Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?

The Examiner ^ | 07/31/2014 | Ken Ammi

[SeekAndFind]

The info which follows dates to 2009 AD and may be the most recent stats.

Indeed, as reported by the UK’s Guardian; Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds (Riazat Butt, February 1, 2009 AD) and Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons (Jessica Shepherd, October 25, 2009 AD). Thus half do not believe in it and more than half believe that both views should be taught.

Keep in mind that while the UK does have RE (religious education) in public schools; it is a very, very, very secular society which is saturated with Darwinism. Logically, they would be the most Darwinian society and yet, “More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory.” Ah, the good ol' we have been explaining Darwinism for over a century and a half and the hoi polloi still do not get it!!! Well, there may be other reasons for rejecting it such as understanding it and realizing that biology is a science but Darwinism is a philosophy and since it makes unsubstantiated claims it is therefore being rejected.

The stats are a result of the study titled Rescuing Darwin - God and evolution in Britain today by Nick Spencer and Denis Alexander and was conducted on the 150th anniversary of the publication of On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The Guardian reports note:

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.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "Yes, they rule us because group 3 votes for group 1, because group 3 are idiots."

Is it possible that group 3 votes for group 1 because they find those people friendlier than group 2?

Just saying...

[MrB]

Maybe they vote for group 1 to keep group 2 out of power, even though group 3 is evil, they’re not “as evil” as group 2.

Nasty system set up, now, isn’t it?

[Fightin Whitey]

scientific theory backed up by objective evidence. Tons of evidence.

I wish someone like you would have the time to explain to me the time frame, the fossil & other archeological records, and the evidence of the observable progression from, say, Neanderthal Man to King Tut.

Because I don't get it and I don't know where to look.

[Boogieman]

Well, even if that is true, it still makes them idiots. Anyone who can’t figure out the leftists are not your friends is not playing with a full deck.

[BroJoeK]

Fightin Whitey: "I wish someone like you would have the time to explain to me the time frame, the fossil & other archeological records, and the evidence of the observable progression from, say, Neanderthal Man to King Tut. "

Here is a wiki article with lots of charts & graphs that could begin to explain. It includes representations like these:

Of course, I "get" that your terms "evidence of observable progression" are usually code words for "I don't believe a word of it, and won't accept anything you say", but on the off-chance that you just randomly picked those words, I'll make an effort -- in all good faith -- to explain it.

[Boogieman]

Well, here’s one way it works: they find some primate bone fragments, maybe a few teeth, half a jawbone and a crushed femur. Some scientists come up with a conceptual idea of what that primate must have looked like, based on their preexisting bias that the primate must be an intermediate form between other primates and homos.

Then they show you a sequence of such conceptual renderings and call it “objective”.

[Boogieman]

“The probability of generational modifications is nearly 100%.”

Sure, and we see this all the time. However, what we don’t see is those modifications “adding up” to create whole new classes of animals. We have never actually observed the genomes having the ability to be that flexible, no matter how many mutations pile up. We can induce a thousand mutations in a fruit fly, for example, and we have never observed the result to be anything other than a fruit fly.

We can look at the fossil record, and speculate that something like that happened to account for apparent changes we see, but that is mere speculation and not science, for it can’t be replicated.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "Anyone who can’t figure out the leftists are not your friends is not playing with a full deck."

There are a number of ways to explain American politics, and the one I like best goes:

1. Big city people always vote Democrat -- they are your "liberal-progressives".
   
2. Country people always vote Republican -- they are your social-conservatives.
   
3. Suburbanites can & do change their votes, depending on how they feeeeeeeeeel at the moment.
   They begin by becoming "fiscal-conservatives" or "defense-conservatives" but sometimes switch over "social issues".

Indeed, if you think about it... young people often move to big cities, where they vote Democrat.
When they become successful enough to raise a family, they move to the suburbs, and begin voting more conservatively.
When they've had a long successful life, and can retire to the country, they consistently vote Republican.

Very often it's the same people, same IQs, just with different outlooks on life.

Put another way: suburbs are the 50 yard line, and that's where most of the game gets played.

[aardwolf46]

You clearly misunderstand both evolution and probability.

I stop reading when it becomes obvious I'm dealing with a blowhard...

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "Well, here’s one way it works: they find some primate bone fragments, maybe a few teeth, half a jawbone and a crushed femur."

In fact, there are dozens of different pre-human "homo" & other species fossils, from Ardipithecus ramidus through to Neanderthals, Denisovans and Floresiensis "hobbits".
Some of these, as you say, do indeed have only one or two samples so far found.
But others (i.e., Neanderthals, Ergaster) have dozens or hundreds of individuals found.
These allow reconstruction of complete skeletons, and from them presumed outward appearances.

Point is: there's more than just guess-work behind those reconstructions.

Boogieman: "Some scientists come up with a conceptual idea of what that primate must have looked like, based on their preexisting bias that the primate must be an intermediate form between other primates and homos."

The bones themselves tell a lot about what those individuals looked like -- no need to exaggerate either their human or non-human aspects.
An honest representation, to the best of our knowledge, is all that can be expected.

Boogieman: "Then they show you a sequence of such conceptual renderings and call it 'objective'."

Hominid skulls, from chimpanzee to modern homo sapiens:

[BroJoeK]

aardwolf46: "I stop reading when it becomes obvious I'm dealing with a blowhard... "

But you are the blowhard here, claiming expert knowledge of both probabilities and evolution, when you obviously have neither.

[Fightin Whitey]

I said observable progression because I meant it.

I don’t talk in code words. Do you “get” that?

I appreciate the wiki page which I have looked over in the past.

As you might suppose my question has to do with the seemingly sudden appearance of civilization after millenia of savagery and near savagery.

Supposedly someone like you can tell me how fishies somehow became birdies and yet no one seems to have a clue how modern man sprang into being.

I recently read a long article in the New Yorker by Elizabeth Kolbert profiling an autodidatic researcher who has long puzzled over the obsession of scientists as to why the Neatherthals died out as opposed to any curiosity about where/why WE came into being.

Alas at the end of that article I had little more understanding myself.

At any rate thanks for your efforts.

[JimSEA]

If you are interested in evolution in general and in human evolution in particular, it would be helpful if you could take a look at the nature of scientific inquiry, "deep time" and at just what the theory of evolution actually says. The following link is to a video on the theory of evolution. A good summary of the initial reasoning for deep time is included in this video. For human evolution, a good introductory book is, Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (2006).

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "However, what we don’t see is those modifications 'adding up' to create whole new classes of animals.
We have never actually observed the genomes having the ability to be that flexible, no matter how many mutations pile up.
We can induce a thousand mutations in a fruit fly, for example, and we have never observed the result to be anything other than a fruit fly."

All of that is revealed in DNA analysis, where we see how closely, or distantly, individual humans are related -- and to other species, families & orders of creatures.
DNA analysis, for example shows how distantly elephants and elephant shrews relate.
Of course, you can chose to believe this has nothing to do with evolution -- your choice -- but then no other scientific explanation (aka hypothesis) has ever been proposed which explains the data so well.

Boogieman: "We can look at the fossil record, and speculate that something like that happened to account for apparent changes we see, but that is mere speculation and not science, for it can’t be replicated."

Of course it's science, just science you don't like & disagree with.
Evolution is more than a scientific hypothesis, it's a confirmed theory, confirmed by innumerable tests and predictions.
It's also supported by data from virtually every other branch of science -- from astronomy to geology and radiometric physics.

But your point about long-term evolution not being repeatable in a laboratory is worth noting, because that is what makes long-term evolution a theory instead of a confirmed observation = "fact".

Of course, short-term evolution is an observed, confirmed fact, but the logical extension of accumulated changes over millions of years has not been seen directly, and will remain a theory.

On the other hand, as I said, the effects of long term evolution can be seen, directly, in DNA.

[Boogieman]

“Some of these, as you say, do indeed have only one or two samples so far found.
But others (i.e., Neanderthals, Ergaster) have dozens or hundreds of individuals found.
These allow reconstruction of complete skeletons, and from them presumed outward appearances.”

Sure, for a few examples, this is true. For the majority, the fossils are laughably incomplete, and the reconstructions are therefore of dubious quality. There are certainly plenty of examples of evolutionists letting their imagination run wild over a few bones, declaring a new human ancestor, only to find a few more bones which showed they had merely found a new kind of ape.

“The bones themselves tell a lot about what those individuals looked like — no need to exaggerate either their human or non-human aspects.”

Only for the few examples where we have mostly intact specimens, which is not many.

“Hominid skulls, from chimpanzee to modern homo sapiens:”

Which proves nothing more than that scientists are able, much like kindergartners, to arrange various items according to some property, such as size or general similarity. This might impress schoolchildren, but it is of no actual scientific value.

[Boogieman]

“All of that is revealed in DNA analysis, where we see how closely, or distantly, individual humans are related — and to other species, families & orders of creatures.”

This is not science, this is historical speculation. You cannot make a scientific conclusions about how the similarities in the genomes arose, because you cannot replicate the conditions which gave rise to those similarities. Therefore, you are stuck with speculations which cannot be confirmed by experimental analysis, and that is not science.

“Of course, you can chose to believe this has nothing to do with evolution — your choice — but then no other scientific explanation (aka hypothesis) has ever been proposed which explains the data so well.”

That is fine. Lack of a testable hypothesis does not mean we have to pretend that the untestable hypothesis we have is correct. We can instead, give a truthful appraisal of the situation, and admit that we have no confirmed hypothesis at the moment.

“Of course it’s science, just science you don’t like & disagree with.”

No, it’s not science. Science must follow the scientific method, and this does not.

“Evolution is more than a scientific hypothesis, it’s a confirmed theory, confirmed by innumerable tests and predictions.”

No, bits and pieces of the theory may have been confirmed, but the larger and most controversial predictions of the theory remain completely untested and in fact untestable.

“But your point about long-term evolution not being repeatable in a laboratory is worth noting, because that is what makes long-term evolution a theory instead of a confirmed observation = “fact”.”

Now you’re mixing up terms like some of the less knowledgeable anti-evolution folks. A theory must be confirmed by experimental data and replication in order to be a theory. If it is not, it is merely a hypothesis. There is no such thing as scientific “fact”.

“On the other hand, as I said, the effects of long term evolution can be seen, directly, in DNA.”

Correction: what you hypothesize are the effects of long term evolution can be seen, but that does not mean that those properties are actually the effect of long term evolution, because you cannot establish that by the scientific method.

[Boogieman]

“Supposedly someone like you can tell me how fishies somehow became birdies and yet no one seems to have a clue how modern man sprang into being.”

Essentially, the current evolutionists’ position on that amounts to:

Creatures biologically identical to modern man existed for hundreds of thousands of years living as hunter-gatherers, never creating anything much more technologically advanced than a flint handaxe. Then, suddenly about 6-10,000 years ago, we began behaving like modern men, with no detectable biological change to explain the new behavior.

[BroJoeK]

Fightin Whitey: "I said observable progression because I meant it.
I don’t talk in code words. Do you “get” that?"

The alleged absence of "observable progression" in fossils is a key argument among anti-evolutionists.
It works well for them because regardless of which fossils you show them, and how similar-but-different the fossils might be, they can always claim -- with a straight face -- "yes, but where is the intermediate fossil between those two?"

Indeed, the more similar fossils you present, the more intermediates they can claim are missing!
So it's a beautiful argument, and they often get away with it.

The example in my post #50 of intermediate forms should be adequate, I'd think, for anyone approaching the subject in good faith.

Fightin Whitey"...my question has to do with the seemingly sudden appearance of civilization after millenia of savagery and near savagery."

