Turkish Forum

Category: Non-EU Countries

  • BBC should not ignore Christians

    BBC should not ignore Christians

    The Archbishop of Canterbury
    Archbishop of Canterbury

     

    The Archbishop of Canterbury has told the BBC that the corporation should not ignore its Christian audience.

    Dr Rowan Williams spoke with the company’s Director General Mark Thompson at a private meeting in Lambeth Palace.

    Senior members of the Church of England are concerned the BBC is downgrading its religious output.

    Christina Rees, a member of the Archbishops’ Council, the Church’s executive body, said: “In all the censuses a very large proportion of the population identifies itself as Christian.

    “The established church has a special role in the country. We actually have a remit for everyone in the whole country.

    “The BBC is a public service corporation. It is funded by licence payers and part of the broadcaster’s duty is to represent the population.”

    Ms Rees added: “If it ignored Christians and the church it would be negligent.”

    It is believed Dr Williams challenged the director-general during their meeting earlier this month over the decline in religious broadcasting on the BBC World Service.

    In 2001, it broadcast one hour and 45 minutes a week of religious programming. It now broadcasts just half an hour.

    A spokesman for the corporation said: “The BBC’s commitment to Religion and Ethics is unequivocal and entirely safe. Changes to the Religious and Ethics department in Manchester are being made to strengthen the BBC’s offering, not diminish it.

    “The BBC is committed to maintaining a high level of specialism in the Religion and Ethics department – we currently have many staff with theology degrees and expertise. We are also currently exploring new ways to strengthen our connections with religious organisations. The story for Religion and Ethics at the BBC is a positive one and we hope that church members will be reassured.”

    .ITN

  • Why Turkey belongs to the EU

    Why Turkey belongs to the EU

    Sigurd Neubauer
    Friday 27 March 2009 – 07:30

    With its geographical location, at the crossroads of an East-West and North-South axis, Turkey has played a dominating geopolitical role from the days of the Ottoman Empire to the present. In recognition of Turkey’s strategic position, President Harry S. Truman was quick to incorporate Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As the alliance is celebrating its 60th anniversary, Turkey is again at a crossroad. This time, the choice facing the Turkish Republic is whether Ankara should continue its path towards becoming a full fledged member of the European Union, or if Turkey should adopt a “neo Ottoman” foreign policy brokering conflicts between Israel and Syria and between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Beyond its broad foreign policy implications, Turkey is also facing a significant internal identity crisis where traditional urban pro-Western elite are being challenged by a new and emerging conservative bourgeoisie originating from the Anatolian heartland. At the center of this power struggle, is the current ruling Islamic Development Party (AKP) led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan vis-à-vis the Turkish military establishment.

    Turkey’s powerful generals have long seen themselves as the “guardians” of secularism as they adhere to the principals of “Kemalism,” laid out by the Republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938). “Ataturk,” or “father Turk,” as his people called him, emerged on the political stage during the vanishing days of the Ottoman Empire. During these turbulent times, as pockets of Turkish populated settlements were threatened by increasing nationalism in the various regions of the empire, the young and ambitious army officer, Mustafa Kemal, was to become one of the most notable military leaders and statesmen of his generation.

    Transition from Empire to Republic

    From a small principality on the frontiers of the Islamic world at the turn of the 14th century, the Ottoman Empire became the most powerful state in the Islamic world stretching from central Europe to the Indian Ocean under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Following the long wars of the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire declined as a world power in favor of the European mercantile powers. By the mid 18th century, what was left of the once mighty empire became known as the “sick man of Europe.” Despite countless reforms of the civil and bureaucratic structure, Ottoman political life continued under European tutelage.

    Recognizing Turkey’s state of decay, Ataturk envisioned a strong, independent, and secular republic. According to noted Ataturk biographer, Lord Kinross: “Ataturk differed from the dictators of his age in two significant respects: his foreign policy was not based on expansion but on retraction of frontiers; his home policy on the foundation of a political system that could survive his own time.” Some of the republic’s early reforms were instituting a constitutional parliamentary system in 1923, followed by the introduction of the Swiss Civil Code in 1926. From a legal perspective, the Swiss Civil Code replacing traditional Sharia laws was an important step in the direction of westernization of personal, family, and inheritance laws. Other significant changes promoted by the Kemalists were adopting the Latin alphabet, western numerals, weights and measures, and gender equality.

    Military and Democracy

    The political system during the early Kemalist era remained a one party state, where no legal opposition was active until after World War II. Turkey has since come a long way in its democratization effort, despite brief military interventions in 1960, 1971, and 1980. Each time, the generals provided important exit guarantees that enhanced the military’s position, yet civilian control of the Republic has prevailed, as Turkey has become a competitive multiparty system.

    With the reelection of the AKP in 2007, Prime Minister Erdogan has secured his base as he openly challenges Turkey’s ancient regime, on a verity of issues from the headscarf ban to, as the only NATO ally, inviting Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Istanbul. The notion that “Turkey has to follow an integrated foreign policy and cannot have priority with the EU at the expense of its relations with the Middle East—as advocated by senior AKP officials—is a clear break with Kemalist foreign policy. Yet at this critical juncture, it is important for Europe to fully embrace Turkey. Because of its strategic location and economic ties to continental Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region, Turkey can fully complement the EU on a variety of issues from trade to security. In particular, Turkey can provide the European markets access to rich energy resources from the Middle East and Eurasia.

    The battle for Eurasia

    On the other hand, the Turkish government has shown increasing frustration, not only with U.S. policies towards the Middle East but also with the EU’s refusal to seriously consider its bid. Should Europe fail to embrace Turkey, this could be a fatal push of Turkey into the Russian orbit. Despite historical mistrust, Turkish-Russian economic ties have greatly expanded over the past decade, reaching $32 billion in 2008, making Russia Turkey’s largest trading partner. By taking advantage of cooling relations between Ankara and Washington, Moscow is determined to expand its sphere of influence over the black sea region and Eurasia. Through an aggressive trade and investment policy, Russia skillfully outmaneuvered the United States by closing its airbase in Manas, Kyrgyzstan.

    In the great powers struggle for influence, Turkey is an indispensable piece, too precious for the West to lose. Instead of remaining a “Christian Club,” the European Union should overcome its historical fear of “the Turks” and recognize that as a NATO member, Turkey will prioritize its ties with the United States and the West; as an EU member, Turkey will continue to cherish democracy, liberalism, and secularism. Europe turning its back on Turkey could be the nail in the coffin for an occidental oriented foreign policy and a secular national identity.

    Source: The Diplomatic Courier (USA), 25-03-2009

  • “Terrorism Supporter” to be the Secretary General of NATO?

    “Terrorism Supporter” to be the Secretary General of NATO?

    By Sedat LACINER

    NATO has started to take on new roles, especially after the Cold War period, among which combating international terrorism is its first priority. The expansion of NATO’s operation area from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan is also a new development NATO is operating among religiously and ethnically diverse populations from numerous regions. Hence, the Organization’s operation locations ”at an equal distance from all religions and cultures” is of the utmost importance in accomplishing its mission. NATO is currently preparing to welcome its new secretary general, and Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in the lead, among the other strong candidates, in consideration for this post.

    The US, Germany, and other significant NATO members have already asserted their support for Rasmussen. Moreover, Denmark has been conducting lobbying campaigns in support of its prime minister. Yet, since Rasmussen has an unfavorable record in combating terrorism and in conducting dialogue between civilizations, he is the worst candidate for the NATO or any organization of this kind:

    * Copenhagen Is Broadcasting “Terrorist TV’

    First, Rasmussen tolerated the PKK’s (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) activities in Denmark, and gave permission to the terrorist organization launching a television channel in Copenhagen: Roj TV, perceived as a culture channel by the Danish authorities, which enhances the so-called suppressed Kurds’ language and culture. However, to ignore the close relations between Roj TV and the PKK, one should be blind or malicious.

    The TV channel repeatedly broadcasts PKK terrorists to the screen. Moreover, most of these terrorists are well known some are leaders of the Organization or even suspects on Interpol’s wanted list.

    Moreover, the TV channel calls Kurdish people to perform acts of violence and terrorism against Turkey every day. Despite the fact that inciting violence is banned by the EU and Danish law as well, Denmark did not take any measures to discourage this persistent malice.

