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

[djm4]

But I think it's disingenous to suggest that the status of his theory in the 19th century is the same as that of intelligent design today.

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 sinboy's misrepresentation of it. I'm particularly sensitive to that because Darwin often gets attacked for not saying how it worked, when (as you point out) he acknowledged that he didn't know this, and didn't need to.

[djm4]

Actually, scratch that; I think I'm misreading him. I suspect he means 'explain how it works' to the same degree that, say, Darwin did, rather than '...down to the last detail'. I also think that should have been obvious from context.

Apologies to both of you for going off on one.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

That's OK - I had a feeling I'd misunderstood you because I was pretty sure you weren't actually defending Intelligent Design on grounds that further study might corroborate it.