Introduction
In February this year, Moore and Cotner (2009) published in The American Biology Teacher the results of a college student survey that revealed the continuing chasm between evolution theory and creationism in the high school science classroom. The authors are Distinguished Teaching Professor of Biology and Associate Professor of Teaching (Biology Programs), respectively, at the University of Minnesota, whence they drew a sample of 1,000 Biology and non-Biology majors (from all those taking introductory Biology courses) for the recall survey.
The Facts
The two fundamental findings of the study are that: a) no better than two-thirds of students could report that only evolution was taught in their high school biology courses; and, b) from 11% to 41% of respondents consequently believed in something other than pure evolution to explain the physical characteristics of modern-day man, animals and plants.
The findings did not differ, either statistically or in any meaningful way, between Biology majors and those taking up other courses.
Why This is a Problem
Being educators primarily concerned with preparing college students to teach biology with a purist focus on biological anthropology, Moore and Cotner are unreservedly dismayed by these findings since, they hold, teaching creationism is illegal, conflicts entirely with evolution science, and is likely to perpetuate mixed teaching for a segment of high school students in the future.
The authors point out that the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard overturned attempts by creationists to include anything other than Darwinian theory in public school science classes. The plaintiff Aguillard had brought suit against Gov. Edwards of Louisiana because of a law passed by the state legislature (the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act”) requiring teachers to incorporate creation science with evolution.
Less than a decade later, in 2005, biological anthropologists had reason to hail another court decision that struck down attempts by creationists to have their own textbooks advancing “intelligent design” and advocating that this be adopted in schools alongside regular, evolution-focused science textbooks. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs who argued that intelligent design creationism was a patent attempt to introduce religious beliefs yet again.
The second point of Moore and Cotner, that creationism is wholly incompatible with the theory of evolution, is definitely borne out by their study findings. By using Rutledge and Sadler’s (2007) Measure of the Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) as their study instrument, the authors showed their willingness to learn whether University of Minnesota students believed what they had been exposed to in high school. The results (Table 1) speak for themselves.
Further, the extracts shown from the 20 items that comprise MATE suggest that biology majors differ not at all from those pursuing other courses. For instance, from 13% to 22% of both student groups disagreed with the statement “modern organisms are the product of evolutionary processes that have occurred over millions of years,” a core tenet of evolution science. From 11% to 14% also affirmed that evolution theory could not possibly be true since it conflicts with the Biblical account of creation.
One concedes that these non-believers in evolution are in the minority. Moore and Cotner worry about this state of affairs because they believe all high school science teachers should teach only evolution. Regardless, as well, of whether a number of college students might change their beliefs as they proceed through more advanced biology courses, the survey findings do not bode well for changing the finding of Bandoli (2008) that one in six biology teachers admit to being “young-earth” creationists, the belief that God created the universe a scant 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Moore and Kraemer (2005) also found that 15% to 30% of teachers believed creationism has scientific validity and therefore include the concept in their teaching.
The Alternative Viewpoint
The debate is far from dead. Moore and Cotner should not have been surprised at encountering college students who had been exposed to creationism alone or both views of the origin of man. After all, Edwards v. Aguillard effectively barred religious inroads only in public schools but left private independent schools, home schools, Sunday schools and Christian schools free to teach any mix of evolution, creationism and other theories they preferred.
It is easy to blame parents and administrators for putting pressure on biology teachers to at least acknowledge the Biblical creation account. But this is only part of the story. There is a deep religiosity in the American psyche. For instance, Moore himself could not fail to note that nearly half of Americans surveyed by Gallup in 1982 affirmed their belief in a form of young-earth creationism: that God made man in his image sometime in the last ten millennia. In five more surveys taken up to 2004, the beliefs of the populace did not change. At last count, no less than 45% of poll participants were in accord with this tenet of young-earth creationism (YEC) while just one-third (38%) believed in “theistic evolution” (man evolved over millions of years from elemental life forms but God guided this process) and a comparatively paltry 13% put their faith in pure evolution theory. A 2005 Pew Research poll revealed that 42% had an abiding belief in YEC (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2009).
Such belief in divine intervention rests partly on the fact that evolution explains the process of adaptation and change but offers no answers about the origin of life. The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment did produce organic molecules in a “primordial soup” of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. However, later studies contended that the earth’s atmosphere at the beginning of time may not have been composed of reductant molecules, after all. As well, the two researchers subjected the “soup” to continuous electrical impulses for which the closest substitute in earth’s early atmosphere, random lightning bolts, is an imperfect replication. Finally, there is the question of how the transition came about from organic molecules to cellular, living organisms (White, 2007).
Finally, against the 72 Nobel prize-winning scientists, 17 state science academies, and 7 scientific organizations that filed affidavits of support in Edwards v. Aguillard, we can only ponder the points raised by these great skeptics, including Darwin himself (Truth.ca, n.d.):
Charles Darwin: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.”
Albert Einstein: “Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses. Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”
Stephen Hawking on the reason for proposing “designoids”: “The universe and the Laws of Physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist” (Austin American-Statesmen, October 19, 1997).
References
- Bandoli, J.H. (2008). Do state science standards matter? The American Biology Teacher, 70(4), 212-216.
- Moore, R. & Cotner, S. (2009). Rejecting Darwin: The occurrence & impact of creationism in high school biology classrooms. BioScience, 59 (5): 429-435.
- Moore, R. & Kraemer, K. (2005). The teaching of evolution and creationism in Minnesota. The American Biology Teacher, 67(8), 457-466.
- Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (2009). Results of public opinion polls on evolution and creation science.
- Rutledge, M. L. & Sadler, K. C. (2007). Reliability of the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) instrument with university students. The American Biology Teacher, 69(6): 332-335.
- Scott E.C. & Matzke, N.J. (2007). Biological design in science classrooms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104 Suppl 1: 8669–76.
- Truths.ca (n.d.) Scientist’s are admitting that the theory of evolution simply does not and cannot explain the origin of the earth.