Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Using a Reconciliation Module Leads to Large Gains in Evolution Acceptance

Using a Reconciliation Module Leads to Large Gains in Evolution Acceptance ARTICLE Using a Reconciliation Module Leads to Large Gains in Evolution Acceptance † † ‡ § John Lindsay, Adhieu Arok, Seth M. Bybee, Walter Cho, § † ∥ April Maskiewicz Cordero, Daniel G. Ferguson, Leontine L. Galante, † ¶ † † # Richard Gill, Mark Mann, Steven L. Peck, Cassidy L. Shively, Michael R. Stark, † @ †† Joshua A. Stowers, Michael Tenneson, Ethan R. Tolman,** Thomas Wayment, and Jamie L. Jensen * † ‡ # Department of Biology, Department of Biology, Monte L. Bean Museum, Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology, **Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, and †† § Comparative Arts and Letters, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602; Department of Biology and School of Theology and Christian Ministry, Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, CA 92106; School of Science and Engineering, Colorado Christian University, Lakewood, CO 80226; Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, Evangel University, Springfield, MO 65802 ABSTRACT Too many students reject the theory of evolution because they view it as incompatible with their religious beliefs. Some have argued that abandoning religious belief is the only way to help religious individuals accept evolution. Conversely, our data support that highlighting faith/evolution compatibility is an effective means to increase student ac - ceptance. We surveyed students enrolled in entry-level biology courses at four religious- ly affiliated institutions. At each university, teachers gave students a presentation that demonstrated potential compatibility between evolution and faith within the teachings of each university’s respective religious affiliation. Students were asked to evaluate their own beliefs about evolution both before and after this instruction. After instruction at each university, students showed significant gains in evolution acceptance without abandoning their religious beliefs. These results demonstrate that giving religious students the oppor- tunity to reconcile their religious beliefs with the theory of evolution under the influence of intentional instruction on the compatibility of belief and evolution can lead to increased evolution acceptance among religious students. INTRODUCTION From the perspective of some faith traditions, there is perhaps no greater cause of tension between faith and science than the theory of evolution. This tension has been Peggy Brickman, Monitoring Editor highlighted in various court cases over the past century and by certain religious activ- Submitted Apr 29, 2019; Revised Aug 28, 2019; ists protesting its inclusion in public school curricula (Hall and Woika, 2018). Recent Accepted Sep 13, 2019 polls have also shed light on the tension. In a 2017 survey, nearly 38% of Americans CBE Life Sci Educ December 1, 2019 18:ar58 responded that they still believe God created humans in their current state within the DOI:10.1187/cbe.19-04-0080 last 10,000 years (i.e., young Earth creationism; Gallup, 2017). This number is high *Address correspondence to: Jamie L. Jensen (jamie.jensen@byu.edu). compared with other developed countries such as Greece (29%; Pew Research Center, © 2019 J. Lindsay et al. CBE—Life Sciences 2016), Russia (26%; Pew Research Center, 2016), the United Kingdom (9%; YouGov, Education © 2019 The American Society for Cell 2017), and Canada (15%; YouGov, 2017). In the United States, a number of solutions Biology. This article is distributed by The have been proposed to address the problem of widespread rejection of evolution in American Society for Cell Biology under license religious populations. This paper discusses several approaches and then presents a from the author(s). It is available to the public promising solution to this persistent problem from the perspective of researchers under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License teaching evolution in religiously affiliated institutions. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-sa/3.0). Teaching That Evolution Rejection Is a Product of Ignorance “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell The first commonly used approach to evolution instruction is to view the conflict Biology®” are registered trademarks of The between religion and science with a “deficit model,” arguing that a lack of acceptance American Society for Cell Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, 1–11, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 1 J. Lindsay et al. of evolutionary theory is simply a result of a deficit of under - concepts” (see www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience standing or inadequate reasoning ability (e.g., Lawson and .aspx). Using this approach has generally proven effective in Weser, 1990; Honey, 2015). Unfortunately, weakly supported helping students increase both their understanding and accep- claims that rejection is a product of low subject aptitude con- tance of evolution (e.g., Cavallo and McCall, 2008; Cofré et al., tinue to propagate this simplistic deficit argument (Mead et al., 2017; Dunk et al., 2017). Thus, teaching an understanding of 2017), and highly recognized evolutionary biologists, most how science is conducted, and what it can and cannot explain, notably Richard Dawkins (1989), polemically employ this view: is an excellent starting point for increasing acceptance. “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stu- Offering a Reconciliation of Religion and Evolution pid or insane” (p. 34). Anecdotally, our experience has shown Although emphasizing the nature of science has been shown to that such polemical statements are unproductive in changing be generally effective at promoting acceptance, religious stu- attitudes toward acceptance of evolution. dents/individuals in particular still often perceive evolution acceptance as something opposed to faith claims (Lamoureux, Teaching Students the Facts 2008). This is exacerbated by the disparity between the reli- The second common approach promotes the idea that educat- gious beliefs of biology educators and those of students. Only ing students and teachers about the facts of evolution would ∼10% of evolutionary biologists self-report as religious (Graffin directly correlate with a resolution toward acceptance, that is, a and Provine, 2007), while 80% of the American population “resolution model” (e.g., Alles, 2001; Cherif et al., 2001; Farber, reports a belief in God (Pew Research Center, 2017). Clearly 2003; Legare et al., 2013; Yerky and Wilczynski, 2014). The there is a potential disconnect between educators and their results of research on this approach are conflicting and compli - audiences’ religious beliefs. This disconnect is also manifest in cated. Some studies have indicated a positive correlation studies that show that an individual’s religiosity—strong between knowledge and acceptance (e.g., Johnson and Pee- religious feeling or belief—is the most predictive factor of ples, 1987; Rutledge and Warden, 2000), while others indicate evolution acceptance (Dagher and BouJaoude, 1997; Hill, there is no correlation (e.g., Bishop and Anderson 1990; Brem 2014; Rissler et al., 2014). et al., 2003; Sinatra et al., 2003; Nehm and Schonfeld, 2007; One recent review offers ways to remedy this divide by out- Chinsamy and Plagányi, 2008; Hasan and Donnelly, 2011; lining six steps of “cultural competence” that can help educa- Mead et al., 2017). In one study, once demographic characteris- tors better teach evolution to religious students without under- tics including religion and political ideology were controlled for, mining religiosity (Barnes and Brownell, 2017). Their religious educational attainment was not a factor in evolution rejection cultural competence in evolution education (ReCCEE) frame- (Miller et al., 2006; Hill, 2014). However, four recent and work is grounded in existing research (see Table 2 of their paper robust studies have suggested a well-supported positive rela- for the literature base), and promotes six practices: 1) Acknowl- tionship between knowledge and acceptance (e.g., Rissler et al., edge that some students may see a conflict between evolution 2014; Glaze et al., 2015; Dunk et al., 2017; Weisberg et al., and their religious beliefs. 2) Discuss and encourage the explo- 2018). ration of students’ personal views on evolution and religion. While the data are inconclusive, it is reasonable to assume 3) Explain to students the bounded nature of science and differ- that knowledge plays some kind of interactive role in the accep- ent ways of knowing. 4) Explain that there are diverse view- tance of evolution. Although a good starting point, and likely a points on evolution and religion and that viewpoints are not necessary precursor to increasing acceptance, focusing only on restricted to atheistic evolution and special creationism. Discuss knowledge of evolution may not be sufficient to increase accep - the possibility of theistic evolution. 5) Highlight religious lead- tance among religious individuals. The relationship between ers and biologists who accept evolution. 6) Explicitly discuss knowledge and acceptance appears to be influenced by a the potential compatibility between evolution and religion. We number of other external factors, including religion, making it a build on Barnes and Brownell’s study, specifically step 6, which multifaceted issue. Religious beliefs and background (Dagher encourages professors to use potential compatibility to help and BouJaoude, 1997; Miller et al., 2006; Deniz et al., 2007), religious students come to accept evolution. This method (here- views about the nature of religion (Winslow et al., 2011), and after referred to as the “reconciliation module”) centers on edu- pressure from parents (Winslow et al., 2011) influence one’s cators providing religious students with potential religion- views of evolution. In fact, several studies agree that those who specific compatibility links between their respective religions hold a literal interpretation of scripture are more likely to reject and