Survey: Half of Britons do not believe in evolution

www.guardian.co.uk...

More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory

Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.



James Williams, a lecturer at Sussex University, said: "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."


"Evolution is very badly taught in schools so the results of the survey don't surprise me. On the other hand, creationism has traditionally been an issue in North America and there is a big problem in Australia and Turkey. It matters if people don't understand how science works."

i dont know whats the big deal...

everybody has the right to believe whatever they want..

Originally posted by Next_Heap_With
i dont know whats the big deal...

everybody has the right to believe whatever they want..

The big deal is it shows a large number of people have been failed by the education system,as it says many people are "confused" by evolution therefore pick the easy scapegoat "God did it".If people actually understood evolution this survey would be different,although i put no faith in surveys anyhoo,i can count on one hand the amount of people ive ever met that didn't believe in evolution.

reply to post by Next_Heap_With


Noone said they dont have the right to believe in other things. But when the evidence for one thing exists:

1)
It is a sad thing that they dont learn about it.

2)
It is a sad thing that they deny it.

3)
It is a sad thing that they make up stuff and serve it as truth.

And the million dollar question is........

DRUMROLL "Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

What about the dinosaurs?

And don't give me that crud about 'God put dinosaurs there to test Man' because that ain't going to cut it with me.

theres already a thread on this here www.abovetopsecret.com...' they really fudged the figures

10% not 33% believe the earth is less then 10k years old

50% agree with evolution and 28% cant tell the differance between ID creationism and evolution, and the other 12% are pro ID

so really 22% are against evolution, 28% dont have a clue and 50% are pro evolution (no distinction of theistic or natural evolution is made)

although the people who funded the report then go on to do the same thing they are accusing athiest of and tart trying to make athiests look bad (somehow we hate humanity and moralistic living and use evolution to justify it when evolution its self says the opposite of thier claims)

[edit on 2/2/09 by noobfun]

Well if they teach it in school it must be correct

Personaly i believe in evolution as a natural process, you would have to be on some serious drugs to deny that but with regards to us Human(oid)s ill go with the Intelligent design theory mixed in with some DNA dabbling by our space bro's!

reply to post by Master Shen long


Now if these Brit's are saying that they believe in ET Intelligent Design, then I'm all ears and on the same page

Wow....... I didn't realise that there were only 2,060 adults in the UK this must be conclusive evidence......

I'm from the UK and I was taught evolution at school along with everyone else that I know. What is scary is that the UK press c*#?s are seemingly trying to associate the people with this american...... naivety.

There has been a recent spate of the UK media trying to push all things american on the British people. How on earth can the BBC show the american soccer super bowl on its main channel at a peak time, and then refuse to show the aid appeal for Gaza?

Out of the apparent 2,060 adults in the UK I can guarantee that the 4 that probably watched the super bowl are the ones that advocate creationist dark age theory

reply to post by Kryties


People will believe anything, as long as it doesn't involve God.

reply to post by Solomons


I'm from the UK, I understand evolution, and I understand creationism. I think both go hand in hand.

I think the person quoted, saying it's a fact, so must be accepted is wrong.

Evolution is considered 'proven' in 5 out of 6 of it's key tenets. Although that's not the same as 'mathmatically proven', it could still be revoked upon falsification.

For me, I prefer to go with the scientific route, I consider the fact that scientists have 'proven' 5/6 key elements a good sign that they are close to the truth on this matter, closer than the creationists, but I would still never claim it's a fact, it's just very likely correct based on the data that we have.

reply to post by one_man24


shouldnt that be will beliueve anything as long as it involves god

dont forget most of the world evolutionist are them selfs religeous, its only a minority in each religeon that believe their own brand of creationist nonesense

if everyone who accepted evolution were athiest we wouldnt be a minority, we would be the over whelming majority

I share their skepticism, and I dare say, the Anti-Religion sentiment in this thread is disgraceful.

Perhaps those that believe their ancestors crawled out of a soup of amino acids, then eventually evolved to swinging from trees by their tails and then moved on to what they are today, are correct. The majority seems to believe that, so it should be no surprise that the majority of humanoids act like animals.

Humanoids are defined throughout history by acts of selfishness, jealousy, envy, strife, conflict, hatred, pride, prejudice, wrath, brutality, murders, genocides, vengeance, injustice, lies and WAR.


I prefer to believe I am the product of a divine creator (the force that set all the laws of the universe in place and without which none of us could take our next breath). It's why I have the innate ability to Love my neighbor as myself, wish no harm to anyone, do unto others what I want them to do to me, forgive, and live a generally happier life than those who express dissent upon my beliefs.


Back with main subject,

The simple problem with Evolution is that it's the only theory out there that tries to explain the biological formation of man without directly and inherently connecting it with Religion. That sometimes promotes disregarding Science and Facts because it suits your personal beliefs. Atheism, among others.

Furthermore, Evolutionists completely ignore evidence of Creation.


Such as:

Irreducible complexity—Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.


Instantaneous complexity—Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.


Mathematically impossible—Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.


Complicated interrelated functions of separate systems—All of the various structures and organs in every living thing are marvelously interrelated. In order to maintain its existence, each part depends on many others.