    Turkey has warned Denmark on the matter numerous times. Not only Turkey, but also the United States (US) has pointed to dubious relations between Roj TV and the PKK and called for the channel to be shut down. Yet the Rasmussen Government did not take these warnings seriously, only postponing the solution by saying, “The police are investigating the issue,” or “our judges are going to focus on the matter.”

    The terrorist relations between Roj TV and the PKK were obvious and the Danish government did not need any clues to figure out this connection. MED TV, the first channel established by the PKK, was banned by the British television authority ITC in 1999. The terrorist organization then moved its TV channel to France, under the name “MEDYA TV.” However, the France did not welcome the channel either, and it was closed down by the court after a short period of broadcasting.

    The PKK moved to Denmark after the UK and France and found a government willing to help its cause. While Roj TV was broadcasting from Denmark, it was banned in Germany due to its terrorist roots. The PKK’s reaction to Germany’s stance was to kidnap German mountain climbers in Turkey. However, Germany did not yield to the PKK’s blackmailing and insisted on its decision on banning the TV channel. Indeed, the PKK is labeled in Danish law as a “terrorist organization” as it was by the US, the EU, the UK, Germany, and Turkey. Yet, Rasmussen continues to protect the terrorist organization’s activities by tolerating them. Thus, the PKK and its branches have freely carried out their activities in Denmark as if it was a civil society organization.

    Now, the prime minister of this government, who has turned a blind eye towards terrorism, and is even seen as a supporter of terrorism, is preparing to be the head of NATO which regards combating terrorism as one of its primary missions. If Rasmussen becomes the Secretary General of NATO, this could possibly affect numerous NATO policies, especially those related to combating terrorism. Moreover, this could lead many countries including but not limited to Turkey, to question their confidence in the Organization’s policies.

    * Cartoon Crisis

    Rasmussen’s stance during the “Cartoon Crisis” is another fact which makes him a weird figure for the Secretary General of NATO.

    Just after the release of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten newspaper on September 30th, which picture Muslims and their prophet as terrorists, Turkey warned Denmark to be aware of the incoming danger. Ambassadors of ten Muslim countries pioneered by former Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to Denmark sent a signed petition to the Prime Minister Rasmussen to protest the events. The ambassadors asked for a meeting with Rasmussen to evaluate the crisis and call for the peace atmosphere. Turkey aimed to bring the representatives of the Muslim countries in Copenhagen and the Denmark Government together during that crisis. However, Rasmussen did not appraise Turkey’s good will and his government implied that they did not need Turkey’s mediation on the issue. Rasmussen rejected the meeting request rudely. The caricature crisis spread to all Muslim countries as a result, and more radicals like Iran became dominant in anti-Denmark campaigns gradually, yet decisively. Whilst Denmark’s interests started to be damaged from these campaigns, Rasmussen declared that he personally condemned the caricatures, yet, he continued to evaluate the issue within the context of freedom of speech. His management of crisis was not only unsuccessful but also was narrow sided. Rasmussen ignored dialog and underestimated Turkey and its soft power. Today, for many Muslims, Denmark is a country which insulted their Prophet.

    Is not the Rasmussen’s taking post going to disrupt NATO’s operations in Afghanistan while the perception toward Denmark is highly problematic among the Muslim countries?

    * Turkey’s EU Membership

    Rasmussen’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership on the ground that Turkey has a different cultural-religious background is the third reason which damages Rasmussen’s image in the eyes of Turkey and Muslim countries. For Rasmussen, who seems as if he does not make religion based politics, Turkey does not have a place in the EU.

    Rasmussen had a significant role in Denmark’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership as contrary to the stance of other countries in the Northern Europe. The Prime Minister also chose to support Turkey’s opponents whenever Turkey had a disagreement with other countries. His behavior towards Turkey was scorning and perception of Turkey for Rasmussen was “an Eastern country waiting at the EU’s door.” Resembling to Europe’s fanatical rightist politicians, Rasmussen became a problematic figure who discourages Turkey on the way to the EU membership.

    Since he has been opposing Turkey’s EU membership as the first Muslim country to be in the EU, it is not hard to guess to what extent Rasmussen would damage the relations between the NATO and other Muslim countries.

