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]     

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.     

The evolution of creationists in the United States: Where are they now,and where are they going?

The history of anti-evolutionism in the United States begins only in the early decades of the 20th century but has evolved considerably since then. Various versions of the movement (“equal time” for creationism, “creation science”, “intelligent design”) have developed over time, but they have made few positive contributions to serious discourse about science and religion. Their main goal has been to try to stop the teaching of evolution. The most recent version of creationism, “intelligent design” (ID), has little in common with William Paley's 18th-century version: ID posits an interventionist Deity who regularly interferes in natural processes to produce complex biological structures and functions. The 2005 “intelligent design” trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, destroyed any pretensions that the movement had to scientific integrity. However, anti-evolutionists continue to foment discord at local levels, where opposition to the teaching of evolution can be presented without strong resistance. Scientists can best demonstrate their concern by becoming involved in federal, state, and local administrative processes that determine curricula and develop and adopt textbooks and other instructional materials. To cite this article: K. Padian, C. R. Biologies 332 (2009).     

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.     

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.     

College Students’ Perceptions of Intelligent Design

While numerous studies address college students’ (typically biology majors) perceptions of evolution, research on how students from a range of majors view intelligent design (ID) has not been conducted. In this study, a survey was administered to 692 students, only 2.2% of whom were biology majors, at a medium-sized Midwestern university. The data from this survey were analyzed to answer the following two research questions: (1) To what extent do college students believe ID is an alternative to, or a better explanation than, evolution? and (2) To what extent do college students believe ID represents a form of creationism? In addition to discussing the results of our analyses, we also provide possible implications of our findings for researchers and educators.     

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.

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.     

It's Déjà Vu All Over Again: The Intelligent Design Movement's Recycling of Creationist Strategies

The intelligent design (ID) creationist movement is now a quarter of a century old. ID proponents at the Discovery Institute, headquartered in Seattle, WA, USA, insist that ID is not creationism. However, it is the direct descendant of the creation science movement that began in the 1960s and continued until the definitive ruling against creationism by the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard 1987, which struck down laws that required balancing the teaching of evolution with creationism in public schools. Already anticipating in the early 1980s that Arkansas and Louisiana “balanced treatment” laws would be declared unconstitutional, a group of creationists led by Charles Thaxton began laying the groundwork for what is now the ID movement. After Edwards, Thaxton and his associates promoted ID aggressively until it, too, was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District 2005. Subsequently, in 2008, the Discovery Institute began its multistate promotion of model “academic freedom” legislation that bears striking parallels to the 1980s balanced treatment laws. Because of Kitzmiller, ID proponents have written their model legislation in code language in an effort to avoid another court challenge. Yet despite attempting to evade the legal constraints imposed by Edwards, they are merely recycling earlier creationist tactics that date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. The tactics that ID creationists now use—promoting legislation, publishing “educational” materials, establishing a “research” institute, and sanitizing their terminology—are the recycled tactics of their creation science predecessors.     

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.     

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.     

The Evolution of Evolutionary Thinking in Chile

The scientific study of evolution in Chile has experienced periods of diversification and stasis, depending upon the social and political context at different times. In the eighteenth century, most of the natural history research consisted of systematics and taxonomy and, as in most of South America, this task was performed mainly by natural historian theologists. Later, the immigration of European scientists to Chile after independence from Spain in 1810 improved substantially its knowledge of the local biota and stimulated the diversification of naturalists in the country. Research in modern biology and the teaching of genetics in Chile can be traced back to Giovanni Noe, an Italian zoologist who had a profound impact in the first third of the twentieth century. In the 1960s–70s, Danko Brncic, a population geneticist educated in the tradition of Dobzhansky and the modern synthesis, led the most important diversification process in the study of evolutionary biology in the country. However, the military coup in 1973 brought this radiation to a sudden stop and produced a stasis period associated with the subsequent 17-year dictatorship. Evolutionary biology recovered its status after the re-establishment of democracy, and it is currently experiencing an exciting and renewed diversification period that has led to the foundation of the Chilean Society of Evolutionary Biology, the only scientific society for the study of evolution in Latin America. One of the missions of the Society is to bridge the gap between scientists and science educators in order to improve the teaching of evolution at different levels both in secular and religious schools. Even though the Roman Catholic Church has been a pivotal institution in the development of Chilean society, debate on evolutionism—creationism issues has been largely absent both in public and academic discussions. The influence of religion on science education has been sporadic, and mostly related to omission rather than tergiversation of scientific information in biology textbooks. Currently, schools are obliged by law to teach the basics of evolution in K-12 and K-16 levels (or their local equivalents). Because of this, there is little at present that suggests an organized creationist or intelligent design movement surge in the near future. Nevertheless, the high percentage of religiosity in Chile, together with the observation that the moral values of Chilean society are among the most conservative in the world, provide good reasons to remain vigilant.     

