Educational Malpractice: The Impact of Including Creationism in High School Biology Courses

College students whose recollections of their high school biology courses included creationism were significantly more likely to invoke creationism-based answers on questions derived from the Material Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) instrument than were students whose recollections of their high school biology courses included evolution but not creationism. On average, students who were taught neither evolution nor creationism in their high school biology courses exhibited intermediary responses on the MATE instrument. These results suggest that (1) high school teachers’ treatments of evolution and creationism have a lasting impact and (2) the inclusion of creationism in high school biology courses increases the probability that students accept creationism and reject evolution when they arrive at college. These results are discussed relative to the impact of high school biology courses on students’ subsequent acceptance of evolution and creationism.     

The threat from creationism to the rational teaching of biology

Most biologists outside the USA and a few other countries, like Australia and Canada, are under the impression that the threat to the teaching of biology represented by creationism does not concern them directly. This is unfortunately no longer true: the recent growth of creationism, especially in its pseudo-scientific manifestation known as "intelligent design", has been obvious in several countries of Western Europe, especially the UK, Germany and Poland, and it is beginning to be noticeable in Brazil, and maybe elsewhere in Latin America. The problem is complicated by the fact that there are not just two possibilities, evolution and creationism, because creationism comes in various incompatible varieties. Turkey is now a major source of creationist propaganda outside the USA, and is especially significant in relation to its influence on Muslim populations in Europe. The time for biologists to address the creationist threat is now.     

Teaching evolution: challenging religious preconceptions

Teaching college students about the nature of science should not be a controversial exercise. College students are expected to distinguish between astronomy and astrology, chemistry and alchemy, evolution and creationism. In practice, however, the conflict between creationism and the nature of science may create controversy in the classroom, even walkouts, when the subject of evolution is raised. The authors have grappled with the meaning of such behaviors. They surveyed 538 students in a public, liberal arts college. Pre/post course surveys were analyzed to track changes in student responses to questions that were either consistent or inconsistent with the Theory of Evolution after a semester of instruction in a college biology or zoology course in which evolution was taught. Many students who were initially undecided about issues regarding evolution had shifted in their viewpoints by the end of the course. It was found that more education about the evidence for and the mechanics of evolutionary processes did not necessarily move students toward a scientific viewpoint. The authors also discovered a "wedge" effect among students who were undecided about questions pertaining to human ancestry at the beginning of the course. About half of these students shifted to a scientific viewpoint at the end of the course; the other half shifted toward agreement with statements consistent with creationism.     

Evolutionists and creationists at the dinner table

The evolutionist and creationist debate about human origins has contested the content of textbooks, what is taught in classrooms, and what is discussed on the Internet. The controversy has spawned public‐interest groups that continue to frame the debate. The National Center for Science Education monitors attempts to incorporate creationism into the classroom and textbooks. The Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute have invested heavily in pushing for changes in the curriculum by teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution. While this dispute usually focuses on the reality of the fossil evidence for human evolution, a less formal battle is now being waged at the proverbial dinner table.     

Creationist Teaching in School Science: A UK Perspective

The creation/evolution controversy in UK schools made headlines in the national press, on TV, and radio in 2002. Claims were made that creationism was being taught in schools. This article looks at the impact this controversy had on the UK government and how creationism is trying to gain ground in UK state schools by introducing students to Intelligent Design through promotional DVDs. Student attitude surveys eliciting views toward science and religion are examined. Concern is also expressed at how the teaching of evolution through standard textbooks may not deliver a persuasive case for evolutionary theory. The article concludes with a number of implications for researchers, teachers, and schools.

Influence of Sociocultural Factors and Acceptance of Creationism in the Comprehension of Evolutionary Biology in Freshman Brazilian Students

The creationist movements in Brazil, although considered weak, are on the increase. The Brazilian legislation neither imposes any objection in teaching evolution nor obliges the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in science classes. Furthermore, it allows the optional teaching of religion at schools. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the knowledge regarding biological evolution in freshman students from a Brazilian university. Such knowledge was related to sociocultural factors such as their parental education level, the type of high school the student graduated from (private or public school), their philosophical/religious position as well as the acceptance of creationism as an alternative to evolution. Among those factors, the latter two showed significant differences, in which the higher averages belonged both to the atheistic students and to those who do not accept creationism as an alternative to evolution.     

European Christians are at the forefront in accepting evolution: results from an internet-based survey

Beliefs regarding the origins of the universe and life differ substantially between groups of people and are often particularly associated with religious worldviews. It is important to understand factors associated with evolution and creationism beliefs and unacceptance of scientific evidence for evolution. An internet-based survey was conducted to elicit information from people who self-identify as Christians, atheists, agnostics and other belief systems, as well as by geographical location and other demographic variables, on acceptance of evolution or creationism, certainty with which each position is believed, and reasons for rejecting the alternative. It was found that almost 60% of Christians believe in creationism and less than 10% believe in natural evolution. Worldwide, these proportions were relatively consistent across all locations except for in Europe. Among European Christians the majority of Christians believe in a form of evolution. It was found that the vast majority (87%) of Christians are 'absolutely certain' about their beliefs, compared with the minority of atheists and agnostics claiming 'absolute certainty'. Generally, reasons Christians did not accept evolution were based not on evidence but on religious doctrine. In contrast, the most common reason for not accepting the existence of a god by atheists who supported evolution was the lack of evidence. Innovative strategies may be required to communicate evolutionary science effectively to non-European Christians.     

Should Students Be Able to Opt Out of Evolution? Some Philosophical Considerations

One new development in the ongoing creationism/evolution controversy has been the proposal to institute opt-out policies that would allow creationist parents to exempt their children from any instruction involving evolution. By way of an explanation of some of the philosophical issues at play in the debate over evolution and the nature of science, this article shows the educational folly of such policies. If evolution is taught properly, it should not be possible to opt out of it without opting out of biology. Moreover, if Intelligent Design creationist criticisms of evolution and scientific naturalism were taken as the basis for opting out, then the effect would be even more radical and would require opting out of science entirely.     

Attitudes of Students at a Private Christian Liberal Arts University Toward the Teaching of Evolution

Students at private Christian colleges tend to have a viewpoint that incorporates faith and belief in God. Whether due to misconceptions about evolution, lack of knowledge of the nature of science, or belief that their faith cannot allow them to accept evolution, there tends to be a great deal of confusion about evolution. This study investigates the attitudes toward evolution of students at a small Christian liberal arts university located in east Texas (East Texas Baptist University, ETBU) and how they would feel most comfortable being approached about evolution in the college science classroom. The majority of students at ETBU are from either Texas or Louisiana. In high school, both states require at least one science course to be taken and evolution to be taught at some level of understanding. Students show a fair understanding that science includes only naturalistic explanations . However, a greater number of science courses and maturity level of the student resulted in significant differences (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.002, respectively) in the understanding of science. Nevertheless, there was a general assertion that God should be included in the definition of science by the majority of students (64.4%), indicating a misunderstanding of the nature of science. Students responded that they would be most comfortable with being approached in the classroom about evolution through the presentation of the science supporting evolution (19.6%), and being shown how creationism and intelligent design are not science (29.8%). A number of students responded that the professor should accept creationism and intelligent design as science and teach them as such (38.2%). This paper will present methods to address students that respond to evolution in this manner.     

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND RELIGION

Belief in creationism and intelligent design is widespread and gaining significance in a number of countries. This article examines the characteristics of science and of religions and the possible relationship between science and religion. I argue that creationism is sometimes best seen not as a misconception but as a worldview. In such instances, the most to which a science educator (whether in school, college or university) can normally aspire is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, the scientific worldview is unlikely to supplant a creationist one for students who are firm creationists. We can help students to find their evolutionary biology courses interesting and intellectually challenging without their being threatening. Effective teaching in this area can help students not only learn about the theory of evolution but better appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science, and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge.     