Imho, science will never find a better explanation than the one in Genesis 2:7 -- "7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

What came before was "pre-human", after is "fully human".
Non-human beasts do not recognize God, fully human beings do, even when they refuse to admit it.
Just my opinion.

Fightin Whitey: "Supposedly someone like you can tell me how fishies somehow became birdies and yet no one seems to have a clue how modern man sprang into being."

Rest easy, FRiend, no fishie ever became a birdie.
Of course, fishies did, and still do, crawl out on land for various reasons, some eventually evolving to live on dry land except for their eggs, amphibians.
A few amphibians evolved to lay eggs on land, becoming reptiles, diverse of which grew feathers and... well, you might guess, right?
And all that, the fossil record tells us, happened over not years, or even millions of years, but hundreds of millions of years.

By contrast, the ascent of pre-human kind from chimps is just a few million years, and real civilization (i.e., farming) less than 10,000 years.

Fightin Whitey: "...puzzled over the obsession of scientists as to why the Neatherthals died out as opposed to any curiosity about where/why WE came into being."

Perhaps that author was not so familiar with the literature.
In fact there is huge scientific curiosity about the origins of modern-man, and whether this happened in only a single location, in Africa, or was it more wide spread, with lots of interbreeding going on amongst various pre-humans?

But remember, we are making a distinction here between biologically-modern mankind (i.e., Cro-Magnons), and let us call him, farming-civilized God-fearing mankind.

[BroJoeK]

Boogieman: "For the majority, the fossils are laughably incomplete, and the reconstructions are therefore of dubious quality.
There are certainly plenty of examples of evolutionists letting their imagination run wild over a few bones..."

It is the essence of science to make the best it can of available evidence, and to improve it's explanations as new evidence arrives.
Nothing wrong with that, it's the way things should be.

Boogieman: "Only for the few examples where we have mostly intact specimens, which is not many."

"Not many"? Again, this listing includes dozens of different sites, some of which produced many ancient bones.
Naturally, scientists keep looking for more and better examples, but it seems to me that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from available evidence.

Boogieman: "Which proves nothing more than that scientists are able, much like kindergartners, to arrange various items according to some property, such as size or general similarity.
This might impress schoolchildren, but it is of no actual scientific value."

The skulls are arranged not according to just "some property", but by estimated age, oldest-to-youngest, beginning with the second skull, after the first modern chimpanzee.
Here is the source.

So, your "hand waving" argument here notwithstanding, the photo provides a reasonable answer for those who demand to see "intermediate forms".
Of course, no serious scientist needs to see such a display, and so in that sense, you are correct.

[Boogieman]

“Nothing wrong with that, it’s the way things should be.”

Nothing wrong with that unless you make unsubstantiated claims based on the flimsy evidence, and then portray to the public that those claims are scientific conclusions.

“”Not many”? Again, this listing includes dozens of different sites, some of which produced many ancient bones.”

For “not many” out of the various types of hominids do we actually have anything like a nearly complete skelton. I don’t care if you have 300 sets of neanderthal skeletons, that doesn’t help you reconstruct any other hominids.

From your own link:

“As there are thousands of fossils, mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth with complete skulls and skeletons rare”

“The skulls are arranged not according to just “some property”, but by estimated age, oldest-to-youngest, beginning with the second skull, after the first modern chimpanzee.”

Yes, but as the estimated ages are derived from a somewhat subjective standard, it makes it just another arbitrary property upon which to arrange your meaningless visual display.

I could take a bunch of skulls of creatures that evolutionists don’t speculate have common descent, arrange them in the same way, and make it look like there is a progression, but that would not demonstrate any actual progression ever happened.

“So, your “hand waving” argument here notwithstanding, the photo provides a reasonable answer for those who demand to see “intermediate forms”.”

No “hand waving”, just common sense. By evolutionist’s own standards, we know that morphological similarity is not necessarily an indicator of common descent. So, arranging a bunch of skulls that have perceived morphological similarity demonstrates nothing, other than that you can arrange some skulls nicely.