    ***

    Indeed, it is like a bad joke

    While we were happy for getting rid of the Bush administration, Danish version of Bush is preparing to be the head of NATO during the Obama presidency.

    slaciner@gmail.com

    Sedat LACINER: BA (Ankara), MA (Sheffield), PhD (King’s College, London University)

    ***
    Translated by Dilek Aydemir, USAK
    Language Edit by Kaitlin MacKenzie, USAK

    Source: Journal of Turkish Weekly, 26 March 2009

  • Ankara Debates Rasmussen’s Candidacy

    Ankara Debates Rasmussen’s Candidacy

    Ankara Debates Rasmussen’s Candidacy for NATO Secretary-General

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 58
    March 26, 2009 05:36 PM
    By: Saban Kardas

    Discussions over the replacement of the current NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, scheduled to step down on July 31, has intensified, ahead of the Alliance’s April 3-4 Summit. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, supported by key European allies, has emerged as the main contender for the post. After Washington decided to support Rasmussen, it was reported that Turkey might block Rasmussen’s bid, by using its veto power in NATO (Reuters, March 22). These discussions illustrate Turkey’s delicate position within NATO, and how the troubled course of Turkey’s European integration affects its position within the transatlantic alliance (EDM, February 9).

    During Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to NATO headquarters on March 10, speculation mounted concerning the post. Traditionally, the post of secretary-general has been held by a European, whereas the Alliance’s top military officer has been an American. In addition to Rasmussen, other possible candidates for the post are the Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, Norway’s Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, and former British Defense Secretary Des Browne. However, Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister Soloman Passy is currently the only official candidate.

    Western media sources presented an unclear view of the possible position of European NATO members on their preferred candidate for the post, which was also reflected within Turkey. An absence of any European consensus might influence Washington to switch its support to Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay. Germany, Britain and France, reportedly agreed privately to back Rasmussen who had been tipped as an ideal candidate, not least considering his commitment to Afghanistan and Iraq. In response, Biden left Washington’s options open, saying that the U.S. would continue to deliberate on possible candidates. International observers claimed that based on Turkey’s objections to Rasmussen, Washington might explore other alternatives (Washington Post, March 8; Der Spiegel, New York Times, March 10).

    The Turkish media interpreted these developments as implying that the U.S. had to distance itself from Rasmussen in response to Turkish opposition (Milliyet, March 11). Nonetheless, Washington apparently continued its dialogue with its European allies, and changed its position on Rasmussen. On March 21, NATO diplomats and a U.S. source confirmed Washington’s backing for Rasmussen, but these sources added that securing Turkey’s support would become the focal point in securing a consensus (Reuters, March 21). The next day, citing an anonymous Turkish official, Reuters claimed that Turkey could in fact veto the appointment of Rasmussen, suggesting he was “tainted” from Turkey’s perspective, though its position was not fixed, the official said “it may come to the veto… We will have to see” (Reuters, March 22).

    Misgivings in Ankara over Rasmussen’s candidacy include his opposition to the country’s future membership in the EU, Denmark’s alleged support for the activities of pro-PKK, in particular the militant Roj TV during his administration, and his government’s handling of “the cartoon crisis.” Speculation that such concerns might trigger Turkey’s objection to Rasmussen has long been known. Foreign Minister Ali Babacan recently defined Turkey’s ideal candidate for the post: “a person who understands and embraces the vision, common values and ideals of the organization well, who will be able to maintain [the Alliance’s] relations with all countries in good terms, and whom all member states could trust,” though he did not specify Ankara’s preferred candidate (Anadolu Ajansi, March 5).

    Against this background, Turkey’s media coverage of the controversy has contained a degree of exaggeration (Hurriyet, Sabah, Radikal, March 23). Vatan claimed that Washington’s statements indicate an ‘undeclared crisis’ between Turkey and the U.S. However, it was noted that U.S. backing for Rasmussen was announced only through an unidentified diplomatic source, and it was claimed that Ankara reciprocated by voicing its opinion in a similar manner (Vatan, March 23).

    It is unclear whether Ankara can veto Rasmussen. Many diplomatic observers believe that although Turkey would not be pleased to see him securing this post, it will ultimately accept the transatlantic consensus. Although at face value Turkey’s arguments appear motivated by only narrow concerns, its objections are in fact more principled and take account of NATO’s wider interests (Hurriyet Daily News, March 6). Regarding Turkey’s claim that the Danish government failed to act decisively over the PKK issue, there are also broader implications for the Alliance. Denmark’s attitude towards the activities of Roj TV in propagating the views of the PKK, recognized as a terrorist organization by NATO members, seems to contradict the Alliance’s counter-terrorist agenda. This, at the very least, reflects internal differences of opinion over a common definition of terrorism, which makes more difficult the presentation of a united stance on countering the threat.