Extremely involved production sequence—The various processes by which things are made in living organisms are complicated in the extreme. Very lengthy production sequences are generally required. Each step in the procedure must follow other correctly taken steps.


Coded instructions which are referred to and obeyed—Not only are coded instructions provided for everything done in the cell, but proteins and enzymes read and obey these instructions—as though they had the brains to do this!


Ideal location of structures—Every component on or within each organism is consistently located in the best place, in relation to other components, space limitations, and maximum efficiency in operation.

Narrowed limits everywhere—Wherever we turn in the natural world (here on earth and in the sky above us) we find that, what is called, the "anthropic principle" is involved. An extremely narrow range of conditions exists where life can exist, stars can form, and planets can revolve and orbit around the sun. This narrowed range is found repeatedly by researchers, and is too compressed to have been caused by accidents or coincidence.

Excessive information content and capacity in life forms—Such a capacity, far beyond the bare minimum needed for survival, is repeatedly found. The brain power of mankind is remarkable. The lower forms of life also show an abundance of capacity beyond the amount needed for mere survival.

The characteristic of life itself—Within every living organism is a mysterious something which cannot be initiated by any known natural or human-induced device or method.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by ablissfulman]

Originally posted by ablissfulman
I prefer to believe I am the product of a divine creator (the force that set all the laws of the universe in place and without which none of us could take our next breath). It's why I have the innate ability to Love my neighbor as myself, wish no harm to anyone, do unto others what I want them to do to me, forgive, and live a generally happier life than those who express dissent upon my beliefs.

I'm sorry, but it really doesn't matter one bit what you "prefer" to believe. What you desire has no impact on what is actually true. The bottom line is that, by its nature, the idea of a god or creator is unfalsifiable and untestable. Therefore, there can't be any conclusive evidence supporting the existence of such a being.

The evidence you reference, especially the idea of "irreducible complexity" has been debunked time and time again in the scientific community and even on this forum. I will refer you to a paper written by cell biologist Ken Miller, in which "irreducibly complexity" is totally dismantled.

www.millerandlevine.com...

By the way, the biologist that wrote this paper is, himself, a Christian.

Instantaneous complexity—Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Do you know how embryos form? Two haploid gametes join to form a diploid zygote, which begins dividing and forms into an embryo over a period of weeks or months. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that upon conception, organisms form instantaneously in their adult form in the womb?

Mathematically impossible—Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.

First of all, though abiogenesis may have been largely random, evolution is not. Not a single person who is actually educated about the theory of evolution by natural selection will tell you it is random.

Furthermore, the idea that mathematicians would say any low-likelihood event is "impossible" is ridiculous. If nothing else, they would merely say that it's highly unlikely.

Also, care to link me to the "mathematicians" you're talking about? If you're referring to Dembski, his arguments have also been demolished. I suggest you read "Logic and Math Turn to Smoke and Mirrors: William Dembski's 'Design Inference'" by Dr. Wesley R. Elsberry.

Complicated interrelated functions of separate systems—All of the various structures and organs in every living thing are marvelously interrelated. In order to maintain its existence, each part depends on many others.

You realize this says nothing about the possibility of them having evolved, correct? Organs can be evolved for one function but adapted for another, etc. etc. If you knew the first thing about evolutionary theory, you wouldn't make a fool of yourself by putting forth arguments that showcase your obvious ignorance.

Extremely involved production sequence—The various processes by which things are made in living organisms are complicated in the extreme. Very lengthy production sequences are generally required. Each step in the procedure must follow other correctly taken steps.

Please explain why complex cellular processes show that evolution did not occur.

Coded instructions which are referred to and obeyed—Not only are coded instructions provided for everything done in the cell, but proteins and enzymes read and obey these instructions—as though they had the brains to do this!

Again showing how tremendously small in scope your knowledge of biochemistry and cell biology is. Proteins and enzymes don't do those things because of any kind of intelligent agent- they do it because the chemicals that comprise them are constantly reacting with the other surrounding carbon compounds.

Ideal location of structures—Every component on or within each organism is consistently located in the best place, in relation to other components, space limitations, and maximum efficiency in operation.

Are you kidding? We have organs in our bodies that are vestigial- they don't even have any current functional purpose any longer. Did you know that the reason humans often have back problems in older age is that the skeletal structure we have, common (in basic form) to all vertebrate mammals, was not adapted for bipedalism (that's walking on two legs, for you). Our basic skeletal structure is more evolved for walking on four limbs than two, which actually causes severe health problems in humans.

We are not "designed" for maximum efficiency, au contraire, many things about the human body and those of other organisms are distinctly inefficient.

Narrowed limits everywhere—Wherever we turn in the natural world (here on earth and in the sky above us) we find that, what is called, the "anthropic principle" is involved. An extremely narrow range of conditions exists where life can exist, stars can form, and planets can revolve and orbit around the sun. This narrowed range is found repeatedly by researchers, and is too compressed to have been caused by accidents or coincidence.

Reversely, you could say that the anthropic principle means nothing because if those conditions didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to speculate about their low probability.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by SamuraiDrifter]