Britons Unconvinced on Evolution

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 I'm a Brit myself, and I thought most people over here thought these views were outdated and lacked substance.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?"

Comments

Et tu, Britannia?

[TripMaster Monkey]

On one hand, I'm happy to see that rampant idiocy isn't a uniquely American trait.

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.

Of particular concern is the statistics quoted:

• 22% chose creationism
  
• 17% opted for intelligent design
  
• 48% selected evolution theory
  
• and the rest did not know.

In other words, 39% chose creationism, as there is no discernable difference between creationism and ID. Score another victory for ID, for once again successfully obfuscating the issue.

Even worse were the statistics regarding what to teach in schools:

• 44% said creationism should be included
  
• 41% intelligent design
  
• 69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.

Again, nice and confusing, especially when you consider that these statistics don't add up to 100%. I understand that some people would like to see more than one 'theory' taught (the old 'teach the controversy' BS), but displaying the results in this manner is misleading in the extreme. Equally confusing is the fact that the percentage of people who 'did not know' in the previous set of statistics isn't enumerated. One would assume it to be 13%, but in the light of the second set of statistics, who knows?

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[dan dan the dna man]

I very much dount that many people asked about ID actually knew what it really is, or how hotly debated a non-topic it is.

Grab 2000 of any random population off the streets of any city, and ask them to define "Intelligent Design" and I bet less than 17% will give you anything approaching what the proponents of this idoicy are spouting.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

>39% chose creationism

still less in total than evolution though.

one important thing (in my experience) the UK doesn't have so much of is militant fundamentalism. people might say they believe in creationism, but then lots of people still claim to believe in god. they don't do anything about it though. even if they agree it should be taught in schools they aren't taking over schoold boards for it.

basically I think the difference is that in America you have the very dangerous combination of
1. Churches are big businesses (much more so than elsewhere)
2. businesses can easily buy into politics

the ID movement is 99.9% a PR campaign.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[meringuoid]

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.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[The Only Druid]

As a particularly comical example of this, have a look at the recent Dover County court decision (Kitzmiller). In it, the ruling Judge wisely points at that amongst the advocates of intelligent design, there was essentially no agreement as to its meaning. In fact, one school board member continually referred to it as "intelligence design [sic]", another believed it was the same as creationism, another believed it only referred to the emergence of intelligence, etc.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[realnowhereman]

Personally, I don't believe in Evolution. That doesn't make me an idiot.

Yes it does. Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in medicine? Electricity? Mobile phones? Radio? Nuclear physics? Biology? Geology? Maths?

Why is it that evolution gets special treatment in the world of science? It's as scientifically valid as all these other things, and yet somehow ill-educated pseudo-itellectuals like yourself think that you get to pick and choose what is valid and what isn't. Science is not a democracy, it's fact based. Don't "believe" in evolution, show us something better.

That doesn't mean I don't understand it

Yes it does.

Just as the Theory of Gravity has some problems

Really? You pass yourself off as being some sort of expert. What exactly are the problems you see with the theory of gravity? Why not write them down, present some evidence, I'm sure your views will be published in some learned journal and then we can all see how wise you are. Then you can tell us what's wrong with evolution as well.

Throughout the entire history of science, when things "need to be understood better" it has generally been through an evolution of ideas -- Newtonian mechanics wasn't wrong, it just needed some extra bits bolting on, Einsteinian relativity isn't wrong, it just need some quantum stuff attaching. Each discovery builds on the last. Evolution is the same, there are holes and gaps and things we don't yet understand, but these will be filled and modified and adapted - the theory will get better.

There have been very few absolute reversals in science, why do you expect that evolution will be any different?

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[danpsmith]

I understand that some people would like to see more than one 'theory' taught (the old 'teach the controversy' BS), but displaying the results in this manner is misleading in the extreme.

I don't understand this mentality in this particular case, simply because from all my research and my reading on the topic, the answer is simple: within the scientific community there simply is no "controversy."

People seem to confuse the debate here, we are talking about science class, science class is teaching what the scientific community presents as its best theories on a certain subject. Now the word "theory" doesn't mean an indisputable fact, but it doesn't mean, as people in layterms think of it a hypothesis or an idea. Theories are founded upon and are used to unite empirical facts observed by the community and are the subject of intense scrutiny. To put it in more eloquent words, "in science, facts change more often than theories."

