Article From...
The newspapers have once again been reporting opinion polls on whether people believe creation or evolution. Both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph did so using the headline that I have used - but without the question mark.
To be honest, it would not surprise me if 80% of the public believed evolution - except that I would have suspected that the figure would be higher. Indeed, surely the surprise is that 20% are at least open to creationism, in a society where it is presumed that only 5% of the population are evangelical Christians. However, the statistics in the report are open to considerable interpretation.
It is salutary to note that the organisation believes
that Darwin needs rescuing!
that Darwin needs rescuing!
he report in question is Faith and Darwin: Harmony, Conflict or Confusion, by Caroline Lawes, and published by the liberal Christian think tank, Theos (http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/mainnav/reports.aspx). This is part of a series of reports, funded by the Templeton Foundation, under the heading Rescuing Darwin. It is salutary to note that the organisation believes that Darwin needs rescuing!
In fact, a closer look at the statistics reveals two startling observations: that the theory of evolution really is in serious trouble and that the report uses some peculiar definitions, in order to attempt to bolster the position of evolution. The latter is significant, because these reports are not unbiased. This can be seen throughout the report, and is typified by Lawes decision to personify a Young Earth Creationist as "Grandma", as if a creationist is necessarily elderly (perhaps senile?) and female. In view of this bias, I think it is legitimate for us likewise to cherry-pick a number of statistics.
The chart suggests that over 30% think that Young earth
Creationism is at least probably true.
Over 50% believe that Intelligent Design is at least probably true.
Creationism is at least probably true.
Over 50% believe that Intelligent Design is at least probably true.
For example, on page 29, the chart paints a different picture from the headline. The chart suggests that over 30% think that Young earth Creationism is at least probably true. Over 50% believe that Intelligent Design is at least probably true. As usual, the statistics on page 29 of the report can easily be used to support an atheistic evolutionist position, whereas the bias of the report towards accepting theistic evolution is evident.
The confusion behind the statistics can be seen from a table on page 63 which suggests that 11% of 'hard-core' creationists believe that evolution is established beyond reasonable doubt! Membership of Lawes' 'hard-core' creationist group is achieved by answering a question on her questionnaire to suggest that creationism is definitely or probably true. To be fair, Lawes acknowledges the contradiction, but this would seem to invalidate the conclusions drawn from the statistics. Similar confusion can be seen in the analysis that 9% of atheistic evolutionists believe that evolution has been disproved, and 10% believe it has little evidence to support it! The idea that 19% of atheistic evolutionists actually don't really believe their theory is startling. Imagine a Christian publication using a similar headline - "One in Five atheists believe Evolution is Wrong!". However, it would clearly be nonsense for me to use the statistics in this way - just as it was nonsense for the Guardian and Telegraph to use the statistics in the way that they did.
200 years after Darwin's birth, and 150 years after the publication
of the Origin of Species, evolution remains as unconvincing
to the British public as ever.
of the Origin of Species, evolution remains as unconvincing
to the British public as ever.
So the numbers in this report are inconclusive, to say the least. But 200 years after Darwin's birth, and 150 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, evolution remains as unconvincing to the British public as ever.
Related Articles...
