Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?
The Examiner ^ | 07/31/2014 | Ken Ammi

Posted on 07/31/2014 6:13:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

The info which follows dates to 2009 AD and may be the most recent stats.

Indeed, as reported by the UK’s Guardian; Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds (Riazat Butt, February 1, 2009 AD) and Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons (Jessica Shepherd, October 25, 2009 AD). Thus half do not believe in it and more than half believe that both views should be taught.

Keep in mind that while the UK does have RE (religious education) in public schools; it is a very, very, very secular society which is saturated with Darwinism. Logically, they would be the most Darwinian society and yet, “More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory.” Ah, the good ol' we have been explaining Darwinism for over a century and a half and the hoi polloi still do not get it!!! Well, there may be other reasons for rejecting it such as understanding it and realizing that biology is a science but Darwinism is a philosophy and since it makes unsubstantiated claims it is therefore being rejected.

The stats are a result of the study titled Rescuing Darwin - God and evolution in Britain today by Nick Spencer and Denis Alexander and was conducted on the 150th anniversary of the publication of On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The Guardian reports note:

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: History; Religion; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: britain; darwin; evolution; uk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

1 posted on 07/31/2014 6:13:29 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Because the other half of us do.


2 posted on 07/31/2014 6:16:21 PM PDT by Klemper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Perhaps because there is no need to.


3 posted on 07/31/2014 6:16:39 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?

Possibly because they're bright enough not to...

4 posted on 07/31/2014 6:16:42 PM PDT by aardwolf46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

How many of the respondents were muzturds?

Just asking...


5 posted on 07/31/2014 6:16:46 PM PDT by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

maybe there is hope after all


6 posted on 07/31/2014 6:16:59 PM PDT by AdSimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I am not included in the other half... so save it.


7 posted on 07/31/2014 6:18:31 PM PDT by Klemper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I will give you an answer. It is just too complicated a concept for most to actually believe (why global warming is now losing ground). Sadly, this has nothing to do with any religiosity, just a general apathy and disinterest towards things which do not directly impact the individual. Brits sleep and text in classes when they are supposed to be getting indoctrinated.


8 posted on 07/31/2014 6:21:04 PM PDT by Viennacon (Rebuke the Repuke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
>> Keep in mind that while the UK does have RE (religious education) in public schools <<

Irrelevant. Most religious schools teach the same science curriculum as public schools. Ask any Catholic school what they teach in science class.

9 posted on 07/31/2014 6:33:18 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Darwinism is a philosophy

Darwin's theory is far, far more about factual reality than any religion can hope to be.

10 posted on 07/31/2014 6:35:10 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

does it really matter?

Why do leftists and others feel the need to make everyone agree on everything?


11 posted on 07/31/2014 6:35:35 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

By now half of ‘em are muzzies and they all share 4 brain cells


12 posted on 07/31/2014 6:35:50 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

oops ... mis-read the title ... off to bed ...


13 posted on 07/31/2014 6:36:36 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aardwolf46

Or maybe they have examined the evidence (or in reality, the lack of evidence) and have decided that intelligent design makes more sense.


14 posted on 07/31/2014 6:38:49 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The cure has become worse than the disease. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Creation is like believing Storks bring babies


15 posted on 07/31/2014 6:45:12 PM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Because they look around at their fellow citizens, look back at the pollster and say “Pull the other one, mate, it ‘as bells on.”


16 posted on 07/31/2014 6:49:25 PM PDT by RichInOC (No! BAD Rich! (What'd I say?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: molson209

Are a Darwinist, Naturalist?


17 posted on 07/31/2014 6:56:11 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: molson209
I'm sorry. I did not type that question correctly.

Are you a darwinist, naturalist?

18 posted on 07/31/2014 6:57:10 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

At least a third of Americans will not know what ‘evolution’ is.


19 posted on 07/31/2014 7:32:05 PM PDT by matthew fuller (https://www.facebook.com/BrianKolfage/posts/714871581908295)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Islamization


20 posted on 07/31/2014 8:16:54 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Wikipedia is wrong. who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: molson209

If you will, we’re not supposed to “believe” in the theory of evolution. It’s not a matter of faith, it’s a scientific theory backed up by objective evidence. Tons of evidence. It works.


21 posted on 07/31/2014 8:31:43 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: molson209

Believing matter and energy can arise from nothing without outside intervention is even worse than believing storks bring babies.

At least storks bringing babies could be theoretically possible, according to the laws of physics.


22 posted on 07/31/2014 8:37:57 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

“It’s not a matter of faith, it’s a scientific theory backed up by objective evidence.”

Evidence can’t be objective, since that is a property that only sentient beings can possess.


23 posted on 07/31/2014 8:41:32 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Push come to shove, Darwin’s theory does not fit the facts. It properly describes variation, and adaptation, because thatwhich he he directly observed . It does not explain how the complex creatures whose forms appear in the Cambrian rocks came into being,with no antecedents in the older rocks.


24 posted on 07/31/2014 8:52:20 PM PDT by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Because they can see a disproven scientific theory for what it is.


