Half of Britons don't believe in Evolution

[Pawn Power]

While there has been an immense drop in church attendance in England (http://www.revleft.com/vb/90-drop-church-t97590/index.html), a recent survey (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism) has found that half of Britons do not believe in evolution.

Only 50% believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is definitely or probably true.


Half of British adults do not believe in evolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/evolution), with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/charles-darwin)'s theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it.
Of course it is no better in the US.

[Demogorgon]

That is rather worrying, though it isn't quite as bad as it looks. A lot of those people actually simply don't know enough about the subject rather than specifically reject it. That's a failure of education to be sure, but one that is not particularly difficult to rectify.

[ls]

That is rather worrying, though it isn't quite as bad as it looks. A lot of those people actually simply don't know enough about the subject rather than specifically reject it. That's a failure of education to be sure, but one that is not particularly difficult to rectify.

With such a crazy self-titled "socialist" government in power, it is difficult to rectify.

Anyway I'd say 50% is a GOOD result, it could be much worse, that's for sure.

[IcarusAngel]

If you think about it only 25% think it's "definitely true" (in the scientific sense, I assume). That's like 25% of people thinking gravity is "definitely true," perhaps even worse, because evolution is a very supported theory in biology.

Someone explain why this isn't extremely troubling. Is it possible that this number can get better?

Perhaps this is because of the educational reforms of the thatcher years? (I mean, you'd think by now far more people than that would accept it.)

[MMIKEYJ]

I dont believe Darwin's theory of evolution either.. Whats the big deal?

[#FF0000]

I dont believe Darwin's theory of evolution either.. Whats the big deal?

Because it suggests gross ignorance in a good number of people, to put it lightly.

[butterfly]

This be disturbing added to the fact that I was told the equivalent within the US is in the 90 percentile.
How is this not a bid deal?
It shows a complete lack of trust in science and has a great potential to hinder human progress.

[butterfly]

Seriously I thought it would have been something along the lines of 0.0001%.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This be disturbing added to the fact that I was told the equivalent within the US is in the 90 percentile.
How is this not a bid deal?
It shows a complete lack of trust in science and has a great potential to hinder human progress.

Why does it matter if a populace accepts Darwin's theory of evolution or not?

Or better yet, what do you mean by 'human progress'? Would you say that unless the vast majority accept the theory of evolution, the society is doomed to be incapable of scientific achievement?

[butterfly]

Because they're dismissing what modern society is built on, it's boarderline delusional, and hinders scientific achievment.
Frankly I don't think this is even something worth debating...just imagine what kind of precendent that sets, a total rejection of science.

[welshboy]

I dont believe Darwin's theory of evolution either.. Whats the big deal?
Do you not believe in Gravity either? Are the stars the tears of angels? Do Djinn have an important role in nuclear reactions?
tosh.
This is frightening. Not surprising when our education system has next to nothing to do with developing peoples critical thinking faculties.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Rescuing Darwin survey, published to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of *Species, found that around 10% of people chose young Earth creationism – the belief that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years – over evolution.About 12% preferred intelligent design, the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the structures of living organisms. The remainder were unsure, often mixing evolution, intelligent design and creationism together.

It's not as bad as it looks at first, but it's still pretty bad. It's a damning condemnation of our educational system, to be sure.


I dont believe Darwin's theory of evolution either.. Whats the big deal?

The big deal is that evolution is the basis of modern biological science.

[Iowa656]

In the 1700s nearly 100% of the English population believed the Earth was at the center of the Universe. Does that make it true?

In the 1600s nearly 100% of the population believed that the Earth was flat. Does that make it true?

Science is not decided by democracy, by this show of hands. Science looks at the facts and build theories that model them. The theories are continually tested and tweaked to improve them.

If someone chooses not to accept the theory then that is their choice. Sooner or later though the Scientific theory will either be proved true or false. If shown to be false then it will be rewritten.

Given the evidence and counter-evidence, I believe that in 100 or so years in future society will ponder anti-evolutionists the same way we ponder flat earth believers.

