Brits not stampeded by latest Darwinian science fad

[Pure]

Britons unconvinced on evolution

Over 55s were less likely to opt for evolution than other groups
Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.

Its latest programme, A War on Science, looks into the attempt to introduce ID into science classes in the US.

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

22% chose creationism
17% opted for intelligent design
48% selected evolution theory
and the rest did not know.
Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of living things are so complex that their existence is better explained by an "intelligent process" than natural selection.

Education questioned

Andrew Cohen, editor of Horizon, commented: "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."

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.
Participants over 55 were less likely to choose evolution over other groups.

"This really says something about the role of science education in this country and begs us to question how we are teaching evolutionary theory," Andrew Cohen added.

The findings prompted surprise from the scientific community. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "It is surprising that many should still be sceptical of Darwinian evolution. Darwin proposed his theory nearly 150 years ago, and it is now supported by an immense weight of evidence.

"We are, however, fortunate compared to the US in that no major segment of UK religious or cultural life opposes the inclusion of evolution in the school science curriculum."

In the US, a recent high profile court case ruled that the intelligent design movement is motivated by a desire to introduce God into the classroom.

This came after parents in Pennsylvania took a school board to court for demanding that biology classes should not teach evolution as fact.

Horizon: A War on Science was broadcast on BBC Two at 2100GMT on Thursday, 26 January 2006
----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

 

[oggbashan]

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.
Participants over 55 were less likely to choose evolution over other groups.

When I was taught Science at school, the Phlogiston Theory was part of the curriculum to demonstrate that Science moves from one theory to another as more data is accumulated. In other lessons, the idea that the Sun and Planets rotate around the Earth was also discussed.

If I were asked which I would want taught in British Schools, I would answer 'all three' because Science lessons would demonstrate which was more likely to be correct. Discussion of all three would illustrate scientific methodology.

Og

 

[The Mutt]

When I was taught Science at school, the Phlogiston Theory was part of the curriculum to demonstrate that Science moves from one theory to another as more data is accumulated. In other lessons, the idea that the Sun and Planets rotate around the Earth was also discussed.

If I were asked which I would want taught in British Schools, I would answer 'all three' because Science lessons would demonstrate which was more likely to be correct. Discussion of all three would illustrate scientific methodology.

Og

Since Creationism and ID are by definition miraculous, I think the discussion of which is more likely would be a short one.

 

[NoJo]

I imagine, as editor of a science program, I'd be rather pleased to have a shocking poll than otherwise. Which is to say that I don't trust polls commissioned by people who have a vested interest in getting an audience.

 

[gauchecritic]

and two thousand out of 60 or 70 million is hardly representative.

 

[Pure]

Brits unconvinced by polling

http://www.janda.org/c10/Lectures/topic05/GallupFAQ.htm
POLL FAQ: Your Frequently Asked Questions Answered

HOW POLLS ARE CONDUCTED
By Frank Newport, Lydia Saad, David Moore from Where America Stands, 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION


The Number Of Interviews, Or Sample Size, Required

One key question faced by Gallup statisticians: how many interviews does it take to provide an adequate cross-section of Americans? The answer is, not many -- that is, if the respondents to be interviewed are selected entirely at random, giving every adult American an equal probability of falling into the sample. The current US adult population in the continental United States is 187 million. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll which is designed to represent this general population is 1,000 national adults.

The actual number of people which need to be interviewed for a given sample is to some degree less important than the soundness of the fundamental equal probability of selection principle. In other words - although this is something many people find hard to believe - if respondents are not selected randomly, we could have a poll with a million people and still be significantly less likely to represent the views of all Americans than a much smaller sample of just 1,000 people - if that sample is selected randomly.

To be sure, there is some gain in sampling accuracy which comes from increasing sample sizes. Common sense - and sampling theory - tell us that a sample of 1,000 people probably is going to be more accurate than a sample of 20.

Surprisingly, however, once the survey sample gets to a size of 500, 600, 700 or more, there are fewer and fewer accuracy gains which come from increasing the sample size. Gallup and other major organizations use sample sizes of between 1,000 and 1,500 because they provide a solid balance of accuracy against the increased economic cost of larger and larger samples.

If Gallup were to - quite expensively - use a sample of 4,000 randomly selected adults each time it did its poll, the increase in accuracy over and beyond a well-done sample of 1,000 would be minimal, and generally speaking, would not justify the increase in cost.

Statisticians over the years have developed quite specific ways of measuring the accuracy of samples - so long as the fundamental principle of equal probability of selection is adhered to when the sample is drawn.

For example, with a sample size of 1,000 national adults, (derived using careful random selection procedures), the results are highly likely to be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. Thus, if we find in a given poll that President Clinton's approval rating is 50%, the margin of error indicates that the true rating is very likely to be between 53% and 47%. It is very unlikely to be higher or lower than that.

 

[oggbashan]

I do not doubt the statistical basis for the survey, nor that the results are a reasonably accurate representation of the views of the general population.

Creationism and Intelligent Design have had more publicity in the UK recently as a result of reports of the debates in the US so I would expect them to score higher than normal.

However, if other surveys show that nearly half of US citizens believe that they have been abducted by aliens, then 48% of UK citizens supporting Darwin doesn't seem to prove much.

As for the question about what should be taught in schools, I suggest that the answer 'all of them' is a rational choice. Any reasonable exposition of scientific methodology would demonstrate that Creationism and Intelligent Design require suspension of disbelief and that Evolution can be reproven by field study.

Og

 

[The Mutt]

Nearly half of Americans say they were abducted? That can't be right. Where did you hear this?

 

[oggbashan]

Nearly half of Americans say they were abducted? That can't be right. Where did you hear this?

Probably The Onion's report of this poll:

Alien Poll

Og

 

[Pure]

No, Ogg,

Your proposal that the people want non-scientific theories taught for historical reasons, like one teaches 'phlogiston' theory, does not seem entirely adequate.

For, before asking about what should be taught, the story reports that the respondents were asked:

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

22% chose creationism [CR]
17% opted for intelligent design [ID]
48% selected evolution theory [ET]
and the rest did not know.

Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of living things are so complex that their existence is better explained by an "intelligent process" than natural selection

So about a fifth believe in CR and a fifth in ID.

The 'teach in school' stats showabout twice that, or about 40% (two fifths) want each of those taught.

Surely is it most plausible then, that about one half of those wanting CR or wanting ID taught, want that because they believe it to be true. Further, one might speculate, with some plausibility, that the 40% who believe EITHER CR or ID to be true, generally want them both taught.

I see no reason to think that many Darwinists want the CR or ID theory taught as a non-plausible historical theory, although I don't know how one could get that number (%) from the present report. It cannot likely be as high as half the Darwinists, since, as I said above, the 40% taught group can almost entirely be constituted of those who believe either in CR or ID. So my speculation is that only a small number of Darwinist (<5%) want the teaching done for historical reasons, though they disbelieve in both CR and ID.

 

[oggbashan]

Pure,

The debate in the UK is not as fierce as it is in the US.

Science is part of the National Curriculum set by our government.

What is disappointing is the low numbers of school students who take science to any meaningful level, not the detail of what is taught to those that do study it.

'Hard' subjects such as the Sciences, Geography, Foreign Languages, History and even Mathematics are being avoided and replaced by 'soft' subjects such as media, craft and drama.

The survey is interesting, if depressing, because it confirms the data that the study of scientific method or any science in the UK is in decline.

Og

 

[Pure]

i suspect the same is happening in the US and Canada-- pursuit of science, in primary and secondary schools, is likely declining, in the States for 'religious' reasons as well as reasons of difficulty.