I’m more worried by the fact that only 30% of Americans believe in evolution!

Lets keep in mind that if there was no ‘don’t know/disinterested’ option then many people will have picked partly at random and more likely for whatever they thought sounded like they were knowledgable.

Many many people don’t know what Intelligent Design is – But they would have comfortably voted for an option that had two positive words in it (intelligent and design).

“my figures are rough as the economist doesn’t provide figures irritatingly, just a pictoral graph”
Gracchi, the detailed figures can be found here (p8):
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/FullPollData.pdf
And there was indeed a “Don’t know” option.

The biggest creationist group in the Uk have been quiet for the past few months, we think they have something up their sleeves;

http://truthinsciencerevealed.blogspot.com/

Anyone interested in trying to counter such nonsense would be welcome at the BCSE;

http://bcseweb.org.uk/

Regards,

Psi

It is more than a “social stigma.” Instead, it represents the great falling away from Christianity which is occuring because of secularism and Darwinism.

Recenlty, a friend experienced a crisis in life which he felt he could not handle. He came out of church three weeks ago and killed himself in the parking lot. It is sad to state that many of you reading this blog are also committing suicide, little by little, day by day. You are doing so by denying the Christ and going about persecuting Jesus in your athiest and evolutionist blogs. Do you not know that the Creator is also a judge: He will judge each of you according to the works done in this body, some into everlasting punishment in hell fire and others into eternal life in heaven. Will you continue to commit suicide, not given heed to the existence of hell to those who persecute Jesus?

Have you put your trust in Darwinism? You may want to ask yourself this question:

WHY DID DARWIN HATE A GOD WHOM HE DID NOT BELIEVE EXISTED?

The following dissertation on Darwin is lifted from Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, a series of seven books on origins based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect.

On the outset, the reader should be aware that Darwin was a self-proclaimed agnostic; he did not deny the possibility that God exists but believed it was beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is, indeed, any divine force. Darwin, in response to an invitation to become a Patron of the Cat Show (September 18, 1872), lightheartedly referred to himself and cronies as “atheistical cats.” By definition, an atheist either does not believe in, or denies the existence of God. Regardless of the profile, agnostics and atheists alike believe that all questions concerning origins, being, and the like may be explained fully by material phenomena and logic; scientists have since added a third dimension, the orderly application of mathematics, called electronic interpretation—read the matter in detail in Volume 1.

A cultural note: a marked distinction separates men who profess to be disciples (followers) of Christ and adherents of the Bible and those who profess to be outside Christianity (called unbelievers). Regarding the current definitions of agnostic and atheist, the text of the New Testament refutes the associated attributes, specifically the possibility that man (for whatever reason) either does not believe in the existence of God or else believes it is beyond one’s mental ability to decide if there is a God. Countering the claim, the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, penned, “For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they [men who 'hold the truth in unrighteousness'] are without excuse” (Romans 1:20-22). The things God created are aptly referred to as “the glory of God.”

In deference to the biblical precept, the eternal power and Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are clearly evidenced (seen and understood) by the things that God created and made. One only has to observe his or her surroundings; for instance, a wilderness setting with stately trees reaching skyward, colorful wildflowers dotting the meadows, wood ducks by a pool, and animals scurrying about in the underbrush, to realize the knowledge of the existence of God. There are, however, men who do “not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28), and cast down every thought of God. Regrettably, the course of action is not without due penalty: “Because when they knew God [everyone has known God at one time in his or her life], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:21, 22).

In light of the foregoing scriptures, the current definitions of agnostic and atheist are wholly inept: men who hold the biblical precept to be patently false, professing either not to believe or know that there is an eternal power, are neither agnostic nor atheist, but willfully disobedient—willful, “done on purpose; deliberate.” The comprehensive assessment will be fully justified; please read on.

Concurring with the biblical principle, Darwin may be charged with being willfully disobedient, as observed in his criticism of the tenets of Christianity. Of one certainty the reader may be assured, Darwin did not speak objectively when it came to Christianity—objectively, “uninfluenced by personal feelings, prejudices or agendas.” In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he “could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Why was Darwin so embittered? Read Revelation 20:11-15; 21:7, 8.