[MMIKEYJ]

Do you not believe in Gravity either? Are the stars the tears of angels? Do Djinn have an important role in nuclear reactions?
tosh.
This is frightening. Not surprising when our education system has next to nothing to do with developing peoples critical thinking faculties.

Well, I was taught evolution in school and was brought up that it was factual and true.. and at one time I used to believe that.

However, none of the fossils of primates shows a connection from apes to man. the line always breaks off and stops in a dead end.. and then suddenly (in geological aspect) a different primate appears.

this doesnt mean that I dont believe that animals adapt to their environment and can make subtle changes to facilitate that, I just dont see the transition from fish, to apes, to man.

It appears more likely IMO that human beings were placed on the Earth.

Perhaps by a superior civilization.

[MMIKEYJ]

Because they're dismissing what modern society is built on, it's boarderline delusional, and hinders scientific achievment.
Frankly I don't think this is even something worth debating...just imagine what kind of precendent that sets, a total rejection of science.
All new scientific theories are a result of a rejection of previously believed scientific theories.

[welshboy]

Well, I was taught evolution in school and was brought up that it was factual and true.. and at one time I used to believe that.

However, none of the fossils of primates shows a connection from apes to man. the line always breaks off and stops in a dead end.. and then suddenly (in geological aspect) a different primate appears.

this doesnt mean that I dont believe that animals adapt to their environment and can make subtle changes to facilitate that, I just dont see the transition from fish, to apes, to man.

It appears more likely IMO that human beings were placed on the Earth.

Perhaps by a superior civilization.

Aside from Australopithecus afarensis you mean? Or Homo Habilis? Or Australopithecus africanus?
And that's just apes to human. We have a quite clear and pretty concise understanding of the evolution of life. Ther is no debating the matter. It's as close to fact as it's possible to be.
How life first developed I don't have a clue but that's got zip to do with the fact of evolution.
For the development from fish to birds you could do worse than looking here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html).
Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html)
Continuing human evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928_2.html)

[butterfly]

All new scientific theories are a result of a rejection of previously believed scientific theories.
No...we build on past progress to develop new theories.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, I was taught evolution in school and was brought up that it was factual and true.. and at one time I used to believe that.

However, none of the fossils of primates shows a connection from apes to man. the line always breaks off and stops in a dead end.. and then suddenly (in geological aspect) a different primate appears.

Wrong. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/)


this doesnt mean that I dont believe that animals adapt to their environment and can make subtle changes to facilitate that, I just dont see the transition from fish, to apes, to man.Wrong again. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)


It appears more likely IMO that human beings were placed on the Earth.

Perhaps by a superior civilization.That's a whole different argument, totally lacking in evidence.


All new scientific theories are a result of a rejection of previously believed scientific theories.Wrong. Newton's laws of gravity still apply, but general relativity merely adds extra complications at relativistic speeds and extremes of gravity. Rocket scientists still use Newton's calculations, but at the speeds and gravities they work at Newton's are simpler than Einstein's and work just as well.

Similarly, Darwin's main idea is correct, but he got the details wrong. He didn't predict the discovery of DNA, but it fits in perfectly with his theory.

[Pawn Power]

For those who don't know, here is a very short explanation of evolution (pretty too!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo&eurl=http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

First, accepting the theory of evolution or not isn't that important. I know several physicists who would say, if asked, that they don't subscribe to it. Iowa656 is completely correct.

As for evolution, what we ought to do is further it along at a quicker pace.

[welshboy]

Those physicists are numpties then, same as the chemists who were making a fuss over the LHC. Proficiency in one subject does not mean an adequate understanding of the others. Saying that I am neither a physicist nor an evolutionary biologist I just admire scientific advances in a similar way to the way some admire fine art. :)
You are right though, it couldn't hurt to hurry evolution along. Education is the key to this.

[Blackscare]

I think the whole "we may have been placed here" thing is a crock of shit. I mean, it's just dodging the issue because this "superior" race surely must have come from somewhere itself, right? IT must have evolved, unless every race was created and placed on their home planet by a more advanced race in turn. It's just running from the issue of evolution. It's almost dumber than thinking an invisible man in the sky made us.

[Blackscare]

As for evolution, what we ought to do is further it along at a quicker pace.

Also, as much as I'm in favor of a fair society based on communism, what we would do would eliminate any stimulus that would cause us to evolve.


You are right though, it couldn't hurt to hurry evolution along. Education is the key to this.

Education doesn't change genes, it alters the traits of individuals. Evolution comes from undesirable traits causing animals to die off, and positive traits doing the opposite.

A precursor to evolution was a theory that animals acquired traits and passed them on to offspring, as in a giraffe would stretch it's neck until it became a bit longer, pass that trait on, and the process would repeat in the next generation until the long neck was achieved. This was proven wrong pretty quickly.

It isn't the nail in socialism's coffin by any means (in fact it's good that we're not having to brutally compete like animals), but we would certainly end our own evolution (or mostly so). We've already done that though, since our ability to make tools means we don't have to physically adapt.

All we can do is raise everyone's standard of living to the point that they can achieve all they are capable of, but unless we got into some horrific eugenics program we couldn't actually push the human race one way or the other at this point.

[Pawn Power]

As for evolution, what we ought to do is further it along at a quicker pace.

How does one go about speeding up evolution?:confused:

[synthesis]

While there has been an immense drop in church attendance in England (http://www.revleft.com/vb/90-drop-church-t97590/index.html), a recent survey (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism) has found that half of Britons do not believe in evolution.

Only 50% believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is definitely or probably true.

Of course it is no better in the US.

Yeah, y'all have it good. A third of people here literally believe in the devil.



As for evolution, what we ought to do is further it along at a quicker pace.

That would be nearly impossible, because evolution happens as a result of random genetic mutations that stick around when they help their host survive. To "further along" evolution, you'd have to track down someone with a particularly useful genetic trait, slaughter or sterilize everyone who doesn't have that gene, and then force that person to repopulate the planet while only mating with other people with that particular mutation.

[redSHARP]

yeah, just like the X-men (sorry i just had to!:D).

creationism is a load of bullshit! one superior being decided that there will be life in his image, and gave life to man. then he decided to kill us over random acts! god forbid we find life on other planets because then that means god is a two timing tramp!

the earth is clearly over 6,000 years old (i think that is what creationist think)
carbon dating proves this
fossil records show breaks in evolutionary trees in many places, but that doesnt mean we didnt evolve! chimpanzees have like over 60% of the same chromosomes! you dumb bastards!! explain that! you know the astronomical probablity that any animal would have the same DNA or RNA as humans if we were just created?

and the most damning piece of evidence; COMMON FUCKIN` SENSE!

you know what! black holes dont exist because i cant see it! and the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe! lets just take science and flushing it down a toilet! and all because you feel better at night knowing god is "watching" you; personally i think he is pervert


i thought Europe was suppose to be smarter!

p.s this was not directed at anyone, sorry if i insulted anyone.

[Decolonize The Left]

Also, as much as I'm in favor of a fair society based on communism, what we would do would eliminate any stimulus that would cause us to evolve.

What are you talking about? Evolution by natural selection is constant process...



It isn't the nail in socialism's coffin by any means (in fact it's good that we're not having to brutally compete like animals), but we would certainly end our own evolution (or mostly so). We've already done that though, since our ability to make tools means we don't have to physically adapt.

It is impossible to "end evolution" as far as I understand.


All we can do is raise everyone's standard of living to the point that they can achieve all they are capable of, but unless we got into some horrific eugenics program we couldn't actually push the human race one way or the other at this point.

This makes terribly little sense.
1) It is impossible to "achieve all they are capable of."
2) How does one "push the human race one way or the other?" What does that even mean?

