Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science News

Britons Unconvinced on Evolution 2035

Posted by Roblimo
from the the-U.S.-is-not-the-only-unevolved-country dept.
pryonic writes "The BBC is reporting that more than half of Britons do not believe in evolution, with a further 40% advocating that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science classes. I'm a Brit myself, and I thought most people over here thought these views were outdated and lacked substance. None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected. Maybe I've been blind to the views of the majority in this proudly secular country?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Britons Unconvinced on Evolution

Comments Filter:
  • by thefirelane (586885) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:38AM (#14566949)
    I think The Economist said it best:

    "Intelligent Design is something Britons read about with a smirk before they turn to the Horoscope section"

    (from memory, but very close)
  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by muellerr1 (868578) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:38AM (#14566952) Homepage
    Proof that Americans don't have a monopoly on ignorance!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:43AM (#14567004)
    What's even stranger they're one of the only first world countries that still believe that someone's bloodline can grant them some sort of economic, political and social status.
  • Genius (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:44AM (#14567023)
    None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected.

    Wow. Fantastic deduction.

  • Great Idea! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:46AM (#14567046)
    Nothing like denying education to the poor and middle to exacerbate the existing social divisions.

    Heck, with all that money we save we could bring back debtor's prisons as well. Everybody wins!
  • by FooGoo (98336) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:47AM (#14567058)
    Try Cuba, the weather is nice, great cigars, and beautiful women. It really is a nice place...well...except for that one guy.
  • by mrjb (547783) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:48AM (#14567066)
    Damn spaghetti monster? BLASPHEMY!!!!
  • Re:Athiest (Score:2, Funny)

    by pryonic (938155) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:50AM (#14567090)
    Lol, you're right their. I was a stupid typo. Thing is I get really annoyed when people make spelling mistake in stories. Talk about hypocracy!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2006 @10:54AM (#14567144)
    On one hand, I'm happy to see that rampant idiocy isn't a uniquely American trait.

    You're a complete, myopic idiot to think this in the first place. This "the USA is the only place with stupid people in the world" is astonishing in its hypocrisy. You have whole nations out there with government based on radical, fundamental theology from top to bottom. Or other ones based on outdated theories and economic systems that have been repeatedly demonstrated to be broken.

    On the other hand, however, I'm seriously troubled by this. I guess I was kinda counting on the rest of the world to bitchslap America back to sanity sooner or later, but now it appears that we can't count on the global community saving the day for rationality.

    Where does this come from? This sort of talk just makes you sound the like the most ignorant fool of all. What makes you and your ilk live this delusion that the world outside the USA is somehow magically enlightened and rational? Have you ever BEEN anywhere? I've been to every continent (visited Antarctica thanks to Linblad Expeditions) multiple times for my job, and the USA is a rank amateur when it comes to irrationality.

    HUMANITY is irrational.

  • by meringuoid (568297) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:03AM (#14567272)
    But that doesn't mean I think Intelligent Design is science, either. But neither is a whole lot that goes on with Evolution and other supporting theories that are based on something other than experimentation. Fact is, there has never been an experiment with macro-evolution - until there is, Macro-Evolution is simply a theory and, IMO, a weak one at that.

    You're right there. Same with Plate Tectonics. I mean, sure, we've found the mid-Atlantic ridge and measured how it's spreading a tiny amount each year, I don't disagree with Micro-Continental-Drift. It's only Macro-Continental-Drift I disagree with. Pangaea? Rubbish. And all the magnetic reversal patterns and matching rock formations on separate continents that the scientists come up with are IMO really weak.

    And don't get me started on Macro-Addition. I mean, we know 1+1=2, we can test that by counting things, but AFAIK nobody in the world has ever seen more than a few million of anything at one time. And yet these scientists tell us about billions of this and trillions of that, and then they even make up a new way of writing numbers that doesn't even use names! Exponential notation is only a theory, and IMO, a weak one at that.

  • by anethema (99553) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:12AM (#14567391) Homepage
    Your faith gives me heart.

