More Stupid Science Journalism
Dear Britain: What the fuck?
Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.
My first reaction upon reading this was: Kudos to the British public! Evolution does NOT explain how the world came about. Creationism actually does that better, since evolution doesn’t even attempt it. If the survey actually asked them if evolution explains “how the world came about”, no wonder the results were abysmal.
Now, the question is, was the survey really as stupid as the Guardian makes it out to be? This press release from Theos Think Tank seems to dispel that notion. It’s simply the case that the journalists and editors at the Guardian has gotten their heads stuck up their asses. Unfortunately, so do the people at Svenska Dagbladet, a Swedish newspaper that picked up the item and pretty much translated the article from the Guardian.
Why, journalists? Why must you make my job so difficult before I’ve even got one? I’m very nearly contemplating giving up my career plans as a biologist to become a science journalist intstead. At least I’d be halfway competent.
(And no, I’m not even touching the fact that the British public is in sore need of some good science education. With newspapers like the Guardian around to confuse people, I’d say the figures cited are pretty good.)
Hat tip to Terra Incognita and commenters.
ETA: Bob Churchill sets things right. Dear gods, the whole thing’s a mess when you think about it.
On behalf of the entire British people (what? what’s wrong with that?) I offer our collective wholehearted apology and I bow our heads in shame.
However…
Remember that Theos is the same think-tank which told us last year that over 60% of Britons believed in the literal resurrection from the dead of Jesus of Nazareth… including many atheists?! That doesn’t make sense, you may well point out, but Theos didn’t even recognise the absurdity of this “conclusion”. Because of the way the question was formed, what they had actually measured was more like whether people knew the Easter story or not. The point is that although I haven’t read this new report yet, remember it’s coming from a Christian think-tank with a very specific agenda whose track record at conducting and interpreting its own research is about as iffy as, well, asking someone what happened to Jesus on the third day and interpreting their knowledgeable answer as a signal of literal belief.
Comment by Bob Churchill — Monday, February 2, 2009 @ 23:14
Thanks Bob. I’m calm now!
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 00:23
I have now undertaken the necessary hatchet job.
http://bob.seldo.com/?p=442
Comment by Bob Churchill — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 00:24
Also, the guardian (imo) is one of the better british newspapers in many ways. Eg. it hosts Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column, which is pure pedantic, scientific gold.
Comment by Glynn — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 00:35
Glynn - You realise that just makes it worse, right? If one of the BETTER newspapers does this?
Comment by Felicia Gilljam — Tuesday, February 3, 2009 @ 01:15
Yeah… you’re talking about the very same media which is directly responsible for the massive decline in children getting measles, mumps and rubella vaccination, and therefore probably several deaths and numerous more unneccesary suffering. As yet very little in the way of retraction and putting-straight. (Much of) The rest of the British media is very full of crap. Too many newspapers suck…
Comment by Glynn — Monday, February 9, 2009 @ 00:55