Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proponents of Creationism but not Proponents of Evolution Frame the Origins Debate in Terms of Proof

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Study 1, 72 internet documents containing creationism, ID (intelligent design), or evolution content were selected for analysis. All instances of proof cognates (the word “proof” and related terms such as “proven”, “disproof”, etc.) contained within these documents were identified and labeled in terms of the manner in which the terms were used. In Study 2, frequency counts for six terms (proof, evidence, establish, experiment, test, trial) were conducted on a sample of peer-reviewed research articles in the journal Science and the 72 internet documents included in Study 1. Quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed that proponents of creationism were much more likely than proponents of evolution to frame the creationism/evolution issue in terms of proof (ID proponents fell partway between the other two). Proponents of creationism frequently described empirical data favoring their position as proof of their position. Even more frequently, proponents of creationism described evolutionary scientists as being engaged in failed attempts to prove the truth of the evolutionary position. Evolution documents included fewer proof cognates than creationism or ID documents and the few proof cognates found in evolution documents were rarely used to describe the status of the theory of evolution. Qualitative data analysis indicated that proof cognates were often used to indicate certainty. The asymmetry between evolution and creationism documents was limited primarily to proof cognates; there were no major asymmetries for the terms evidence, establish, experiment, test, and trial. The results may reveal differences in the epistemological commitments of the involved parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example Eckberg and Nesterenko (1985), Evans (2000, 2001), Page and Clelland (1978), Sinclair and Baldwin (1995), Sinclair et al. (1997).

  2. See for instance Johnson and Peebles (1987), Scharmann (1990), Sinatra et al. (2003), Southerland (2000).

  3. See for instance Klaczynski et al. (1997), Klaczynski and Lavallee (2005), Klaczynski and Robinson (2000), Sá et al. (1999), Stanovich and West (1997), West et al. (2008).

  4. For example Antolin and Herbers (2001), Cracraft (1982), Isaak (2005), Wise (1998).

  5. Content that did not meet our inclusion criterion for data analysis (e.g. data labeled NA. see Sect. 2.1) was not included in the calculation of the inter-rater reliability.

  6. See for instance Kardash and Scholes (1996), Klaczynski and Lavallee (2005), Sá et al. (1999), Schommer (1990, 1993), Stanovich and West (1997), West et al. (2008).

  7. See for instance Aguirre et al. (1990), Eve and Dunn (1990), Johnson and Peebles (1987), Zimmerman (1991), but see also Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998) and Chan and Elliot (2002).

  8. Unlike all the other examples we have presented, examples 22 through 24 are not exact quotes taken from the source materials. For the sake of clarity, examples 22 through 24 are paraphrased versions claims found in the source materials.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student-teachers’ conceptions of science, teaching and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12(4), 381–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antolin, M. F., & Herbers, J. M. (2001). Evolution’s struggle for existence in America’s public schools. Evolution, 55(12), 2379–2388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: A look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85(4), 473–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branch, G. (2009). Creationism as a global phenomenon. In R. H. Robbins & M. N. Cohen (Eds.), Darwin and the Bible: The cultural confrontation (pp. 137–209). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1027–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, S. N. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 814–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students’ domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. A. (1990). Scientific discovery and rhetorical invention: The path to Darwin’s origin. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry (pp. 58–91). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. A. (1995). Topics, tropes, and tradition: Darwin’s reinvention and subversion of the argument to design. In H. Krips, J. E. McGuire, & T. Melia (Eds.), Science, reason, and rhetoric (pp. 211–235). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. A. (1997). Charles Darwin: Rhetoritician of science. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 3–18). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K., & Elliot, R. G. (2002). Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Cultural perspectives and implications on beliefs research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 392–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft, J. (1982). The scientific response to creationism. Science, Technology and Human Values, 7(40), 79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duhem, P. (1954). Aim and structure of physical theory (Philip P. Wiener, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Eckberg, D. L., & Nesterenko, A. (1985). For and against evolution: Religion, social class, and the symbolic universe. The Social Science Journal, 22(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 19–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42(3), 217–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eve, R. A., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology & creationism in the classroom? Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology & life science teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 52(1), 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, B. (2008). Still creationism after all these years: Understanding and counteracting intelligent design. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregoire, G. M., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haarscher, G. (2009). Perelman’s pseudo-argument as applied to the creationism controversy. Argumentation, 23(3), 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedegaard, M. (1996). How instruction influences children’s concepts of evolution. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(1), 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, C. (1874). Systematic theology (Vol. 1). New York: Scribner, Armstrong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, M. J. S. (1977). The structure and strategy of Darwin’s long argument. British Journal of the History of Science, 10(3), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovenkamp, H. (1978). Science and religion in America 1800–1860. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1975). Enquiries concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press (original work published in 1748).