I think there is a great danger in presenting this as a serious controversy to students. The theory of evolution is not under serious debate within the scientific community, it is generally accepted. It is what the scientific community tells us that really should be the subject of a science class, isn't that about right?

If we are going to teach the controversy about evolution, then we should teach students about the people opposing other generally accepted scientific theories with little or no evidence as well. We should present every yahoo with an argument against anything if we want to be fair. (I realize that we don't have the time for that, but that's precisely the point. We don't have the time to be teaching this "controversy" either.) I don't understand why evolution needs to be singled out.

Christianity or being pious has really nothing to do with the debate either. A lot of scientists that work in the field of biology are churchgoing Christians. If they see the ability for duality here, why should we let the extremists run the debate?

We are dealing here with a serious issue that has to do with public ignorance. Most people simply do not understand what science is at a philosophical level or how it operates.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[LWATCDR]

"when I try to imagine what it would be like to believe in a benevolent god, I think it would be such an amazing thing I don't see how any part of my life would be unaffected. I think that if someone really believed in god it would be obvious without even asking."

For some people it is because they no longer feel safe letting it show. Many atheists are every bit as nasty as some fundamentalist. Instead of you declaring you an sinner and immoral they declare you an idiot, fool, and yes evil.

While it is okay in most work places to talk about getting drunk, going out and partying all night, or how much you lost playing poker. A discussion of how much fun you had at church teaching the kids in your Sunday school class makes people nervous and some will snub you.

Telling everyone how reading Men are Mars and Women are from Venus has improved you marriage is okay. Telling everyone how praying with your wife and kids everyday has improved your marriage is not.

You asked so I thought I would share my experiences with you.
A good example is my own mother. She noticed that of all her kids that my wife and I have the happiest marriage. I told her that a large part of that came from both of us following our faiths teachings. Her response was, "Well some people need that."
Oh well.

You are right and it is an amazing thing. Every once in a while a friend or co worker that isn't of my faith for some reason asks me for advice and help when things are really going wrong and I try and help with what I have learned through my faith. Even I try and keep it to myself. I often feel that I must only speak of it in hushed whispers. It is hard because I really don't want to make people feel uncomfortable but at the same time I have no idea why it should make anyone feel uncomfortable.

I do not believe in creationism. I do believe in ID but at the cosmic level I.E. the prime cause and designer of the universe. I believe in evolution because I see the evidence and believe that the universe was set up to allow it.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Intelligent Design is falsifiable, thus is science, and thus should be taught in the classroom.

Care to explain how? Care to give just one example of an experiment that can be performed to falsify the 'theory' of Intelligent Design?

We're all waiting...

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[malkavian]

Interesting. What's you level of understanding of Evolution. BSc Biochemistry/Zoology/Biology/Genetics? Master, or PhD? Or basic schooling with a few easy books on the side and an armchair expert?

The basic theory of evolution holds water, and models of it's behaviour (i.e. emergent systems) show a natural tendancy to improvement. Speciation events have been catalogued. Mutation and selection for fitness traits has been observed.
Evolution, as a theory is a very strong one. The further back in history one goes, the less survives from the time period, thus the harder it is to obtain the evidence and a clear audit trail (have you ever tried finding clothing from 2000 years ago, which is in a clearly recorded era of history?).

I'd actually be interested in hearing your dispute with the theory of Evolution. You've said it needs to be understood in a drastically different way, but can you explain why?
If you've got clear evidence of a flaw, then I'd be happy to listen. If you just say 'because it does', then that's not a debate.
Personally, I treat evolution as a good guideline (the best I know of), and leverage it while writing adaptive/learning systems.
If you've got a better method, I'll be happy to listen, as it'd make my life a lot easier.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[Thangodin]

The fact is that scientists are just as rabid retards concerning evolution as the id/creationalists are.

They loose objectivity and scream "I AM A STUPID IDIOT" to the masses of people as they intimidate and stick their collective tounge out at the very people who are interested in really understanding it.

Science is not about you. It's not about your feelings, or about what you want to believe, or about being sensitive to what you think. It's an all-out battleground, a free market of ideas, and if scientists talk to you that way, its because they talk to each other that way. It's not personal. Science is all about evidence and sound reasoning that works with that evidence, and the people who practice it care so much about this that they get very pissed off when somebody ignores the evidence and spouts nonsense.

