UK creationism

Current News and Links of interest

Moderator: News Editors

UK creationism

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:24 am

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9018
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: UK creationism

Postby cathy » Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:42 pm

Can't open the second but based on experience I'd say that research backs up what I'd found. Muslims and Christians weren't that hung up on creationism. Until somebody stirs them up. Even then I'd always found them uncomfortable with the uses of science denial.

But I know Scotland is a very different bag of beans in all respects. From how extreme and exclusive their faith schools seem to be thru to the fact creationism is even considered. Here it looks like the creationists tried very hard and failed. Friend from creationist church says it's never mentioned at all as an issue any more.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: UK creationism

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:53 pm

Thanks Ashley: that first link looks an important pricking of windbags/removal of sails :-)
Unfortunately I've a lot going on at the moment and can't easily read the article because of THREE of those nasty semi-transparent icons that are beginning to pollute the web.
I'm using Firefox 35:0.1 - are other browsers more resistant to this infestation, which seems to have it's origin in the abominable "social media"?
</Luddite mode>
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: UK creationism

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:24 pm

The article renders better in Opera, although the pesky things are still there. The main findings are:
After carrying out detailed face-to-face interviews with over a hundred Christians and Muslims, Unsworth designed her own survey. Of 2,116 people in Britain, she found that only 3% reject the idea that plants and animals have evolved from earlier life forms, whilst 6.8% reject the idea that humans have evolved from non-human life forms. Only 4% would qualify as young earth creationists.

Further, she discovered that even amongst regular worshippers–meaning those who attend religious services once a month or more, only 14.3% reject plant and animal evolution, 28.6% reject human evolution and 10.2% think the earth is young.

In addition to asking people for their own views on evolution, Unsworth’s survey also asked people whether they think acceptance of evolution is compatible with belief in God. Of those who think it is possible to believe in both God and evolution, 66% believe in God themselves.

In contrast, of those who think belief in God and evolution are incompatible, she found that only 17% believe in God themselves and 83% do not believe in God.

“The usual perception is that religious believers reject evolution because it’s incompatible with their belief in God,” she said. “However, this survey shows that it’s actually people who don’t believe in God who are much more likely to think there’s a conflict.”
worth reading it all and there's more to come wwhen she's finished analysing her data.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: UK creationism

Postby jon_12091 » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:01 pm

Very interesting and I think chimes reasonably well with my anecdotal experience.

I think it also highlights the need to be careful when you ask a broad question like 'do you believe in creation'
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: UK creationism

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:20 pm

Indeed Jon, be the questioners biassed or just careless.
There's another interesting point in the article: she finds that if people disagree with (e.g.) Dawkins' views on religion, they downgrade his scientific views too.
Another aspect of Unsworth’s survey also intrigues: Amongst regular worshippers, she found very strong correlations between the perceived reliability of information presented by celebrity science popularizers and their perceived attitude toward religion.

If a religious individual sensed that such celebrities were hostile toward religion, they were less likely to believe the celebrity was presenting reliable information about science.

In the religious worshipper group, for example, over 40% thought British science advocate Richard Dawkins was negative towards religion and only 25% thought he presented very reliable information about science.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Meanwhile across the pond

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:51 am

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb15ASRFeature2.pdf (I've not read this in full but it does appear that the postsecular group surveyed may regard YEC-ism or perhaps OEC-ism as 'science' rather than the mainstream/naturalistic consensus as they appear very much to doubt evolution or a big bang)
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/p ... d-society/ (separate study)

In the US, opposition to science comes primarily from the religious Right. In the UK it can often come from the secular Left as well (did I mention GM crops or nuclear power).

As I say, I've only skimmed these - but I note the sentences on page 103 of the ASA paper: "Although the postsecular perspective entails high levels of science knowledge as well as favorable views of science and religion, responses to questions about evolution and the big bang suggest that even for this most accommodating group, science and religion sometimes conflict. When asked about these issues, the post-secular latent class almost unanimously aligned their views with particular religious accounts."

Whereas I did read this tosh about Dawkins being 'wrong again' (back in 1989 since you ask) closely; it relates to the second link above (Wile is blocking all my attempted comments on his latest propaganda piece, without the remotest attempt at an explanation or justification, needless to say):
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13243
Despite Wile's vacuous claim that US people in this survey rejected evolution and the big bang not out of ignorance (the issue mainly highlighted by Dawkins in 1989 and since) but rather out of coming to a 'different conclusion', the study in fact showed that both the traditional group (43% of the US population/population surveyed) and the postsecular (21% of the US population/population surveyed) tended to doubt evolution (the latter answered more science questions correctly than the traditionalists but had apparently embraced some form of creationism as 'science' presumably in consequence of their upbringing and what was presented to them as 'science'). So most of those rejecting evolution were the 'ignorant' just as Dawkins implied might be the case (certainly in the past). (The third category of the US population/population surveyed, at 36%, is termed the modern group - who prefer science over religion though they did not score more highly on science questions than the postsecular group.)

I am sending this link to Wile. He must know he is lying since clearly he is not an unintelligent man. If he was not lying he would refute my comments instead of stamping on all of them without warning or explanation.

But he is and he does.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9018
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: UK creationism

Postby cathy » Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:32 pm

The stuff about Dawkins was interesting Brian, but I'm not so sure that it's his perceived antipathy to religion so much as the fact that most people think he's a blithering idiot these days. I think people are rightly or wrongly downgrading his science because he so often appears to be stupid and almost creationist like in ignoring evidence, selective misquoting and being out of touch with reality. Religion may have been what was researched in this study but I suspect a lot of atheists downgrade his science as well because they think he's a moron. In fact all the atheists I know think he's an arrogant idiot these days. And in doing so it's natural to assume the science of a moron who denies evidence is not going to be as credible.

For example the stuff he comes out with about Muslims and Catholics. Forgets that most of us know Muslims and Catholics snd therefore know they're not loony jihadists or creationists or anti contraception (all Catholics everyone knows have the requisite same planned number of kids as anyone, are as likely as anyone else to be divorced etc etc). He ignore the fact that the recruits to IS are disaffected young males rather than just Muslims. Often converts! The sorts who could just as easily have joined EDL if they were the right shade. He ignores the fact that recruiting videos concentrate on perceived injustices committed by the US as much as the Q'uran. In fact just about every time he opens his gob these says you just look and think 'hang in that's not well researched. In fact you've not researched that at all'. As for his take on women! Seventies sexist that deserved third prize in sexist of the year 2014.

I'm afraid I've also downgraded what I would think were his contributions science and I know nothing about them. Though I think some are from the vaguely unscientific field of evolutionary psychology. That branch of science that assumes our ancestors were all like 1970s sexists and ignore all evidences from what we call the more recent past and the present that suggest life hasn't always been a carry on movie.

Anyway what I'm trying to waffle is to say that because I know that what I've seen of his dense opinions has not impressed me, I've sort of downgraded in my head his contributions. Not logically but emotionally. If his science was genuinely good than that is sad. But it isn't atheism that has lost him credibility because that isn't the case with other atheists like Brian Cox. Let's just say if he is an intellectual giant he's hiding it very well.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch


Return to News and Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests