Accepting evolution

Poor public perceptions and understanding of evolution are not unique to the developed and more industrialized nations of the world. International resistance to the science of evolutionary biology appears to be driven by both proponents of intelligent design and perceived incompatibilities between evolution and a diversity of religious faiths. We assessed the success of a first-year evolution course at the University of Cape Town and discovered no statistically significant change in the views of students before the evolution course and thereafter, for questions that challenged religious ideologies about creation, biodiversity, and intelligent design. Given that students only appreciably changed their views when presented with "facts," we suggest that teaching approaches that focus on providing examples of experimental evolutionary studies, and a strong emphasis on the scientific method of inquiry, are likely to achieve greater success. This study also reiterates the importance of engaging with students' prior conceptions, and makes suggestions for improving an understanding and appreciation of evolutionary biology in countries such as South Africa with an inadequate secondary science education system, and a dire lack of public engagement with issues in science.     

Still More “Fancy” and “Myth” than “Fact” in Students’ Conceptions of Evolution

College students do not come to biological sciences classes, including biological anthropology, as “blank slates.” Rather, these students have complex and strongly held scientific misconceptions that often interfere with their ability to understand accurate explanations that are presented in class. Research indicates that a scientific misconception cannot be corrected by simply presenting accurate information; the misconception must be made explicit, and the student must decide for him or herself that it is inaccurate. The first step in helping to facilitate such conceptual change among college students is to understand the nature of the scientific misconceptions. We surveyed 547 undergraduate students at the University of Missouri-Columbia on their understanding of the nature and language of science, the mechanisms of evolution, and their support for both Lamarckian inheritance and teleological evolution. We found few significant sex differences among the respondents and identified some common themes in the students’ misconceptions. Our survey results show that student understanding of evolutionary processes is limited, even among students who accept the validity of biological evolution. We also found that confidence in one’s knowledge of science is not related to actual understanding. We advise instructors in biological anthropology courses to survey their students in order to identify the class-specific scientific misconceptions, and we urge faculty members to incorporate active learning strategies in their courses in order to facilitate conceptual change among the students.     

The effect of teaching the nature of science on students’ acceptance and understanding of evolution: myth or reality?

The results of studies of the nature of science (NOS) as a factor that enhances students’ understanding of evolution have been inconclusive. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to test the role of NOS instruction in enhancing students’ learning about evolution. We used a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-tests to investigate the impact of teaching evolution with and without NOS in two classes with 15–16-year-old students, who were randomly assigned to these two classes. To measure their understanding of NOS and their acceptance and understanding of evolution, we used three different instruments that have been shown to generate reliable and valid inferences in comparable populations. The main results of this study were that, in the class in which the teaching of evolution included NOS instruction, the students’ understanding of NOS and their acceptance of evolution significantly improved. However, irrespective of the use of NOS instruction, both classes increased their understanding of evolution. These results support the claim that NOS instruction may influence students’ acceptance of evolution but not their understanding of evolution and natural selection.     

A Review of Undergraduate Evolution Education in U.S. Universities: Building a Unifying Framework

Despite a considerable amount of scientific evidence, evolution is still a highly controversial issue in American education. This review analyzes studies that investigate the relationship between evolution education, the nature of science, and religious beliefs in U.S. universities. We performed a comprehensive literature search focusing on publications that analyzed and compared at least two of the following constructs: understanding of evolutionary theory (ET), acceptance of ET, instruction in ET, prior exposure to ET, religious beliefs, understanding the nature of science, and understanding of scientific theories. Here, we examine publications for consistent relationships among constructs across studies and discuss the most commonly cited education strategies for teaching evolution in higher education. Based on the literature, we find that instruction has a significant and positive effect on acceptance and understanding of ET; acceptance and understanding, however, are not directly related. We also find that the relationship between acceptance of ET and religious beliefs is unclear and needs further research. Through reviewing 15 published studies, we find that the primary problems associated with undergraduate evolution education research are: small sample size, varying methodologies, lack of statistical analysis, inappropriate use of constructs, and lack of continuity among studies. This review exposes the need for a unifying framework and development of experts in this field to investigate and understand the factors that affect evolution education at U.S. universities.     

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.     

