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.
- Brumfield, G (2005) Who has designs on your students’ minds. Nature 434: pp. 1062-1065 CrossRef
- Dawkins, R (2004) The ancestor’s tale. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston
- Ernst, JD, Trevejo-Nuñez, G, Banaiee, N (2007) Genomics and the evolution, pathogenesis, and diagnosis of tuberculosis. J Clin Invest. 117: pp. 1738-1745 CrossRef
- Forrest, B, Gross, RP (2004) Creationism’s Trojan Horse: the wedge of intelligent design. Oxford University Press, New York
- Gould, SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge
- Grant, PR, Grant, BR (2006) Evolution of character displacement in Darwin’s finches. Science 313: pp. 224-226 CrossRef
- Kitzmiller et al. versus Dover Area School District et al.; http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_342.pdf; 2005.
- Lecointre, G, Guyader, H (2007) The Tree of Life, a phylogenetic classification. Belknap, Cambridge
- Lewin, R, Foley, RA (2004) Principles of human evolution. Blackwell, Malden
- Mayr, E (2001) What evolution is. Basic Books, New York
- McKee, JK, Poirier, FE, McGraw, WS (2005) Understanding human evolution. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
- Miller, KR (2007) Falling over the edge. Nature 447: pp. 1055-1056 CrossRef
- National Science Foundation. Science and technology: public attitudes and understanding. In: Science and engineering indicators, chapter 7; 2006. p. 7.1–7.46.
- Petto AJ, Godfrey LR, editors. Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism. New York: Norton; 2007
- Roger Williams University Fact Book 2007–2008. Office of Institutional Research, p. 5–13.
- Stringer, C, Andrews, P (2005) The complete world of human evolution. Thames & Hudson, London
- The Gallup Poll. Evolution, creationism, intelligent design. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=21814&pg=1; 2007.
- US National Science Teachers Association. Survey indicates science teachers feel pressure to teach nonscientific alternatives to evolution. http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2005_03_28_pressrelease.htm; 2005.
- Young M, Taner E, editors. Why intelligent design fails: a scientific critique of the new creationism. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2004.
- Assessment of Biology Majors’ Versus Nonmajors’ Views on Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Evolution: Education and Outreach
Volume 2, Issue 1 , pp 75-83
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Intelligent design
- College education