    Additionally, Turkey’s assertion that the Danish government failed to act in a responsible manner to alleviate the worldwide concerns of Muslims after the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad within the Danish media, equally has broader significance. Given that NATO treats Afghanistan as a crucial mission, and maintains close relations with other Muslim nations, a candidate with a controversial reputation might face problems in developing ties within the wider Islamic world. From Turkey’s perspective, with its image as a bridge between the Islamic and western worlds, airing the concerns of Muslims is an important part of Ankara’s new foreign policy.

    Considering these reasons, although Turkey might refrain from ultimately using its veto, it would not easily make concessions in response to European pressures to appoint Rasmussen. Since there is no need to name the next NATO Secretary-General at the April Summit, Turkey might force the Alliance to continue their deliberations on possible alternatives. In this case, the burden of forming a “winning coalition” around an alternative name would be placed on Turkey. This presents a real test for Turkish diplomacy: whether Ankara can switch from non-cooperative strategies in the form of threatening to use its veto, to instead achieve its objectives through more constructive diplomacy.

    https://jamestown.org/program/ankara-debates-rasmussens-candidacy-for-nato-secretary-general/

  • Why we must all do God

    Why we must all do God

    Tony Blair

    Published 19 March 2009

    Religion has never mattered more to the world than it does now, says the former prime minister, launching our new occasional column on faith

    Blair on the role he believes faith can play in the 21st century
    Blair on the role he believes faith can play in the 21st century

    My faith has always been an important part of my politics. While in office, it was best, in my view, not to shout that too loudly from the rooftops, lest it be thought that I was trying to claim some kind of moral superiority for myself or my party. On the rare occasions when I did talk about religion, it tended to be misrepresented to suit the political purposes of others. That was the reason why “we did not do God”.

    Out of office, seeking to make a contribution to important public and policy debates in a different way, I feel no such restraints. Indeed, as the years of my premiership passed, one fact struck me with increasing force: that failure to understand the power of religion meant failure to understand the modern world. In western Europe this may sound counter-intuitive. Almost everywhere else, it stares you in the face.

    Briefly, consider the statistics: more than two billion Christians worldwide, almost 1.5 billion Muslims, more than 900 million Hindus, 400 million Buddhists, 24 million Sikhs, 13 million Jews. And these figures exclude adherents of other faiths. In most places these numbers are growing. In Africa, for example, there were ten million Christians in 1900; by 2000, there were 360 million, the largest quantitative change ever. And people of different faiths are being brought closer and closer together. Walk down many UK high streets and you see a microcosm of the world’s faiths in a few yards.

    In this globalised world, we are more than ever interconnected, but we are also more uncertain. What were firm boundaries of race, culture and identity are becoming fluid. In such a world the involvement of religion becomes ever more crucial. It can either play a positive role, helping to deepen understanding and working for the common good, or it can be exploited to become destructive, emphasising difference and reinforcing distrust of the “other”.

    Religious faith and how it develops could be of the same significance to the 21st century as political ideology was to the 20th. It could help guide and sustain the era of globalisation, lending it values, and, in bringing faiths and cultures to a greater understanding of each other, could foster peaceful coexistence. Or it could be a reactionary force, pulling people apart just as globalisation pushes people together. Whichever route develops, it does mean that all leaders, whether of religious faith themselves or not, have to “do God”.

    I set up the Tony Blair Faith Foundation with the aim of promoting greater respect and understanding between the major religions, to make the case for religion as a force for good, and to show this in action by encouraging interfaith initiatives to tackle global poverty and conflict. We hope to show the relevance of faith to the challenges of the 21st century and its ability to bring people together, not force them further apart.

    We are focusing on five main projects initially, working with partners in the six main faiths.

