Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?

Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?
Why do half of Britons not believe in evolution?
Fair use, to illustrate article's context.

The info which follows dates to 2009 AD and may be the most recent stats.

Indeed, as reported by the UK’s Guardian; Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds (Riazat Butt, February 1, 2009 AD) and Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons (Jessica Shepherd, October 25, 2009 AD). Thus half do not believe in it and more than half believe that both views should be taught.

Keep in mind that while the UK does have RE (religious education) in public schools; it is a very, very, very secular society which is saturated with Darwinism. Logically, they would be the most Darwinian society and yet, “More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory.” Ah, the good ol' we have been explaining Darwinism for over a century and a half and the hoi polloi still do not get it!!! Well, there may be other reasons for rejecting it such as understanding it and realizing that biology is a science but Darwinism is a philosophy and since it makes unsubstantiated claims it is therefore being rejected.

The stats are a result of the study titled Rescuing Darwin - God and evolution in Britain today by Nick Spencer and Denis Alexander and was conducted on the 150th anniversary of the publication of On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The Guardian reports note:

Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true".

Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it…

10% of people chose young Earth creationism…over evolution. About 12% preferred intelligent design…

The remainder were unsure, often mixing evolution, intelligent design and creationism together.

Perhaps the very best statement in the reports is as follows:

Prominent scientists and teaching unions have expressed shock at the poll's findings.

Lewis Wolpert, emeritus professor of biology at University College London (UCL), who is vice-president of the British Humanist Association, said:

"I am appalled. It shows how ignorant the public is. Intelligent design and creationism have no connection with science and are purely religious concepts. There is no evidence for them at all. They must be kept out of science lessons."

Lewis Wolpert is not just a (be thou impressed) prominent scientists, emeritus professor of biology but the Atheist vice-president of the British Humanist Association (Humanist is a denomination of Atheism; see here).

Wolpert is appalled at the ignorance of those who, unlike he, do not reside atop an imitation ivory tower. Intelligent design and creationism are the very premise upon which science was established in the first place; anyone with any knowledge of the history of science would know this (keeping in mind that curiosity and observation is not the same as the rigors of the scientific method).

They may be “religious concepts” but not “purely.” Firstly, intelligent design is agnostic which is why there are Atheist (such as Francis Crick), Agnostic (such as David Berlinski) as well as adherents to various different religions who hold to intelligent design. Creationism (aka Creation Science aka Scientific Creationism, etc.) pertains to the specific God of the Bible; YHVH’s creative act. And yet, even then, it does not merely assert “Gaaaawwwwwd dun it” but seek scientific manners whereby to elucidate the matter. Thus, even Creationism is not a purely religious concept when it seeks to apply science to itself.

Lewis Wolpert simplistic dismissal of any and all intelligent design and creationism discoveries as “There is no evidence for them at all” is no less than an intellectual embarrassment and that he insists that “They must be kept out of science lessons” shows why he is the vice-president of an Atheist activism group.

And his dismissal of God is just as unimpressive, “There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God.”

But what scientific, evidence based, academic, scholarly reasons does Wolpert himself offer for having become an Atheist?:

[I] stopped believing in God when I was 15 or 16 because he didn’t give me what I asked for. [1]

Keith Ward asked Wolpert, “What sort of evidence would count for you? Would it have to be scientific evidence of some sort?” to which the reply was, “Well, no… I think I read somewhere: If he turned the pond on Hamstead Heath into good champagne, it would be quite impressive”[2]. And yet, the historical record is that Jesus turned water into wine and that is still not good enough, is it?

Lewis Wolpert also stated, “I used to pray but I gave it up because when I asked God to help me find my cricket bat, he didn’t help.” Thus, Justin Brieley stated, “Right, and that was enough for you to prove that God did not exist” to which Wolpert replied, “Well, yes. I just gave it up completely.”[3]

For more in Wolpert, see Lewis Wolpert - Still a Child at Heart.

Personages such as Wolpert are desperate to only have their one narrow view of reality taught in classes that are supposed to be about science but are saturated with pseudo-science and scientism. The Guardian reports James Williams, a lecturer at Sussex University, stated:

Creationists ask if ­people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief.

One could just as easily state:

Evolutionists ask if ­people believe in intelligent design or creationism. Creationism is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the evolutionists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious (faith filled Atheism) belief.

For more on this, see Protecting the Science Classroom also God and the science classroom and a collection of articles titled The Wedgie Document. You will learn various things including that straight up Atheist propaganda is not being smuggled into the science classroom’s back door but being brought right through the front door, packaged within textbooks that are supposed to be about science.

Let us leave off with some more stats:

More than half of British adults think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school science lessons – a proportion higher than in the US.

An Ipsos Mori survey questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries on how the theory of evolution should be taught in school science lessons.

About 54% of the 973 polled Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."

In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design.

Across the 10 countries, 43% agreed with this statement.



[1] Lewis Wolpert, “The Hard Cell,” Third Way, March 2007 AD, p. 17

[2] Ibid., p. 16

[3] From an interview on the Unbelievable show titled, What Does Science Tell Us About God?


Feel free to take advantage of the free subscription to this page so that you will get an email notification when something is posted herein—see subscribe link above, next to my name…or just CTRL+F and search for “subscribe.”

Find us on:

Main (repository) homepage




Report this ad