Britons unconvinced on Darwinian Evolution
Discussion
I sadly missed the Horizon programme that this report quotes, but the statistics make interesting reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.st
Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:
• 22% chose creationism
• 17% opted for intelligent design
• 48% selected evolution theory
• the rest did not know
Any comments on this? What do PHers think? Personally, I vote for evolution, with possible intelligent guidance, as I am a scientist who believes in God.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.st
Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:
• 22% chose creationism
• 17% opted for intelligent design
• 48% selected evolution theory
• the rest did not know
Any comments on this? What do PHers think? Personally, I vote for evolution, with possible intelligent guidance, as I am a scientist who believes in God.
RobM77 said:
I sadly missed the Horizon programme that this report quotes, but the statistics make interesting reading:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.st
Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:
* 22% chose creationism
* 17% opted for intelligent design
* 48% selected evolution theory
* the rest did not know
Any comments on this? What do PHers think? Personally, I vote for evolution, with possible intelligent guidance, as I am a scientist who believes in God.
Havent we just done this? All it shows is that we are no brighter or better educated than the Yanks.
As regards your latter statement, how can a scientist vote for intelligent guidance when there is not a shred of evidence for it?
s2art said:
As regards your latter statement, how can a scientist vote for intelligent guidance when there is not a shred of evidence for it?
A fair question. I believe that what has been proven by established scientific theories is a subset of the truth, not the truth. After all, relativity was at work before Einstein was even born, and God may be at work now.
RobM77 said:
As regards your latter statement, how can a scientist vote for intelligent guidance when there is not a shred of evidence for it?
A fair question. I believe that what has been proven by established scientific theories is a subset of the truth, not the truth. After all, relativity was at work before Einstein was even born, and God may be at work now.
Science has proven nothing. Our best theories are simply waiting to be disproven.
God, the flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns may be at work now. So what?
Evidence first.
Evolution - 100% convinced.
I am actually a "Born Again Christian" however, going to Church was something I did in my youth. I now realise that at the time the only reason I attended Church/youth group/bible time etc. was for the chicks. There were a few hotties, and I'm proud to say I had a bit of a dabble with a couple of them.
I am now, sadly, much older and wiser and have come to the conclusion that religion and the theory of creation is all hogwash.
The Bible - The greatest story ever told.
I am actually a "Born Again Christian" however, going to Church was something I did in my youth. I now realise that at the time the only reason I attended Church/youth group/bible time etc. was for the chicks. There were a few hotties, and I'm proud to say I had a bit of a dabble with a couple of them.
I am now, sadly, much older and wiser and have come to the conclusion that religion and the theory of creation is all hogwash.
The Bible - The greatest story ever told.
Evolution as clearly the most plausible option, given the evidence to hand.
Creationism I won't dignify.
ID...is just creationism with a twist because straight creationism is too ridiculous (oops, I just commented on it!).
ID relies on the concept of an interested 'god', whereas any real higher-entity will fall into two categories:-
- An inhabitant of the universe, therefore someone who must 'take' the universes rules and constants;
- A 'creator' of the universe, who could set initial conditions, although probably not modify them as they go along. Whether such a being could subsequently take action within the universe is unknown, but we'd better go with 'yes', or it's a very short argument which goes 'God made Big Bang, everything else happened as per rules of universe'
However, as both remaining options would likely be indistinguishable from evolutionary theory in evidence, and any such being would probably far prefer introducing evolution as a method of change as opposed to all that pratting around trying to put the beak on the platypus, then in those cases it doens't matter - a 'god' has introduced evolution, so the scientists are still right, they just haven't looked at the next level up as there is no evidence of it yet.
Unfortunately, what this survey proves is that over 1/3 of the population are gullible...probably the same 1/3 that voted Labour in the last election!
Creationism I won't dignify.
ID...is just creationism with a twist because straight creationism is too ridiculous (oops, I just commented on it!).
ID relies on the concept of an interested 'god', whereas any real higher-entity will fall into two categories:-
- An inhabitant of the universe, therefore someone who must 'take' the universes rules and constants;
- A 'creator' of the universe, who could set initial conditions, although probably not modify them as they go along. Whether such a being could subsequently take action within the universe is unknown, but we'd better go with 'yes', or it's a very short argument which goes 'God made Big Bang, everything else happened as per rules of universe'
However, as both remaining options would likely be indistinguishable from evolutionary theory in evidence, and any such being would probably far prefer introducing evolution as a method of change as opposed to all that pratting around trying to put the beak on the platypus, then in those cases it doens't matter - a 'god' has introduced evolution, so the scientists are still right, they just haven't looked at the next level up as there is no evidence of it yet.
