Why do half of Britons not believe in...

Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?

There are 180 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jul 26, 2014, titled Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

Indeed, as reported by the UK's Guardian ; Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds and Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last

“No Allah: know peace”

Level 1

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#1 Jul 30, 2014
It is very sad that creationist ignorance is spreading.
aggressive dressmaker

Swansea, UK

#2 Jul 30, 2014
That's nonsense practically everyone I know is an atheist or is just not interested in religion.
If the 54% figure is true it's cos of all the immigrants and their mumbo jumbo
oh how we laughed

UK

#3 Jul 31, 2014
people my age were taught Evolution in school. My grandfather, born in the 19th century, knew all about evolution and knew it was true. How anyone can doubt it baffles me - just look at the news from certain places to see how some of us have only recently come down from the trees.
oh how we laughed

UK

#4 Jul 31, 2014
moslems believe -

Adam was 60 ft tall!
the world is 6000 years old
Mo had a flying horse
Mo cracked the Moon in half
Mo had a talking donkey
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#5 Jul 31, 2014
Wouldn't worry too much yet. In Britain there's no separation of church and state, so they have religious instruction in assembly and religions classes. But they recently banned teaching creationism as a "scientific" alternative in school science classes. Problem with surveys is that they're restricted to a small sample set, and the attitudes of people who say both should be taught is likely due to the issue in the UK is generally not considered to be that big a deal in general.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#6 Jul 31, 2014
While the idea of the creator God who creates from nothing is ridiculous, is it, on the other hand, sane to believe that inanimate matter produced sentience and gave rise to a hierarchy of highly organized living forms via common descent? Can the simplest living cell be created from scratch? No. Can an ant be turned into say a bacterium or into a rat by tinkering with its genome? No. Can the principle of life (whatever it be) be identified, quantified, extracted and stored after the death of the organism? No. Can a dead organism be brought back to life using electrochemical means? No. Can we transform a simple living cell (that can divide and propagate itself) into any species of our choice? No. Can we turn a machine into a sentient being having thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions, likes and dislikes and personality with capacity to reproduce its kind through sexual methods? No. So, there's much more to the phenomenon of life than what we naively think there is to it.
wondering

Morris, OK

#7 Jul 31, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
While the idea of the creator God who creates from nothing is ridiculous, is it, on the other hand, sane to believe that inanimate matter produced sentience and gave rise to a hierarchy of highly organized living forms via common descent? Can the simplest living cell be created from scratch? No. Can an ant be turned into say a bacterium or into a rat by tinkering with its genome? No. Can the principle of life (whatever it be) be identified, quantified, extracted and stored after the death of the organism? No. Can a dead organism be brought back to life using electrochemical means? No. Can we transform a simple living cell (that can divide and propagate itself) into any species of our choice? No. Can we turn a machine into a sentient being having thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions, likes and dislikes and personality with capacity to reproduce its kind through sexual methods? No. So, there's much more to the phenomenon of life than what we naively think there is to it.
this is probably the best and most honest comment i have seen in the little over a month i have been on this thread. well said.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#8 Jul 31, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
While the idea of the creator God who creates from nothing is ridiculous, is it, on the other hand, sane to believe that inanimate matter produced sentience and gave rise to a hierarchy of highly organized living forms via common descent?
No, but then there is no such claim within the modern evolutionary synthesis. First of all, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, for the exact same reason the theory of gravity doesn't rely on the origin of mass. And second, there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis which claims life developed from "inanimate" matter anyway (it seems many seem confused over the definition of what the term "inanimate" means).

As for evolution via common ancestry however, that's been passing the scientific method for, oh, roughly 15 decades.(shrug)
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
Can the simplest living cell be created from scratch? No. Can an ant be turned into say a bacterium or into a rat by tinkering with its genome? No. Can the principle of life (whatever it be) be identified, quantified, extracted and stored after the death of the organism? No. Can a dead organism be brought back to life using electrochemical means? No. Can we transform a simple living cell (that can divide and propagate itself) into any species of our choice? No. Can we turn a machine into a sentient being having thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions, likes and dislikes and personality with capacity to reproduce its kind through sexual methods? No.
But then all of these are irrelevant to the validity of the hypothesis of common ancestry. We can't get to the nearest star, but that doesn't mean that we can't tell they're stars.
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
So, there's much more to the phenomenon of life than what we naively think there is to it.
That there may be, in fact scientists admit that their definition of what "life" is isn't necessarily all that great. But again, that doesn't mean we cannot determine that evolution is a fact.
oh how we laughed

UK

#9 Jul 31, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
While the idea of the creator God who creates from nothing is ridiculous, is it, on the other hand, sane to believe that inanimate matter produced sentience and gave rise to a hierarchy of highly organized living forms via common descent? Can the simplest living cell be created from scratch? No. Can an ant be turned into say a bacterium or into a rat by tinkering with its genome? No. Can the principle of life (whatever it be) be identified, quantified, extracted and stored after the death of the organism? No. Can a dead organism be brought back to life using electrochemical means? No. Can we transform a simple living cell (that can divide and propagate itself) into any species of our choice? No. Can we turn a machine into a sentient being having thoughts, feelings, emotions, reactions, likes and dislikes and personality with capacity to reproduce its kind through sexual methods? No. So, there's much more to the phenomenon of life than what we naively think there is to it.
yes, it does make sense. stop displaying your ignorance.
rio

London, UK

#10 Jul 31, 2014
What's the problem?

Can't people believe what they want?

Isn't Britain a free country?

Where all the thought control leads?
JOEL

Thane, India

#11 Jul 31, 2014
Yawn.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#12 Jul 31, 2014
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy (or in your science)."

- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#13 Jul 31, 2014
Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Bye.
THE LONE WORKER

Fairfax, VA

#14 Jul 31, 2014
rio wrote:
What's the problem?
Can't people believe what they want?
Isn't Britain a free country?
Where all the thought control leads?
It leads to bedlam. Freethinking keeps folks from being boxed in.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#15 Jul 31, 2014
rio wrote:
What's the problem?
Can't people believe what they want?
Isn't Britain a free country?
Where all the thought control leads?
Who's speaking of thought control? People have a right to their own beliefs, but not to their own facts.

So for the sake of argument, let's say that you're a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution and you would prefer your child to share your beliefs. You have lots of options available to you:

1 - You can speak to the Headmaster or Principal and tell them you want your child to be taken out of science classes because reality goes against your religous beliefs.

2 - You can homeshool your child.

3 - You can pay for private tuition.

4 - You can take your kid to any church you like and tell them to ignore anything science class tells them about reality.

5 - You can let your child learn about evolution and make up their own mind during their own life.

But one option you DON'T have is to ruin science education for everyone else's kids. There is no rational argument for the dilution of science class just because you have religious beefs.
rio

London, UK

#16 Jul 31, 2014
THE LONE WORKER wrote:
<quoted text>It leads to bedlam. Freethinking keeps folks from being boxed in.
But who wants to be boxed in?

Surely tolerance is paramount.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#17 Jul 31, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy (or in your science)."
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
But can either you or Hamlet back up this baseless claim?

Remember that quoting fiction might sound cool, but fiction has no bearing on reality. I could say "Hey Joel Cool dude,***I*** am your father!". But it wouldn't really mean I was your father.
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
Yawn. Yawn. Yawn. Bye.
Apparently not. Bye then.(shrug)
rio

London, UK

#18 Jul 31, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's speaking of thought control? People have a right to their own beliefs, but not to their own facts.
So for the sake of argument, let's say that you're a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution and you would prefer your child to share your beliefs. You have lots of options available to you:
1 - You can speak to the Headmaster or Principal and tell them you want your child to be taken out of science classes because reality goes against your religous beliefs.
2 - You can homeshool your child.
3 - You can pay for private tuition.
4 - You can take your kid to any church you like and tell them to ignore anything science class tells them about reality.
5 - You can let your child learn about evolution and make up their own mind during their own life.
But one option you DON'T have is to ruin science education for everyone else's kids. There is no rational argument for the dilution of science class just because you have religious beefs.
I am not even sure school should approach the subject anyway, but why can't they teach BOTH, and let the pupils decide what suit them?

Just say some people believe in this, and some people believe in that, and insist that both theories are valid and none is superior to the other, bla, bla, bla ...

That's teaching tolerance to kids, and it's far better than endoctrinating them with just one theory.

Why people can't just get along, eh? Is that difficult?
THE LONE WORKER

Fairfax, VA

#19 Jul 31, 2014
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
But who wants to be boxed in?
Surely tolerance is paramount.
With a lot of these evolutionists it is their way or the highway, and that kind of box leads to very narrow mindedness.
oh how we laughed

UK

#20 Jul 31, 2014
rio wrote:
What's the problem?
Can't people believe what they want?
Isn't Britain a free country?
Where all the thought control leads?
allowing people to be taught that evolution is not true or that Adam was 60 ft tall or any other mediaeval crap is wrong and should be illegal. No wonder moslems are backward and rely on the West for technology. How can you build space probes and nuclear power stations if you think the world is flat and 6000 years old? we don't need you islamic nonsense here.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Eagle 12 - 87,493
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 21 min Eagle 12 - 5,833
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 24 min Simon 166,368
What's your religion? 23 hr 15th Dalai Lama 772
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Wed Tom Honda 1,825
Scientific Method Feb 15 stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web