In order to access an online, audible Bible, and to read the biblical verses in context, go here: http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
You may wish to bookmark the site. RealPlayer is required to listen to the Audio Bible.

Darwin once confessed to being a theist, the belief in the existence of a god or gods, in particular the belief that God both created and rules all earthly phenomena. After the publication of the Origin, Darwin charged his original belief in God to the “constant inculcation” (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God” during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as “for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.” With self-assurance, Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge, resolving instead to become an “agnostic.” The reader is, therefore, cautioned that, whenever reading books and articles about Darwin, most, if not all, biographical authors are predisposed to depict him in a favorable light, oftentimes allowing pro-evolutionist sentiment to prejudice their work.

The Old Testament did not escape Darwin’s inflamed rhetoric; concerning the validity of biblical histories (in particular, the Genesis account of creation), Darwin pointedly declared that “the manifestly false history of the earth….was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic), or the beliefs of any barbarian.” Thus, Darwin likened the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 2:7-25), to a mere fairy tale. As an alternative to the counterfactual history, he summarily disposed of both creationism and God by declaring in the Origin that, once the reader entertains the “volumne (sic) on the origin of species…light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” meaning that man and apes diverged from a common ancestor through the agency of evolution without the aid or influence of God—there is no God.

You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime which awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com

Purchase the book at one of these fine stores: Barnesandnoble.com, Target.com, Amazon.com, Borders.com, Booksamillion.com, Tatepublishing.com, and many others. Hardback. In stock.

I think the main problem with this kind of analysis is that most people don’t actually know what intelligent design is. For example the question in the survey says

“Which do you think is more likely to be the correct explanation for the origin of the earth?”

And one of the answers is

““Intelligent design” – evolution has happened but by intelligent design”

Most people who are Christian but accept the theory of evolution are going to put this answer, ie evolution happened but was guided by God (Theistic Evolution). This however is not the same as intelligent design, which basically states that there is objective scientific proof that evolution can not (as opposed to has not) account for various features of life, and that same evidence shows intelligence is a better explanation.

What that means is that probably a lot less than 30% of Brits believe that a supernatural account of the creation of species is a scientific explanation and if the difference between intelligent design and theistic evolution was explained I would expect the numbers for evolution would go up.

I’m not worried by the apparent unpopularity in the US of a theory which is universally self-evident – it’s an interesting result which confirms the suspicions that there are differences in the definitions, purposes and intentions of religions on either side of the atlantic, which should also be pretty self-evident.

My guess is that these differences are a direct result of historic processes and geographic facts and is in effect more a matter of social forces and reactionary interpretation of different results than solid conclusions based on considered opinion.

What is in fact so remarkable and heartening about the results of the survey is how similar Americans and British are and how the ’special relationship’ is based on coaligned ideas and interests.

This result undermines the conclusions of the doom-mongers, as it suggests that collaboration based on national similarity is both more effective and likely than a conflagration based on national difference and competition – which is a lesson that has global implications.

Now, can we repeat the surveying exercise on both sides of global hot-spots, such as in the Middle East.

Mr Parsons:

I’m afraid the existence or otherwise of God and Jesus, the text of the Bible or the religious beliefs of Charles Darwin are irrelevant to the practice of science. Before you come here and lecture us you might want to ask the creationists you are defending why they are so willing to continually break the ninth commendment.

And how very Christian of you to use a religious message to try and sell us something.

Hi Mr Parsons,

I’m not afraid of your god.

You are factually incorrect in your assumption that the opponents of creationism are atheist. Many members of the BCSE including the Chairman and Spokesman are theist.

The rest of your claims are “not even wrong”.

So as well as the existence of god an jesus being irrelevant to the practice of science they are also irrelevant to the defence of science education.

I hope you get over it all soon.

Regards,

Psi

According to the link – it seems that

1 – 63% believe in evolution outright
2 – 13% believe in evolution but that it was kicked off by god (thats basically how the economist describes intelligent design in the survey)
3 – 10% don’t believe in evolution
4 – 15% “don’t know”

Thats not bad going – thats a big big majority that believe in evolution. (76%)

I find it hard to believe that an “Intelligent Designer” would create someone like Mr Parsons.

Anyway, there is a great explanation of “Intelligent Design” in Unspeak. It’s a Trojan Horse.

This article compares the attitude towards creationism and evolution among a larger range of countries and judging from their table it seems that the rejection of evolution in the UK is pretty low even compared to other European countries not just the USA.

10% of people in this country ‘don’t believe in evolution’ and that doesn’t terrify you? This means that chances are one in any random set of ten people believes the scientific establishment is either lying or deluded. If I were Nick Griffin I’d express my evolutionary skepticism in the Daily Mail: you have to figure that if 10% of the population are /that/ stupid….

“Thats not bad going – thats a big big majority that believe in evolution. (76%)” – What if it were some similarly well established scientific fact like ‘the Earth is round’, ‘the universe has an age of something around 13.7 billion years’, ‘the moon is not made of cheese; and we’ve been there’, ’stars are giant balls of mostly-hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion not holes in the firmament’. 76% is an abysmal failure.

Duncan

Well according to RF 76% believing is better than most countries.

And with respect – who much cares if a minority of religious conspiracy theorists deny science? There are those people interested in football who argue that Ronaldo isn’t a phenomenally good footballer. Obviously they are wrong, but thats their decision to be wrong.

Hi Duncan,

I only have a problem when they want their denial of science taught in science classes as science.

Regards,

Psi

Psilo:

I have to say that the more I’ve considered this, the more I’ve come to the view that ID should be included in the science curriculum…

…we don’t do nearly enough to teach the philosophy of science and the intellectual and methodological foundations of the scientific method and picking ID to pieces is a good a case study as I can think for for teaching kids the difference between science and bullshit.

I’m getting concerned about how commenters on Liberal Conspiracy are undertaking the practise of focussing on areas of difference at the expense of creating agreement and building resolution.

The survey was not just about one issue of conscience of whether or not concepts and realities overlap, so choosing to sensationalise the single easy area of controversy is a cheap and wasteful use of the opportunity to create a proper discussion about the politics involved.

Happy to do this.

. . . and the areas of agreement between creationism and science are?

. . . and the politics involved are?

Regards,

Psi

Psi – category mistake alert!

Creationism is a overarching (and some would say overbearing) conceptual theory, while science is an area and method of academic learning.

The politics involve a choice over whether to confuse oranges and lemons or to understand to what uses they can be turned, and how to do so.

I think the clue is in the title – Science class.

The debate about the inclusion of creationism in science class is not a debate – to call it politics is also breathtakingly politically correct.

The movement to get religion into science classes is a war against knowledge – read the wedge document if you think I am exaggerating.

Characterising such a movement as political affords them a status they don’t deserve and sounds suspiciously post modern to my ears.

Which by my own standards makes it wrong by defintion

Unity, I’d be worried if more than one lesson was spent on poking holes in Intelligent Design. Isn’t it too easy?! Wouldn’t, say, ‘luminiferous aether’ be less contentious (in terms of religion) and more ’science’?

>>> I’d be worried if more than one lesson was spent on poking holes in Intelligent Design. Isn’t it too easy?

Oh, the poking holes bit is easy enough, but the value in such a case study lies in how you do the poking and the important concepts you introduce in the process, like falsifiability, etc.

There’s actually plenty of good scientific meat in a rigorous debunking of ID, the kind that students can carry forward in their education and as for ID being contentious, well the ID-ers slogan is ‘teach the controversy’ so a little lesson in the meaning of the adage that you should always beware what you wish for in case you get it wouldn’t go too far amiss.

You’ve convinced me – and you owe me a keyboard!