So, to all those people who are greatly offended by the brusque tone of scientists, get over yourselves. There are more important things in this world than your tender little ego. And really, that's what this whole debate is about; people don't want to believe that they are descended from monkeys, and ultimately, from worms, because it offends their pride. And if these people really were interested in learning, they would overcome their pride and learn.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[Sage Gaspar]

You are a pure evolutionist, in the sense that evolution as a science would not be able to tell whether the hand of an extrasensory being was involved or not. Science talks about what we can perceive, faith discusses what we can't.

But you have people on both extremes claiming one can dominate the other, when they are, in fact, not capable of influencing each other *by definition*. Faith that is observable is not faith. Science that is not observable is not science.

To answer your question, I don't really see a need to categorize yourself. Identifying your beliefs with a group leads to a mob mentality, and to a lot of needless problems when two people can't see past the groups they identify themselves with to realize that their beliefs are really very similar.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[Nightwing]

Well, lots of nice beliefs there, little in the way of science.

The fact is that evolution flies in the face of the second law of thermodynamics, which makes it very much unlike any other accepted area of science.

No, it doesn't. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, which life clearly isn't. The sun constantly provides energy input to life on this planet.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Your post illustrates that you do not understand what a "theory" is in the context of science.

From Wikipedia:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. Scientific theories are never proven to be true, but can be disproven. All scientific understanding takes the form of hypotheses, or conjectures. A theory is in this context a set of hypotheses that are logically bound together (See also hypothetico-deductive method).

Theories are typically ways of explaining why things happen, often, but not always after their occurrence is no longer in scientific dispute. In referring to the "theory of global warming" for example, the worldwide temperatures have been measured and seem to be increasing. The "theory of global warming" refers instead to scientific work that attempts to explain how and why this could be happening.

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

Hope this helps.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[tgibbs]

Macro-evolution is NOT micro-evolution on a larger scale, and cannot be explained by micro-evolution over a long period of time. By "cannot be explained" I actually mean that it was formerly explained that way until the fossil record showed that macro changes occur suddenly, not gradually. Now evolutionary "scientists" have various theories for what triggers these changes.

Actually, modern DNA studies have confirmed the prediction that macro-evolution is simply microevolution on a large scale. The prediction of evolutionary theory is that all differences among species will turn out to be due varying quantities of the sort of "micro" genetic changes that have been shown to occur by mutation. Many genomes have now been sequenced, and so far that prediction has held up perfectly.

His theory was that God created a few, or one, initial organisms, and that everything else evolved from them by the mechanisms he described. By what we know now, that seems naive, but it was a coherant theory. But now, in the interest of making it a purely naturalistic theory, "scientists" actually try to explain the origins of the first cells in terms of molecules "evolving" into them. As this kind of evolution pre-supposes the ability to reproduce and pass along genetic coding to its offspring, ability that by definition, a pre-organism does not have. This "scientific theory" can therefore only be believed by the delusional.

Darwin understood that you cannot make a scientific theory about God. His theory did not address whether or not God created the initial organisms--it only addressed how organisms have changed over time. Nor did Darwin's theory include anything about a particular kind of genetic material--indeed, Darwin had never heard of genetics. Darwin did predict that there had to be some sort of mechanism for passing down changes undiluted from generation to generation, and the discovery of DNA-based inheritance is perhaps one of the most dramatic confirmations of a theory's predictions in the history of science. But all that evolution requires is some mechanism of inheritance. All models of the origin of life take this into account. There are several such models, and none has yet reached the level of near-universal scientific acceptance that evolution has attained, but all of them include a mechanism (not necessarily DNA-based) for proto-organisms to pass down traits from generation to generation.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[TripMaster Monkey]

One idea posited by Intelligent Design is that the strong and weak nuclear forces...

The fact that the Weak Anthropic Principle is true (and it can't help being true...it's a tautology) does not mean that the Strong Anthropic Principle is true. You'll need to do better than that.

Another idea posed by Intelligent design is that there is a certain minimum amount of information needed to have life--things like ribosomes and transcriptase...

This argument is equal parts misdirection and bunk. Self-replicating molecules can work with only a strand of six DNA nucleotides. Such a self-replicating molecule could have easily formed via pre-biotic chemistry. As life developed, such self-replicating molecules would have been outcompeted and extinguished by other, more complex groups of molecules.

Did it happen in this way? Frankly, I don't know. But saying "I don't know how it could have happened....so God did it" is a classic argument from incredulity. Besides which, evolution has never purported to explain abiogenesis anyway so the entire argument is beside the point.

Intelligent Design posits that life began within one hundred million years after life became possible (shortly after cooling to the point of liquid water.) This is a short time in geological terms. However, life has not begun once since. Therefore something either actively created life once it became possible or something actively keeps new forms of life from springing up.

It should be fairly obvious that, given the fact that life has occupied every conceiveable niche on this planet, that any 'new life' will be effectively prevented from developing. In short, that 'something' that actively keeps new forms of life from springing up is the already established life.

Intelligent Design posits that life changed very slowly immediately after life began, then a profusion of new life forms came into existence during the cambrian period, and life has changed very slowly since.

Ah yes...the Cambrian Explosion argument...again, bunk. The only reason the Cambrian Explosion looks like an explosion at all is because this particular time period is when animals started to evolve hard structures such as teeth and shells....structures that fossilize easily and are easily identifible. There are plenty of Precambrian fossils, however, that developed in the same way and that argue against a sudden Cambrian explosion. Simply put, the "Cambrian Explosion" wasn't an explosion at all.

By the way, the general tone of your post is sarcastic and demeaning, and makes an excellent example the close mindedness of some proponents of Evolution.

I'm sorry you percieve my demand for a rational argument to support your "theory" as demeaning. I'm also sorry you percieve those who do not abandon rationality in favor of 'God did it' at the slightest pretext as 'close minded'.

I would like to say something about your use of scare quotes around the word "theory." I think you'll find, if you look, that a theory is defined as a set of statements having two subsets--the set of statements that are acceptable (s.k.a True,) and those that aren't (s.k.a False.) Thus Intelligent Design easily meets the definition of theory, and your use of scare quotes is unwarranted.

Your definition of the word theory is disingenuous in the extreme...and sadly, par for the course for ID proponents.

Here is the actual definition of theory, from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

Main Entry: theory
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ries
1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena --see ATOMIC THEORY, CELL THEORY, GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothe

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[tgibbs]

Look how many people will defend evolution, even though strictly speaking, they need to post-fix each sentence with ", maybe.".

In science, all knowledge is provisional, so it is belaboring the obvious to say, "The earth orbits around the sun maybe", or "F = MA maybe." This was one of the most telling points that the judge made in the Dover trial. Because all science is provisional, attaching a disclaimer to evolution, and not to other statements of scientific knowledge, gives the false impression that evolution is somehow more subject to doubt than other scientific knowledge.

Look how science is taught, with the assumption that everything written in the textbooks are true.

Every science course I ever took began with an explanation of the scientific method.

Look how people will base their scientific careers and life-work on things that may or may not be correct.

Every scientist does that. So what? It is the only workable way of doing science that anybody has ever found. The people who go into science are the ones who find that fundamental uncertainty exciting and inspiring. It is not what is known that attracts people to science; it is what is not known. Those who are uncomfortable with living among the shifting sands of scientific knowledge should go into fields such as mathematics, where true proof exists, or into religion, where faith does not require evidence.

I have the Old Testement/New Testement/Koran/"insert any religous text", which is a set of recorded assumptions. I base theories from these assumptions. From observation of human interactions and from human history I think that the validity of these assumptions remain true. Am I a scientist performing science?

No because you are leaving out the part about continually seeking ways to test and challenge these assumptions. For a scientist, nothing is more exciting that finding a way to challenge and test something that he or she has always previously been forced to take as an assumption.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[Gulik]

I often feel that I must only speak of it in hushed whispers. It is hard because I really don't want to make people feel uncomfortable but at the same time I have no idea why it should make anyone feel uncomfortable.

The problem, I think, is that while there are many people of faith, the quiet ones are, you perceive, not the ones whose voices rise above the crowd. The ones that get heard are the shrill idiots, and as a result other people tend to assume that everyone with faith central to their lives is a shrill idiot. Which, obviously, doesn't work out so well for those of you who aren't shrill idiots, don't think that faith gives you a license to dismiss science, and do have something constructive to say in this debate.

Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[Procyon101]

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.

The Economist

[thefirelane]

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!

[muellerr1]

Proof that Americans don't have a monopoly on ignorance!

Not surprised

[Cyphertube]

This seems to happen everywhere. Mostly people think that a certain idea, that perhaps has little scientific basis, should be taught in school, when they support the idea.

I believe in a creator. Sure. But should creation be taught in a science class? No. Why?

Because I know that somehow my religious beliefs that I want to teach to my children will not be taught according to how I believe. Worse off would be if they were completely opposed, like someone teaching creation by that damn spaghetti monster.

Keep science to science. Start teaching classes that encourage people to look at other viewpoints and learn to see the downsides of their own arguments. Only then will a generation gain the wisdom to not think this is such a great idea.

Re:Not surprised

[mrjb]

Damn spaghetti monster? BLASPHEMY!!!!

Proudly secular?

[Snamh Da Ean]

You mean that country in Europe where the head of state is also the head of the state's established church? And where you can't be head of state unless you're a member of the established church.

Re:Proudly secular?

[Bogtha]

It's true that we have a state religion. It's also true that it receives no government funding and is followed by a minority of people.

It's true that our head of state is the Queen. It's also true that the monarchy lacks any real power and is kept around out of tradition.

It's true that our schools are legally bound to provide collective daily worship of a Christian nature. It's also true that more than three-quarters of schools ignore this law, and that parents have the legal right to have their kids opt out anyway.

I think you are mixing up England and the UK too. While it's true that there's a Church of England and a Church of Scotland, other areas of the UK got rid of their official faiths.

So technically we are under the rule of a religious monarchy, but in practice we are a modern democratic secular country.

Re:Proudly secular?

[Bogtha]

there's no requirement for our Prime Minister to be Christian, or any of our MPs.

More importantly, they can get voted in without being Christian. I believe that if somebody wanted to make it an issue, they could overturn the requirements that various USA states have on constitutional grounds. However, even if they did that, not being a Christian would be a severe impediment to their election campaign.

I don't have to swear my allegiance to God at school every morning.

Take a look at the Education Reform Act 1988:

6.--(1) Subject to section 9 of this Act, all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.

7.--(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in the case of a county school the collective worship required in the school by section 6 of this Act shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.

You'll be pleased to know that 76% of schools break this law.

Ambiguity

[tyler_larson]

Believing in evolution is something of a vague concept. If I believe in the concept of natural selection (which is readily observable), do I have to believe that life came from a chance encounter of amino acids in some primordial soup a gazillion years ago? How much am I agreeing to?

Genius

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Species Evolve

[krgallagher]

I am always confused by the fact that everyone thinks the theory of evolution is a theory about the creation of life on earth. The theory of evolution can be summed up in two words; species evolve. Sure there is all that subtext about natural selection, but in essence, the theory is that species evolve.

I do not understand how anyone can deny the truth of this. We see it in action time and time again. There are species that were introduced to Hawaii in modern times that have since evolved into new species. I saw one of the best arguments for evolution here on /. as a sig. It said "If you do not believe in evolution, why are you worried about the bird flu?"

Re:Species Evolve

[finkployd]

Either that, or God is the kind of programmer who likes to create reusable objects.

Sorry, I couldn't help it

Finkployd

I'd like to see the questions they asked

[arevos]

I'd like to see the questions they asked for the survey. It's all too easy to get the results you want with carefully worded questions. I can't think of anyone I know who believes in such nonsense, so I'm taking this with significantly large grain of salt.

Re:I'd like to see the questions they asked

[Bazzalisk]

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?

:)

I call major bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Englishman in my late 30s I call utter bullshit on this article. These are the fanciful lies of someone with an agenda. I don't know where they pretend to have got their research from, but it's patently untrue. I never met a single person over here who even heard of "intelligent design" (a USA manufactured nonsense) and seriously nobody believes in creationism, even really old people. A more interesting question for me is, why would someone make up such an obvious pack of lies and for what reason?