Evolution and medicine in undergraduate education: a prescription for all biology students

The interface between evolutionary biology and the biomedical sciences promises to advance understanding of the origins of genetic and infectious diseases in humans, potentially leading to improved medical diagnostics, therapies, and public health practices. The biomedical sciences also provide unparalleled examples for evolutionary biologists to explore. However, gaps persist between evolution and medicine, for historical reasons and because they are often perceived as having disparate goals. Evolutionary biologists have a role in building a bridge between the disciplines by presenting evolutionary biology in the context of human health and medical practice to undergraduates, including premedical and preprofessional students. We suggest that students will find medical examples of evolution engaging. By making the connections between evolution and medicine clear at the undergraduate level, the stage is set for future health providers and biomedical scientists to work productively in this synthetic area. Here, we frame key evolutionary concepts in terms of human health, so that biomedical examples may be more easily incorporated into evolution courses or more specialized courses on evolutionary medicine. Our goal is to aid in building the scientific foundation in evolutionary biology for all students, and to encourage evolutionary biologists to join in the integration of evolution and medicine.     

Belief versus acceptance: Why do people not believe in evolution?

Despite being an established and accepted scientific theory for 150 years, repeated public polls show that evolution is not believed by large numbers of people. This essay examines why people do not accept evolution and argues that its poor representation in some science textbooks allows misconceptions, established and reinforced in early childhood, to take hold. There is also a lack of up‐to‐date examples of evidence for evolution in school textbooks. Poor understanding by science graduates and teachers of the nature of science and incorrect definitions by them of key terminology, serve only to undermine efforts to improve public understanding of evolution. This paper has several recommendations, including the introduction of evolution to primary age children and a call to bring evolution back as the central tenet of biology.     

Science and the Concept of Evolution: From the Big Bang to the Origin and Evolution of Life

The common thread of evolution runs through all science disciplines, and the concept of evolution enables students to better understand the nature of the universe and our origins. “Science and the Concept of Evolution” is one of two interdisciplinary science Core courses taken by Dowling College undergraduates as part of their General Education requirements. The course examines basic principles and methods of science by following the concept of evolution from the big bang to the origin and evolution of life. Case studies of leading scientists illustrate how their ideas developed and contributed to the evolution of our understanding of the world. Evidences for physical, chemical, and biological evolution are explored, and students learn to view the evolution of matter and of ideas as a natural process of change over space and time.     

A mechanism and its metaphysics: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science

The claim that conceptual systems change is a platitude. That our conceptual systems are theory-laden is no less platitudinous. Given evolutionary theory, biologists are led to divide up the living world into genes, organisms, species, etc. in a particular way. No theory-neutral individuation of individuals or partitioning of these individuals into natural kinds is possible. Parallel observations should hold for philosophical theories about scientific theories. In this paper I summarize a theory of scientific change which I set out in considerable detail in a book that I shall publish in the near future. Just as few scientists were willing to entertain the view that species evolve in the absence of a mechanism capable of explaining this change, so philosophers should be just as reticent about accepting a parallel view of conceptual systems in science evolving in the absence of a mechanism to explain this evolution. In this paper I set out such a mechanism. One reason that this task has seemed so formidable in the past is that we have all construed conceptual systems inappropriately. If we are to understand the evolution of conceptual systems in science, we must interpret them as forming lineages related by descent. In my theory, the notion of a family resemblance is taken literally, not metaphorically. In my book, I set out data to show that the mechanism which I propose is actually operative. In this paper, such data is assumed.I wish to thank both Michael Ruse and Ronald Giere for suggesting improvements in an early draft of this paper. This paper is an abstract of a very long book. The number of people who helped me in developing the ideas set out in this book is extremely large, so large that I decided to defer expressing my gratitude to them until its appearance.     

The Role of Intuitive Ontologies in Scientific Understanding – the Case of Human Evolution

Psychological evidence suggests that laypeople understand the world around them in terms of intuitive ontologies which describe broad categories of objects in the world, such as ‘person’, ‘artefact’ and ‘animal’. However, because intuitive ontologies are the result of natural selection, they only need to be adaptive; this does not guarantee that the knowledge they provide is a genuine reflection of causal mechanisms in the world. As a result, science has parted ways with intuitive ontologies. Nevertheless, since the brain is evolved to understand objects in the world according to these categories, we can expect that they continue to play a role in scientific understanding. Taking the case of human evolution, we explore relationships between intuitive ontological and scientific understanding. We show that intuitive ontologies not only shape intuitions on human evolution, but also guide the direction and topics of interest in its research programmes. Elucidating the relationships between intuitive ontologies and science may help us gain a clearer insight into scientific understanding.     