25 posted on 07/31/2014 8:53:56 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

More to the point, it does not explain how life came into existence. Furthermore, our chemistry/physics/geology does no more than provide implausible hypotheses about conditions on the earth at the time before the seas teemed with the rich life forms of the Cambrian.


26 posted on 07/31/2014 9:00:09 PM PDT by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: All

I suppose an opinion poll is too crude an instrument to find out what kind of evolution various numbers of people believe in. It would seem to me that there’s probably three rather than two groups of opinion, one being an atheist “process of evolution” school, one being a form of intelligent design that incorporates some evolution, and a third school that believes all things we see were created more or less simultaneously, then that divides into a six thousand year camp and a less literalist camp. So actually four schools of thought. Mark me down as “don’t know” because that’s the only really defensible position to take in all of that.


27 posted on 07/31/2014 9:01:25 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell (Heilery Clinton v Jeb Bush -- just shoot me now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Irrelevant. Most religious schools teach the same science curriculum as public schools.

Much more, actually, but it is completely irrelevant, because......

Ask any Catholic school what they teach in science class.

I was taught both, concurrently, in Catholic grade school which is far more involved than the publics. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive concepts.
28 posted on 07/31/2014 9:57:36 PM PDT by 98ZJ USMC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller; All

At least a third of Americans will not know what ‘evolution’ is.
***********************
Most likely because they and their ancestors haven’t been participants.

Intelligent Design and Darwin’s theories fit like hand in glove. The hyper-religious folks tend to think everyone and everything was created in a “flash” and have difficulty understanding the concept of many millions of years.

Who’s to say that the Intelligent Design concept is complete? Evolution indicates all flora and fauna (including humans) is continuing to change. ....No telling what might live on Earth a million years from now.


29 posted on 08/01/2014 12:29:35 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: octex

Ooops. ...Too early in the a.m.

is continuing to change.

Should be “are” continuing to change.


30 posted on 08/01/2014 12:47:17 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

The Bible contains forty or fifty stories about miracles. Evolution requires countless billions of outright zero-probability events, each a sort of a mathematical miracle. It turns everything we know about modern math and probability theory on its head upside down.


31 posted on 08/01/2014 4:25:33 AM PDT by aardwolf46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller; SeekAndFind; SunkenCiv; Texas Songwriter; molson209; JimSEA; Boogieman; ...
matthew fuller: "At least a third of Americans will not know what ‘evolution’ is."

FYI, here are statistics from Gallup on US beliefs regarding evolution.

The numbers of those who believe God had no hand in evolution has increased from 10% thirty years ago to nearly 20% today.

The numbers of those who believe God created humans in our present form has remained constant at around 40%.

The numbers of those who believe God guides evolution ("theistic evolutionism") fell from nearly 40% thirty years ago to now about 30%.
In other words: one fourth of these believers have switched to non-belief.

Around 10% had & have no opinion.

Doubtless, these correspond roughly to our political beliefs:

  1. 20% hard-core atheistic "progressive/liberals".

  2. 40% solid believing social-conservatives.

  3. 30% "moderate" can't-we-all-get-along more-or-less conservatives.

The sad part is that while groups two & three squabble amongst ourselves, the first group, a minority of just 20%, rules over us.

32 posted on 08/01/2014 4:58:54 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

“40% solid believing social-conservatives.”

I know a lot of these that voted for Obama ...


33 posted on 08/01/2014 5:02:12 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: aardwolf46
aardwolf46: "Evolution requires countless billions of outright zero-probability events, each a sort of a mathematical miracle.
It turns everything we know about modern math and probability theory on its head upside down."

You clearly misunderstand both evolution and probability.
Basic evolution theory combines two observed-confirmed facts:

  1. Descent with modifications -- meaning off-spring are not identical to their parents.
    This is caused by both genetic diversity within our DNA, and by more-or-less random mutations in every new generation.
    The probability of generational modifications is nearly 100%.

  2. Natural selection -- meaning survival of the best adapted.
    The probability that some off-spring are better adapted for survival than others is nearly 100%.

Of course, "zero probability events" you refer to may relate to various hypotheses on abiogenic origins of life.
Indeed, such concerns are one major reason all such scientific speculations are still "hypotheses", not confirmed "theories".
So long as they depend on low probability events, they cannot be repeated in a laboratory, and will remain, perhaps forever unconfirmed hypotheses.

But do not be surprised if, even in our lifetimes, a long series of high-probability natural chemical reactions can be demonstrated as leading to precursors of life capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

34 posted on 08/01/2014 5:22:31 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator
"I know a lot of these that voted for Obama ..."

Yes, and I'd wager a lunch that nearly all of them now regret their votes.

35 posted on 08/01/2014 5:23:49 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

“Yes, and I’d wager a lunch that nearly all of them now regret their votes. “

The ones I know are happy that they kept the republicans from cutting off their benefits.


36 posted on 08/01/2014 5:43:55 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator
TexasGator: "The ones I know are happy that they kept the republicans from cutting off their benefits."

I doubt if very many of those fall into the category of "traditional believing Christians".
At best they would be moderates, at worst... well, perhaps they conflate & confuse the Bible's Deity with the current occupant of our White House?

