![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 03:29 pm (UTC)I sort of see what you mean, and 'Intelligent Design' does fail at this hugely, but I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Darwin himself did some moderately well regarded science without explaining how most of it worked; that understanding came bit-by-bit over the next century. It didn't stop his systematic compiling of observations, and hypotheses about their interpretations, from being science in the truest and best sense.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 03:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-13 03:01 pm (UTC)I see you've read Spinoza, then?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 05:20 pm (UTC)For the record, I wasn't trying to say that. I suspect I was being too subtle; I basically think 'It's not science unless they explain how it works' is a complete misrepresentation of what science 'is'. Explaining how it works isn't the point - providing evidence for your theories and (ideally) testable hypotheses is.
I agree that ID doesn't do that either. I was defending science against what I saw as
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 05:36 pm (UTC)Apologies to both of you for going off on one.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-12 04:02 pm (UTC)They have to at least try to explain what these "key stages" are, or how "God" did anything. As far as I can tell, ID just stops at some nonspecific time, where some nonspecific alien intelligence did some nonspecific thing.