High-school students in university research labs? Implementing an outreach model based on the ‘science as inquiry’ approach

In this study we designed, implemented, and evaluated an outreach programme for high-school biology students rooted in the ‘science as inquiry’ approach. Accordingly, students learn about science from experts in the field, as well as through in-class exposure to the history and philosophy of science. Our sample consisted of 11th graders (n?=?497), ages 16–17, attending advanced biology classes. Our goal was to determine whether this programme had a significant effect on students’ understanding of the ‘nature of science’ (NOS) and on their attitudes towards science. Using a controlled pre-post research design, we asked participants to complete a Likert-like questionnaire. Also, we conducted post-programme semi-structured interviews with 35 of the participants. Results show that completion of the programme significantly enhanced participants’ NOS understanding and improved their attitudes towards science. Participants expressed a deep level of NOS understanding and explicitly stated that the field visits to experts’ labs had changed their attitude towards science. We believe that our outreach programme can be adapted for teaching other sciences and for societies worldwide, as long as there is access to university laboratories and researchers willing to interact with young citizens and potential future scientists.     

Scientific Authority in the Creation–Evolution Debates

At the heart of debates among creationists and evolutionists are questions about scientific integrity and rigor. Creationists often justify their rejection of biological evolution by claiming that the methodologies and interpretations of evolutionary scientists are flawed. A consideration of creationists’ critiques of the scientific data, however, reveals a deficient understanding and appreciation of the nature of the scientific process. It is essential that our schools educate students about the character of scientific inquiry. Clarifying the nature and limitation of scientific knowledge for our students will equip our students to evaluate evolutionary or creationist arguments critically. Recognizing and teaching both the strengths and limitations of the scientific process will do much to further the ongoing dialogue between science and religion.     

Students’ Mental Models of Evolutionary Causation: Natural Selection and Genetic Drift

In an effort to understand how to improve student learning about evolution, a focus of science education research has been to document and address students?? naive ideas. Less research has investigated how students reason about alternative scientific models that attempt to explain the same phenomenon (e.g., which causal model best accounts for evolutionary change?). Within evolutionary biology, research has yet to explore how non-adaptive factors are situated within students?? conceptual ecologies of evolutionary causation. Do students construct evolutionary explanations that include non-adaptive and adaptive factors? If so, how are non-adaptive factors structured within students?? evolutionary explanations? We used clinical interviews and two paper and pencil instruments (one open-response and one multiple-choice) to investigate the use of non-adaptive and adaptive factors in undergraduate students?? patterns of evolutionary reasoning. After instruction that included non-adaptive causal factors (e.g., genetic drift), we found them to be remarkably uncommon in students?? explanatory models of evolutionary change in both written assessments and clinical interviews. However, consistent with many evolutionary biologists?? explanations, when students used non-adaptive factors they were conceptualized as causal alternatives to selection. Interestingly, use of non-adaptive factors was not associated with greater understanding of natural selection in interviews or written assessments, or with fewer naive ideas of natural selection. Thus, reasoning using non-adaptive factors appears to be a distinct facet of evolutionary thinking. We propose a theoretical framework for an expert?Cnovice continuum of evolutionary reasoning that incorporates both adaptive and non-adaptive factors, and can be used to inform instructional efficacy in evolutionary biology.     

We're Going on a Fossil Hunt!

Scientists understand that scientific ideas are subject to change and improvement. Fourth- through eighth- graders develop this understanding about the nature of science as they gather and examine fossil evidence from the Paleozoic era, record their findings, and read and write about science for authentic purposes as scientists do. Students recognize the tentative nature of science and experience differences in interpretation of evidence. Students also learn that scientists use writing and sketching as tools of inquiry.     

Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education

Abstract.— In the past decade, the academic community has increased considerably its activity concerning the teaching and learning of evolution. Despite such beneficial activity, the state of public understanding of evolution is considered woefully lacking by most researchers and educators. This lack of understanding affects evolution/science literacy, research, and academia in general. Not only does the general public lack an understanding of evolution but so does a considerable proportion of college graduates. However, it is not just evolutionary concepts that students do not retain. In general, college students retain little of what they supposedly have learned. Worse yet, it is not just students who have avoided science and math who fail to retain fundamental science concepts. Students who have had extensive secondary-level and college courses in science have similar deficits. We examine these issues and explore what distinguishes effective pedagogy from ineffective pedagogy in higher education in general and evolution education in particular. The fundamental problem of students' prior conceptions is considered and why prior conceptions often underpin students' misunderstanding of the evolutionary concepts being taught. These conceptions can often be discovered and addressed. We also attend to concerns about coverage of course content and the influence of religious beliefs, and provide helpful strategies to improve college-level teaching of evolution.     

Preservice Teacher Understanding and Vision of how to Teach Biological Evolution

The learning and teaching of biological evolution is conceptually challenging. To fully comprehend evolution, it is posited that individuals also need to understand the roles that the nature of science and situations of chance play in the process. The consistent detection of misconceptions of evolution suggests that new approaches to increasing understanding need to be explored. I predicted that preservice teachers’ ideas for teaching biological evolution could be influenced by three brief web-based interventions, one focused on the common misconceptions of evolution, one on the nature of science, and one on situations of uncertainty in the context of evolution. An experimental group received a combination of the three web-based tutorials while a control group received the misconceptions and nature of science instruction and a time on task filler tutorial. Participants were directed to develop a lesson idea applying the knowledge they learned from the tutorials. The lesson ideas were examined for evidence of the influence of the web-based instruction, participant understanding and misconceptions of concepts, and their ideas about teaching evolution. The results of this study revealed that the participating preservice teachers held a wide range of conception and misconception of evolution, were somewhat influenced by the tutorials, and had an array of visions for teaching evolution. The outcomes support the need for further investigation into the multifaceted nature of preparing preservice teachers to teach evolution.     

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.     

An international study ofyoung peoples' drawings of what is inside themselves

This paper reviews the question of why the presentation of evolution in class frequently does not achieve acceptance of the evolutionary theory. In general, problems are twofold. Firstly, students may come to this particular topic with strong preconceptions, often based on specific religious teachings. Secondly, teachers may or may not bring an informed and/or dedicated approach to the teaching of evolution, relating to what they themselves were taught. Additional to our review of this topic and its problems, we suggest the use of a simple ‘test’ formulated, not on trying to impose knowledge and belief of evolution on the student, but on directing students towards the application of information on evolution to material already familiar to them. In this process, it is hoped that students will naturally incorporate at least some of the ideas of evolution into their own belief systems. Students are thus encouraged to assess or reassess evolution in terms of what they already consider to be true from their own experiences. Preliminary results (two trial runs) using this questionnaire indicate that students readily apply information with which they are familiar to Darwinian principles, and vice versa. These results, including verbal and written comments, also suggest that this ‘test’ may be meaningful as a first step towards acceptance of evolutionary theory. Teachers may find our questionnaire useful in determining a student's ability to understand evolutionary theory, and in exploring connections between understanding of and belief in evolution. Reviewed by Will H. Blackwell     

生物进化研究的回顾与展望

生物进化是自然科学的永恒之迷。随着历史的发展和科学的进步,生物进化思想从早期的萌芽,到自然选择学说、新达尔文主义,从现代综合理论,到分子进化的中性学说。再到新灾变论和点断平衡论等。当前,由于生物学各分支学科的飞速发展．它们就各自的研究对象在宏观和微观上不断地拓展和深入,并在不同的层次上形成了广泛的交叉、渗透和融合,现代的进化生物学研究从宏观的表型到微观的分子,从群体遗传改变的微进化到成种事件以及地史上生物类群谱系演化的宏进化,从直接的化石证据到基于形态性状、分子证据和环境变迁的综合推理,从基于遗传基础的比较基因组学到演化机理的进化发育生物学等。可以预见,在新的世纪里,在哲学和具体方法论(如系统论、控制论和信息论)的指导下,在生命科学、其他自然科学乃至社会科学工作者的通力合作下,综合遗传、发育和进化等研究领域的各种理论成果,生物进化理论即将出现也一定会出现的一个新的大综合和新的大统一。     

Individuals and the evolution of biological and cultural systems

Recently, it has been suggested that anthropologists could more effectively build scientific theories of cultural evolution by reference to biology rather than social science. In this way, the evolution of cultures might be more usefully viewed as an anolog to the evolution of species. In systematic biology, however, the nature of species continues to be the subject of a long-standing duality of thought. This duality is analogous to the longstanding conflict in anthropology over the nature of culture. We argue, by analogy to Michael Ghiselin’s work on species, that a culture is an individual, not a class, and that cultures, like other individual entities, evolve. This view is highly concordant with concepts of culture formulated in earlier decades of this century. It has also been the philosophical orientation of American archaeology for approximately the last 25 years. We conclude that both biology and anthropology have an equal potential of contributing to a general evolutionary theory.