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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
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.
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.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Antolin, M. F., & Herbers, J. M. (2001). Evolution’s struggle for existence in America’s public schools. Evolution, 55(12), 2379–2388.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228.
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.
Cracraft, J. (1982). The scientific response to creationism. Science, Technology and Human Values, 7(40), 79–85.
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.
Evans, E. M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 19–52.
Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42(3), 217–266.
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.
Forrest, B. (2008). Still creationism after all these years: Understanding and counteracting intelligent design. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 189–201.
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.
Haarscher, G. (2009). Perelman’s pseudo-argument as applied to the creationism controversy. Argumentation, 23(3), 361–373.
Hedegaard, M. (1996). How instruction influences children’s concepts of evolution. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(1), 11–24.
Hodge, C. (1874). Systematic theology (Vol. 1). New York: Scribner, Armstrong.
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.
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.
Hovenkamp, H. (1978). Science and religion in America 1800–1860. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
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.
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79(2), 147–166.
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.
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.
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.
King, P. A., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Klaczynski, P. A., & Aneja, A. (2002). The development of quantitative reasoning and gender biases. Developmental Psychology, 38, 208–221.
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.
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.
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.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328.
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.
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.
Lawson, A. E. (1999). A scientific approach to teaching about evolution and special creation. American Biology Teacher, 61(4), 266–274.
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.
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.
Lovely, E. C., & Kondrick, L. C. (2008). Teaching evolution: Challenging religious preconceptions. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 164–174.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mason, L., & Sciricia, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.
Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okomoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Noll, M. (1994). The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Numbers, R. L. (1998). Darwinism comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
Pennock, R. T. (1996). Naturalism, evidence, and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy, 11(4), 543–549.
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.
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.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
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.
Roberts, J. H. (1988). Darwinism and the divine in America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1995). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5–30.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.
Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406–411.
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.
Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
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.
Sinclair, A., & Baldwin, B. (1995). Biology students’ beliefs about evolutionary theory and religion. Research in the Schools, 2(2), 31–38.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Southerland, S. A. (2000). Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science & Education, 9(3), 289–307.
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.
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.
Stempien, R., & Coleman, S. (1985). Processes of persuasion: The case of creation science. Review of Religious Research, 27(2), 169–177.
Tyler, S. (1844). A discourse of the Baconian philosophy. Frederick City, MD: Ezekiel.
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.
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.
Wise, D. U. (1998). Creationism’s geologic time scale. American Scientist, 86, 160–173.
Zimmerman, M. (1991). The evolution-creation controversy: Opinions of Ohio school board presidents. Science Education, 75(2), 201–214.
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9451-y