Unfortunately, what this survey proves is that over 1/3 of the population are gullible...probably the same 1/3 that voted Labour in the last election!
You can see the questionaire can't you?
Do you believe the teachings of the bible/koran/B&Q catalogue? If Yes tick creationism.
Do you think it's awfully convenient that we have all these different kinds of animals? If Yes tick ID
Are you convinced that the theory of evolution is 100% correct? If No tick don't know
If interviewee runs away/hits you/stutters/says "erm" or anything else for that matter, tick "Dunno" or if your data is looking like it may be leaning too far in a given direction tick whatever you think id the current underdog.
Do you believe the teachings of the bible/koran/B&Q catalogue? If Yes tick creationism.
Do you think it's awfully convenient that we have all these different kinds of animals? If Yes tick ID
Are you convinced that the theory of evolution is 100% correct? If No tick don't know
If interviewee runs away/hits you/stutters/says "erm" or anything else for that matter, tick "Dunno" or if your data is looking like it may be leaning too far in a given direction tick whatever you think id the current underdog.
s2art said:
As regards your latter statement, how can a scientist vote for intelligent guidance when there is not a shred of evidence for it?
A fair question. I believe that what has been proven by established scientific theories is a subset of the truth, not the truth. After all, relativity was at work before Einstein was even born, and God may be at work now.
Science has proven nothing. Our best theories are simply waiting to be disproven.
God, the flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns may be at work now. So what?
Evidence first.
It is all about degrees of doubt. Science produces theories and it is then up to other scientists to observe the world and see if things follow that theory. You could argue that Force doesn't equal Mass multiplied by Acceleration, but there is overwhelming evidence that it does, so one is wise to use this when calculating basic mechanics. This is obviously a 400 year old theory, but there are other theories, such as the theory behind flight, which is newer, but trusted.
To go back to my original post, I'm not going to disbelieve something just because it hasn't been proven. My faith in God is strong enough not to wait until science prove's God's existence, which it may never do in my lifetime, and my life and other people's lifes around me could indeed benefit from that faith that I have.
RobM77 said:
As regards your latter statement, how can a scientist vote for intelligent guidance when there is not a shred of evidence for it?
A fair question. I believe that what has been proven by established scientific theories is a subset of the truth, not the truth. After all, relativity was at work before Einstein was even born, and God may be at work now.
Science has proven nothing. Our best theories are simply waiting to be disproven.
God, the flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns may be at work now. So what?
Evidence first.
It is all about degrees of doubt. Science produces theories and it is then up to other scientists to observe the world and see if things follow that theory. You could argue that Force doesn't equal Mass multiplied by Acceleration, but there is overwhelming evidence that it does, so one is wise to use this when calculating basic mechanics. This is obviously a 400 year old theory, but there are other theories, such as the theory behind flight, which is newer, but trusted.
To go back to my original post, I'm not going to disbelieve something just because it hasn't been proven. My faith in God is strong enough not to wait until science prove's God's existence, which it may never do in my lifetime, and my life and other people's lifes around me could indeed benefit from that faith that I have.
But it is not about disbelieving is it? It rather that in the absence of evidence there is no reason to believe.
Otherwise we could believe in any number of evidence free theories, of which religion is the best example.
In what way do your and other peoples lives benefit from your fantasy?
RobM77 said:
...and my life and other people's lifes around me could indeed benefit from that faith that I have.
Genuine question - how will your faith benefit yourself/others? Surely even without your belief you'd still be the same person and take the same actions? Or would not having faith make you a less helpful and compassionate person? Or a weaker person?
Sorry, i wouldn't vote for evolution. It just strikes me as a typical human "we know everything" reponse yet we've hardly started our journey as a race. The same thing is with global warming - there is a this huge planet with millions upon millions of variables - yet scientists with a straight face say they understand whats happening. Yeah right.
tinman0 said:
Sorry, i wouldn't vote for evolution. It just strikes me as a typical human "we know everything" reponse yet we've hardly started our journey as a race. The same thing is with global warming - there is a this huge planet with millions upon millions of variables - yet scientists with a straight face say they understand whats happening. Yeah right.
So you ignore the vast amount of evidence because we dont know everything yet. Well guess what, we will never know everything.
How about looking at the evidence, and then coming to a conclusion?
Its the way to bet.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff