|
|  | Students enter our biology classrooms with a variety of backgrounds and beliefs about life's diversity. Many of these students sense conflicts between evolution and their views of the world, often because they believe that the acceptance of evolution and creationism is a dichotomy: because creationism is based on the acceptance of a deity, then evolution must be based on atheism. This perceived dichotomy—that is, either evolution or creationism—produces tensions that often impede learning.
As Scott (2004) has noted, the evolution-creationism dichotomy has produced a simplistic and narrow perception of creationism. In fact, there are many types of creationism, and simply knowing whether a student is a "creationist" (or not) is not overly helpful to instructors. For example, a student who is a biblical literalist (that is, a person who believes in a young earth and who rejects evolution) would respond differently to what we teach than, say, a theistic evolutionist, who would presumably be more open to science and to our instruction. Knowing about the range of students' beliefs relative to this evolution-creationism continuum can help instructors understand students' "starting points" for learning not only about biology and evolution but also about the nature of science.
In this study, I tried to determine the range of college students' beliefs along the evolution-creationism continuum. I compared these beliefs to whether students' high school biology courses emphasized evolution, creationism, neither, or both. To my knowledge, this is the first analysis of how students' beliefs are distributed along the evolution-creationism continuum.
Methods
This study was done between 2000 and 2004 in a large introductory biology course at the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota. The study included 2,076 first-year students having an average high school graduation percentile ranking of 54 and an average ACT composite score of 21. The sample consisted of 52 percent women and 48 percent men who were ethnically diverse: 51 percent Anglo, 21 percent African American, 5 percent Chicano/Latina, 20 percent Asian American, and 3 percent other or missing information.
At the start of the first day of classes, I distributed a survey that included the statements shown in Table 1. These statements reflect the different views that make up the evolution-creationism continuum (Scott 2004). The labels included in Table 1 (for example, young-earth creationism, intelligent design creationism) were not on the survey, and the order of the statements differed for each of the classes that I surveyed. Because the evolution-creationism continuum includes few sharp boundaries, and because some ideas overlap (for example, intelligent design overlaps young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism), the survey instructed students to mark all of the statements that described their views. If none of the statements were similar to their views, or if students wanted to add comments, they were told to write their comments on the bottom or back of the page. Students turned in their completed surveys at the end of class, later that day at my office, or at the beginning of the next class.
On the first day of class, I also administered a separate survey that asked the following questions:
- Did you take a biology course in high school?
- If you did take biology in high school, did your course include evolution, creationism, both evolution and creationism, or neither evolution nor creationism?
- Would you have liked for your biology course to include more about evolution, less about evolution, or about the same amount of evolution?
I tabulated all surveys after submitting final course grades.
Results
Table 1 shows the distribution of students' beliefs along the evolution-creationism continuum. Of all the students in class, 97 percent returned surveys. The results of the survey were similar each semester. Students' responses ranged from the strictest form of biblical literalism (flat-earth creationism, in which the earth is shaped like a coin) at one end of the continuum to philosophical materialistic evolution at the other. Approximately one-fifth (492) of the 2,076 students in this survey marked two to four answers on the survey, and no student marked more than four answers. Virtually all (98 percent) of the students in this study had taken a biology class in high school.
I grouped students' comments and responses to "None of the above statements are similar to what I believe. Here's what I believe" into the following general categories:
- There is no god: 9 percent.
- The Christian god is the only true god: 49 percent.
- There are other gods that are the true god: 3 percent.
- I didn't come from monkeys: 4 percent.
- I accept evolution but don't know about the rest: 20 percent.
- I don't know: 16 percent.
Students' responses to other questions were as follows:
- I took a biology class in high school: 98 percent.
- My high school biology class included evolution but not creationism: 51 percent.
- My high school biology class included creationism but not evolution: 5 percent.
- My high school biology class included evolution and creationism: 23 percent.
- My high school biology class included neither evolution nor creationism: 21 percent.
- I would have liked for my biology course to include more about evolution: 45 percent.
- I would have liked for my biology course to include less about evolution: 12 percent
- I would have liked for my biology course to include about the same amount of evolution: 43 percent.
I found no consistent relationship between students' views of evolution and creationism (Table 1) and whether their high school biology course included evolution, creationism, evolution and creationism, or neither evolution nor creationism.
Discussion
Like all survey-based research, this study had several limitations. Although this study included a large and diverse population of students sampled over a period of several years, the sample was primarily limited to students who went to public high schools in the Midwest, particularly in Minnesota. Also, students' recollections of what they learned in their high school biology classes were probably not perfect. Nevertheless, these data are probably representative of many states, because Minnesota's high school biology classes are typical of those in other parts of the United States (Moore 2004).
Large majorities of undergraduates (as measured by this study at the University of Minnesota) are creationists (Table 1). Surveys of the general public report similar data, which are probably best explained by the fact that most people base their views of nature and life's diversity on religious teachings and not on science (Nisbet 2005). The public's acceptance of creationism correlates positively with large (more than 75 percent) percentages of Americans believing in life after death, heaven, hell, religious miracles, and a god who "concerns himself with every human being personally" (Angier 2001).
