973 is an awfully small sample!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

that’s it! I’m moving to Mars.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This blurb isn’t clear how the 973 were selected. I’ve never understood samling statistics very well, but I do know that in some circumstances smaller samples can be better.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Some rare nationalism: In Sweden I bet 90% don’t know what Intelligent Design is (In 2004 imagined it was some design lecture - like technology, 1hour later the coin fell down), and 45% will answer that creationism has to do with something else then what i means.

If you say it in Swedish “Skapelseberättelsen” they sure know, the story about Adam and Ewe, and they won’t hesitate to laugh in the same way you do when some one jokes and say they won’t do this or that because then Santa won’t bring presents next x-mas.

And still, I find every day full of modern nonsensical stuff in Sweden created by the fairy tails of world religions. If you think Jesus came back from the dead, you can as well think the world is 3 days old. Both examples are the same, the later just have complications on the teaching of evolution. The first has the same implications on the nature of nature.

“It’s a mad house Jerry!”
- Bank robber, Kids in the hall

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

gee ,they are even more dumb than Americans..didn’t think that was possible.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Very strange.

Living here in the UK i find the statistic pretty strange. We are clearly a less overtly religious society than the US, but behind closed doors it is more difficult to say.

My generation and below (sub 30ish) is really quite non religious. I have two christian friends, but i think only one of them would say yes in this poll.

It is difficult to judge the affects of immigration and of how older people might vote. It is a real shame the survey wasn’t large, but more importantly didn’t feature a more comprehensive question set, such as age or ethnicity.

Either way, from my conversations with people, i would say that this is probably down to something quite different than in the US. Most people probably down know much about intelligent design or creationism; not when you get down to the details. This could be just down to that British sense of fairness (intruding in a silly manner).

Having said that i haven’t actually met anyone who, without some higher education, really understands evolution either.

I will shout this bit so people can see it: INSTEAD OF PUTTING DOWN CREATIONISM (that will get peoples attention!), which we obviously should do, lets try and really strengthen and improve evolutionary education in schools. This is the tonic surely.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It is probably that In Britain we don’t give a stuff about religion or atheism. We are not scared to teach so called alternatives to evolution as we know it does not actually affect anything. I think in Evolutionary science the fact that creationism and intelligent design have been two ideas that have tried to challenge the theory should be taught. Lamark had a theory of evolution and just because he was wrong does not mean we should not teach people about him and his ideas (we would not teach this in history). Lamarkism (at least in his form) is not science yet it would be taught in biology class. If evolution is water tight then nobody has anything to worry about. I think the ‘appalled humanist’ in the article is the problem with this debate. The British public are not ignorant of evolution they just don’t care enough they have greater things to worry about - its not one of the pillars of their secular beliefs I mean we are all taught about it in high school. It is the arrogance of the kind of humanist that believes that if you don’t care about evolution then you are ignorant that is the problem. It is not evolution that is under threat it is small part of the humanist movement that is threatened if you tread on their hallowed ground. Evolution and creationism being taught together is only a problem for whacko creationists and whacko atheists the rest of us whether atheist or religious just don’t care enough as evolution is irelevant outside of biology to the everyday human.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Why don’t we just start teaching elements (earth, fire, water, air) as an “alternative” for the ones in the periodic table?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The flying spaghetti monster may as well be added to the text books if we’re going to let creationism into our schools.

Creationism belongs in Religious Education, not a subject that is linked with fact and intelligent thought processes.

We need to clone Richard Dawkins and have a clone stationed in every school.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Then we should also teach that 2+2=5 is an alternative to the theory that 2+2=4. Clearly, facts then should not have anything to do with what is taught, only beliefs.

This does matter, as it sets up kids to think that beliefs are of equal value as facts.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I suspect that in a random sample the number of people (in any country) that actually know what Intelligent Design and/or Creationism mean is less than we would think.  That question could have been worded in various different ways all of which would have had noticeably different results.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Great, lets review our education systems world wide: Astrology would be a suitable subject to replace social sciences. The stork tale could replace sexual education, and for the history lessons we bring in a big cristal ball. And instead of physical education we could simply watch a Superman-movie.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I forgot the exact number but I recall Dawkins said something like 13% of Britons believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Statistics are fun.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

This does matter. If we teach creationism alongside evolution, then why not teach flat-earth theory alongside round-earth theory? Or astrology alongside astronomy, or alchemy alongside chemistry? Do we have to teach our children every ‘alternative’ idea that anyone has ever believed? This smacks too much of the postmodern-relativist ‘all beliefs are equal’ tripe, of which the only logical conclusion is the destruction of any notion of someone actually being right or wrong, and therefore the destruction of all knowledge. In this scenario, kiss goodbye your cell phones, computers, televisions, medicine, and everything else about civilization that depends on knowledge, on the possibility of people being definitively right or definitively wrong- which is everything.

The creationist tactic of throwing about rhetoric of ‘equal time’ and ‘academic freedom’ to appeal to one’s sense of ‘fairness’ in order to get their alternative ‘theory’ taught in schools - simply because it is alternative - is just one symptom of this larger postmodern-relativist disease.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think immediately of a couple landmark cases here in the U.S. where towns wanted creationism/intelligent design given equal time with evolution. Fortunately, enlightened minds and the courts kept religion out of the schools.

Why not teach astrology along with astronomy? Or alchemy and chemistry? Or magic beside physics? 

Christian fundamentalists like to say evolution is just a theory. Sure it is. So is gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear physics, aerodynamics,  how an internal combustion engine works, and a few hundred other things we take for granted every day.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I have to agree with Appalled Humanist “t is the arrogance of the kind of humanist that believes that if you don’t care about evolution then you are ignorant that is the problem. It” Personally I subscribe to no religious belief. Generally it can be said though that the theory of evolution as espoused by Dawkins, and the a belief in some supreme intelligence (God if you like) are mutually exclusive. I admit to not understnading the theory and take a simplistic view, that from the evolutionists point of view, the world as it is - including all the artistic and literary creations from Michelangelos Sistine chapel ceiling to the works of Shakespeare are a result of an entirely naturally occuring sequence of events, triggered ultimatel by the “big Bang”
I am inclined to find this implausible - which is, I think the “intelligent design” or ““creationist” perspective. I guess this makes me a “creationist”.  Where should I seek help for this affliction?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.