HALF of the respondents in a British poll do not accept the theory of evolution as accounting for the world’s existence, according to a new report – entitled Rescuing Darwin – by the religious thinktank Theos.
Charles Darwin who evolved a bigger beard than Freethinker founder G W Foote, pictured on this page.
Published on the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth on February 12, the report reveals that only 25 per cent of British adults think that evolution is “definitely true”, with another quarter thinking it is “probably true”.
According to this report, the director of studies at Theos and co-author of the report, Nick Spencer, said:
The problem is that evolution has become mixed up with all sorts of ideas – like the belief that there is no God, or no purpose or no absolute morality in life – which people find very difficult to accept.
The tragedy is that this was never Darwin’s position. Three years before he died he wrote ‘it seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist’.
The director of Theos, Paul Woolley, said:
Unfortunately, [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.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
February 15th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Waitaminute isn’t it the theist/cdesign proponentsists that are always saying that those who accept evolution are atheists? When will these theists stop being so god damned intellectually dishonest!?!?
February 16th, 2009 at 4:19 am
In my experience, I’ve never encountered an atheist who makes the claim that one must choose between religion, in general, and science.
Those who insist such choices be made generally favor a religious view that is a direct contradiction to science.
It is also my experience that such misguided theists are also responsibile for the unfortunate propagation of the perception that evolution is incongruent with religion and is a dogma of atheism.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Hmm. Just read that Darwin’s books are banned throughout the Middle East – perhaps because all those Arab atheists have been misusing his work?
Good point, Ben, about not having to choose between religion and science. Religion is a matter of private belief, and science is about dealing with objective truths that anyone can verify for themselves. It’s when people make claims about ‘evidence’ for their faith that things get messy.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:59 am
I’ve never had any problem with the idea that there could be a supreme being and he’s designed things so that they have evolved the way they have and the way that science is gradually revealing them to be. That was his (or her or its) way of doing it and that’s that. So theism and science have never been at odds to me. I don’t actually believe in a supreme being, but that’s by the bye. If there is a supreme being, then this could be the way he wanted it to be.
I did once read that God’s creation of man was a way for him (God) to examine himself. Nice poetic thought, but, then, a lot of poetic thoughts are nonetheless shite when you strip them of their poetry.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I’m not happy at the moment – as my local comprehensive school is being closed down by the council – in favour of them building two single-sex catholic schools instead.
Single sex??? WTF!!! This is the 21st Century!! And catholic – WTF!!! Again!! One look at the pope tells you all you need to know about Catholicism.
I am appalled. There is no way I am sending a child of mine to a place of brainwashing, where he’s forced to pray every morning and spend a few hours a week learning about fairytales instead of something more useful in life.
Oh and in reference to the article above – A “thinktank” isn’t up to much if they can’t sit down and figure out that religion is bullshit in the first 10 minutes of discussion.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Yet another theist quote mining. I’m sure a religious “thinktank” (contradiction there I think. As Bill Maher said in Religilous, its a bit like being a gay republican) such as Theos producing a poll about religious opinion is going to produce one in favour of religion.
Shargraves:
It is indeed diabolical that such a thing as the school situation is happening in this day and age. However its what I’ve come to expect (and revile) from the people running our country who would rather pander to disproportionately vocal minorities in our society, while ignoring the calls for education to be institutions of education about facts and not bronze-age superstition and bigotry.
February 16th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Shargraves,
Do you have an alternative school to send your children to? If not you could opt them out of all religious ‘education’ and observance. The single sex thing is more difficult to deal with of course and totally backward thinking (standard practice of course in religion).
I found it convenient to send my son to the local catholic school. They were very handy, have a good reputation and also have lower class sizes which I think is an advantage. I opted him out but met with resistance from the local education department who eventually had to reluctantly abide by my wishes. The head teacher wasn’t too impressed either.
My daughter will start there in August too, and it’s already been established that she will be opted out. Is this an option for you? They really don’t like it if that helps!
