this the way things are heading? I'd be interested to hear what people think can and should be done to reverse the trend towards ignorance.

Yes, that's the way things are heading and it will probably happen in Ireland too, unless the Department of Education gets up off its totty and does something about it. There certainly are creationists out there teaching "science" in schools at the moment -- there were a few at AiG's gig in UCD a couple of years ago -- one of them told me that the proudest moment of his teaching career to date was the time when some kid told him that his dad said that evolution was true, the creationist said it was false, so the kid became quite upset and said, "And now, I don't know who to believe!".

Anyhow, a useful first step is to try to find out the size of the problem and that's going to involve creating a questionnaire, then sitting down at phones and speaking to any headmasters and science teachers with some spare time on their hands. Anybody on for some market research?

pH

You know what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics. The 40% figure seems high consider the latest UK figures:

66% of the UK population have no connection with any religion or church.
18% of the British public say they are a practicing member of an organized religion.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html

Doctor DooM

pH wrote: »

You know what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics. The 40% figure seems high consider the latest UK figures:

66% of the UK population have no connection with any religion or church.
18% of the British public say they are a practicing member of an organized religion.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html

I would guess it's not a lie, more like admissing some of the truth so they don't end up sued- like 40% of people who admit to being in a religion dont believe in evolution. zOMG!

PDN

The survey says that 40% either believe in Creationism or in ID, so it's hardly claiming that 40% share the views of Young Earth Creationists like JC and Wolfsbane. ID, when used in its broadest sense, simply refers to the belief that certain things about the universe are best explained by a Creator rather than by random chance. In that sense virtually every Christian will included in the 40% even if they believe in evolution.

For example, I personally do not think ID should be taught in science classes at school - because it more properly falls under the heading of religion or philosophy. But I still believe that the teleological argument makes sense.

So, all the survey really reveals is that 40% of the UK population look at the universe sometimes and think, "Someone must have made all this. It didn't just occur by accident." I don't think even the most enthusiastic atheist should find that 'scary' given that a lot of people in the UK, while not actively practicing any religion, would still retain some form of belief in a god.

Besides, 67% of statistics are made up on the spot.

robindch

pH wrote: »

You know what they say about lies, damned lies and statistics. The 40% figure seems high consider the latest UK figures:

You're assuming that only churchgoers can be creationists. On the contrary, it seems that creationsm and especially ID, is acting as a gateway belief amongst the unchurched.

The Beeb carried out a survey of over 2,000 people in 2006. The results are here and broadly in line with the 40% figure.

BTW, it seems that the UK's going to have it's own creationist "theme park" soon. Guardian article here, vague homepage here.

Dades

That article has simply bastardised some random statistics to make a more shocking story.

As PDN has outlined above, the actual beliefs they are including could be anyone who simply thinks the notion of a designer is plausible.

I suspect a LOT of the people surveyed would be surprised (and dismayed) to hear they have been included in the "four out of 10 Britons believe [creationism] to be the literal truth"

I've always felt the term 'Intelligent Design' could have been a very genuine and usable concept, had it not been taken over by Christian zealots, and this 'report' *spit* simply now proves it worthlessness.

Akrasia

limerick_woody wrote: »

this sounds like a bull**** poll to me - what questions were asked i wonder? I can't beleive for a second that 40% of any population anywhere, even in the theocracy of the US truly believe such a ridiculous theory. For example in the US recently another poll suggested that 50% of the people were unaware that Genesis is the first book of the bible, no doubt because most people don't waste there time actually reading the bible. I sincerely doubt that a high proportion of any random group would even be aware of the creationists fantasy. I take all poll results with a large dose of skepticism.

You don't have to read the bible to be a creationist. Creationism thrives amongst ignorism. They don't promote it using evidence or convincing arguments, but with soundbytes, misinformation, fear and aspirations.

If you ask these 'creationists' they will probably say at some point "I don't believe we evolved from monkeys' (which is actually correct, we didn't evolve from monkeys, we just share a common ancestor.)

They don't understand either creationism or evolution, but given the choice between the two, they choose god because believing in evolution doesn't promise rewards or threaten punishments.

