Darwinism
is the belief that that all organisms have a common ancestor, and that the world's species arose by purely natural
processes, mainly because of random mutations that were favored by “natural
selection” (a term that refers merely to the superior reproduction
rate of fitter organisms). Nowadays when an advocate of Darwinism hears about
objections to Darwinism, he will often suggest that such objections
are merely based on religion. This claim has always been very
dubious, because it is quite possible to make a very detailed case
against the claims of Darwinism without ever stating any religious doctrine. For example, without mentioning any religious doctrine, a writer might discuss the failure of Darwinism to explain the origin of life, the failure of Darwinism to explain the appearance of the useless initial stages of complex biological innovations, the failure of Darwinism to explain the Cambrian Explosion, and the failure of Darwinism to explain the origin of language.
Recently a poll appeared profiling the beliefs of the non-religious such as atheists and agnostics. An interesting finding from this "Understanding Unbelief" poll (conducted by some university scientists) is that a significant minority of atheists and agnostics seem to doubt Darwinism
Below is a finding from page 17 of the poll:
Percent agreeing “strongly” or “somewhat” with the statement “Humans have developed over time from simpler, non-human life forms.” | ||
Atheists/Agnostics | General Population | |
Brazil | 66 | 50 |
China | 74 | 87 |
Denmark | 69 | 59 |
Japan | 49 | 68 |
United Kingdom | 74 | 63 |
USA | 80 | 49 |
Average | 69 | 63 |
The
results in the second column are not surprising for the USA. It has
been known for a long time that roughly half of the US population
rejects the textbook story about the origin of humans. What is
surprising here is how the question reveals that Darwinism seems to
be doubted by very substantial fractions of atheists and agnostics.
It seems that a full 20% of atheists and agnostics in the US do not
agree “strongly” or “somewhat” with the claim that “humans
have developed over time from simpler, non-human life forms,” and
that in the UK about 25% of atheists and agnostics do not agree
“strongly” or “somewhat” with that claim. Moreover, in
Brazil apparently about one third of atheists and agnostics do not
agree “strongly” or “somewhat” with the claim that “humans
have developed over time from simpler, non-human life forms,” and
in Japan about half of atheists and agnostics do not agree
“strongly” or “somewhat” with the claim that “humans have
developed over time from simpler, non-human life forms.”
This question is not actually one that exactly measures full belief in Darwinism, because the question says nothing about what caused humans to appear. Let us imagine that the question had been worded to exactly measure belief in Darwinism. Then the question might have been something like: “Do you agree strongly or somewhat with this statement: humans have developed over time from simpler, non-human life forms, purely because of natural factors such as random mutation and natural selection?” Since this question is more specific, asking people to endorse a particular belief about what caused the origin of humans, the percentages of people answering “Yes” would almost certainly have been smaller. What the survey has revealed is that even when they are given a “human origins” statement that says nothing about causes, and matches textbook explanations, a very substantial fraction of atheists and agnostics fail to say they support the statement "strongly" or "somewhat."
In
light of such a survey, you should not believe claims that objections
to Darwinism stem purely from religious belief. If that were true, we
might have expected 90% or 95% of the atheists or agnostics to agree
“strongly” or “somewhat” with the claim that "humans have
developed over time from simpler, non-human life forms,” rather
than an average of only 69% of them agreeing "strongly" or "somewhat" with such a statement.
On
page 13 there was a question asking atheists and agnostics whether
they believed in a “universal spirit or life force.” In Denmark,
China the US, and the UK, the answer was “Yes” for about 18% to
27% of the atheists asked the question, and a similar fraction of
agnostics answered “Yes.”
There
is a reason why the result on page 13 should surprise no one. The
term “God” is loaded with historical and cultural baggage, and
much of that baggage has negative connotations. The term “God”
has negative connotations to very many people, but many such people
are not hostile to the underlying idea of a supreme mind behind the
universe. Use the term “God” in a poll question, and many
people will think of things they dislike, like the image of an angry
bearded figure on a throne. But many of those same people may
respond affirmatively if you ask about the possibility of some Cosmic
Mind or Universal Spirit or “intelligent guiding force behind
nature.” For example, in a poll of Danish citizens, 28% said "they believe there is a God," but a separate 47% said "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force," with only 24% saying, "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force."
Therefore a conversation something like the one below is not one you should ever
be surprised to hear.
Joe:
Do you believe in God?
Jim:
God? Angry old guy on a throne in the clouds? I don't believe in
that kind of bull.
Joe:
Okay, I got you. But what about some intelligent ordering principle or mind guiding the universe to a purposeful result?
Jim:
Well, sure, there's probably something like that.
When do I Google search for the definition of naturalism, the first definition I get is "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." Such a belief is synonymous with materialism. Page 3 of the poll states, "Only minorities of atheists or agnostics in each of our countries appear to be thoroughgoing naturalists." On page 13 the poll indicates that there is a substantial minority of atheists (about 10% to 30%) who believe in life after death.
The poll had a pretty good sample size. 900 atheists and agnostics were polled in each of several countries, and in each country 200 of the general population were polled, with those 200 having characteristics matching that in the country as a whole.
When do I Google search for the definition of naturalism, the first definition I get is "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." Such a belief is synonymous with materialism. Page 3 of the poll states, "Only minorities of atheists or agnostics in each of our countries appear to be thoroughgoing naturalists." On page 13 the poll indicates that there is a substantial minority of atheists (about 10% to 30%) who believe in life after death.
The poll had a pretty good sample size. 900 atheists and agnostics were polled in each of several countries, and in each country 200 of the general population were polled, with those 200 having characteristics matching that in the country as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment