ID.Plus

• 22% chose creationism
• 17% opted for intelligent design
• 48% selected evolution theory
• and the rest did not know.

'I think that this poll represents our first introduction to the British public's views on this issue. Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins.'

As for the British public's views on science education: 'when given a choice of three descriptions for the development of life on Earth, people were asked which one or ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:

• 44% said creationism should be included
• 41% intelligent design
• 69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.'

These results make an interesting contrast with the recent Haris poll of American adults' beliefs about creation, evolution and intelligent design, where 64% chose 'creationism', 10% 'intelligent design' and 22% 'evolution'. Astonishingly, when ID as a movement has its roots in America, 7% more Britons than American's subscribe to the theory. Indeed, speaking very roughly, the figures for belief in both ID and evolution in Britian are both double that of America. Clearly, 'creationism' has a much greater following in the USA than in Britain. Perhaps this bodes well for the correct framing of the discussion about ID in Britain as a matter of 'science vs. science' rather than the tired 'science vs. religion' track taken by much of the media.

Once again, the BBC manage to inacurrately define ID as: 'the concept that certain features of living things are so complex that their existence is better explained by an "intelligent process" than natural selection.' Let me repeat, complexity per se is not the issue. The issue of specified and/or irreducible complexity.

# posted by Peter S. Williams @ 12:56 pm