    First, we have developed Faith Acts Together, a programme already involving supporters in more than 30 countries on six continents. We are working across religious divides towards a common goal – ending the scandal of deaths from malaria, and thus contributing to the Millennium Development Goals. We shall work initially in selected countries in Africa, bringing different faith communities together to distribute bed nets and offer training in their use, the most effective and the cheapest way to eliminate the preventable death toll from malaria. And, initially in the UK, US and Canada, we are appointing 30 Faith Act fellows, young leaders who will build grass-roots campaigns and coalitions across all the main faiths to support the work in Africa on the ground.

    Second, we have established Face to Faith, an interfaith schools programme to counter intolerance and extremism. This will link classrooms around the world through structured and facilitated video conferences. Children of one faith and culture will have the chance to interact with children of another, getting a real sense of each other’s lived experience. The syllabus will focus on leading contemporary topics, such as the environment, exploring what the great faith traditions have to contribute on the issues. The programme is being piloted now in five countries on three continents.

    Third, we are developing a deeper intellectual understanding of the dynamics of faith and globalisation. My foundation and Yale University have developed a course on this, which I co-taught last term. Our aim is to build a global conversation between a dozen world-class universities on these issues. We are now discussing with three others how they will take up the course, with more to follow. Each university will bring its own intellectual traditions and regional perspective, but all will explore the relations between religion and economics, politics and society, and how the great faiths might do more to humanise a globalised world.

    As part of this we are also exploring the issue of values and the financial system in the light of the financial crisis, examining how our financial systems might be reconnected with some basic values from which they have become largely detached. We have contributed to the global debate, at President Sarkozy’s Paris conference and at the World Economic Forum; we are now exploring ways of translating the debate into concrete action.

    Finally, we are working with the Coexist Foundation and Cambridge University to develop the concept of Abraham House. This will be a world-class place of encounter for the three Abrahamic faiths in London, but also open to all of any faith or none. It will provide a national and international focus for a movement of creative thinking and exploration, leading to new action and deeper understanding.

    The 21st century will be poorer in spirit and ambition, less focused on social justice, less sensitive to conscience and the common good, without a full and proper recognition of the role that the great faiths can and do play. I hope my foundation, in its own way, can work with others in those faiths to help harness their full power to transform our world for the better.

    Source:  www.newstatesman.com, 23 March 2009

  • Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution

    Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution

    Belief in creationism is widespread in Britain, according to a new survey.

    By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
    Last Updated: 5:02PM GMT 06 Feb 2009

    More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a “designer” must have lent a hand, the findings suggest.

    And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years.

    The survey, by respected polling firm ComRes, will fuel the debate around evolution and creationism ahead of next week’s 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

    Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, said the findings revealed a worrying level of scientific ignorance among Britons.

    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.

    Asked whether it was true that “God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years”, 32 per cent agreed, 60 per cent disagreed and eight per cent did not know.

    The findings – to be published tomorrow in a report by Theos, a theology think-tank – follow a row over the place of creationism in education.

    A recent poll of science teachers found that one in three believe creationism should be taught in science classes alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

    However, Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican cleric, was forced to resign as the Royal Society’s director of education after suggesting that creationism should be discussed in lessons “not as a misconception but as a world view”.

    Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool last year, Professor Reiss estimated that about one in 10 children was from a family which supported a creationist rather than evolutionary viewpoint.

    He said his experience had led him to believe it was more effective to include discussion about creationism alongside scientific theories, rather than simply giving the impression that such children were wrong.

    The research for Theos shows that the level of support for creationism is much higher than Professor Reiss’s estimation, but also indicates that many people who believe in God also consider evolution to be the most realistic explanation for the origins of living things.

    Paul Woolley, the director of Theos said: “Darwin is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause.

    “The result is that, given the false choice of evolution or God, people are rejecting evolution.”

    While many fundamentalist Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible’s account of the earth’s creation, the Church of England last year issued a statement conceding it had been over-defensive in dismissing Darwin’s ideas in the past.

    The Church launched a website promoting the naturalist’s evolutionary views on which it said: “Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still.”

    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.”

    Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, accused Dawkins of evolving into a “very simple kind of thinker”.

    He said: “His argument for atheism goes like this: either God is the explanation for the wide diversity of biological life, or evolution is. We know that evolution is true. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

    “I’m an evangelical Christian, but I have no difficulties in believing that evolution is the best scientific account we have for the diversity of life on our planet.”

    Source: www.telegraph.co.uk, 06 Feb 2009