data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b75e8/b75e8259e270e0462f6d9d93bf8d17fbfbf59387" alt=""
As my comment indicates, I really don't buy into the 'rescuing Darwin' schtick, as it seems to me to feed that which it contends, and to distract attention from the common purpose of harnessing good science to meeting needs and enhancing understanding. Also, interactions between science and theology premised on trying to redress, reassert or reassess the conflicts of the past are in danger of being over-determined by what they should be letting go of or transcending. Oh, and the ComRes survey was rather counterproductive. It generated a problem through flawed questioning, and possibly inadequate attention to sampling errors.
Meanwhile, here's a relevant anniversary / bicentenary blog swarm. And an interesting post on, er, post-Darwin from Bob Cornwall.
3 comments:
Attacking a poll because you don't like the result is, to coin a phrase, the last resort of the scoundrel.
If the Darwin poll 'failed to take account of sampling error' then I'm a monkey's uncle.
Simon, here is a great program and podcast that was on National Public Radio in the States last week celebration Darwin...
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/2009/darwin/
Enjoy, Peace Ron Cole +
Dear Anon: I'm afraid I can't comment on your heredity, as you choose to post without the courtesy of identifying yourself. What I can clarify is that I'm not "attacking" the poll. If I thought it was accurate, I would have no problem. But I think the questions were confusing, and I'm not sure that the *interpretation* is borne out by the stats. But it was, I understand, a 2,000 ground sample. S x
Post a Comment