- August

[Bitter Ashes]

At least we have Darwin on the back of the £10 note nowadays.
It is scary to think that people in the UK are still clinging onto such crazy ideas, although it must have been pushed underground or something because I've yet to encounter anyone who would admit to believing in creationism.
One thing that might happen:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm
I guess that gives us as idea of what's at a greater stake here if capitalism continue :lol:

[Rangi]

Thinking that the form of government you choose will affect our evolutionary path is absurd in the extreme. It doesn't take weeks to evolve!

[Bitter Ashes]

Thinking that the form of government you choose will affect our evolutionary path is absurd in the extreme. It doesn't take weeks to evolve!
Read the article. They're suggesting thousands of years :)

[scarletghoul]

Meh, I don't believe in evolution either. But its quite possible. Doesn't really interest me, and doesn't seem relevant right now, so I never bothered looking into it.

[welshboy]

Meh, I don't believe in evolution either. But its quite possible. Doesn't really interest me, and doesn't seem relevant right now, so I never bothered looking into it.
Do you believe in gravity? Modern medicine?
For fucks sake, it really beggars belief.
I swear there will be camps after the revolution....
;)

[Killfacer]

Meh, I don't believe in evolution either. But its quite possible. Doesn't really interest me, and doesn't seem relevant right now, so I never bothered looking into it.

So the origin of intelligent life is just boring and uninteresting? What do you believe?

[Invader Zim]

What about the other 28%?

[Jazzratt]

Meh, I don't believe in evolution either. But its quite possible. Doesn't really interest me, and doesn't seem relevant right now, so I never bothered looking into it.

What the hell is wrong with you? If you can abbreviate the list to what inspires you to this height of stupidity that would be helpful.


Fucking hell, half of us don't "believe" in evolution and yet the "left" is encouraging people to leave school. As welshboy pointed out it beggars belief.

[Bud Struggle]

The other thread down the line said that the British don't go to church (and presumably don't believe in God.) Now this thread says the British don't believe in Evolution--I think the real question is what DO the British believe in? :crying:

[Bitter Ashes]

We worship with a stiff upper lip the omnipitant prescense of tea.
Only the British Army would ever ensure that every single last one of thier armoured vehicles includes a built in diesel powered kettle. Only the British can ever get excited about a cup (just watch our faces when you offer us a cup it's like "Oooooh!!! yes please!!!!"). During the 2nd world war, the main focus was actualy upon us ensuring we could secure enough of the stuff.
We get up in the morning and have tea. We give blood, we have tea. The Tube gets bombed, what do we do? Why, we distribute tea of course!
I think my country may be a little obsessed with the stuff... It's funny, I fancy some now *boils the kettle*:lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

Fucking hell, half of us don't "believe" in evolution and yet the "left" is encouraging people to leave school.
Shit, so we're not on the left any more? :(
Anyways, the schooling debate is utterly irrelevant to this topic.

As for evolution, we evolve to meet our conditions. This doesn't mean that evolution necessarily makes things 'better', just 'fitter' to survive in their current environment. As it is, we're already surviving fine, so socialism wouldn't exactly slow our evolution down or speed it up any more than capitalism, neoliberal rhetoric aside.


You are right though, it couldn't hurt to hurry evolution along.
Sure it could. It depends on the environment that we are adapting to.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm
That looks suspiciously similar to whining about mp3 players, except with biology.

[scarletghoul]

I don't believe in anything (about creation/evolution of man)
It's not terribly important to me
All I know is that we exist and we have more important things to worry about.
Just don't see the point in believing
What differance would it make?

When you eat food, you dont ask "what came first, the chicken or the egg?", you just eat and appreciate the succulence of the delicious chicken. (and egg too if you like them)

[kiki75]

I'm reading JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and The Plot to Assassinate JFK. The author posits that Darwin's theory of evolution (the assertion of survival of the fittest) is actually one of the ways in which The Ones in Power (my term, not his) are keeping us under control. Belief in Darwin's theory makes it easier to control the masses *and* maintain the right to do so (thru any means necessary).

I think it's an interesting theory and can see his point, so maybe ppl not believing in evolution has some positive side to it.

Regardless, I agree with Scarletghoul. We have more important things to worry about. Imagine how much further along we could be politically if ppl stop dedicating so much import to conversations and beliefs like this.

[Rangi]

Evolution takes a lot longer than the term of any power or government that I have ever heard of holding control.

If you don't believe in evolution then you need to go and read some books. Either that or move to bible belt America and marry your cousin.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't believe in anything (about creation/evolution of man)
It's not terribly important to me

It's actually very fucking important. Ever had a vaccination? That's you, benefitting from biological science, of which evolution forms an indispensible part.

At least have the common fucking decency to appreciate what knowledge of evolution has done for yourself and others.


All I know is that we exist and we have more important things to worry about.Evolution underpins modern biological science. It is of utmost importance.


Just don't see the point in believing
What differance would it make?It is in your own self-interest to support evolution. If creationism gains a significant foothold, science and everyone who benefits from it will suffer.


When you eat food, you dont ask "what came first, the chicken or the egg?", you just eat and appreciate the succulence of the delicious chicken. (and egg too if you like them)Well thankfully most of us are capable of thinking beyond our own bloody stomachs. :rolleyes: Even intellectually lazy idiots like yourself benefit.


I'm reading JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and The Plot to Assassinate JFK. The author posits that Darwin's theory of evolution (the assertion of survival of the fittest) is actually one of the ways in which The Ones in Power (my term, not his) are keeping us under control. Belief in Darwin's theory makes it easier to control the masses *and* maintain the right to do so (thru any means necessary).

I think it's an interesting theory and can see his point, so maybe ppl not believing in evolution has some positive side to it.

You're getting your information on evolution from conspiracy theory books? Are you serious?! :huh:


Regardless, I agree with Scarletghoul. We have more important things to worry about. Imagine how much further along we could be politically if ppl stop dedicating so much import to conversations and beliefs like this.Yeah, modern biological science; who needs that? :rolleyes:

Seriously, the anti-intellectualism in this thread alone is shocking.

[kiki75]

You're getting your information on evolution from conspiracy theory books?
Yes. That's exactly what I said in my post. You were in all the advanced reading levels, weren't you?

[scarletghoul]

No need to insult me, man. chill

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes. That's exactly what I said in my post. You were in all the advanced reading levels, weren't you?

Frankly I'm surprised you give that kind of shit the time of day.

[Jazzratt]

I'm reading JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and The Plot to Assassinate JFK. The author posits that Darwin's theory of evolution (the assertion of survival of the fittest) is actually one of the ways in which The Ones in Power (my term, not his) are keeping us under control. Belief in Darwin's theory makes it easier to control the masses *and* maintain the right to do so (thru any means necessary).

Except that's the same strawman of evolutionary ethics (for want of a better term) that the christian right pull out to show that atheists are immoral bastards that don't care about anyone. It's an amazingly simplistic view of evolution too and one that ignores that intra-(and even occasionally inter- in the case of symbiotic creatures) species cooperation is "encouraged" (again, for want of a better term) by nature [this is also, I realise simplifying it, assigning motives to "nature" and so on but I think you see what I'm driving at, yes?].


I think it's an interesting theory and can see his point, so maybe ppl not believing in evolution has some positive side to it.

Ignorance is never postive.


Regardless, I agree with Scarletghoul. We have more important things to worry about. Imagine how much further along we could be politically if ppl stop dedicating so much import to conversations and beliefs like this.

If it were left up to people like you and scarlet we'd not even have grasped the basics of controlled fire. Biological theory like evolution is useful in biological engineering - like medicine and genetic modification. Stagnating science because you think it politically useful to be aloof of it is contemptible.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I don't believe in anything (about creation/evolution of man)
It's not terribly important to me
All I know is that we exist and we have more important things to worry about.
Just don't see the point in believing
What differance would it make?

When you eat food, you dont ask "what came first, the chicken or the egg?", you just eat and appreciate the succulence of the delicious chicken. (and egg too if you like them)

I argue that the chicken came first because then who would drop the egg?