How did we get here? (UK sees huge decrease in belief in 'evolution')

Evolution is on the way out - more than 30% of students in the UK say they believe in creationism and intelligent design. Harriet Swain reports on a surprising new survey. *snip*

This means more than 30% believe our origins have more to do with God than with Darwin - evolution theory rang true for only 56%.

Opinionpanel Research's survey of more than 1,000 students found a third of those who said they were Muslims and more than a quarter of those who said they were Christians supported creationism.

Nearly a third of Christians and 10% of those with no particular religion favoured intelligent design.

Women were more likely to choose spiritual explanations: less than half chose evolution, with 14% preferring creationism and 22% intelligent design. While three years of learning how to weigh evidence appears to make students slightly more inclined towards evolution, with 57% of third-years choosing it compared with 54% of first-years, it does not appear to put them off belief in God.

As many third-years as first-years believed in creationism, although slightly fewer supported intelligent design.

The findings come as little surprise to Roger Downie, professor of zoological education at Glasgow University. Two years ago he surveyed the views on evolution of biology and medical students there. *snip* He says schools and universities need to be clearer about how science differs from other evidence, such as that provided by religion.

"The impression people get is that science is about accumulating a lot of facts in your head rather than testing of evidence and fine-tuning what you find." Scientists have recently expressed growing concern about creationism being taught alongside evolution in schools, particularly at the new academies run by the Christian Vardy Foundation.

If Darwin's theory (a) does not explain how life arose, and (b) there are no empirical examples where a new species has developed from another one, what good is it?

Your question employs a false premise. There exist empirical examples of speciation. Moreover, the theory has been used to make successful predictions of genetic patterns and has even been used to predict the geographical location of a transitional fossil.

61 posted on 08/15/2006 5:13:20 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

Didn't you say that the theory of evolution does NOT teach that life comes from non-life?

62 posted on 08/15/2006 5:13:44 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)

I think you've still got it wrong.

"Life does not come from non-life" means that elemental, mechanistic processes does not lead to life.

I had assumed you were familiar with the discussion. Sorry.

Car don't put themselves together....such design requires an intelligent actor to do that. Humans, far more complex than autos, also require an intelligent actor, imho.

63 posted on 08/15/2006 5:17:39 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)

"Life does not come from non-life" means that elemental, mechanistic processes does not lead to life.

Please demonstrate that "Life does not come from non-life".

64 posted on 08/15/2006 5:20:47 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

"Didn't you say that the theory of evolution does NOT teach that life comes from non-life?"

That is precisely what said. However, this does not mean that life cannot come from non-life. "I do not know" is the most I can say regarding abiogenesis.

66 posted on 08/15/2006 5:22:37 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)

"The Theory of Evolution has never said that [life comes from non-life]."

Then from where does life come, according to the Theory of Evolution?

The Theory of Evolution has turned itself into a belief system; a ... religion, and the scientists (the "scholars union") are the mullahs.

Pasteur's experiments did a fair job of it.

Please explain how Pasteur's experiments demonstrate that there exist no conditions wherein life can emerge from "non-life".

68 posted on 08/15/2006 5:23:41 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

Then you are correct. I should not have said that you agreed with me; not on the basis of evolution not teaching that life comes from non-life.

Now, however, evolutionary spokespersons do teach that evolution does not teach that life comes from non-life.

Evolutionary spokespersons used to teach that evolution does say that life comes from non-life. They did so in a variety of ways. I guess that was just early propaganda by association.

69 posted on 08/15/2006 5:26:17 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)

Then from where does life come, according to the Theory of Evolution?

The theory of evolution makes no statement on the origin of the first life forms.

The Theory of Evolution has turned itself into a belief system; a ... religion, and the scientists (the "scholars union") are the mullahs.

Please demonstrate this claim to be accurate.

70 posted on 08/15/2006 5:27:02 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

"The Theory of Evolution has never said that it did."

No weaseling allowed.

If the theory of evolution never said that, then how does it explain the origins of life? How did inorganic matter become organic matter?

Color me "STILL waiting".

If the theory of evolution never said that, then how does it explain the origins of life?

The theory of evolution has never attempted to explain the origins of life.

72 posted on 08/15/2006 5:30:52 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

Evolutionary spokespersons used to teach that evolution does say that life comes from non-life.

Please provide references to support this claim. I have seen this claim made repeatedly, but my requests for substantiation have always been unanswered.

73 posted on 08/15/2006 5:32:13 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

Uh huh. Well then.......if there is no God, how do you explain it?

How you can "evolve" if there is no starting point?

"The theory of evolution makes no statement on the origin of the first life forms."

Why not?

The religious nature of Evolutionary scientists is demonstrated by the sidelining and marginalizing of the many qualified scientists who are qualified to speak on the subjects involved and don't come to the same conclusions. By the way...EVERYTHING academic is either a faith system or spawned by a faith system or concurs with a faith system.

As many know, Huxley popularized the terms abiogenesis and biogenesis in supporting this work of Pasteur as sound examples of bioligical experimentation. His conclusion was: "Thus the evidence, direct and indirect, in favour of Biogenesis for all known forms of life must, I think, be admitted to be of great weight."

76 posted on 08/15/2006 5:39:10 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)

Uh huh. Well then.......if there is no God, how do you explain it?

To which deity, out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you assume a lack of involvement of that particular deity?

How you can "evolve" if there is no starting point?

Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve.

77 posted on 08/15/2006 5:40:21 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

I have answered these claims repeatedly with examples from textbooks used in the 60's. I encourage you to get copies of them and read the presentations on evolution.

78 posted on 08/15/2006 5:41:15 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)

Why not?

The mechanism of the process of evolution requires the existence of reproducing life in order to occur. As such, this mechanism could not itself produce life.

The religious nature of Evolutionary scientists is demonstrated by the sidelining and marginalizing of the many qualified scientists who are qualified to speak on the subjects involved and don't come to the same conclusions.

Please provide a reference of how and when this has occured.

By the way...EVERYTHING academic is either a faith system or spawned by a faith system or concurs with a faith system.

You are employing a fallacy of equivocation.

80 posted on 08/15/2006 5:44:07 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)

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.