Although most undergraduates are creationists, they have diverse beliefs. That is, there is no one "typical" kind of creationist. For example,
Theistic evolution is the most popular type of creationism among undergraduates; it was endorsed by 20% of the students in this survey. This is the type of creationism taught at most mainstream Protestant seminaries, and is the official position of the Catholic church. (John Paul II 1996)
Intelligent design (ID) creationism, an old idea that has become the newest form of creationism, ranked second in popularity (14 percent). We can trace ID to William Paley's "Argument from Design" (that is, we can prove God's existence by examining God's work; Paley 1802). Believers in ID demand a direct role for their "intelligent designer" (God). Although ID avoids making claims about the age of the earth and common ancestry, it overlaps young-earth creationism (YEC) and old-earth creationism (OEC; Scott 2004). Most people believe that ID is a religious view for which there is no scientific evidence (Nisbet 2005). In December 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled (in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District) the following:
- Intelligent design (ID) "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," and is nothing more than creationism in disguise.
- ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data, or publications.
The judge also noted, "It is ironic that several of [the members of the school board], who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."
Young-earth creationism, which is based on the earth being only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, is usually synonymous with "creation science," a type of creationism founded by George Price and popularized in the 1960s by The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961). YECs accept Genesis literally, including Noah's flood and the special, separate creation of all species. Although scientists and court decisions (Edwards v. Aguillard, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education) have roundly discredited "creation science" (Moore 2002), it remains a foundation for antievolution groups such as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. However, only 7 percent of students endorsed YEC in this survey.
Students' views of evolution and creationism (Table 1) are not related to whether their high school biology course included evolution, creationism, both evolution and creationism, or neither evolution nor creationism. This observation is consistent with the fact that only about 10 percent of people base their views of nature and life's diversity on information that they were exposed to in science classes (Nisbet 2005).
Although undergraduates have diverse views of creationism, they are relatively open-minded about evolution. Indeed, most students wanted their biology courses to include more about evolution, and only 12 percent wanted their biology courses to include less about evolution. Some of these data are encouraging, for they indicate that most students do not reject evolution and instead want to learn more about it.
References Cited
Angier, N. 2001. "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist." The New York Times Magazine, January 14, pp. 34-38.
John Paul II (pope). 1996. "Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution, for It Involves Conception of Man." L'Osservatore Romano, October 30, pp. 3, 7.
Moore, R. 2002. Evolution in the Courtroom: A Reference Guide. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.
Moore, R. 2004. "State Standards and Evolution: Are Standards Relevant to the Teaching of Evolution in Public School Biology Classrooms?" The Science Teacher 71 (6): 41-44.
Nisbet, M. 2005. "Polling Opinion About Evolution: Low Information Public Underscores Importance of Communication Strategy." Retrieved from www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00475.html.
Paley, W. 1802. Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. London: Faulder.
Scott, E. C. 2004. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood.
Whitcomb, J. C., and H. R. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Table 1: The Distribution of Students' Beliefs Along the Evolution-Creationism Continuum
The survey asked students to indicate which of the following statements described their views.
| Percent |
Belief |
Description |
| 3 |
Philosophical materialistic evolution |
I accept the results of modern science; Earth is billions of years old, and evolution has produced life's diversity. However, the laws of nature are all there is; the supernatural, including God, does not exist. |
| 10 |
Agnostic materialistic evolution |
I accept the results of modern science; Earth is billions of years old, and evolution has produced life's diversity. However, I do not believe the question of whether God created the earth and life can be answered. |
| 11 |
Agnostic evolution |
I accept the results of modern science; Earth is billions of years old, and evolution has produced life's diversity. However, I do not know whether God exists. |
| 20 |
Theistic evolution |
I accept the results of modern science. However, God exists, and God the Creator uses evolution to bring about the universe according to his plan. The hand of God was needed for the creation of the human soul. |
| 15 |
Intelligent design creationism |
Nature is too complex to be explained only by natural causes; the order, purpose, complexity, and design in nature are proof of God. Some structures in living organisms are too complex to have evolved; they must have been specially created by God. |
| 10 |
Progressive creationism |
I believe that Earth is billions of years old, that God created "kinds" of animals sequentially, and that the fossil record accurately represents history because different animals and plants appeared at different times rather than having been created all at once. However, earlier forms of life are not genetically related to later ones, for the "kinds" of organisms represent separate creations by God. Evolution occurs, but only within "kinds" of organisms. |
| 7 |
Day-age creationism |
I believe that each of the six days of creation described in Genesis were long periods of time -- even thousands or millions of years instead of merely 24 hours long. |
| 4 |
Gap creationism |
I believe that there was a large time period between the creation stories described in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The creation described in Genesis 1:1 was destroyed before Genesis 1:2, when God created the world in six days and created Adam and Eve. |
| 10 |
Old-earth creationism |
I believe that the earth is billions of years old; however, changes in Earth and Earth's organisms have been caused by God. |
| 7 |
Young-earth creationism |
I believe that Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Catastrophic events such as Noah's flood carved the Grand Canyon and other geological features. Life did not evolve; organisms present today were created by God. |
| 1 |
Geocentrism |
I believe that the earth is spherical. However, the earth, and not the sun, is the center of the solar system. |
| 0.2 |
Flat earthism |
I believe that the earth is flat. |
| 3 |
None of the above statements are similar to what I believe. |
Here's what I believe: |
Randy Moore is a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota. He teaches introductory biology and evolution and studies the factors that determine students' success in introductory science courses. Randy edited The American Biology Teacher for 20 years and has won a variety of awards for his research, teaching, and writing.
|
Course Home Pages