They can't believe that anything as complex and beautiful as planet we inhabit could have come about 'by chance' (again, another misrepresentation of evolution). This is because of their own lack of mental capacity, they think that just because they personally can't understand it, that evolution must be wrong. Its easier to say 'a magic man done it' than to understand the process of natural selection. And their ignorance is not helped by the massive amounts of misinformaton propagated by the creationist movement. (ridiculous claims that we have never found 'the missing link' as though there's supposed to be a furry man with a monkey tail running around somewhere, when in reality, scientists have cataloged so many 'links' in the evolution of man that its getting harder and harder to define when one stage ends and the next one begins.

rockbeer

Dades wrote: »

That article has simply bastardised some random statistics to make a more shocking story.

You might well be right - that's how the media works, after all, reputable paper or not.

But I think you're being a bit complacent here Dades. As Prof Jones says at the end, for twenty years he only ever had one creationist dissenting from studying evolution. Now it's a common occurrence.

And as Robin says, the danger is of creationism becoming a gateway belief. II wouldn't want to be paranoid or overstate the case, but tat the same time there's clearly a sea change.

Dades wrote: »

As PDN has outlined above, the actual beliefs they are including could be anyone who simply thinks the notion of a designer is plausible.

True - but the article is focussing on science and education, domains where such beliefs should have no place. Why, if there's no problem, do the numbers seem to be rising?

Dades wrote: »

I've always felt the term 'Intelligent Design' could have been a very genuine and usable concept, had it not been taken over by Christian zealots, and this 'report' *spit* simply now proves it worthlessness.

It has upset you! I don't really see what use the term 'Intelligent Design' is without some way of testing its accuracy. Otherwise it just serves to legitimize an entirely speculative concept.

Dades

rockbeer wrote: »

It has upset you! I don't really see what use the term 'Intelligent Design' is without some way of testing its accuracy. Otherwise it just serves to legitimize an entirely speculative concept.

I'll just respond to this as I think it sums up the problem for me.

Intelligent Design should be just a speculative concept, and I suspect that's what it is when you ask a passer-by on the street about it. The problem is when you ask a man on the street does he believe in evolution, or does he think Intelligent Design is responsible - you have just made the survey worthless. You are implying that believing in evolution precludes there being any sort of ID in the universe, rather than simply moving that 'design' further back into the universe's timeline. Hence, people, rather than giving up the notion of a designer, have to "doubt" evolution as that's the only option open to them.

Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong POV. Perhaps we need articles like this to sensationalise the ignorance of people to stop the rot. I just wish it was less disingenuous.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Intelligent Design should be just a speculative concept

ID on its own can be treated like any other explanation for what we see around the place and I don't think too many people have problems with that.

However, creationists conflate the legitimacy of ID as a speculative idea, with the notion that ID is a respectable substitute for lack of knowledge. In other words, when other theories run out of explicative wind, a creationist will step in, pull ID out of his back pocket, say "That's ID, that is", and there, JC-like, discussion stops moving forward.

If ID encouraged ground-breaking research, created new ideas, spawned an honest academic community which tested it double-blind and to destruction, then it's arguably quite reasonable for people to subscribe to it, and perhaps to give ID a place in a science syllabus. But as a sticking-plaster for "I don't know and I don't care", ID deserves to be left in the bin by the door.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The survey says that 40% either believe in Creationism or in ID, so it's hardly claiming that 40% share the views of Young Earth Creationists like JC and Wolfsbane. ID, when used in its broadest sense, simply refers to the belief that certain things about the universe are best explained by a Creator rather than by random chance. In that sense virtually every Christian will included in the 40% even if they believe in evolution.

Well that is getting a pretty broad definition.

Intelligent Design, in its common usage, is the claim that certain aspect of the universe, such as biological life, demonstrate the conclusion of the existence of an intelligent designer because of the impossibility that they could have arisen naturally (ie through something like Darwinian evolution).

In that sense it is directly challenging theories like evolution.

And, probably more importantly, the idea that this is a reasonable conclusion undermines some rather important scientific principles.

marco_polo

Dades wrote: »

I'll just respond to this as I think it sums up the problem for me.

Intelligent Design should be just a speculative concept, and I suspect that's what it is when you ask a passer-by on the street about it. The problem is when you ask a man on the street does he believe in evolution, or does he think Intelligent Design is responsible - you have just made the survey worthless. You are implying that believing in evolution precludes there being any sort of ID in the universe, rather than simply moving that 'design' further back into the universe's timeline. Hence, people, rather than giving up the notion of a designer, have to "doubt" evolution as that's the only option open to them.

Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong POV. Perhaps we need articles like this to sensationalise the ignorance of people to stop the rot. I just wish it was less disingenuous.

Good points Dades, I think that the majority people who are members of the major churches are comfortable with the concept of thestic evolution. But when given a hopelessly limited choice in a survey would understandably side with God .