the theory of evolution. We suggest that this method will evolution (Berkman and Plutzer, 2010; Baker, 2013; Hill, 2014). lead to a significant increase in student acceptance of evolution without diminishing an individual’s religious conviction. We Emphasizing the Nature of Science echo the words of biologist E. O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Another approach to increase acceptance of evolution is to Prize winner, “Science and religion are the two most powerful focus on helping students develop a clear and precise under- forces in the world. Having them at odds … is not productive” standing of the nature of science. According to the National Sci- (PBS, 2007). ence Teachers Association, “Science is characterized by the sys- tematic gathering of information through various forms of MATERIALS AND METHODS direct and indirect observations and the testing of this informa- Informed Consent tion by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. Permission for this study was obtained from each institution’s The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of institutional review board. Students were informed of the naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those research and gave their consent to participate. 18:ar58, 2 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance Sample Population materials already existed) or designed (where materials did not Students were recruited from four religiously affiliated institu - previously exist) reconciliation modules that showed compati- tions for this study: Brigham Young University (BYU; affiliated bility between respective church doctrine and evolutionary with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Point theory and adapted them specifically to each university’s Loma Nazarene University (PLNU; affiliated with the Church of religious affiliation. The duration of each module and exactly the Nazarene), Colorado Christian University (CCU; an interde- what should be included were not prescribed. Some schools nominational Christian university), and Evangel University chose to create a 1-hour classroom-based module, while others (EU; affiliated with the Assemblies of God). BYU is a private developed a variety of shorter activities for both the classroom institution located in the western region of the United States and as homework spread out over the entire evolution unit. and founded in 1875. It has a total undergraduate enrollment Each unique implementation is described in the following sec- of 31,233 with an average grade point average (GPA) of 3.86 tions; however, the common focus for each module was provid- and an average American College Testing (ACT) score of 28.8 ing compatibility possibilities between their respective religions for incoming freshmen. PLNU is a private Christian liberal arts and the theory of evolution. institution, founded in 1902 and also located in the West. It has The National Center for Science Education (NCSE; 2019) a total undergraduate enrollment of 3150 with an incoming provides a continuum of possible religious and philosophical freshman average GPA of 3.79 and an average ACT score of 26. beliefs toward evolution and creation, including an explanation CCU is a private institution located in the West. It has an under- of the various positions. The five most common positions are graduate enrollment of 1393 with an average GPA of 3.68 and briefly defined here. Young Earth creationists (YEC) “reject the an average incoming freshman ACT score of 25. EU is a private conclusions of modern physics, astronomy, chemistry, and geol- comprehensive Christian university founded in 1955 and ogy concerning the age of Earth, and they deny biological located in the Midwest. It has a total undergraduate enrollment descent with modification. Earth, in their view, is between 6000 of 1,631 with an average GPA of 3.34 with an average incoming and 10,000 years old” (NCSE, 2019). Old Earth creationists freshman ACT score of 23. (OEC) “accept most of modern physics, chemistry, and geol- ogy,” acknowledging the scientific consensus about the age of Student Selection the Earth, but most reject large-scale biological evolution and These universities were selected due to the majority of stu- human evolution. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) “accept all the dents having religious backgrounds and a willingness of fac- results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well ulty to participate in the study. Students were enrolled in intro- as in astronomy, physics, and geology,” including human evolu- ductory biology courses that included both majors and tion. Their theological belief is that God creates through the nonmajors. This study was conducted during the Fall 2017 and laws of nature. Agnostic evolutionists accept all of the results Spring 2018 semesters. At each institution, varying numbers of from modern science, but claim that science cannot prove any- students participated, depending on how the instructor incen- thing about God’s existence. Alternately, atheistic evolutionists tivized the surveys (see Table 1). Unfortunately, at