A survey conducted recently in England reveals that 51 percent of the British public believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living things, and that intelligent design must be involved. The survey was conducted by the polling firm ComRes for Theos, a theology think tank.
The report of the survey of the British public, published in the Telegraph, noted:
In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that “evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages”…A further 40 per cent disagreed, while the rest said they did not know…The suggestion that a designer’s input is needed reflects the “intelligent design” theory, promoted by American creationists as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.
The irony is that only 10-20% of the British public attend church each week, which is significantly less than half of the portion of the British population who support intelligent design. A similar disparity is seen in the United States, where 80-90 % of the American public believe that design played some role in biology, whereas only 40-50% attend church regularly.
The meaning of this disparity between support for intelligent design and church attendance is obvious: support for intelligent design extends far beyond the segment of the population that is traditionally religious. Weekly church attendance is a minimal criterion to be labeled “fundamentalist” or devout. The inference to design in biology is held by the majority of both the American and British public, and for more than half of people who support design, the reasons are not devout acquiescence to religious dogma. For most supporters of intelligent design in biology, design is inferred empirically.
After generations of Darwinist indoctrination in public schools, more than half of the British public doubts Darwinism as an adequate explanation for life. One can understand the Darwinist panic in the United States and England at even minimal discussion of the weaknesses of Darwin’s theory in public schools. Even with a monopoly on scientific indoctrination, Darwinists are unable to convince even half of the public of the truth of their theory.
Of course, Richard Dawkins was appalled by the results of the survey. The Telegraph article quotes Dawkins:
Prof Dawkins expressed dismay at the findings of the ComRes survey, of 2,060 adults, which he claimed were confirmation that much of the population is “pig-ignorant” about science…”Obviously life, which was Darwin’s own subject, is not the result of chance,” he said…”Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very antithesis of chance…”The error is to think that God is the only alternative to chance, and Darwin surely didn’t think that because he himself discovered the most important non-theistic alternative to chance, namely natural selection.”
I never cease to be astonished by Darwinist arrogance. Dawkins, the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, replies to the survey by insulting 25 million of his countrymen — “pig-ignorant…any fool can see that. Natural Selection…” Yet Dawkins is wrong about natural selection and chance. Chance is a vague concept, and its vagueness is exploited by Darwinists. A flipped coin obeys all of the laws of physics; its motion is entirely deterministic. Yet where it lands — heads or tails — is the epitome of chance. Chance in flipping a coin is the antithesis of design. If the outcome of the flip is designed, the flip is unfair, and is not governed by chance.
In the same sense, Darwin’s theory is the assertion that living things, like a flipped coin, are subject only to the laws of nature, and are not subject to designing intelligence. If the outcome of the flip or the structure of a living thing is determined by a designer, the occurrence is not chance.
Dawkins is being disingenuous. An outcome can be entirely determined by natural laws — which is what he means by evolution — and yet can be chance. A flipped coin is an example. ‘Chance’ in physical science does not refer to determinism or conformity to natural laws. Chance in physical science refers specifically to events that lack intelligent design. Chance is the lack of teleology. The essence of Darwin’s theory is the denial of teleology. The essence of Darwin’s theory is the affirmation of chance — meaning lack of design — as the origin of all biological complexity. The essence of intelligent design theory is the affirmation of teleology. It is teleology that is denied or affirmed in this debate. And despite generations of indoctrination public schools, most of the public recognizes the obvious teleology — the obvious lack of chance — the obvious design — in living things.
The Telegraph article notes:
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, accused Dawkins of evolving into a “very simple kind of thinker”.
Finally, we have an example of evolution that is undeniably true.