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.     

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.     

Introduction: why people do not accept evolution: using protistan diversity to promote evolution literacy

The controversy evolution vs. creationism is inherent to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation. To test this hypothesis, we conceptualized a Cartesian landscape where the dependent variable acceptance of evolution was plotted as function of three factors, each represented by an index (value range 0 to 3): Religiosity Index (RI), Science Index (SI), and Evolution Index (EI). The indexes summarized an individual's personal religious convictions, familiarity with the processes and forces of change in organisms (= concept of evolution), and understanding the essence of science (= method to explore reality). We compared and contrasted acceptance of evolution among four populations of variable educational attainment: 244 professors of New England, United States (93% Ph.D./doctorate holders), 50 protistologists from 25 countries (70% Ph.D./doctorate holders), 62 educators of prospective teachers (83% Ph.D./doctorate holders), and 827 college students. The New England faculty held the highest acceptance of evolution position (RI = 0.49; SI = 2.49; EI = 2.49), followed by the protistologists (RI = 0.46; SI = 2.30; EI = 2.48), the educators of prospective teachers (RI = 0.83; SI = 1.96; EI = 1.96), and the students (RI = 0.89; SI = 1.80; EI = 1.60); therefore, the data supported our hypothesis. Proper science education, public outreach and robust debate over the controversy "evolution versus creationism" should suffice to improve society's evolution literacy, and qualified scholars ought to lead this mission.     

Listening to Teachers

The author reflects on how much she has learned about teaching from K-12 teachers, and about the difficulties teachers encounter when they teach about evolution. Misconceptions and preconceptions, especially those concerning the compatibility or incompatibility of evolution with religion, are difficult to overcome, but teachers have devised many ingenious approaches to “defuse the religion issue.” The easy way out for many teachers is to omit evolution, or compromise its teaching by either including creationism or denigrating evolution, but the many teachers who teach with integrity are inspiring to us all.     

Teaching embryology to undergraduates in the Faculty of Education at Dokuz Eylul University in Izmir,Turkey

This report reviews the way in which classical embryology is taught and interpreted at the Buca Faculty of Education, in Dokuz Eylul University (Turkey). This university is one of the leading teacher-education institutions in Turkey. My course is taught with appreciation of the fact that students are thinking ideologically rather than scientifically with regard to creationism and evolution in both cognitive and educational processes. However, this ideological orientation, along with lack of classroom time and material resources, hinders my goal of a student-centered education. Being flexible with regard to philosophical and metaphysical issues on which concepts of evolution and creationism are in conflict, is constructive for student development and represents the approach I endeavor to pursue.     

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.     

Phenotypic traits of primate hybrids: Recognizing admixture in the fossil record

For many years, the likelihood that hybridization occurred in human evolution has been debated. Tattersall and Schwartz pointed out one of the core problems with resolving this debate, namely “that nobody has any idea what a Neanderthal/modern human hybrid might look like in theory, and few have dared to suggest in practice that any particular known fossil represents such a hybrid.”^1:7117 Moreover, while molecular data is proving increasingly useful for characterising hybrid zones, the utility of the phenotype for this purpose is not clear.² Here I address these issues, discussing both theoretical and empirically‐derived expectations for what hybrid morphology looks like, with an emphasis on the skeleton of hybrid primates, and consideration of the hominin fossil record.     

Sociobiology and Creationism: Two Ethnosociologies of American Culture

One of the most important motifs in mythology is the animal-human distinction. The relationship between humans and nonhuman animals is also a major concern of both human sociobiology and "scientific" creationism. In this paper, we suggest that sociobiology and creationism function as ethnosociologies of American society and that neither can be completely understood until they are related to each other and to the key symbols of American culture. We argue that sociobiology and creationism are comments on the secular world view of American culture and exist as transformations of one another.