  • Isaak, M. (2005). The counter-creationism handbook. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. L., & Peebles, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in college: Student acceptance of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 49(2), 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. (2005). Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).

  • Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, P. A., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaczynski, P. A., & Aneja, A. (2002). The development of quantitative reasoning and gender biases. Developmental Psychology, 38, 208–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, D. H., & Fauth, J. (1997). Goal-oriented critical reasoning and individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 470–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaczynski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-biased reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15, 400–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). How well do jurors reason? Competence dimensions of individual variation in a juror reasoning task. Psychological Science, 5(5), 289–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E. (1999). A scientific approach to teaching about evolution and special creation. American Biology Teacher, 61(4), 266–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skills, prior knowledge, prior belief, and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovely, E. C., & Kondrick, L. C. (2008). Teaching evolution: Challenging religious preconceptions. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 164–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyne, J., & Howe, H. F. (1997). “Punctuated equilibria”: Rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 69–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2002). Developing epistemological thinking to foster conceptual changes in different domains. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Conceptual change reconsidered. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 301–336). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (2003). Personal epistemologies and intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 199–236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 165–196). Oxford, England: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Sciricia, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okomoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noll, M. (1994). The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Numbers, R. L. (1998). Darwinism comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford English Dictionary Online, 3rd ed., n. “proof”. http://www.oed.com/. Accessed 2 Feb 2012.

  • Page, A. L., & Clelland, D. A. (1978). The Kanawha County textbook controversy: A study of the politics of life style concern. Social Forces, 57(1), 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (1996). Naturalism, evidence, and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy, 11(4), 543–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (2009). Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion? Demarcation revisited. In R. T. Pennock & M. Ruse (Eds.), But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy (rev ed., pp. 536–577). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the Nature of Science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 282–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. H. (1988). Darwinism and the divine in America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1995). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubba, P., & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rukavina, I., & Daneman, M. (1996). Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 272–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sá, W., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann, L. C. (1990). Enhancing an understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of a diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90(2), 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, A., & Baldwin, B. (1995). Biology students’ beliefs about evolutionary theory and religion. Research in the Schools, 2(2), 31–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, A., Pendarvis, M. P., & Baldwin, B. (1997). The relationship between college zoology students’ beliefs about evolutionary theory and religion. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 30(2), 118–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science? A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 83, 493–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southerland, S. A. (2000). Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science & Education, 9(3), 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southerland, S. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Learning about biological evolution: A special case of intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 317–345). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stempien, R., & Coleman, S. (1985). Processes of persuasion: The case of creation science. Review of Religious Research, 27(2), 169–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, S. (1844). A discourse of the Baconian philosophy. Frederick City, MD: Ezekiel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, R. M. (1997). Dialectic and rhetoric at Dayton, Tennessee. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 107–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, D. U. (1998). Creationism’s geologic time scale. American Scientist, 86, 160–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. (1991). The evolution-creation controversy: Opinions of Ohio school board presidents. Science Education, 75(2), 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dan Drebing who helped us code the position of the author for each document. We would also like to thank Glenn Branch at the National Center for Science Education who provided detailed feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge the financial support of Haverford College.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Haverford College, Haverford, USA

    Ralph M. Barnes & Rebecca A. Church

  2. 17 Fariston Road, Wayne, PA, 19087, USA

    Rebecca A. Church

  3. 960 Main St., Conneaut, OH, 44030, USA

    Ralph M. Barnes

Authors
  1. Ralph M. Barnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca A. Church
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralph M. Barnes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barnes, R.M., Church, R.A. Proponents of Creationism but not Proponents of Evolution Frame the Origins Debate in Terms of Proof. Sci & Educ 22, 577–603 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9451-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9451-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation