That Darwin poll (hat-tip to miss_s_b)...

[djm4_lj]

You know the poll, the poll conducted by Theos which suggested that over half the population of Britain believed that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and of which Paul Woolley, director of Theos said: "Darwin is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause. The result is that, given the false choice of evolution or God, people are rejecting evolution."

Hold that quote by Paul Woolley in your head, and now read what the poll questions, presumably set by Theos, actually were.

I couldn't have said 'yes' to any of those. I don't believe in God, so options 1, 2 & 4 are out, but I also don't think evolution makes belief in God either unnecessary or absurd. Dennett, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, argues that the theory of evolution, by successfully explaining one of the great mysteries that was previously only explicable by reference to a god/gods (or else left unexplained), knocked away one of the main pillars used to support belief in God. I think Dennett is probably correct when he identifies this as the source of much of the church's hostility to Darwin, but it evolution in-and-of-itself doesn't render God either unnecessary or absurd, and it's something of an abuse of the power of the theory to use it in that way, IMO.

Additionally, if 34% of people believe "Atheistic evolution - the idea that evolution makes belief in God unnecessary and absurd" is definitely or probably true, and 44% of people believe "Theistic evolution - the idea that evolution is the means that God used for the creation of all living things on earth" is definitely or probably true, I make that 78% support for evolution even before you cout the people like me who think: "Evolution is probably true, and there is overwhelming evidence for the theory. This is independent of my belief or otherwise in God."

Theos report here. Theos survey data here.

Comments

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Wow, yes, those are terrible options.

I think Dennett's position is stronger than that; he's saying I think (and I agree) that to believe in theistic evolution is to completely miss the point of what evolution is all about.

[djm4]

I agree Dennett says that - I regard that as a separate point, though. I'm also not sure he's correct, but that's largely because I think theistic evolution covers a broad spectrum of options from 'God and evolution can coexist and I believe in them both' through to 'evolution only works because God is constantly intervening to make sure that it does'. It's only the latter end of the spectrum that (to me) necessarily misses the point of what evolution is all about, but to be fair to Dennett IIRC it's that end that he attacks.

I may need to go and re-read the book before discussing this further, though, as it is a while since I read it.

[wildeabandon.livejournal.com]

What do you mean by theistic evolution? The stance that I used to take (and still find moderately plausible) is that God created a world in which the laws of physics apply and eventually lead to life in which mutations occur, knowing that natural selection would take care of the rest. How is that missing the point?

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

As I said below, that is IME a pretty typical Christian position. Admittedly, some take a less mechanistic worldview and hold with the ability or even tendency of God to intervene in worldly events in ways which don't mesh with the laws of physics, but that doesn't necessarily undermine the belief in evolution.