Tag: Charles Darwin

Only 25% of Britons believe evolution

EVOLUTION SURVEYS UNDER THE MONOPOLY OF THE DARWINIST DICTATORSHIP

An opinion poll was conducted in Britain. But the result came as a shock to Darwinists. The level of belief in the theory of evolution, in Darwin’s homeland, Britain, where Richard Dawkins’ atheist and Darwinist propaganda is most intense, emerged at a mere 25%. Britain’s best-known dailies immediately carried the story. This important and major development came as a real shock to Darwinists. It was the loudest declaration of Darwinism’s defeat.

The result of the survey, carried out nationwide on the Guardian website on 2 February, 2009, was announced as follows: “Only 25% of Britons believe Darwin’s theory of evolution”. This headline, which reflected the poll findings, was altered within a few hours.

This defeat being carried in the headlines was unacceptable to the Darwinist dictatorship. For that reason, the headline to the report carried in the publications in question was swiftly changed in a matter of hours. The new report did not repeat that the level of belief in Darwinism was very low. The poll findings were distorted. The genuine report, which was carried for a brief period of time, was suddenly changed. Once again, people had been deceived under the influence of the Darwinist dictatorship.

The incident did not end there. The results of this poll in Britain must have been particularly unwelcome, for Darwinists lost no time in resorting to another method in order to cover them up. “We have conducted a new poll,” they said. They gave the result of the poll they claimed to have conducted among 2000 people to the press. Under the influence of the Darwinist dictatorship the captions in the British press were swiftly altered. The British people were announced to be “evolutionist” by this false poll based on the opinions of 2000 persons.

The fact is that this was a dirty trick by the Darwinist dictatorship that has taken the whole world under its sway and deceived people for many years.

These intrigues have long been an effective technique for this sinister dictatorship that strives to spread Darwinist propaganda. Formerly, Darwinists used to draw pictures of imaginary ape ancestors, discover perfectly complex fossils of extinct life forms and claim that these were transitional fossils and maintain that a whole country was evolutionist, and people would duly believe them. That was because Darwinists kept the real scientific evidence carefully hidden away and nobody knew that Darwinism was a lie. They imagined that the equine series they saw in museums and the peppered moths they read about in school books were true, and were duly convinced because they knew nothing more. Whatever the Darwinist dictatorship said, went.

But then something happened that Darwinists never expected.

THE DARWINIST DICTATORSHIP WAS DEALT A BODY BLOW: BY ATLAS OF CREATION.

The fossils so carefully hidden away were suddenly revealed. THERE WERE 100 MILLION FOSSILS THAT PROVED CREATION. These all belonged to perfect, flawless and complex life forms, and many were living fossils. People realized that a tiger is the same today as it was 50 million years ago. A squid is the same today as it was 100 million years ago. And people also realized THAT NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL EXISTED. Most important of all, they realized THEY HAD BEEN DECEIVED. The scientific facts were before their eyes. There was now no way of deceiving people by holding back the scientific proofs. Unable to produce any scientific evidence, and thus forced to rely on propaganda alone, Darwinism was abandoned.

Demagoguery and propaganda are old Darwinist techniques. But that age is now over. It has no more influence over people who are now aware and have seen the scientific evidence. People are abandoning evolution in droves and turning to belief in Allah (God). This is now showing itself very clearly and with powerful evidence in all countries. That is why Darwinists are in such a panic and such despair.

Darwinism has been totally routed. It has been demolished. The Darwinist system that regarded people as ignorant and insignificant has realized that it can no longer deceive them. Nobody falls into the traps of the Darwinist dictatorship any more. They can make as much propaganda as they like, but nobody in the world really believes in Darwinism any more.

Mar 17, 2009

Source: www.harunyahya.com, Mar 17, 2009

March 18, 2009
God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

From Times Online

September 17, 2008

Ten surprising things Darwin said about religious faith

Nick Spencer

Next year is the big Darwin anniversary. Two hundred years after his birth and 150 after the publication of On the Origin of the Species, millions will celebrate the life and work of Charles Darwin, one of the most brilliant scientists in history, and a man who was thoroughly decent, honourable and likeable.

Unfortunately, he has become caught up in the crossfire of a battle in which Darwin exhibited little personal interest. On one side of this cartoonish debate are the creationists. Their precise numbers, in the UK, are uncertain, although the major survey Theos /ComRes are conducting into the public’s beliefs about Darwinism, creationism and ID, which will be published next year, should help us find out more. Numbers aside, the point is that creationists dislike Darwin and regularly criticise him for supposedly undermining their religious beliefs.