There's something wrong here

[goodEvans]

I really have difficulty in beleiving this. Even here in god-fearing catholic Ireland, everyone I know thinks that creationism is bunk. The only thing I can think of is that they stood in the middle of the street and shouted, "Anyone like to give their views on Creationism and Intelligent Design?" That way they would only have got the religious nuts who espouse this pre-enlightenment throwback. Even the Vatican says that Intelligent Design is not science.

Re:ID != Christian creationism

[cyclop]

If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it?

Yes. Any molecular biology textbook is full of factual proofs of evolution.

Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor?

[Pentagram]

A species (chimpanzees, our "closest" relatives, for example) with 21 pairs of chromosomes can EVOLVE into one with 22 pairs. Do the fossil records indicate critters with 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4.... pairs of choromosomes?

No. Fossil records do not show DNA. However the clues in our genomes today show that what happened was that in a human ancestor one chromosome split into two.

If not, then explain how a (presumably) mutant new example of an "evolved" chimpanzee with 22 pairs of chromosomes can find another exactly evolved 22-paired mutant -- at the same time -- in the same place -- recognize him or her -- and develop a brand new and unique mating ritual that works. All of these steps are recognized as being necessary to begin to form a new species.

These are not the steps recognized as being necessary to form a new species. It is not clear that the offspring of a 22-pair mutant and a 21-pair non-mutant would be infertile, so it might not be necessary for two 22-pair mutants to mate. And there is certainly no reason for a new mating ritual to magically appear or for mutants to recognise each other.

That said, to deny Darwinism is to ignore the stages and features our own embryos develop and discard: gills, tail, front legs.

This is also incorrect, and has been widely discredited. I wonder if I have just been trolled.

Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor?

[Ephboy]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23 pairs. And what happened is that two of the chromosomes fused into one chromosome. Our chromosome two is essentially two of the chimp chromosomes (2p and 2q) stuck together. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html has a pretty good picture of the chromosome two and its ape versions.

Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor?

[Per Abrahamsen]

> A species (chimpanzees, our "closest" relatives, for example) with 21 pairs of
> chromosomes can EVOLVE into one with 22 pairs. Do the fossil records indicate critters
> with 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, 21.4.... pairs of choromosomes?

First: Chimpanzees did never "evolve" into humans, we both share a common ancestor.

Second: We do have humans with half an extra chromosone (xyy males).

Third and most important: Evolution leaves out *a lot*. Really, it is not like evolutionary biology is a closed and finished science that explains everything. We learn new stuff all the time and adapt the models, as in all other active scientific disciplines.

Actually evolution is more of a frame or paradigm, than a theory itself.

Chuck Norris Is Evolution

[Himring]

There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals Chuck Norris has allowed to live....

Re:Is Darwinism the Only Factor?

[TheSync]

It turns out that variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility, this is often not the case. For example, Przewalski's Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes, but domesticated horse has 64 chromosomes, yet they can breed to produce fertile offspring.

The is good evidence based on structural analysis of human chromosome 2 that it is the fused version of two chromosomes found in modern apes.

The genetics of "Post-zygotic Isolating Mechanisms" of speciation is under much study now. Here is a great review of speciation mechanisms.

Generally the strong force on post-zygotic speciation is "epistasis", negatively interacting genetic loci. So different and negatively interacting genes are more important in speciation than slight differences in chromosomal configuration. There are some speciation events driven mainly by chromosomal configuration, though most are not.

"Nobody I know voted for George Bush!"

[Americano]

Two comments brought to mind by this article...

One is an article (can't remember who by, sorry) that I read shortly after the 2004 election, taking Democrats to task for the re-election of George Bush. Essentially, the author was relating her conversation with a Democrat friend, who exclaimed something to the effect of, "I don't know HOW that man could have gotten re-elected, I don't know ANYBODY who voted for him!" The point of the article was that we all tend to assume that everybody thinks the same way we (and our small circle of friends) do, and it's often disconcerting to find that we're outside the mainstream, or that a very sizable portion of the general population disagrees with us.

I'm also tickled to see that, despite all of the characterizations of Americans as backwoods hillbillies due to the seeming popularity of ID & Creationism here, apparently idiocy knows no national boundaries. I'll be waiting to see the coverage of this in the newspapers & magazines like Time & Newsweek... I probably shouldn't hold my breath for it, because this thinking doesn't dovetail with the image of americans that the world has grown comfortable with, namely that we're overwhelmingly mouth-breathing troglodytes, while the rest of the world consists of polished, cosmopolitan, urbane, well-manicured people.

Re:ID != Christian creationism

[Sage Gaspar]

"If taught correctly, creationism does not necessarily imply one religion. It implies intelligent design meaning God, gods or advanced aliens. And why shouldn't it be taught? If evolution is scientifically sound, can't you present sufficient evidence in the classroom to prove it? Or are you worried that *gasp* some people might prefer to continue to adhere to their faith?"

Exactamundo. Except science and faith are two completely different things. Science is descriptive and predictive based on a sort of majority rules perception, faith is belief in something that exists beyond our perception. Once something exists in our perception, that aspect passes into the realm of the scientific. What makes evolution science is that tangible things that exist in perceptive reality have been discovered that support the theory. ID is presented as a faith issue, because (and feel free to correct me if you think I've overlooked something) the arguments for it are either purely abstract exercises with dubious logic or attacks against evolution. I mean dubious in a purely logical sense, and I freely admit that logic does not necessarily apply to faith. But it's the cornerstone of science.

"Growing up in America, I could never decide who had a greater missionary zeal: the Southern Baptists or the evolutionists, most of whom were not even fit to be called amateur biologists."

Here's where I may agree with you. How many that scoff at non-evolutionary beliefs actually know a real justification for evolution? However, most people can understand the two theories well enough to understand that one is faith and the other science.

Water in the Tub? Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[Marc_Hawke]

The first thing you learn in Science is the story about water in a tub.

If you fill a tub full of water and then reduce the water coming out of the faucet to a drip, you can easily get a scientist to give you the wrong answer by bringing him in at this point and asking how long it took for the tub to fill up.

It would be ridiculous to argue against the current rates of mutation and natural selection. However, it's also ridiculous to just assume it's happened that same way for all of history.

It's perfectly fine to say "IF it has always happened this way" then this is how things played out. The problem arises when you flatly refuse to listen to, and try to belittle anyone who says that the tub was filled beforehand.

Close Friends

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Close Friends

[Vinnie_333]

Sorry to say that if you believe in gods, ... you are not well educated.

Sadly, when I was younger and full of anger, I believed this as well. Then a little real world education woke me up. After meeting and working with some incredibly intelligent people in college and the engineering world that believe in religion, but are still logical, critical thinkers, I've settled down on my "if you believe in God you're a moron" hypothesis. I still have my atheist beliefs, they have their religious ones. But, being well educated, they understand how I came upon my beliefs. I am starting to understand why they believe theirs. Almost ALL of them that I've asked believe evolution should be taught in school, religion should be taught in church/at home.

Re:Close Friends

[Crizp]

As has been said over and over and over again by quite a few people on /. in the many ID debates: Maintaining a belief is not incompatible with being well educated, logical and analytical.

Quoth Albert Einstein (again): "God does not play dice".

Disclaimer: I do not partake in any religion, and I'm not fond of how ID is being tried shoehorned into the school system. But neither am I an atheist; I'm agnostic. The concept of ID itself is, at best, a philosophical mindtwister. The problem as I see it is that the way ID is presented by the proponents is one-sided, and it appears as just another means to push the belief that "The One True God, Thy Lord" created this hole mess a few thousand years ago.

What about people believing that our souls are parts of the universe learning about itself? Or that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is here with his all-encompassing Noodly Appendage? Karma?

Or if I seriously believed that a giant rubber ducky created the universe by way of a purposeful squeak? And that we're all guided by His Quacks, they're just so loud we don't hear them? It's all valid ID beliefs, but they're just that - beliefs.

A good scientist will not let his beliefs get in the way of finding Truth. Should the newfound Truth disagree with what he believed, a true scientist would adjust those beliefs. Just as the religious majority was in time forced to acknowledge that the earth revolves around the sun.

Re:Close Friends

[nathanh]

As has been said over and over and over again by quite a few people on /. in the many ID debates: Maintaining a belief is not incompatible with being well educated, logical and analytical.

Quoth Albert Einstein (again): "God does not play dice".

Every fucking time there's a discussion about religion, somebody trots out the "God does not play dice" quote...

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I don't mind if you want to argue that religious conviction has no clear connection with intelligence or lack thereof, but leave Einstein and his quote about gambling gods out of it. Einstein did not believe in the Christian God.

I hope

[QMO]

At first I hoped that you really CAN tell the difference between a mathematical theorem and a scientific hypothesis.

Then I thought that if you did know the difference, then you were being deliberately deceptive when you compared them, which would be worse.

Ignorance is easier to cure, and less destructive, than dishonesty.

In the end, I guess, I hope that you really do know the difference, but were just not thinking when you suggested that they work the same.

Re:The power in reacting seriously

[ulfaen]

I think the problem with not reacting to this ridiculous 'Theory off Intelligent design' lies in the propensity of stupid ideas to re-germinate in the lazy minded despite evidence to the contrary. (note that I did not say the stupid, I really wanted to.) Its far easier to have a few inane soundbites handed to you by your faith leader, to not do any actual study of the Theory of Evolution, to react at a viceral level (I ain't decended from no MONKEY!)and then to become a member of your local school board.

Once you have managed to get to that point, why its a short hop to restupidifying the youth of your community with this crap.

I thik it is far wiser to address idiocy when it springs up with withering facts and dessicating satire. if you ridicule an idiot long enough, they usually shut their moronic piehole.

Ulfaen

Re:Yessh..

[Sean Hederman]

I'm an atheist, although I don't claim to be 'educated', merely well-read ;-D

Just as a point though, you are confusing the Big Bang with evolution. Evolution says nothing about anything that happened before the first life form appeared. Want to know how it appeared? Evolution does not have an answer. Want to know where the Universe came from? Ask a cosmologist, not an evolutionary biologist.

As such evolution makes no comments about anything even remotely resembling the beginning of time. Your dust particle idea, while interesting, says nothing about evolution whatsoever. I'd enjoy arguing the cosmology, but think I should stay on topic.

Anyway, back to your ideas about God being involved in the Big Bang, I'd have to agree with you whole-heartedly. There is most definately a possibility that He did kick off the whole shebang. Personally I don't believe that's what happened, but that's just my opinion. The idea is also not scientific, however that doesn't neccesarily make it false.

As for your "evolutionists" who pull out "dates and timelines" to argue with you, if they're using it to dispute the idea that God created the Universe with the Big Bang, then they're up the creek without a paddle. Carbon dating says nothing about the Big Bang, since when it happened there wasn't any carbon :-)

If they're using it to dispute that God was involved in the process of evolution on Earth, they're similarly mistaken, since carbon dating will tell you nothing about how something happened, merely an approximate date when it did. We do have numerous other concepts to explain how things happened, such as mutation, natural selection and so forth, but none of them rule out a guiding God. They simply ignore the possibility, not because scientists are neccesarily atheists or anything, but simply because science doesn't deal in supernatural events, and limits itself to the natural.

Good luck with the studies.

Re:Water in the Tub? Re:Et tu, Britannia?

[Michael Woodhams]

The first thing we do is the calculation you refer to. We discuss how plausible the constancy of rate hypothesis is. (In this case, we note that the tap (faucet, to you) is capable of delivering more or less water.) Then we discuss how the inferred filling time relates to our other knowledge (does it imply the bath was half full before the house was built?) That is the first paper. It presents an interesting observation, and the most obvious interpretation, with suitable caveats.

In the second paper, we try to infer subtle effects of the constant-rate hypothesis (CR). We observe material deposited on the side of the bath at water level, and conclude that under CR, we should see these deposits uniformly continued at deeper levels. We start applying for grants to do a bath-dive expedition to observe them, but don't get funding.

In the third paper, different group calculates that, had the rate been much higher in the past, we should observe water droplets splashed on the wall. This being easily accessible, they have looked for them and found them.

The fourth through tenth papers are analyses of how fast the water flow needed to be to spash that high, how long it was high flow to explain the frequency, and how old the drops are. It takes a while before the theorists agree on the correct mathematical treatment. The question of whether the quantity of water added by dripping is significant is still within the margin of error.

Now there is sufficient interest, we finally get the grant to do the bath dive. We observe no deposits below the current level, and conclude the dripping phase has been at most a few days. The Fast Fill theory of the bath enters the textbooks.

10 years later, the principle authors of the first and third papers share the Nobel prize in Domestic Hydrology.

I am an evolutionary scientist. We don't follow your straw-man portrayal of how science works.