World 10,000 years old say Brits

[bertrus2]

one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years.
tinyurl.com/b5d9o6

Who are these people? What's with the 10,000 years? If you're religious you could just say God created the earth a really, really long time ago.

[Beachcomber]

Well - He did ...... didn't he ?

[puffin]

I'd like to know who the one in three are too. I've never met any intelligent adult who thought that.
Where did they do their survey? I'd love to see it for myself with a breakdown of questions and polling sample.

[voice]

it all soubnd rather made up to me

[Beachcomber]

Which ? ......... the religious explanation - or the scientific ?

[Marshall]

Does this mean Adam and Eve were clovis people?

[voice]

to be truthful the religious, but I was looking at the poll and thinking it was all made to show what the aurthers wanted it to show (as most polls are) and not an acurate reflection of how deeply embeded in the national psychie the idea of evolution is

[Beachcomber]

Well - just to state the obvious ......

God created man (I read it in a book)

Man was created by natural selection (I read it in a book)


Which book do you believe and why ?

[puffin]

You see that's why polls rarely reflect what people really think.
You have to choose from a list that's worded the way the polsters set, and none of the answers may reflect what you really feel, but it's compulsary to choose one..

[Scooby Do]

Feb 3, 2009 1:18:33 GMT puffin said:

You see that's why polls rarely reflect what people really think.
You have to choose from a list that's worded the way the polsters set, and none of the answers may reflect what you really feel, but it's compulsary to choose one..

True Puffin, just as on application forms there is

White

Carribean

Asian

Mixed

UK

etc

But never "English"

[mids]

Seems quite high but if that's what the poll says. I wonder why it is though. I'm sure if you went back 20 years you'd get much lower numbers. Something to do wqith importing millions of people with very religious views maybe? That probably explains some of it but not all. A general growing suspicion of science as less and less pupils do science at school because it's deemed too hard? Probably some of that too.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Feb 3, 2009 7:00:01 GMT Scooby Do said:

True Puffin, just as on application forms there is

White

Carribean

Asian

Mixed

UK

etc

But never "English"

I would think that's because they are measuring ethnic origin and English is not an ethnic origin.

[sushimo]

But we are fast turning into a minority group.........

[VikingHumpingWitch]

I'm not sure "fast" is quite right. At the last count it was something like 86% White British.

[sushimo]

Well yeah, 100 years ago we were probably 99% white British, and the 'rest' are breeding faster than we are. In another 100 years I wonder what the ratio would be?

It is fast in the scale of things Vox.

[tarrant]

There is one part of this report which concerns me greatly:

Prof Dawkins ............."Obviously life, which was Darwin's own subject, is not the result of chance," he said.

"Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very antithesis of chance.

"The error is to think that God is the only alternative to chance, and Darwin surely didn't think that because he himself discovered the most important non-theistic alternative to chance, namely natural selection."

If Professor Dawkins did indeed say this then it demonstrates that he is probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

This is worrying.

Firstly because he is a university professor, so would be expected not to make definitive comments without checking his facts.

Secondly, because many people, rightly or wrongly, look to him to represent what they feel confortable with.

Thirdly, if Professor Dawkins has simply dumbed down the concept for fear that people might be less willing to accept chance rather than some notion of destiny then he is guilty of enormous arrogance. He really is no better than the religious types he seeks to criticise.


For the record, Darwinian Natural Selection is entirely driven by chance.

That was the greatest difficulity so many had in accepting it.

Once you can accept it, that is its utter beauty.

[VikingHumpingWitch]

Natural selection is the exact opposite of chance. Traits which are beneficial to the species are passed on because they are beneficial to the species. It's not just a random ooh a third eye, no use but let's keep it anyway thing.

[mids]

Natural selection works with mutations which are due to chance but the way in which it works with the mutations is nothing to do with chance. Vox, Dawkins and I are right. Tarrant is utterly wrong.

[minge tightly]

Mids was right earlier I think in the possible reasons why the number is 1 in 3 - higher levels of imported ignorant peasants and a growing suspicion of science.

Even I know that natural selection isn't chance. What's Tarrant on about?

[tarrant]

Echoing Mids.

The entire principal of Dawrinian evolution is chance mutation which very rarely creates an advantagous change and eventually leads to new species.

The previous theory which was dominant was a variation of the Lamarkian notion that change came abour due to need.

The problem was finding the mechanism.

Darwin demonstrated, to my mind, conclusively, that there is no mechanism nor any need for it.

Professor Dawkins has some answering to do.