Britons unconvinced on evolution

[NYC Liberal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

More than half the British population does not accept the theory of evolution, according to a survey.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons

<...>

Over 2000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

22% chose creationism
17% opted for intelligent design
48% selected evolution theory
and the rest did not know.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Heh, we're in good company

[katsy]

2. More like bumbed down company.

I hope this isn't the corporatist plan worldwide.

:tinfoilhat:

[Tempest]

3. Add Britian to the list

The list of countries who are going to lose out in the scientific community to China, India and other less developed nations.

Strange to think the greatest scientific minds will be coming out of countries we once though of as backwards.

[phoebe]

29. some of the greatest minds did come out of countries some of us

evidently still think of as "backwards". Iraq was once known as the "Cradle of Civilization".

[Tempest]

30. That was some time ago

I'm talking in modern history.

[bowens43]

4. Good thing scientific validity isn't determined by polls.

[Mithras61]

5. I suspect that the problem lies...

in the way that evolution (and science generally) is taught. People think that what they suppose is a theory and don't undestand what a scientific theory really is. The failure also lies in our usage of the language. So long as we coloquially say things like "I have a theory about that" then we will continue to equate our suppositions with scientific theory (which is demonstrably NOT the same thing).

The fact is that the theory of evolution doesn't necessarily preclude intelligent design (who says that the creator didn't build the universe so that life would evolve?). Evolution is simply a means of explaining the observation that life changes & adapts to its surroundings, and that those forms with adaptations that give an edge tend to survive and flourish, while those with adaptations that don't give an edge are displaced. I happen to believe that ID is silly, and that science (specifically in this case the theory of evolution as it CURRENTLY exists - not Darwinian evolution) does a pretty sound job of explaining how life on this planet came to be as we know it now. I find it almost impossible to believe that GOD (or whatever creator you prefer) made us up as we are today, simply because the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction.

Take for example, the fact that the average height of a male person in North America has increased since 1950 from about 5'7" to about 5'11". THAT'S evolution at work! The simple fact that we ARE changing clearly demonstrates that evolution isn't just a theory, rather it is an explanation for a set of observations of reality made into a coherent whole that takes "THIS IS WHAT WE SAW" and turns it into "THIS IS WHAT WE THINK IT MEANS."


Oh, and for those of you who subscribe to the belief that man was created in GOD's image, my only comment for you is "What incredible CONCEIT you exhibit!"

I don't discount the possibility that there is a creator of the universe out there somewhere, I just discount the idea (unbelievable hubris is a better term) that an intelligence capable of creating the magnificence of what surrounds us CARES what I (or you, for that matter) think/feel/want (or worse, THINK I want).

[happyslug]

16. 5'7' to 5'11" is Evolution?????

Not occurring the studies I have read. Evolution is MORE THAN CHANGE, it is change in a species over a time period. In the case you cite you are saying that the 5'11" people were able to REPLACE people who only grew to 5'7" and such 5'7" people have DIED OUT being unable to compete with the 5'11" people. That is the theory of Evolution BUT IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INCREASE IN PEOPLE'S AVERAGE HEIGHT SINCE WWII.

Now how tall one will grow appears to be DEEP in Human DNA, but it is NOT a simple grow taller or shorter. Deep in Human DNA is a process that determines one's height not only by your own DNA as to height but certain triggers that improve or reduce heights. The Chief Trigger is when people are exposed to more and better food, they tend to grow taller. If that is reversed the following generation are SMALLER (based on the decline in food). A further factor seems to be the food eaten by their Grandmother when she was a Child (Most ovums in women are developed as the woman develops in her own mother's womb). Thus what your Grandmother ate seems to have an affect on your height. For example the Japanese have had three changes in Height since WWII. The first change hit them in the 1960s and appears to be based on the improved food of the post-war era. The second increase in Height was first seen in the 1980s as you had the Grandmother affect kick in (for the Grandmothers of the young adults of the 1980s had been the first generation of post-WWII children who were given adequate food levels).

I point this out for people tend to confuse CHANGE with Evolution. Change can occur over a life-time or in a species if that change is hardwired into the DNA of that Species (as height appears to be in Humans). On the other hand Evolutionary Change is NOT hardwired into the Species BUT is a new change within a member of that species and gives that member (and the member's descendent's) an edge over members of the Species without that change. Over time the members of the Species with the new change slowly out-competes members of the species without the change and the member without that change die out (and such a die off has NOT occurred in the US or Japan).

I point out this difference for the Theory of Evolution is NOT something that can be seen over a lifetime of ANY species, but over multiple lifetimes. You may be able to see evolutionary change over a human lifetime in regards to a creature with a much shorter life time (For example Fruit-flies whose life cycle is measured in days), but mere change is NOT evolution, evolution is a change that causes long term changes within a species, thus it takes at least several Generation for evolutionary change to be seen in any species.

If you are going to cite the Theory of Evolution try to fully understand it, if you do not some creationist or believer in Intelligent Design will catch you your mistake and clean your clock before you know what happen.

[reprobate]

24. Quite the opposite. Man created God in his own image.

Remember: GOD spelled backwards is DOG, and I have two so I'm more powerful than most.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. 5'7" to 5'11" in two generations is NOT evolution at work.

It's improved nutrition, improved sanitation, childhood vaccinations, ect at work. Height is determined by the interaction of genetic with environmental factors, it's not a fixed, genetically determined trait. You would not see visible evolutionary change taking place in only two generations unless you had extreme selective pressure; like killing or sterilizing every short person before they reached reproductive age.

I agree with the rest of your post.

[truebrit71]

6. They asked just 2000 people? And that represents "the British Population"?

Whom did they ask?

I am sorry but I call bullshit on this one...

[Mithras61]

7. It's impossible to tell from the article...

because there is no useful information to examine their results. There is no indication of how they selected the persons to be interviewed, there is no confidence level given, etc., so I would have to agree with you and call bullshit on this.

Valid polls almost always include the information necessary to evaluate the reported results, because the pollers want the poll to be accepted as valid and want the information to be included as supporting evidence. Polls that were conducted to get a specific response tend to not report that same information, because they want their conclusions to be accpeted without critical evaluation. The problem is, most folks don't have enough education to understand that things like variance, sampling method and confidence level are critical to evaluating the validity of any piece of polling.

[MrPrax]

17. Well...yeah

and the fact what real researcher would design a 'scientific' poll where two of the responses are the same...creationism IS Intelligent Design.

I understand this method when applied to market research, but not political attitudinal surveys...

It's like asking people...to choose between gambling or gaming

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. I would say they are different

Creationism is believing that a god (probably the Abrahamic one, but you might extend this to other religions) created all species as they are now - denying that they ever evolved from earlier species (which involves thinking the fossil record is some weird red herring placed there to screw with our minds, it seems to me). Intelligent Design is believing that there are some (although some might say all) features of organisms that cannot be explained by random mutation and natural selection, and therefore must have been put there by a god (or, though I suspect none of them actually believe this, aliens). This does not, however, mean denying the validity of the fossil record; it just posits that the god, either by supernatural means or by laboratory manipulation as we are starting to do, altered the DNA of the organisms knowing what the change would do, and did this over the billions of years of life on earth.

[MrPrax]

26. Sorry brother..,

I must have missed that schism in policy among the various jihadist groups struggling to put religious instruction in a science class.

Have we passed this over to the Hindus, they were angry at the exclusion of the turtle and the elephants in our last briefing.

Thanks for the update...

(and to think I WAS smarter than poll respondents)

[joeybee12]

8. I've always looked upon the British as a more mature version of us...

...but not anymore. Their cowardice in not dumping Tony rivals our cowardice in not confronting our mini-Hitler. I thought they knew better, but apparently not. And now they seem to shun science, education and reason as we are doing in this country. We're witnessing the death of not one, but two civilizations here.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Oh, please.

You'd like them to dump Tony in favour of who, exactly? The fascist winger, or the drunkard? As for shunning science, I don't think this rises to that level, exactly. Certainly not the insane level in the US of the President saying creationism should be taught in school. For pete's sake, Darwin's portrait appears on money here! I'd like to see that happen in the US.

[joeybee12]

11. Yeah, Tony is a real champ...

...I am so thoroughly disgusted by you British claiming you have to keep Tony because there are no other options, and then acting as if there's noble noble about backing a fascist pig. At least we Americans have the courage to be call our leaders what they are, not turn a blind eye to them like you people apparently are.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. First of all,

I'm an American, not that it should matter one bit. Second, I'd like to hear your alternative to Tony Blair. Seriously, which is it? The Tories, or the drunkard? Those were the choices. You want to live in a fantasy world, fine. Third, I hate to break this to you, but Tony Blair is nowhere near as bad as George Bush. You want that, go look at Maggie Thatcher.

[BooScout]

34. I seriously doubt.....

....that he understands the Parlimentary system or how a PM is installed in office. Nor do I think he has heard of Charles Kennedy....(ie....you're wasting your time trying to talk to a brick wall).

I'm certainly glad that the British are civilized enough not to condemn Americans across the board for electing Bush......because I think I wouldn't be safe over here.
:evilgrin:

[baby_mouse]

14. You don't know much

and that's a fact.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. Common sense, qua creationism and intelligent design

is not really an appropiate subject for teaching in any school. Though substantiated by empirical science, it's like teaching that Mom and apple pie are ever so nice. Only modern Western man is dumb enough to believe that the evolution of the universe just happened and continues to do so, and requires no motive force or exquisite intelligence.

[Zhade]

41. Substantiated how, exactly?

There is not one shred of evidence supporting creationism.

[baby_mouse]

13. This can be ignored.

There's no dnager of creationism taking the stranglehold in Britain as it has in the States.

2000 participants walking out a church or something, I wouldn't wonder.

[yellowcanine]

15. Well I am relieved that it is not just Americans that are ignorant .

[happyslug]

18. Follows other studies, Americans know more about Science.

Basically when surveys are done among adults in various countries, it is the US that comes out on top when it comes to Scientific knowledge among its Citizens. This may sound strange after you hear how badly American STUDENTS to compared to Students from other Countries but once you look into the problem they is NO CONFLICT.

The favorite comparison is NOT the person in the street, but comparing When American high SchoolS students with High School students from other Countries. This sounds fair on its face, but it is not. The Prussian invented the Modern High School after the Napoleonic Wars to improve the educational levels of their Officers. High Schools quickly became open to all members of German Society provided you passed the test ot get in. if you failed the test you ended up in a technical School instead. In every country except the US, this dual educational system was adopted. The best and brightest to the High Schools, the rest to Technical Schools.

You can thus seen the problem of comparing American High School Students with any other country's High School Students. American High School include students who in other countries would go to the Technical Schools instead. This artificially lowers American High School "Average Student" when compared to other Countries "Average High School Student" (Or you can say the exclusion of the Technical Students from the High School artificially RAISES Other Countries High School Students).

Thus the surveys that show the Average American know know about Science than any the Average Citizen of any other country is completely compatible with surveys showing American high Schoolers know less than other Country's High Schoolers. US Average Citizen and Average High Schooler are about the same, in most other Countries the Average High Schooler is the top half of the population (If not the top quarter).

This is one of the advantages America has had for over 100 years, our Average Citizen know more about Science than any other Average Citizen in the World.

[kay1864]

23. Every country?

In every country except the US, this dual educational system was adopted.
That sounds rather broad. Every country has technical schools and high schools, and testing to get into the latter? Canada? England? Even within the UK there is variety between England, Scotland, and Wales.

[happyslug]

25. Canada might be an exception (Influenced by New England)

But the Prussian system has been adopted widely. England is also an exception, but not in its high Schools restricted to the upper half, but that more Britons drop out of School than do Americans (Who in most states have the right to attend high School till they turn 21 unlike England which connects age and grade achievement on a year to year basis).

For more on High Schools See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_education

On the German Gymnasium type High School:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium_%28school%29

Other German "High Schools"
The Hauptschule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptschule

And the Realschule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realschule

Other "High Schools":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasia_and_Realgymnasia

[kay1864]

27. Well, I went to those links...

(actually, I went to a couple of them before I wrote my reply above)

There's nothing there about "technical schools" or "testing to get into high schools" that I could see, except for the German high schools. Do you know of other countries (besides Germany) that practice this approach?

Edit: "except for the German high schools" should read "except for the German, Scandinavian, and Benelux high schools". Still, that's hardly "every country except the US".

[Kellanved]

39. Not really

The "Prussian" system, as you call it, is pretty much extinct outside Germany. Most European countries have adopted a single-tier high school system. Even in Germany, where each of the 16 states has its own educational system, the system is not universally accepted.

In any case: comparisons to other countries are done on a combined basis, not just with students form the pre-academic schools.

[tenshi816]

40. You don't know anything about the UK school system.

That's clear from your post.

[slackmaster]

19. Nice to know there's somebody out there as dumb as Americans

During the Tour de France last year I noticed that German spectators, in stark contrast to the French, are every bit as obese as people you'd see attending the Super Bowl.

[dmallind]

31. What a dick

Now that's a nice completely baseless and bigoted connection to make.

Since when did obesity imply stupidity? What possible connection is there between scientific understanding and body weight?

[slackmaster]

33. Interesting radical misinterpretation of what I wrote

My subject line was directed at the British. The message text was another example of a nationality that shares one trait commonly attributed to Americans.

Since when did obesity imply stupidity?

I never said it did. I didn't say Germans were stupid. I said they are fat.

British are as dumb as Americans.

Germans are as fat as Americans.

Mmmmmmmmmmkay?

[baby_mouse]

37. "British are as dumb as Americans"

Feel better?

[slackmaster]

38. I feel terrific today, but don't get me started on the French

:nuke:

[dmallind]

Oh of course

There'd be absolutely NO reason to interpret it that way on a thread entirely devoted to the topic of stupidity/scientific ignorance, in which no mention of Germans or obesity had been made.

Silly me to assume that a header of a post has ANY relationship to the body.

[dmallind]

44. Oh of course

There'd be absolutely NO reason to interpret it that way on a thread entirely devoted to the topic of stupidity/scientific ignorance, in which no mention of Germans or obesity had been made.

Silly me to assume that a header of a post has ANY relationship to the body.

[slackmaster]

45. You're a little over-eager on the mouse clicker, dmallind

:hi: :hi:

There'd be absolutely NO reason to interpret it that way on a thread entirely devoted to the topic of stupidity/scientific ignorance, in which no mention of Germans or obesity had been made.

A thread in which no new ideas or information got presented would be pretty boring, wouldn't it?

Silly me to assume that a header of a post has ANY relationship to the body.

The relationship is there if you understand the concepts of abstraction and metaphor.

[AX10]

20. So there are sheeple in England too?

.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. There are sheeple everywhere.

And there are stupid people everywhere. Believing in creationism (as opposed to evolution) doesn't necessarily make you a religious nut. It could also simply mean that you are ignorant or stupid. I doubt more than 60% of the people polled even understood the question.

[rayofreason]

32. Not unique.

In Belgium there are a lot of folks opposed to the teaching of evolution in the schools as well. Here is a link to an article in Le Monde. It is in French, and you have to pay for the full article, unfortunately.

http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=902680

[Jacobin]

35. Egads. the Dark Ages are upon us again

[slackmaster]

36. To us it's the Dark Ages; to others the Good Old Days

:nuke:

[tenshi816]

42. How did the survey get that

"more than half the British population does not accept the theory of evolution"? 48% believe in evolution, and a total of 39% opted for creationism/ID - this leaves 13% "don't know". That doesn't mean they don't believe in evolution, it means they don't know. And possibly don't care.

I'm sceptical of these survey results. This is such a secular place, and I've never even heard the term "intelligent design" used in the UK, not by anyone, anywhere, ever (until this survey came along). I find it hard to believe that in a country where the majority of people don't attend church, there's that high a percentage believing in creationism or ID.

[The Stranger]

43. DARK AGES