|
US not the only country with "backwards" evolution ideas.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
| quote: |
Britons unconvinced on evolution
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.
The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.
Its latest programme, A War on Science, looks into the attempt to introduce intelligent design into science classes in the US.
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.
Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of living things are so complex that their existence is better explained by an "intelligent process" than natural selection.
Education questioned
Andrew Cohen, editor of Horizon, commented: "I think that this poll represents our first introduction to the British public's views on this issue.
"Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins."
When given a choice of three theories, people were asked which one or ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:
* 44% said creationism should be included
* 41% intelligent design
* 69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.
Participants over 55 were less likely to choose evolution over other groups.
"This really says something about the role of science education in this country and begs us to question how we are teaching evolutionary theory," Andrew Cohen added.
The findings prompted surprise from the scientific community. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "It is surprising that many should still be sceptical of Darwinian evolution. Darwin proposed his theory nearly 150 years ago, and it is now supported by an immense weight of evidence.
"We are, however, fortunate compared to the US in that no major segment of UK religious or cultural life opposes the inclusion of evolution in the school science curriculum."
In the US, a recent high profile court case ruled that the intelligent design movement is motivated by a desire to introduce God into the classroom after parents in Pennsylvania took a school board to court over its demand that biology classes should not teach evolution as fact.
Horizon: A War on Science is on BBC Two at 2100GMT on Thursday, 26 January 2006 |
Not saying that this justifies anything, only that maybe the problem is a little more than just US-centric. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Oh, it's definitely not a problem confined only to the US. Just take a look at what our then Education Minister (he's since been promoted to Defence Minister) had to say about Intelligent Design!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...3353386917.html
What century is this again? |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
While this is alarming, this is hardly new, and English-speaking nations that just happen to be in Iraq with us have not always been the only western nations to embrace erroneous ideas about biology.
Well through the Stalinist regime, evolutionary theory largely remained out of favor (something else, i forget what was preferred) and this generally set back evolutionary biology and zoology research in the Soviet Union, way back compared to the rest of continental Europe and the United States. There were, however, some dissenters and one of them (Dobzhansky) was one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the 20th century.
France also had its silly ideas throughout most of the early to middle part of the 20th century, where Lamarckianism somehow held sway even in academic circles. This had some unfortunate consequences one of them being that the otherwise great geologist, Teilhard de Chardin, had much of his early work colored with the 'language' of Lamarckianism (though, it definitely was not that in substance), something his detractors used to discredit him. |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| I wonder what these percentages are in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Yeah, a while ago serbian minister of education decided to put intelligent desigh into school program. Luckily she was fired the second day. Anyway, yeah, it seems the problem does exist elsewhere too. But luckily it says that most of the evolution opposers were 55 or more years old. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
But luckily it says that most of the evolution opposers were 55 or more years old. |
If anything, the world has gotten MORE religious with time -- I know that's true for the US, anyway.
My opinion is that more people who were raised in the 50s, 60s and 70s in America would be more secular and supportive of the evolution theory than those raised in the 80s and 90s, because there was a serious turn to the right in the last 3 decades.
I'm about to start a new thread that pertains to this, not about evolution but a more general one, about world trends. |
|
|
| DJ Kenosis |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
If anything, the world has gotten MORE religious with time -- I know that's true for the US, anyway.
My opinion is that more people who were raised in the 50s, 60s and 70s in America would be more secular and supportive of the evolution theory than those raised in the 80s and 90s, because there was a serious turn to the right in the last 3 decades.
I'm about to start a new thread that pertains to this, not about evolution but a more general one, about world trends. |
Secular-minded people (or at least those who aren't dogmatic about religion) need to reproduce more in general. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
If anything, the world has gotten MORE religious with time -- I know that's true for the US, anyway. |
This is defenetly not true in Sweden though. Very much the opposite. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Kenosis
Secular-minded people (or at least those who aren't dogmatic about religion) need to reproduce more in general. |
Oh yes, that's definitely true!
But they don't, unfortunately, because it's usually the more conservative religious ones that usually reproduce a lot :( So the secular genes are gradually being erased from the gene pool. What's the world coming to? Rolling back to the middle ages? :( |
|
|
| skot_e |
13% say they don't know???
To be honest no-one KNOWS, people just like to have an opinion. Science certaily has more evidence going for it, whereas the bilble says a guy who was hung on a cross for 3 days came back to life... did he ever really die? Maybe he just passed out from the stress and then came too later...
The thing with intelligent design is that the design is to create a wedge between science and religion and push a new agenda. The concept was put together by 5 people (have to google the history for details). it is a floored concept and should not even be considered at all. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
If anything, the world has gotten MORE religious with time -- I know that's true for the US, anyway.
My opinion is that more people who were raised in the 50s, 60s and 70s in America would be more secular and supportive of the evolution theory than those raised in the 80s and 90s, because there was a serious turn to the right in the last 3 decades.
I'm about to start a new thread that pertains to this, not about evolution but a more general one, about world trends. |
I think it has more to do with a lack of respect for people with differing beliefs on the part of Christians in general (but especially fundamentalist and evangelical christians).
The thinking in the US at least since Jefferson used to be, "We're a country of diverse beliefs and we need separation of church and state to protect our ideals."
Now the thinking is, "If you don't believe in Jesus I'll pass laws to make sure you live under the passages of the Bible we choose to give weight to regardless of how you feel about that ."
A bumper sticker I saw in West Texas sums up the current attitude:
"Jesus or Hell."
To clarify where I come from, I would consider myself a spiritual person, but not a religious person. I am a reformed Catholic in the sense that I saw through the bull of the Vatican from a very young age, and am proud of that. |
|
|
| skot_e |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
To clarify where I come from, I would consider myself a spiritual person, but not a religious person. I am a reformed Catholic in the sense that I saw through the bull of the Vatican from a very young age, and am proud of that. |
I am very much the same in the sense that I was baptised as a baby, so I had no say in it, and am therefore "catholic", but i do not believe in God, I do believe in spirit tho.
There are far too many religions for one to be right, and the rest incorrect. it goes back to time before contact between different groups when they all held belief in spiritual times (eg aboriginees in Oz had the "dreamtime" where serpants created the rivers, etc), and only in the modern world is there a terminology(God, Buddha, Ganeesha) for what it is about.
i am more of the 'univesal energy' belief.
yesterday was Australia Day (the birthday of Colonisation by English settlers) and there is usually ceremonies for people to become citizens, and the one I saw yesterday made me think... You must pledge under God to become a citizen. I really don't agree with that for 2 reasons.
1 i don't believe in God.
2 It really is exclusionist to people of other religions. |
|
|
|
|
