« Oestrus Island | Main | Learning vs. lifespan? »

Which explains the origin of the earth?

That was one of the questions in a recent poll by The Economist. People in the US and the UK were asked to choose among these answers:
1) the theory of evolution
2) The Bible
3) "Intelligent design"

That's easy. Of the three choices, only The Bible even attempts to explain the origin of the earth. A broad definition of the theory of evolution may include possible explanations for the origin of life -- narrower definitions are limited to explaining how life has changed since its origin -- but "the origin of the earth" is the province of astronomy or geology, not biology. What I've seen of "intelligent design" is mostly whining about alleged gaps in the theory of evolution, rather than attempts to develop scientifically testable explanations of the origin of the earth or anything else, so that's out.

"None of the above" was not an option, so that leaves The Bible. It doesn't provide enough detail to allow other deities to replicate the creation process, however, so its "explanation" wouldn't be publishable in a scientific journal. (For example, the first two chapters disagree about whether birds were made before or after humans. This sort of thing can happen when a manuscript is pasted together from earlier papers and grant proposals, but it would certainly have been caught and corrected by peer review.)

Also, the origin of gods isn't explained. Given strong selection for benevolence, potence, and science, maybe gods capable of creating planets (or at least life) could evolve from a selfish, impotent, and unscientific replicator. But who, or what, would impose that selection? And how did the first replicator originate? Peer review of The BIble by more experienced Creators would have ensured that these important details were included.


So what were the results?

Click on the link above to see survey results, for what they're worth.

That's the dumbest poll ever. Isn't the Economist supposed to be the more intelligent alternative to Newsweek and Time?

I love the peer review idea. It might have caught more mistakes than the order of creation of birds vs. humans. But would it have been double blind?

God is love; love is blind...

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Type the characters you see in the picture above.