New England Faculty and College Students Differ in Their Views About Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Religiosity

Public acceptance of evolution in Northeastern U.S. is the highest nationwide, only 59%. Here, we compare perspectives about evolution, creationism, intelligent design (ID), and religiosity between highly educated New England faculty (n = 244; 90% Ph.D. holders in 40 disciplines at 35 colleges/universities) and college students from public secular (n = 161), private secular (n = 298), and religious (n = 185) institutions: 94/3% of the faculty vs. 64/14% of the students admitted to accepting evolution openly and/or privately, and 82/18% of the faculty vs. 58/42% of the students thought that evolution is definitely true or probably true, respectively. Only 3% of the faculty vs. 23% of the students thought that evolution and creationism are in harmony. Although 92% of faculty and students thought that evolution relies on common ancestry, one in every four faculty and one in every three students did not know that humans are apes; 15% of the faculty vs. 34% of the students believed, incorrectly, that the origin of the human mind cannot be explained by evolution, and 30% of the faculty vs. 72% of the students was Lamarckian (believed in inheritance of acquired traits). Notably, 91% of the faculty was very concerned (64%) or somehow concerned (27%) about the controversy evolution vs creationism vs ID and its implications for science education: 96% of the faculty vs. 72% of the students supported the exclusive teaching of evolution while 4% of the faculty vs. 28% of the students favored equal time to evolution, creationism and ID; 92% of the faculty vs. 52% of the students perceived ID as not scientific and proposed to counter evolution or as doctrine consistent with creationism. Although ≈30% of both faculty and students considered religion to be very important in their lives, and ≈20% admitted to praying daily, the faculty was less religious (Religiosity Index faculty = 0.5 and students = 0.75) and, as expected, more knowledgeable about science (Science Index faculty = 2.27 and students = 1.60) and evolution (Evolution Index faculty = 2.48 and students = 1.65) than the students. Because attitudes toward evolution correlate (1) positively with understanding of science/evolution and (2) negatively with religiosity/political ideology, we conclude that science education combined with vigorous public debate should suffice to increase acceptance of naturalistic rationalism and decrease the negative impact of creationism and ID on society’s evolution literacy.     

Science, religion, and society: the problem of evolution in america

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the United States, which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and supposed implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the United States suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Because creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the United States is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change.     

Scientific Creationism: An Exegesis for a Religious Doctrine

An exegesis of the seminal works of Henry M. Morris, Director of the Institute for Creation Research, clearly reveals that scientific creationism is a religious doctrine. It is a necessary dogma of the conservative evangelical's particular form of Christianity, is premised upon a literal interpretation of the Bible, and has as its purpose the defense of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. [scientific creationism, religion, evolution]     

Darwin's champions fight back

Researchers are building their response to the attack by creationism on evolution as interest in Darwin memorabilia continues to grow.     

Visual arts education provisions for primary schools in Turkey

This article examines the history of art education in Turkey. Since the beginning, the purposes of the arts and art education have been a point of discussion by various authorities. Whether art education should be taught, and how it needs to be taught, have been at the forefront of educationalists' minds. As a result, introducing certain models of art education has been a challenge. The objective of this article is to present the changes in art education since the 19th century in Turkey. The main focus is on art education practices and policies and an overview of key events in Turkey's history of art education. The article also presents issues related to the importance of visual arts education in Turkish primary school settings. In so doing, this research aims to show readers how past developments helped to create the current visual art education policy in Turkey.     

It is alive

We need to familiarize ourselves with the facts of evolution, so that we can mount a spirited defense against creationism and the forces of ignorance.     

Evolution Versus Creationism: A matter of acceptance versus belief

Scientists are often challenged about their ‘belief’ in evolution. Many creationists try to convince people that evolution is more of a ‘faith-based’ position or belief system than ‘real science’. This article examines the notion of acceptance versus belief and the relationship between knowledge, understanding and belief. It argues that adopting the acceptance of evolution over belief in evolution will help teachers deal with the challenges that inevitably arise in lessons on evolution in high school. Studies in philosophy show beliefs are often held without evidence, may be illogical and are difficult to change. Acceptance of a scientific explanation for a natural phenomenon, however, is based on evidence and allows for a change in disposition should new evidence come to light. With this in mind, removing the idea of ‘belief’ in evolution and talking about acceptance provides a sensible way to manage talk of creationism versus evolution, if and when it arises in the classroom.     

Assessment of Biology Majors’ Versus Nonmajors’ Views on Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

The controversy around evolution, creationism, and intelligent design resides in a historical struggle between scientific knowledge and popular belief. Four hundred seventy-six students (biology majors n = 237, nonmajors n = 239) at a secular liberal arts private university in Northeastern United States responded to a five-question survey to assess their views about: (1) evolution, creationism, and intelligent design in the science class; (2) students’ attitudes toward evolution; (3) students’ position about the teaching of human evolution; (4) evolution in science exams; and (5) students’ willingness to discuss evolution openly. There were 60.6% of biology majors and 42% of nonmajors supported the exclusive teaching of evolution in the science class, while 45.3% of nonmajors and 32% of majors were willing to learn equally about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design (question 1); 70.5% of biology majors and 55.6% of nonmajors valued the factual explanations evolution provides about the origin of life and its place in the universe (question 2); 78% of the combined responders (majors plus nonmajors) preferred science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively and humans are part of it (question 3); 69% of the combined responders (majors plus nonmajors) had no problem answering questions concerning evolution in science exams (question 4); 48.1% of biology majors and 26.8% of nonmajors accepted evolution and expressed it openly, but 18.2% of the former and 14.2% of the latter accepted evolution privately; 46% of nonmajors and 29.1% of biology majors were reluctant to comment on this topic (question 5). Combined open plus private acceptance of evolution within biology majors increased with seniority, from freshman (60.7%) to seniors (81%), presumably due to gradual exposure to upper-division biology courses with evolutionary content. College curricular/pedagogical reform should fortify evolution literacy at all education levels, particularly among nonbiologists.     

The Growing Visibility of Creationism in Northern Ireland: Are New Science Teachers Equipped to Deal with the Issues?

The growing visibility of various forms of creationism in Northern Ireland raises issues for science education. Attempts have been made at political levels to have such “alternatives” to evolution taught in the science classroom, and the issue has received coverage in local press and media. A sample of 112 pre-service science teachers answered a survey on attitudes toward evolution. Preliminary analysis revealed many of these new teachers held views contrary to scientific consensus—over one fifth doubt the evidence for human evolution, and over one quarter dispute the common ancestry of life. Over two thirds indicated a preference for teaching a “range of theories” regarding these issues in science. In addition, 49 pre-service biology teachers viewed a DVD resource promoting “intelligent design” and completed an evaluation of it. The biology teachers also took part in either focus groups or additional questionnaires. A majority took the resource at face value and made positive comments regarding its utility. Many articulated views contrary to the stated positions of science academies, professional associations, and the UK government teaching directives regarding creationism. Most indicated a perception that intelligent design is legitimate science and that there is a scientific “controversy” regarding the legitimacy of evolution. Concern is raised over the ability of these new teachers to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific theories. The suggestion is made that the issue should be addressed directly with pre-service science teachers to make clear the status of such “alternatives.” The paper raises implications for science education and questions for further research.

Lessons from the Social Psychology of Evolution Warfare: Good Science Alone is not Enough

American student acceptance of evolution is far from uniform, even when students experience instruction in the relevant scientific methods and data. But, excellent science teaching alone cannot be expected always to lead to rejecting creationism. Powerful psychological, social, and political forces are at work as well as pure pedagogy, and such forces are often implicated in the failure of students to accept evolution, especially human evolution. These forces are often sufficiently powerful to defeat even attempts to teach evolution that use the most effective science education methods. We end by urging increased activism on behalf of evolution education.