Science & Education

, Volume 19, Issue 6–8, pp 625–636 | Cite as

Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to Accepting Evolution by Natural Selection



Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology, but is resisted by many people. This paper discusses the major psychological obstacles to accepting Darwin’s theory. Cognitive obstacles to adopting evolution by natural selection include conceptual difficulties, methodological issues, and coherence problems that derive from the intuitiveness of alternative theories. The main emotional obstacles to accepting evolution are its apparent conflict with valued beliefs about God, souls, and morality. We draw on the philosophy of science and on a psychological theory of cognitive and emotional belief revision to make suggestions about what can be done to improve acceptance of Darwinian ideas.



This research has been supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We thank David Rudge, Kostas Kampourakis, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments.


  1. Anderson, R. D. (2007). Teaching the theory of evolution in social, intellectual, and pedagogical context. Science Education 91, 664–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackwell, W. H., Powell, M. J., & Dukes, G. H. (2003). The problem of student acceptance of evolution. Journal of Biological Education, 37, 58–67.Google Scholar
  3. Breakenridge, R. (2008). What is it about evolution theory that Albertans don’t get? Calgary Herald, from Accessed 13 Aug 2009.
  4. Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education 87, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. R. (2001). Who rules in science? An opinionated guide to the wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bunge, M. (2003). Emergence and convergence: Qualitative novelty and the unity of knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research in conceptual change (pp. 61–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Deniz, H., Donnelly, L. A., & Yilmaz, I. (2008). Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 420–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett, D. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, E. M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 263–294). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Gould, S. J. (1999). Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  14. Hacking, I. (1975). The emergence of probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hokayem, H., & BouJaoude, S. (2008). College students perceptions of the theory of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 395–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2008). Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education, 17, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory unification. Philosophy of Science, 48, 507–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated inference. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Science communication. Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  24. Popper, K. (1978). Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica, 32, 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Preson, J., & Epley, N. (2009). Science and God: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ranney, M., & Thanukos, A. (2009). Accepting evolution or creation in people, critters, plants, and classrooms: The maelstrom of American cognition about biological change. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Evolution, epistemology, and science education. Milton Park: Routledge (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  27. Richardson, R. C. (2007). Evolutionary psychology as maladapted psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Schank, P., & Ranney, M. (1992). Assessing explanatory coherence: A new method for integrating verbal data with models of on-line belief revision Proceedings of the fourteenth annual conference of the cognitive Science society (pp. 599–604). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naive and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 170–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shtulman, A., & Schulz, L. (2008). The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32, 1049–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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, 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and evolution: The logic behind the science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Steinhardt, P. J., & Turok, N. (2007). Endless universe: Beyond the big bang. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  35. Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Thagard, P. (1999). How scientists explain disease. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Thagard, P. (2000). Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Thagard, P. (2003). Why wasn’t O. J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference. Cognition and Emotion, 17(36), 1–383.Google Scholar
  40. Thagard, P. (2006). Hot thought: Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Thagard, P. (2008). Conceptual change in the history of science: Life, mind, and disease. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 374–387). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Thagard, P. (2009). Evolution, creation, and the philosophy of science. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Evolution, epistemology, and science education. Milton Park: Routledge (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  43. Thagard, P. (2010). The brain and the meaning of life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Thagard, P., & Aubie, B. (2008). Emotional consciousness: A neural model of how cognitive appraisal and somatic perception interact to produce qualitative experience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 811–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thagard, P., & Findlay, S. (2009). Changing minds about climate change: Belief revision, coherence, and emotion. In E. Olsson (Ed.), Science in flux: Belief revision in the context of scientific inquiry. Berlin: Springer (forthcoming).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations