Excerpt from the Guardian:

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.

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it.

The Rescuing Darwin survey, published to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of ­Species, found that around 10% of people chose young Earth creationism – the belief that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years – over evolution.

About 12% preferred intelligent design, the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the structures of living organisms. The remainder were unsure, often mixing evolution, intelligent design and creationism together. The survey was conducted by the polling agency ComRes on behalf of the Theos thinktank.

The rest of the article can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb...vey-creationism

I must say, this surprised me greatly.

It would be interesting to (1) see the breakdown on cultural/race/religious lines (2) compare the results with any similar polls in the past. (Bedlamites will appreciate that point (1) is about gaining a perspective, and not related to any notion of racism, etc.)

But in any event, I agree that the result, in these enlightened times, is surprising.

These results were similar to that found in the US.

One problem that I have with this study, however, is that evolution tends to be strictly interpreted as having no religious connection. I don't agree with that premise. Intelligent design, for example, still contends that evolution occured, only that there is some sort of guiding entity which "oversees" it. This is a far different cry from fundamentalist Jews and Christians (Muslims, too?) who believe the earth was created in 7 calendar days and is some 4,500+ years old.

While some people adamantly reject any validity to evolution, I would hazard a guess that many more accept the concept of evolution and only differ on whether it occurs by pure happenstance or is a tool for a creator.

I believe in evolution, but have no problem believing that it could also be a load of bull sheet.

This is a far different cry from fundamentalist Jews and Christians (Muslims, too?) who believe the earth was created in 7 calendar days and is some 4,500+ years old.

I thought they believed it was created 6,000 BC and therefore believe it's about 8,000 years old now.

Either way, the question i would like to see asked is "do you believe the world is evolving?" and see what the replies would be.

This is a far different cry from fundamentalist Jews and Christians (Muslims, too?) who believe the earth was created in 7 calendar days and is some 4,500+ years old.

I thought they believed it was created 6,000 BC and therefore believe it's about 8,000 years old now.

Either way, the question i would like to see asked is "do you believe the world is evolving?" and see what the replies would be.

It's actually 6000 years ago, ie about 4000 BC. Remember though that this is purely based on the ages of the early patriarchs and eventually this is added to the historic events that are provable. So it's not a 'reliable' way to date anything. However, the 'age' argument is a weak one. Many believers believe in an 'old earth' theory, that the opening verses of Genesis are not dated and could be referring to an indefinite period of time. The point is, and should be, that we believe in a creator who created and sustains his creation. Evangelical evolutionists pointing out differences of opinion in creationists beliefs ignore the facts that evolutionists also have differences of opinion. It’s a matter of faith and happiness, I believe that God created, and is control of, his entire creation and I am very happy with this belief.

This verse says all that’s needed:

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” Psalm 33

Cheers Tiggs but "do you believe the world is evolving"?

Cheers Tiggs but "do you believe the world is evolving"?

Oh yes, the world is evolving, but we're not. I am a firm believer in creation, people can argue the toss about the detail, but I believe in a creator who created all things and that nothing came about by accident.

I mentioned a presentation I attended a few months ago entitled 'How science proves creation' given by a leading scientist here in the NW, I will be seeing him in a couple of weeks time and I will discuss with him posting the info on the web, if not on a web site at least in a format that can be viewed here on tv.

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution. Half of Britons probably don't believe in Britain anymore!

Cheers Tiggs but "do you believe the world is evolving"?

Oh yes, the world is evolving, but we're not. I am a firm believer in creation, people can argue the toss about the detail, but I believe in a creator who created all things and that nothing came about by accident.

Fair enough. Not my personal belief but each to their own.

Yes I think the world is evolving, but evolving into what? there I have my doubts.

Degenerately, or for the better, well as Wellington said in 1815, it is (was) a close run thing, but I believe there are far more good people than bad, even the one trick poodles who cannot distinguish between differing opinions, for the greater Good.

So with that belief, Good people can only increase and Bad people will slowly diminish, I just hope it happens before a certain Star goes Super Nova.

Interesting view Moss. I wish it were true. I think there have always been bad and good, and there will always be bad and good. Certainly until my belief be fulfilled that the Lord Jesus returns to the earth to establish the universal good.

Let's not forget that there are differing perspectives of those who are good and those who are bad, but in the narrow sense of that which my cultural background tells me is good and bad, I think that history firmly supports the view that there has always been good and bad. If you accept that, you may also accept that any significant change is unlikely. I don't know that our evolving world will ever evolve to that which we may consider perfection - although evolution would seem to be a journey towards perfection, universal perfection would seem to be inconsistent with nature.

If man evolved from the apes....why do we still have apes?

Why don't more apes "evolve" into human beings?

If man evolved from the apes....why do we still have apes?

For the same reason that we still have cockroaches, horseshoe crabs, coelacanths, and all manner of creatures on this earth. Just because man evolved from an "ape-like" creature does not mean that all creatures must evolve at the same rate.  And if you agree with the evloution tree which leads to modern man, then bonobos (and chimps, gorillas, and organutangs) are their own evolutionary branch of the early ape-like creatures.  They did not exist any more than man existed so many years ago.

Cheers Tiggs but "do you believe the world is evolving"?

Oh yes, the world is evolving, but we're not. I am a firm believer in creation, people can argue the toss about the detail, but I believe in a creator who created all things and that nothing came about by accident.

Yes, humans are evolving.  The differnces have been small over measurable history, but both genetic tracking and study of human remains have shown that there have been both phsyical changes in the bodies of humans as well as mutations which have bred true. Admitedly, these changes have been relatively small, but then again, the time period for which these changes ahve occurred has been short. 

I mentioned a presentation I attended a few months ago entitled 'How science proves creation' given by a leading scientist here in the NW, I will be seeing him in a couple of weeks time and I will discuss with him posting the info on the web, if not on a web site at least in a format that can be viewed here on tv.

I would like to see that myself. I personally have a hard time envisioning that all of this is just happening willy-nilly. And mathematical studies I have seen suggest that given measurable mutation rates and using computer simulations, evolution should have taken at least two or three times longer than what we now think is the actual timeline.  I especially look at the vast proliferation of varied life forms in the Pleistocene which arose and disappeared in such a short time to be jarring to my comprehension. 

The problem is that most of the people whom I have read who try to prove creationism make no sense at all to me.  The Creation Museum outside Cincinnati is one such place.  It has dinosaurs co-existing with man, for example, and stegasaurus aboard Noah's ark. It rejects the dinosuar to bird theory because the old testament states that birds of the air were created before the creatures of the ground. The Museum basically states that the great flood covered the entire world and created all fossils and sedimentary deposits found today (of course, then what happend to the triceratops and stegasaurus which went on the ark?)

One one hand, wehave science and fact. I have seen the bones of Sue, the huge tyrannosaurus rex at the Fields Musem in Chicago, so I believe that dinosaurs existed.  I have seen the remains of early hominids, so I believe they existed as well. The scientific proof that the world is older than 6000 years is pretty convincing (although I accept your previous point that Genesis was not referring to seven 24-hour days). 

None of that disproves the existence of a creator, a God who created all of that. But I have never seen proof that  there is a creator who made all of this. But I think it is easier to accept a greater power, and I welcome any attempt at proof. It is just that so far, all attempts that I have witnessed have been pretty feeble and even laughable.

So for me, believing in a God is still a matter of faith, not of science.

Albert Einstein a believer in a creator and creation wrote:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein 1879-1955: Science, Philosophy and Religion (1941)

Let's not forget what science is. Lot's of things mentioned by bonobo above can be neither proven by science nor religion. So we have theories, thoughts and speculations. It's when we start putting our faith in these that we have problems.

FYI, One link that mentions the US study:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...e_religion.html

Please note that I do not happen to support the creator connection in the article or Albert's throw-away line. He was a genius, but just like all of us here, he was a man (in the gender-neutral sense).

Point taken ping. However, the point I was making is true, many scientists believe in God, many scientists believe in creation. In fact I have mentioned a book on here in the past called, 'In six days' Why 50 scientists believe in a 6 day creation. I do not mention it to show any agreement or disagreement with their views, just to show that many scientists believe in a creator and creation. I have many friends whom I meet with who hold doctorates in various disciplines who also believe in God and read the bible.

My biggest 'bug-bear' is that many put forward other theories to disprove the existence of God, and this is simply not the case.

Yes, I understand. I have declared my views in various threads (perhaps too succinctly), but they are only my opinions and have been fairly economical to provide. I respect the various views that have been offered, but I just can't see the need (in the larger sense) for a connection to a creator. I would be surprised if anything could be offered to change my stand (but I wouldn't be so foolish as to say it would be impossible). However, I used to know a guy who spent around ten years of much of his free time in trying to determine whether there was sufficient cogent information in human hands to persuade him that the existence of a creator is more probable than not. On the last occasion I asked him, his exact words were (laughing), 'I'm f..ked if I know!'. I dare say he's still searching ('faith' didn't come into the equation)...

Some people have to search deeper than others...

I wrote a longer reply a few days ago that was swallowed by the computer, a random event or divine comment?

I feel that our vocabulary is limiting true understanding, because of the size and time scales involved. This is why (IMHO) that the average person (if the original survey size was large enough) would accept a simple solution to the problem of creation rather than attempt to encompass the greater science required. Consider something as simple as a single Iron atom with your blood, the fact that the atom was created within a star millions of years ago and has probably been part of different animals or plants through time is beyond the average person's understanding. It's hard enough to consider that the water we drink has been through a few sets of kidneys before we get to taste it.

If the universe was created, was it created by a dark haired blue eyed male, a dolphin shaped animal or a bacteria?

And when I use the word 'create' I think I might mean set in place the physical 'rules' and chemical processes that to this point has produced man-kind, for we are foolist to consider we are the intended result, but just another branch on a longer path, we are someone elses' "ape-like creature".

Talking of the six 'days' of creation, because of our local star, the sun, we all consider a day to be one earth rotation - 24 hours. Before the sun & earth etc. were 'created' how did god or rather the bible writer measure the time for '...let there be light...' etc. If you consider a day rotation to be a measure of galatic or universe rotation the time period measured by 'six days' has a closer baring to the time taken for creation.

Let's not forget what science is. Lot's of things mentioned by bonobo above can be neither proven by science nor religion. So we have theories, thoughts and speculations. It's when we start putting our faith in these that we have problems.

Very little can be proven by religion, yet science can reasonably prove many things. So I am not sure what things I mentioned cannot be proven by science.

Unless you believe it is all a hoax, well then, the fossilized bones of a tyranasaurus is pretty good proof to me. Ditto early hominids, but there you even have more evidence to include tools and such. I do think carbon dating alone is a pretty accepted proof that the earth is older than 6,000 years, and that ignores all the other evidence.

If you were referring to the dinosaurs to birds, well, yes, that is a theory, and there is no concrete proof yet, but the evidence is pointing that way. Regarldess, science can offer prrof, or evidecen pretty cloes to proof about many things.  But religion does not offer proof. Once again that is why we refer to faith when speaking about the veracity of religion.

Point taken ping. However, the point I was making is true, many scientists believe in God, many scientists believe in creation. In fact I have mentioned a book on here in the past called, 'In six days' Why 50 scientists believe in a 6 day creation. I do not mention it to show any agreement or disagreement with their views, just to show that many scientists believe in a creator and creation. I have many friends whom I meet with who hold doctorates in various disciplines who also believe in God and read the bible.

There are many scientists who are deeply religious.  As I posted earlier, I don't see the disparity between being religious and being a scientist.

My biggest 'bug-bear' is that many put forward other theories to disprove the existence of God, and this is simply not the case.

Just as you can't prove the existence of God, you can disprove it either.

Have you seen the Genius of Charles Darwin series on the BBC? and the other documentary What Darwin Didn't Know?

Absolutely fascinating, and to me provides concrete proof that evolution is real and undeniable. Spiritually I'm completely okay with that. To me, I dont see why belief in evolution means that you can not believe in a creator, even though I don't believe in the creation story laid out in the Bible.

Now after all, the Bible, is only a collection of books, out of many, written 100's of years after the death of Jesus, which were chosen by a Roman, who was tasked with bringing Christianity into line. The state acknowledged the growth of it but they wanted to centralise it and control it. So any books that didn't serve this purpose were discarded.

Gnostic beliefs which said that God was to be found inside of you, and did not require you to worship at a temple was obviously difficult to control, so it was discarded. The recently discovered Gnostic gospel of Judas Iscariot is a great example. Its so inflammatory and contrary to what is written in today's holy text, its not hard to see why this was discarded too. Of course the modern church either writes this off as a conspiracy theory, or simply say Christians do not believe in them, which I think is an understandable management approach.

The modern church does not give them equal credit to the other gospels, which were selected by the Bishop of Cyprus. They maintain that their modern slant on Judas, as the betrayer, is the only true version. A view that has been born from many subsequent translations and interpretations of the original books over millennia. These slight modifications happened over an incredibly long period of time, and often during times when this new centralised form of Christianity was not really all that benevolent and bore very little resemblance to what we see today. Remember this is the institution that was responsible for numerous wars, death, and torture.

This is why I can not help but believe that some bias present at the time of the interpretations must have crept into the form of the texts that we know today. To me accepting that is rational and understandable. So personally, spiritually, I'm very comfortable with not taking the creation stories nor indeed any parable too literally.

Evolution is quite different, the evidence supports the view that man (and all other forms of modern apes) evolved from the same common ancestor. It does not require faith, and it does not ask me to believe that women were created from a spare rib.

This that does not mean that in the modern world of science, and in my spiritual world that there is no room for a creator, I think there still is. But personally I hold the view that 'He' created everything, including the unshakable rules that govern, every universe, every dimension. A view shared by many scientists including Dr Stephen Hawking.

Phew.... that was deep, time for a beer.. soon...

Gnostic beliefs which said that God was to be found inside of you, and did not require you to worship at a temple was obviously difficult to control, so it was discarded. The recently discovered Gnostic gospel of Judas Iscariot is a great example. Its so inflammatory and contrary to what is written in today's holy text, its not hard to see why this was discarded too. Of course the modern church either writes this off as a conspiracy theory, or simply say Christians do not believe in them, which I think is an understandable management approach.

Without any evidence to back this up, I tend to side with many religious thinkers who feel that Judas has been demonized over the years, and his "betrayal" of Christ was intended as a goad to push the peaceful Jesus Christ into being a leader of a violent revolt.  And if you believe the account of Mathew (as opposed to Luke's in Acts), then when this revolt failed to occur, he committed suicide in remorse.

There are many different views of Judas, but in my mind, a man who was so close to Jesus, who knew the man, could hardly have simply betrayed him for a handful of money.

Once agin, this is simple musings on my part, not hard historical fact nor even a firm belief.

There are many different views of Judas, but in my mind, a man who was so close to Jesus, who knew the man, could hardly have simply betrayed him for a handful of money.

Jealousy is better possibility and the cash could have sweetened the deal.

A common misconception from the religious propaganda 'against' evolution is that humans evolved from apes. That is not true, as the apes have evolved over the same period of time that we have. We have similar ancestors, which makes apes and humans more like cousins.

Evolution is not really a belief. It is the best-fit model currently agreed by most scientists to explain the available fossil, biological, and geophysical evidence about the development of life on Earth, attempting to explain why it isn't apparently the way it used to be and how it got to where it is now. There is NO equally satisfying alternative scientific explanation- that is, an explanation which requires testable hypotheses based on evidence- for the parts of the story which are derived directly from fossil evidence- there simply isn't. Seven fossil stages or more have been found, for example, between the land-bound walking whale-ancestor and the apparently legless (though with vestigial legs buried in the blubber) ocean-going whale.

Where evolution loses some of its power is in attempting to extrapolate events backwards into periods of time when there is much less remaining evidence (for example, before about 1-2 billion years ago). At that point it becomes a matter of creating 'just-so' stories- which technically are actually NOT really scientific, because they are not testable- but which make sense and dovetail with more grounded evidence. Many of these stories may never be verified, but their usefulness in generating creative approaches is still of value. For example, there is a legitimate debate over whether RNA and DNA developed on Earth or were blasted here from space- this would solve the problem that DNA should have taken a lot of time to develop (more than seems available on the Earth time scale) and is also plausible because bacteria can pack themselves into nigh-on indestructible spores (we have located some inside salt crystals which have survived over 250 million years, from the Permian seas over America).

"Intelligent design" refers almost exclusively to this pre-evidentiary period of time, and as such, since it cannot be disproven, is ALSO not scientific. Admittedly, there is a prejudice against introducing apparently unnecessary entities into scientific discussions (gods or daemons), so as this line of thinking doesn't seem to be borne out by most modern scientific observations of contemporary phenomenon, it is removed (through Occam's Razor) even from the more speculative scientific discussion.

I would suggest that 'intelligent designers' get over their science envy- stick with the religion which is really their big thing- and spend their time trying to make their religions worth respecting and somehow relevant to people, rather than putting themselves in the untenable and ridiculous position of 'denying' the evidentiary science available (which most of them don't really understand or know thoroughly anyway).

IMHO.

IJWT I really can not recommend the Genius of Charles Darwin series enough.

Watch that and you will see that there is proof.

Its called the Human Genome project.