37 posted on 08/01/2014 6:01:19 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

The stats show that you’re more likely to find evolutionary belief in the seminary/philosophy college of a university than you are in the science department.


38 posted on 08/01/2014 6:03:46 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Dissent is not allowed.

“We don’t let them have guns, why would we let them have ideas?”


39 posted on 08/01/2014 6:04:23 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Yes, they rule us because group 3 votes for group 1, because group 3 are idiots.


40 posted on 08/01/2014 6:28:56 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Boogieman: "Yes, they rule us because group 3 votes for group 1, because group 3 are idiots."

Is it possible that group 3 votes for group 1 because they find those people friendlier than group 2?

Just saying...

41 posted on 08/01/2014 6:59:53 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Maybe they vote for group 1 to keep group 2 out of power, even though group 3 is evil, they’re not “as evil” as group 2.

Nasty system set up, now, isn’t it?


42 posted on 08/01/2014 7:01:44 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
scientific theory backed up by objective evidence. Tons of evidence.

I wish someone like you would have the time to explain to me the time frame, the fossil & other archeological records, and the evidence of the observable progression from, say, Neanderthal Man to King Tut.

Because I don't get it and I don't know where to look.

43 posted on 08/01/2014 7:22:51 AM PDT by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Well, even if that is true, it still makes them idiots. Anyone who can’t figure out the leftists are not your friends is not playing with a full deck.


44 posted on 08/01/2014 7:50:17 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey
Fightin Whitey: "I wish someone like you would have the time to explain to me the time frame, the fossil & other archeological records, and the evidence of the observable progression from, say, Neanderthal Man to King Tut. "

Here is a wiki article with lots of charts & graphs that could begin to explain. It includes representations like these:

Of course, I "get" that your terms "evidence of observable progression" are usually code words for "I don't believe a word of it, and won't accept anything you say", but on the off-chance that you just randomly picked those words, I'll make an effort -- in all good faith -- to explain it.

45 posted on 08/01/2014 7:55:58 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Fightin Whitey

Well, here’s one way it works: they find some primate bone fragments, maybe a few teeth, half a jawbone and a crushed femur. Some scientists come up with a conceptual idea of what that primate must have looked like, based on their preexisting bias that the primate must be an intermediate form between other primates and homos.

Then they show you a sequence of such conceptual renderings and call it “objective”.


46 posted on 08/01/2014 7:56:29 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

“The probability of generational modifications is nearly 100%.”

Sure, and we see this all the time. However, what we don’t see is those modifications “adding up” to create whole new classes of animals. We have never actually observed the genomes having the ability to be that flexible, no matter how many mutations pile up. We can induce a thousand mutations in a fruit fly, for example, and we have never observed the result to be anything other than a fruit fly.

We can look at the fossil record, and speculate that something like that happened to account for apparent changes we see, but that is mere speculation and not science, for it can’t be replicated.


47 posted on 08/01/2014 8:04:06 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Boogieman: "Anyone who can’t figure out the leftists are not your friends is not playing with a full deck."

There are a number of ways to explain American politics, and the one I like best goes:

  1. Big city people always vote Democrat -- they are your "liberal-progressives".
  2. Country people always vote Republican -- they are your social-conservatives.
  3. Suburbanites can & do change their votes, depending on how they feeeeeeeeeel at the moment.
    They begin by becoming "fiscal-conservatives" or "defense-conservatives" but sometimes switch over "social issues".

Indeed, if you think about it... young people often move to big cities, where they vote Democrat.
When they become successful enough to raise a family, they move to the suburbs, and begin voting more conservatively.
When they've had a long successful life, and can retire to the country, they consistently vote Republican.

Very often it's the same people, same IQs, just with different outlooks on life.

Put another way: suburbs are the 50 yard line, and that's where most of the game gets played.

48 posted on 08/01/2014 8:26:40 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
You clearly misunderstand both evolution and probability.

I stop reading when it becomes obvious I'm dealing with a blowhard...

49 posted on 08/01/2014 8:31:17 AM PDT by aardwolf46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; Fightin Whitey
Boogieman: "Well, here’s one way it works: they find some primate bone fragments, maybe a few teeth, half a jawbone and a crushed femur."

In fact, there are dozens of different pre-human "homo" & other species fossils, from Ardipithecus ramidus through to Neanderthals, Denisovans and Floresiensis "hobbits".
Some of these, as you say, do indeed have only one or two samples so far found.
But others (i.e., Neanderthals, Ergaster) have dozens or hundreds of individuals found.
These allow reconstruction of complete skeletons, and from them presumed outward appearances.

Point is: there's more than just guess-work behind those reconstructions.

Boogieman: "Some scientists come up with a conceptual idea of what that primate must have looked like, based on their preexisting bias that the primate must be an intermediate form between other primates and homos."

The bones themselves tell a lot about what those individuals looked like -- no need to exaggerate either their human or non-human aspects.
An honest representation, to the best of our knowledge, is all that can be expected.

Boogieman: "Then they show you a sequence of such conceptual renderings and call it 'objective'."

Hominid skulls, from chimpanzee to modern homo sapiens:

50 posted on 08/01/2014 8:53:56 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson