h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't know that it is accurate to leave the impression that creationism is on the rise in the UK, at least among those of British descent.

I say this because the cited publication states:
"Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact...".

This coupled with the scores of the cited Poll:
22% creationism
17% intelligent design
48% evolution
13% did not know
Suggests that evolution is by far the most accepted theory and that the change may be more due to the influx of fundamentalist Christian and Islam immigrants.

Anyone who expects a god-inspired message to be a scientific tome is a moron. One can not put God or Allah in a box, or limit the diety's power to the human written word in a book. In most Islamic-Judeo-Christian religions, the very name of god is unpronounceable. What makes them think that any word from god could be purely translated when it must be passed through the limiting filter of a human language?

It is said that one must not 'test your god'. This can be applied to measuring the message against scientific discovery. That sort of testing is not about the religion, the faith, or the message. Both can be 'true' within the context of their communication.

"the influx of fundamentalist Christian and Islam immigrants."

Has there been a measurable influx of fundamentalist Christian immigrants? From where?

Creationism is definitely becoming more prevalent in the UK, if for no other reason that its greater media profile is forcing teachers to talk about it.

"evolution is by far the most accepted theory "

I disagree with the "by far".

48% said evolution.
39% said irrational superstitious garbage. (Recall that it has been established clearly in a US court of law that intelligent design and creationism are the SAME THING, so any attempt to pretend that believing "intelligent design" means you're not a Bible thumping dolt is intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, but hey, it's Christians we're talking about so it's par for the course, right?).

That's only a 9% difference. That's a worryingly small margin between rational people and idiots. It worries me even more that 1 in 8 people don't even have an opinion.

"Anyone who expects a god-inspired message to be a scientific tome is a moron."

Duh!

SoRB

Hi SoRJ

Gonna have to disagree with you on a couple of points there.

"Has there been a measurable influx of fundamentalist Christian immigrants? From where?"

Yes. From East Africa and the Carribean, largely. This has been largely responsible for the growth in 'New' / 'Evangelical' churches at a time when most denominations are decreasing through the 1990s / 2000s. More recently, immigration from New Europe (especially Poland) has boosted Catholic numbers.

The increased likelihood of black people to be churchgoers is reflected in numerous sets of statistics, e.g. the recent survey at www.tearfund.org on churchgoing (where they describe this as 'increased diversity', despite the fact that every ethnic group other than black is under-represented in churches).

'Intelligent Design' is sometimes used as a euphemism for 'Old Earth Creationism' or 'Theistic Evolution'. It is also sometimes used as a euphemism for 'Young Earth Creationism'. Blurring this line is an essential part of the Creationist strategy (i.e. 'Lots of people believe God guided evolution, therefore they're IDers, therefore they're YECs').

OEC / theistic evolution is still demonstrably wrong - but it's not in the knuckle-dragging category that YEC is. We can't tell from the survey what the respondants thought ID meant.

Gif

"OEC / theistic evolution is still demonstrably wrong - but it's not in the knuckle-dragging category that YEC is."

Really? I disagree. If anything, I find the concept of "theistic evolution" even more infuriatingly thick-headed and hypocritical than YECs, who at least have the integrity to stand up and be counted as loonies rather than trying to pretend they're not.

What is "theistic evolution"? The concept that our evolution was in some way "guided" by the hand of a big-beardy-man-in-the-sky. It's not a theory, because it's not falsifiable. It is, even in principle, indistinguishable at any level from exactly the same process *without* the big-beardy-man-in-the-sky. Which leaves you believing in him not for any good reason, but simply because to do so gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling. "Theistic evolution" my appendix, I say. If there was a god, he could have guided our evolution down a path that meant it was impossible for us to choke to death. He failed. As a "designer" he therefore fails the test of intelligence.

SoRB

Hi SoRB,

All true; but there is less evidence in conflict with Theistic Evolution than there is with YEC, for the simple reason that it is more similar to neo-Darwinian evolution.

Some regard Theistic Evolution (Thevolution?) as falsifiable (you give an example of how you consider it to be falsified; Behe's miserable failure to find a single example of a biological system that could not have evolved by natural selection is another). Others don't (on the grounds that theists can always reply 'well God just chose to do it that way in Her Mysterious Purpose That Is Forever Beyond Mortal Comprehension).

But TE accepts 99% of ToE and 99% of the evidence supporting it. In its best forms, it's only failing is to try to insert an unnecessary second explanation (have you seen my entry on Occam's Razor in PR?). Which - at least in my opinion - puts it head and shoulders above YEC, which rejects out of hand 99% of the evidence supporting evolution.

Gif

The MPTIFBMC is (C) and TM The Invisible Pink Unicorn, from the begining of time (5 minutes ago).

Hi, people:

Sorry that I missed using a 'subject' on this thread. Normally, I'm more careful than that.

I'm glad that Giford helped out with the question of Christian immigrants. Thanks!

I understand that 'By Far' is a very subjective measurement. I had read that the U.S. was nearly 50-50 among people willing to state an opinion which is so much sadder an outcome that the 9% looked pretty good. It basically means that 25% more people believe in Science than do creationism of any sort. (50 is 25% more than 40)

The real problem is that the 13% may be more likely to believe in creationism, but unwilling to state that opinion in public. Or they just don't care.

The differences may be subtle, between creationism and ID, but I think they break down something like this.

Given: a Puddle formed by rain in a muddy horse's hoofprint

Science: Hmm, gravity has apparently caused me to flow into a horse's hoofprint.

Creationism: God created this hoofprint to be here to suit the 'me' he intended to create because I'm special to God. He loves me!

Intelligent Design: Ooh, I find myself filling a space that seems just perfectly suited to my size, mass and shape. And, this gravity thing seems perfectly suited to keep me nestled in it. Some grand intelligence must have designed it for the fit to be so perfect.

ID tends to be verbose, in an attempt to cover up its inadequacies.