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that is getting a pretty broad definition.

Intelligent Design, in its common usage, is the claim that certain aspect of the universe, such as biological life, demonstrate the conclusion of the existence of an intelligent designer because of the impossibility that they could have arisen naturally (ie through something like Darwinian evolution).

In that sense it is directly challenging theories like evolution.

And, probably more importantly, the idea that this is a reasonable conclusion undermines some rather important scientific principles.

According to your beloved wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"

My understanding of ID is that it does not claim any impossibility about aspects of the universe arising naturally, but rather that an intelligent designer is the best explanation.

It does not directly challenge evolution since it is perfectly possible to believe that an intelligent designer used evolution to create and shape aspects of the universe.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

Intelligent Design, in its common usage, is the claim that certain aspect of the universe, such as biological life, demonstrate the conclusion of the existence of an intelligent designer because of the impossibility that they could have arisen naturally (ie through something like Darwinian evolution).

Speculating about IDs involvement in biological life is a lot different than speculating a role in the origin of matter, for example.

Unfortunately ID is only ever really associated with the former these days, and once you bring ID into the realm of things close to home, the designer has a tendency to become one of the human gods.

Sapien

PDN wrote: »

My understanding of ID is that it does not claim any impossibility about aspects of the universe arising naturally, but rather that an intelligent designer is the best explanation.

It does not directly challenge evolution since it is perfectly possible to believe that an intelligent designer used evolution to create and shape aspects of the universe.

That is not what Intelligent Design posits. It requires that the process of evolution by natural selection is not enough to explain the diversity of life. The idea that evolution is the mechanism by which the creator works his will is a much weaker contention. ID hinges on the idea of Irreducible Complexity, which attempts to show that some biological features, like flagella, could not have developed from a simpler structure, but had to be invented - created - as they are found.

ID is fundamentally at odds with the theory of evolution by natural selection, and it is fundamentally unscientific.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

My understanding of ID is that it does not claim any impossibility about aspects of the universe arising naturally, but rather that an intelligent designer is the best explanation.

Well if you look at concepts used to justify Intelligent Design, such as Irreducible complexity (from my "beloved" Wikipedia), that is exactly what they claim, that it would be impossible for these systems to develop through natural process such as evolution, that intelligent design is the only explanation.

This isn't an accident.

Intelligent Design groups like the Discovery Institute have to argue that processes like evolution cannot produce life, because given the option between a perfectly workable natural explanation (which is therefore possible to model and test and falsify, all required by science) and an untestable supernatural explanation people the natural model will be picked over the supernatural guess.

[EDIT]
The term "Intelligent Design" was coined on purpose to be in direct opposition to evolution, because evolution is often known as undirected design, or unintelligent design. It would be rather inaccurate to describe evolution started off by an intelligence as intelligent design, because if evolution is taking place then the intelligence is not designing the structure of life, evolution is and evolution is an undirected process. Think of it like pushing a car over a hill. You may push it over, but you aren't steering it as it rolls down the hill. There is a reason why the phrase was coined as "Intelligent Design" and it was precisely to oppose theories of indirect design such as evolution.

PDN wrote: »

It does not directly challenge evolution since it is perfectly possible to believe that an intelligent designer used evolution to create and shape aspects of the universe.

It is perfectly possible to believe that, but that isn't what is understood by Intelligent Design. Such a concept is commonly known as theistic evolution, known as an example of indirect creation. While Intelligent Design is commonly known as a process of direct creation.

Again from my beloved Wikipedia

Some adherents of theistic evolution hold that the deity both designed the universe and has a continuing part in its development, and feel that a term they favour has been hijacked by the proponents of the viewpoint called "Intelligent design". One notable proponent of theistic evolution, Francis Collins is a critic of Intelligent design.

This is a country of contrasts.

Charles Darwin is on the £10 note and at the same time a % of people believe Prince Phillip was driving a Fiat Uno in Paris about 11 years ago.

The general lack of knowledge of basic bits of science, history, geography and current affairs never ceases to amaze me here.

Galvasean

BJC wrote: »

Why in gods name would someone demand their right not to learn.

I wish I could have demanded the right not to learn algebra.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote: »

I wish I could have demanded the right not to learn algebra.

Tool of the devil! :pac:

cavedave

Have you ever asked yourself what America and the world would look like if the abstinence-only advocating…intelligent design demanding…religious right had the power to enact the legislation they preferred?

here