    May you be touched by His noodley appendage.
  • by Himring (646324) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:23AM (#14567584) Homepage Journal
    There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals Chuck Norris has allowed to live....

  • by aborchers (471342) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:23AM (#14567586) Homepage Journal
    I think you forgot the first adjective: "smug".

  • Re:Athiest (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gordonjcp (186804) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:26AM (#14567611) Homepage
    THta's wha tpreveiw si for...
  • by databyss (586137) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:27AM (#14567633) Homepage Journal
    RAMEN!
  • by Techguy666 (759128) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:32AM (#14567697)
    Having seen the movie, "Underworld: Evolution", I'm starting to believe that the concept of evolution needs to be banished, if for no other reason than to prevent entertainment companies from coming up with these ideas.

    Underworld: Evolution (movie)
    Evolution (movie)
    King of Fighters Evolution (video game)
    Turok: Evolution (video game)

    Gah!
  • by Bastard of Subhumani (827601) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:36AM (#14567758) Journal
    Personally, I don't believe in Evolution. That doesn't make me an idiot. I simply disagree with the theory.
    Personally, I don't believe that the square on the hypotenuse of a right-agnled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. That doesn't make me innumerate. I simply disagree with the theorem.
  • by LoyalOpposition (168041) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:39AM (#14567795)
    Here's why it's bunkum:there is no controversy. ID/Creationism, not being falsifiable, is not science, and does not belong in a science classroom.

    A very well-reasoned post, and your conclusions are inescapable--except for one thing. Intelligent Design is falsifiable, thus is science, and thus should be taught in the classroom.

    -Loyal

  • by danaris (525051) <danaris@ma[ ]om ['c.c' in gap]> on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:49AM (#14567927) Homepage

    OK, then; falsify it for us, so we can all forget about it and move on.

    Dan Aris

  • by sid_uk (888851) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:54AM (#14568001) Homepage
    Being brittish qualifies me to talk about this, I asked a few friends and some collegues at work and all of them believed in evolution ... even the christian who goes to church every weekend thinks that there was a form of evolution. I'm not sure where/how they got a cross section of the population of this 'survey' but as far as I can see it's not very true.
  • by Yocto Yotta (840665) * <catapults.music@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:54AM (#14568004)
    I take offense at your slandering of His Noodleyness with your implied comparisons to ID.

    Heathen.
  • Sounds like (Score:2, Funny)

    by JustNiz (692889) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @11:58AM (#14568040)
    something else to add to the list of "Bad things we have imported from the USA", along with McDonalds and (c)rap-music.
  • by RingDev (879105) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @12:02PM (#14568111) Homepage Journal
    You would think that while posting about education I would find it wise to run a spell checker before hitting post. Please, excuse my typo's.

    -Rick
  • by Bazzalisk (869812) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @12:08PM (#14568203) Homepage
    Q. Do you feel that public buildings aren't layed out very well?

    Q. Do you feel that one-way systems often impede easy traffic flow?

    Q. Do you think that the education of the designers is to blame?

    Q. Should Inteligent Design be taught in schools?

    :)

  • by Hrdina (781504) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @12:14PM (#14568299)
    Grab 2000 random statistics off of teh intarwebs, I bet 37% were made up on the spot.

    Actually, I think it is closer to 80%.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2006 @12:32PM (#14568566)
    None of my close friends give any credit to creationism or ID, but we're all well educated athiests so I guess that's to be expected.

    None of my close friends like eating pork, but we're all well educated jewish rabbis so I guess that's to be expected.
  • by KaushalParekh (896920) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @12:35PM (#14568611)
    ...Or, put another way, there could be some intelligent programmer "outside" of our universe who created the computing machine that is our universe. Personally, I'm not compelled by such an argument,...

    Dont you know ?! The Earth is a supercomputer built by a bunch of mice ? to know the ultimate question for the answer 42...

  • by qmVSE*w!7e,QF(, (924179) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @12:46PM (#14568792) Homepage
    "Intelligent Design is something Britons read about with a smirk before they turn to the Horoscope section"

    I guess this should be revised to say "Intelligent Design is something 48% Britons read about with a smirk before they turn to the Horoscope section".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2006 @01:26PM (#14569387)
    Grab 2000 random statistics off of ...

    Random? Hilarious! You should all read the fine print:

    Over 2000 participants took part in the survey. All of the participants were surveyed outside churches on sunday afternoons.
  • by Spock the Baptist (455355) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @01:42PM (#14569614) Journal
    Could be a robotic SPAM duck decoy...

    Oh Wait! You said it tastes good...

    Never mind....
  • by smoker2 (750216) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @02:08PM (#14569986) Homepage Journal
    His (Darwin) theory did not address whether or not God created the initial organisms--it only addressed how organisms have changed over time.
    But that is guilty by omission. The Bible states that god made man in his own image.
    We have evidence that we have evolved from "lesser" mammals, and they evolved from fish/reptiles, and they evolved from (initially) single celled lifeforms.

    Ergo, god is an amoeba.

  • by LoyalOpposition (168041) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @02:12PM (#14570033)
    It would "tend" to falsify ID? I don't know what you meant by that, but it wouldn't be true that such an experiment would falsify ID.

    Because when one reasons about the physical sciences one uses inductive reasoning. If this bacterium is susceptable to penicillin and that bacterium is susceptable to penicillin and the other bacterium is susceptable to penicillin, maybe all bacteria are susceptable to penicillin. On the other hand, maybe they were susceptible to the alcohol used to suspend the penicillin and drowned. (I'm sorry. I'm no expert in the biological sciences, so maybe bacteria aren't susceptible to alcohol. It's not germain to the argument I present.) It's only in the mathematical sciences that we can prove, given certain axioms and methods of inference, that for examle there is no largest prime number.

    Believers in ID did not become so by looking at the strong and weak nuclear forces.

    So you believe that a statement is true or false depending on how the proponents of the statement came to examine it? If I could give you one example of a person who believes Intelligent Design by examining the strong and weak nuclear forces, would you then come to believe Intelligent Design?

    The suggestion that a single development (in an area of physics that most of these people don't even know about) could change their minds is either naive or dishonest.

    Who has made such a suggestion?

    The only way to disprove ID is to solve all of the unknowns in science, to such a degree that ID believers can no longer quibble over the definition of the word "theory". Personally I don't believe that's possible.

    I note that the way Newtonian physics was disproved was through Einstein's theory of relativity (The General one, I think, but I'm not certain.) I note that scores of physicists are trying to disprove the theory of relativity at this moment. Would you similarly claim that the only way to disprove Einstein's general theory of relativity is to solve all the unknowns in science to such a degree that ToR believers can no longer quibble over the definition of the word "theory?" If not, why not?

    -Loyal

  • by smoker2 (750216) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @02:58PM (#14570691) Homepage Journal
    Time to intervene and add a chromosome here, a gene there.
    That would be Patch Tuesday.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:01PM (#14571634)
    "Grab 2000 of any random population off the streets of any city"

    err, that wouldn't be followed by shady flights across European airspace, detention without trial and torture would it?

    oops, my bad........wrong country

  • by Bush Pig (175019) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:16PM (#14571874)
    You're right, Karl _was_ the funniest Marx Brother ...
  • by Procyon101 (61366) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @04:51PM (#14572354) Journal
    Bull.

    If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that Jesus wasn't "sharing" one peice of bread with many, nor was he demonstrating his power. The lesson has nothing to do with "good will towards your fellow man."

    The people were all bitching and moaning that Jesus was a bit of a windbag and they were hungry, so Jesus grabs this kid who has a loaf of bread and (miraculously) gives everyone a peice. The people stick around to hear one more dissertation because there is now free food.

    The lesson he was trying to teach was that if your going to demand everyone show up at your meeting, you sure as hell better bring donuts.
  • by korielgraculus (591914) on Thursday January 26, 2006 @08:01PM (#14574364)
    ...and knowing the British, the phrase they missed out of the original article was "of the 3% who bothered to answer our questions ...."

IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...