February 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I don’t think we should be too worried by this report; having had a quick read through, it is tedious and predictable and tries to present itself as a proper piece of research. Religious organisations, as we know, have no limit to their dishonesty so I’m certain the questions in their poll were carefully loaded to get the result they wanted. I can’t understand what they mean by “reclaim Darwin†Mr Darwin’s observations and subsequent research was conducted in the scientific manner, he started the “ball rolling†until other scientific processes and discoveries were made to verify his original deductions.
I agree with previous posts that “Religious Think-tank†is an oxymoron.
February 16th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
David L & Godless : Not sure what I can do options-wise yet, thankfully its a few years off.
But the local catholic primary, where I’ve taught IT projects, despite producing polite kids, doesn’t seem to have acceptable literacy or numeracy (for my liking!) and the local catholic secondary, where I have again been in to run IT projects with classes, is an all-boys school that was a total cess pit of mindless violence and grunting ignorance.
I’ve also had dealings with the comp. and the young people there have been uniformly excellent to work with, and I have even signed on to run a few after-school projects with a group in a local youth centre.
My neighbours kids attended the comp too – one is a teacher in a girls school now, the other has a phd in micro-biology.
For me its a no-brainer! The comp HAS to stay!!! But despite, petitions, protest films, meetings etc. The council remains steadfastly committed to spreading catholic stupidity.
I may move out of the area instead when the time comes.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
“Half of the responents in a British poll do not accept the theory of evolution as accounting for the worlds existence” ???. The theory of evolution accounts for biodiversity, it has nothing to do with the origin of the planet, could it be that this was the half that was actually scientifically literate?
As for the notion that atheists are using Darwin to promote our cause, it seems to be a constant chore to defend darwinism from the smears, lies and distortions of the creationists. It is they who claim that belief in evolution leads to atheism not us. Actually I think they could well be right, up to a point, that understanding evolution makes atheism more likely. Where I think they are mistaken is in their belief that this is a bad thing.
February 16th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
If this is the way their poll was phrased:
“the theory of evolution as accounting for the world’s existence”,
then even I would have said that, no, it doesn’t. Evolution explains the diversity of life, but has nothing to do with “the world’s existence”.
February 16th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
The significance of Darwin for atheists lies not in the fact that he ditched God, but in the fact that he came up with a mechanism that enables them to do so. Whether Darwin did in fact ditch God may be of historical interest, but few atheists today will lose sleep over it.
The book appears to be attacking a straw man version of atheists – the idea that people today are atheists because they think Darwin was.
Nick Spencer speaks of “modern aggressive atheists”.
“There’s probably no God”. How much less aggressive can you get?
Darwin was an atheist as far as the Christian god was concerned, but fluctuated between atheism and deism.
Spencer states that Darwin disliked atheistic bullying:
“‘Why should you be so aggressive?’ he asked the atheist Edward Aveling in 1881. ‘Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?’”
But what were his words in full, Mr. Spencer?
“Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind? It is all very well for educated, cultured, thoughtful people; but are the masses yet ripe for it?”
Aveling pointed out to Darwin that one need not necessarily deny God in order to be an atheist – one can simply fail to believe that God exists. When Darwin was made aware of this, he said he was an atheist, but that he preferred the term “agnostic”.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/co.....;pageseq=1
There are two types of atheism – weak atheism, which is the failure to believe in God, and strong atheism, which the belief that there is no god. Even Richard Dawkins isn’t a strong atheist. Dawkins doesn’t deny the existence of a God – he just thinks his existence very, very, very unlikely, so thinks it silly when people bring him in to things. Tables and chairs are weak atheists. They lack a belief in God. The key phrase here is “lack a beliefâ€. If you lack a belief, it hardly makes sense to speak of atheists today as being “Darwin’s disciples”, as Spencer likes to do. But then coming from a personality cult like Christianity, what can we expect?
February 16th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Shargraves
“…and the local catholic secondary…is an all-boys school that was a total cess pit of mindless violence and grunting ignorance.”
Ahh! Now we can see why they are pushing for this.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Just read Nick Spencers excellent read Darwin and God.
Darwin was not an atheist but a man who was trying to reconcile his new theory with the possible existence of a god/creator type being…
whats wrong is the way people like Dawkins et al have twisted Darwins stance on the issue with a lot of false facts.