In the other trench lie the militant Godless who – bizarrely – wholly agree with the creationists. Darwinism, they proclaim, does indeed undermine religious belief and a good thing too. Darwin is their icon and they frantically genuflect before his image, in a way brilliantly parodied by the satirical magazine The Onion.

The truth is, as ever, more complex. Darwin was too interesting, too careful a thinker to be caricatured in these ways. He was a Christian and yes, he did lose his faith. But he was never an atheist. He engaged in religious debate with friends but confessed to being in a hopeless “muddle”. He agonised over whether the exquisite beauty of life on earth was worth the pain of natural selection. He hated religious controversy and was deeply respectful of others’ views. He took upon himself the duties of a country parson whilst living at Downe and contributed to the South American Missionary Society. And, to top it all, he often doubted whether, his mind being evolved, he could even trust it in such matters. All in all, he was too complex, too subtle a man to be left to the polemicists.

So, in the interests, of rescuing him from the no-man’s-land in which he has become trapped, here are 10 Darwin quotations, from his later years, which you are unlikely to hear from the mouths of either creationists or atheists in 2009.

1. “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.” (Autobiography)

2. “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

3. “I hardly see how religion & science can be kept as distinct as [Edward Pusey] desires… But I most wholly agree… that there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness.” (Letter to J. Brodie Innes, November 27 1878)

4. “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

5. “I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

6. “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.” (Letter to Frederick McDermott, November 24 1880)

7. [In conversation with the atheist Edward Aveling, 1881] “Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?” (Edward Aveling, The religious views of Charles Darwin, 1883)

8. “Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Letter to Graham William, July 3 1881)

9. “My theology is a simple muddle: I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent Design.” (Letter to Joseph Hooker, July 12 1870)

10. “I can never make up my mind how far an inward conviction that there must be some Creator or First Cause is really trustworthy evidence.” (Letter to Francis Abbot, September 6 1871)

Nick Spencer is director of studies at the public theology think-tank Theos which is conducting, in partnership with the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion a project on evolution, faith and Charles Darwin. Mr Spencer’s book, Darwin and God, will be published in 2009 by SPCK.

Source: The Times, September 17, 2008

September 20, 2008
Royal Society’s Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

From The Times

September 17, 2008

Lewis Smith and Mark Henderson

The resignation of Michael Reiss has divided scientists

The Royal Society’s embattled director of education resigned last night, days after causing uproar among scientists by appearing to endorse the teaching of creationism.

Michael Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England clergyman, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments had damaged its reputation.

His resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss’s suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”.

Sir Richard Roberts, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1993, described such views as outrageous, and organised a letter to the society’s president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, demanding that Professor Reiss be sacked. Phil Willis MP, the chairman of the Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, was due to meet Royal Society officers today to demand an explanation of Professor Reiss’s comments.

The Royal Society stood by the scientist initially, insisting that he had not departed from its official policy and that his remarks had been misinterpreted. Many senior figures, however, felt that Professor Reiss had been naive, at best, to make statements that could easily be seen to back teaching creationism as if it were science, and should not have done so while speaking in his Royal Society role.

The society said in a statement: “Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s director of education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education — a part-time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full-time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.”

The resignation has divided scientists and administrators. While some welcomed the move, others felt that Professor Reiss had raised an important point and should have been supported. Lord Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College, London, who is not a Royal Society Fellow, said: “I fear that the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science — something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

Mr Willis said: “It is appropriate for the Royal Society to have dealt with this problem swiftly and effectively, rather than provoking continued debate. I hope the society will now stop burying its head and start taking on creationism.”

The furore came after a speech given by Professor Reiss to the British Association for the Advancement of Science last week, in which he said that teachers should accept that they were unlikely to change the minds of pupils with creationist beliefs.

“My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science,” he said.

“I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson . . . There is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have — hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching — and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion.”

The Royal Society said that “creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.”

Chris Higgins, Vice-Chancellor of Durham University, said: “While I have no doubt that Michael Reiss’s comments have been misinterpreted by parts of the media, I think that the fact that he has generously stood down allows the Royal Society to clarify the robust position on this issue. There should be no room for doubt that creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory.”

Professor Reiss was not available for comment.

Source: The Times, September 17, 2008

September 20, 2008