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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

The Politics of Anti-Creationism: The Committees of Correspondence

When the creationism issue rose to the surface in the late 1970s, an organized opposition to the creationist campaign came from an unexpected source. Local groups of rank and file evolution defenders, led by a retired biology teacher, organized a grassroots network of anti-creationism called the Committees of Correspondence. They basically approached the creationism issue as a political rather than a scientific problem and fought the battle on local fronts, where creationists were heavily engaged in legal campaigns to include their ideas in the public schools. Grassroots anti-creationism was, however, eventually replaced by a centralized national operation with an educational emphasis. In this paper, I will document the development of this neglected part of the creation-evolution controversy and discuss related issues, namely the politics of science that became clearly visible in the course of evolutionists' disputes over anti-creation strategies. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

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.     

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.     

EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM IN MIDDLE EASTERN EDUCATION: A NEW PERSPECTIVE

Statements made in a recent outcry against a creationist in the Israeli Ministry of Education starkly illuminated Western misconceptions about Iranian science education. These misconceptions are perpetuated not only among the general public but also within the international scientific community, where investigations of "Islamic creationism" often incorporate misleading assumptions regarding Islamic religious attitudes toward science as well as the nature of secularism in non‐Western states. In turn, these assumptions have led to superficial analyses that overly rely on state religiosity to explain the treatment of evolution in national science education. Therefore, a new framework accounting for local political and social circumstances is crucial and urgently needed to effectively analyze science education in the Middle East.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Thirty two years of continuous assessment reveal first year university biology students in Australia are rapidly abandoning beliefs in theistic involvement in human origins

Background

For the past 32 years, we have polled first-year biology students annually at the University of New South Wales concerning their views about evolution and creationism. The purposes of the research were to identify the level of commitment among incoming students to creationist beliefs that could interfere with their receptivity to evolutionary science and to assess in retrospect whether these creationist beliefs were changing over time.

Results

The results have demonstrated a downward shift over time from 60% of the class in 1986 believing a god had something to do with the origin of humans, to 29% in 2017. Conversely, the percentage of students convinced that a god had nothing to do with the origin of humans rose from 25% in 1986 to 62% in 2017. The creationist belief that a god created the world de novo within the last 10,000 years declined from 10% in 1986 to 3.6% in 2017. The decline in the Australian students’ commitment to religious views about divine creation, especially creationism, considerably exceeded the corresponding beliefs among American students and their general public, where belief in creationism while slowly declining appears to have remained in the 40% range, four times that seen in our Australian survey.

Conclusions

The very low and declining levels of commitment to the creationist view that god created humans de novo suggests this view is unlikely to be a significant obstruction to accepting the scientific evidence for evolution. The results of the survey of UNSW students correlate with changes documented in the census of the general Australian public suggesting that our survey results of first-year biology students reflect overall changes in the Australian community as a whole.

     

Reverend Paley's naturalist revival

This paper analyzes the remarkable popularity of William Paley's argument from design among contemporary naturalists in biology and the philosophy of science. In philosophy of science Elliott Sober has argued that creationism should be excluded from the schools not because it is not science but because it is 'less likely' than evolution according to fairly standard confirmation theory. Creationism is said to have been a plausible scientific option as presented by Paley but no longer to be acceptable according to the same standards that once approved it. In biology C. G. Williams and Richard Dawkins have seen in Paley a proto-adaptationist. This paper shows that the historical assumptions of Sober's arguments are wrong and that the philosophical arguments themselves take alternatives to science to be alternatives in science and conflate the null hypothesis, chance, with a competing explanatory hypothesis. It is also shown that the similarity of Paley's adaptationism to that of contemporary biology is not what it is made out to be.     

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).     

God is in the Data: Epistemologies of Knowledge at the Creation Museum

In contemporary American public culture, interest groups increasingly mobilise social constructionist arguments in order to discredit strains of scientific knowledge. According to Latour [2004. Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30:225–48], the field of science studies has contributed to this trend by exposing the ways that scientific facts are socially mediated. In this article, I examine how a narrative of social construction is articulated in the Creation Museum, a young earth creationist museum in Northern Kentucky, USA. I compare the epistemology of science in the Creation Museum with that of conspiracy theory and of social constructionist science studies. I examine how, in the Creation Museum, social constructionist critique is combined with a framing of the Bible as a source of factual data. It is argued that science studies, conspiracy theory and creationism overlap in their critiques of the transparency and objectivity of science. However, they diverge in terms of the degree of recursivity they allow.     

You say you want an evolution? A role for scientists in science education

We conducted a national survey of likely U.S. voters to examine acceptance of evolution, attitudes toward science and scientists, and opportunities for promoting science education. Most respondents accepted that life evolved, many accepted that it evolved through natural processes, and more favored teaching evolution than creationism or intelligent design in science classes. The majority ranked developing medicines and curing diseases as the most important contributions of science to society, and they found promoting understanding of evolutionary science's contribution to medicine to be a convincing reason to teach evolution. Respondents viewed scientists, teachers, and medical professionals favorably, and most were interested in hearing from these groups about science, including evolution. These data suggest that the scientific community has an important role to play in encouraging public support for science education.     

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.     

Beyond borders: on the influence of the creationist movement on the educational landscape in the USA and Russia

This paper provides a detailed look at how creationism originated in the United States and then explores how this evangelical trend was exported to Russia by American missionaries following the fall of the USSR. The comparison between these two countries is particularly interesting since the rivalry between the US and the USSR during the race to space caused both countries to revamp their science education. Yet, while political interests led both governments to focus on science education, creationist activities were simultaneously focused on diminishing the coverage of evolution in science classrooms. Now, decades following Sputnik’s trip to space, the urgency to strengthen scientific learning has waned, while creationists are still equally focused on removing scientific naturalism in favor of supernatural explanations for the origin of species. This paper thus offers an in-depth look at which groups are currently responsible for promoting creationist activities in the US and in Russia and which groups are working hard to keep supernatural doctrines out of science curriculum.