 |
 |
I'll agree that it doesn't have to fit. But if it doesn't fit, we shouldn't imagine that the results tell us anything about public attitudes to the concept and role of 'intelligent design'. Chris, I see you work with electronics. For me, this is like asking people if they will install (in their homes) (a) a solar panel (which comes with a compulsory parrot) (b) a cat (c) an amorphous silicon thin film module without a parrot and then interpreting a lack of people choosing (a) or (c) to mean that no-one likes alternative energy! No 'dead parrot' jokes, please. (Oh, go on then) JJG --On 15 November 2006 13:39 +0000 "C.A.Stokes" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > The last census reckoned 75% of the British population is Christian, > Jewish or Muslim. I imagine that hasn't changed all that much in the past > five years. I also imagine that somewhere between 30% and 90% of the set > comprising all British Christians, Jews and Muslims believe (before and > after breakfast): that a god created the earth and its denizens one way or > another; and that living organisms on earth have evolved. > > What do these folk answer to the Ipsos MORI question? Each has its > attractions. The first may misrepresent evolution but at least it's > pro-evolution. The second may misrepresent creationism but at least it's > pro-creation (pardon the pun). And the third's got a god intervening in > the design of living things, as, perhaps, some of our group believe. > > And look at that - the questioner is after all only asking for the one > that 'best describes' their belief. It doesn't have to fit. Let's not get > finicky. > > -- > Q1 I am going to read out three different theories or explanations about > the origin and development of life on earth. Can you tell me which of the > following theories best describes your view? > > 1. 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. > 2. 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. > 3. The "intelligent design theory" says that certain features of living > things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, > e.g. God. > -- > > If the group described above makes up a big chunk (maybe half or more?) of > the population, and they are dispersed in roughly equal measures between > the three options (and 'don't know') by dint of questionnaire design, and > the outcome can be latched onto by Horizon and the BBC to make > attention-grabbing programmes and headlines about a gullible public > deserting evolution for ID, you've got to ask whether the questionnaire > was inept or ingenious. > > The gloss on the Ipsos MORI web page for the survey says it was 'looking > at beliefs among the British public on how life started _in_ earth' [my > emph. See http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml]. It's > obvious. The questionnaire designer is a closet panspermist bent on > division and conquest. The moral panic around ID that celeb scientists > are happily stirring with their commissioned podcasts is just a small > part of that panspermist's cunning plan to bring us all around to his way > of thinking, err, I mean the truth. Come back Fred Hoyle. All is forgiven. > > Chris > > ________________________________ > > From: psci-com: on public engagement with science > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Ellam > Sent: 15 November 2006 11:47 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] are scientists using unscientific data to > attack unscientific 'intelligent design'? > > > > > Hi All > > I'm sorry, but I don't see what the fuss is about. The Horizon > survey is clearly designed to sort responses into two camps: those who > think that god had a hand in the creation of the world and those who > don't. > > This is the surely the crux of the argument about 'Creationism vs > Evolution' - do we subscribe to an entirely natural account of the origin > of the Universe, or do we subscribe to one which has supernatural > elements? > > The 'Theistic Evolution' position seems to me to be pretty untenable > as I understand it - essentially it sees god's role in creation as > lighting the blue touch paper and retiring, about 13.5 bn years ago. > Surely this is not, even in principle, testable and therefore is > unscientific? > > ********************************************************************** > 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 > ********************************************************************** ============================= 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 **********************************************************************