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

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Status of Darwin's work aside, Intelligent Design needs to be judged on the merits of it's own claims. And there's no real scientific proof being generated by it's proponents, just criticism of Evolutionary Biology. The problem is, Evolutionary Biology criticizes its self with provable criticism. Intelligent Design proponents are using "God" as something that can't ever be found with science.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

Indeed. And without usefully defining what they mean by 'God', which makes it a pretty vague term which can be twisted to mean anything they feel like. I'm beginning to see this as the root of the problem of debating the subject with (most) religious people, actually - they can define God any way you choose, and cite half a dozen theologians to back you up, and then if they're still not winning you over, play the good old 'ineffable' card. "Oh well, you can't possibly understand what God is/does/wants/means, because it's all so big and numinous and Ineffably Other!"

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

without usefully defining what they mean by 'God', which makes it a pretty vague term which can be twisted to mean anything they feel like

I see you've read Spinoza, then?