According to the BBC Press Office, Horizon's Mori poll did not allow people
to indicate a belief in both Natural Selection and God.
The Press Release says:
"Participants in the survey were read three statements and asked which best
described their view of the origin and development of life:
* the 'evolution theory' says that human kind has developed over
millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this
process;
* the 'creationism theory' says that God created human kind pretty much
in his/her present form at one time within the last 10,000 years;
* and the 'intelligent design' theory says that certain features of
living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural
being, eg God.
"Of those surveyed, 48 per cent said evolution theory most closely
describes their view; 22% chose creationism; and 17% chose intelligent
design. A further 12% said they did not know."
[end of release quote]
Is it possible that the 17 per cent who chose the third option knew nothing
about intelligent design as a belief system or theory, but rather, were
simply selecting the only statement that was neither creationism nor
atheist?
I'm a fan of Darwin. Of course I am. But I am a Christian, so I would not
choose option 1.
Reflecting on our science communication fundamentals, we might consider
that someone who is not a scientist, nor a science journalist, might not
have heard of the term 'intelligent design' [it is a jargon term, is it
not?] and might well have been tempted to pick this option 3, in an attempt
to express a belief that Darwin was right about evolution and the survival
of the fittest, but that God created the universe with these processes
operating within it.
If a person wanted to design a poll to generate maximum controversy, as
opposed to trying to capture the beliefs of a community, this would be a
good example of how to do it.
Does the press release accurately reflect the Poll questions? I do not know
- i'm not creating a podcast on this subject and I have other work that
requires my time this week. But if it does, then perhaps the scientists who
use these statistics in should consider the value of more rigorous (social)
scientific methods in evidence gathering.
Jenny
=============================
Dr Jenny Gristock
Fellow, Science Communication
SPRU Science and Technology Policy Research
The Freeman Centre
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QE, UK
Telephone +44 (0)1273 876711
Fax +44 (0)1273 685865
[log in to unmask]
www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/profile29408.html
=============================
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.ac.uk
**********************************************************************