some insti- argue that science can provide an explanation for everything tutions, like CCU, incentive was low, attrition rates from the there is to know, and thus science proves there is no God course were high, and the post quantitative instrument admin- (Dawkins, 2008; Taylor, 2019). istration was delayed. Low response rates were likely due to a lack of incentive or simply a lack of time on the part of the BYU Module students, but it is also a possibility that the CCU sample is Denominational Information. BYU is affiliated with the Church biased: that is, those who had something negative to say were of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although the church has most likely to respond. As such, the remaining survey results had a somewhat undulating history of influential religious lead - were deleted from the quantitative analysis, although essay ers split on their opinions about evolution (for a review, see results were maintained. Evenson and Jeffery, 2005), the official teaching on evolution is neutral: “The Church has no official position on the theory of Reconciliation Modules evolution … Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution” In October 2017, BYU held a Roads to Reconciliation workshop (“What Does the Church Believe about Evolution?,” 2016, bringing together four teams from the four religiously affiliated p. 41). However, due to prominent religious authorities sharing institutions. Teams consisted of a university theologian or conflicting opinions over the years, a majority of church mem - scholar of religion, a university biologist, and a local commu- bers reject the theory (51% rejected human evolution as of nity pastor. During the workshop, each team discussed (where 2014; Pew Research Center, 2014). TABLE 1. Response rates from each institution Total Completed Have matched pre/ Have matched pre/ % Full participation survey/ enrollment pre surveys post surveys post essays essays BYU 144 117 75 101 52/70 PLNU 66 66 59 47 89/71 CCU 120 25 — 46 —/38 EU 29 29 23 23 79/79 TOTAL 359 237 157 217 44/60 BYU, Brigham Young University; PLNU, Point Loma Nazarene University; CCU, Colorado Christian University; EU, Evangel University. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 3 J. Lindsay et al. Major Objective. The major focus of the reconciliation mod- gic priorities are to “teach students how to learn, teach students ule at BYU is to help students become familiar with the to think for themselves, and to be a magnet for outstanding church’s official statements that there is no doctrine dismiss - students and prepare them for positions of significant leader - ing evolution. ship” (www.ccu.edu/About/strategic-priorities/). CCU does not have an official position on evolution or the pedagogy thereof. Methodology. The module was conducted in class during a 50-minute lecture period directly before the evolution Objectives. The university provides ample exposure to the multi- unit. We provided students with a copy of all official declara - tude of positions on evolution. This is done through a lecture tions of the church on evolution and human origins series that is held roughly once every 4 years in which speakers (referred to as the Evolution Packet, it can be accessed at representing a spectrum of positions toward the diversity of life BYU’s Biology website: https://brightspotcdn.byu.edu/0d/ on Earth present to students, faculty, staff, and the general public. cc/3094a8654f60b552fa97c3df9999/evolution-packet.pdf). We then allowed the students time to consider and then dis- Methodology. Within the School of Science and Engineering, sci- cuss what the scriptures say about creation, emphasizing a ence majors are exposed to the concepts of evolution during their figurative interpretation, and how this could potentially be freshman year through the introductory biology courses Biologi- compatible with the scientific account of evolution, including cal Principles and, subsequently, Biological Diversity. As an exclu- that of humans, allowing for openness and consideration of sively Christian faculty, during the introductory courses, instruc- flexible viewpoints (e.g., on human origins). The presentation tors teach predominantly that theistic evolution and Christian was given in a faith-friendly atmosphere by faculty who are faith are not mutually exclusive, while allowing room for discus- members of the faith. sion within this Christian framework. The reconciliation module served as an invaluable way to help open the door for discussion PLNU Module among these freshmen who had recently matriculated from a Denominational Information. PLNU is affiliated with the Church vast range of Christian backgrounds. It was taught directly before of the Nazarene, which embraces a doctrine of scripture allow- the evolution unit at the beginning of the semester. ing a wide breadth of interpretations regarding the relationship between scripture and scientific teachings, including evolution. EU Module For decades, science and theology faculty alike have been pro- Denominational Information. EU is the national university of vided great freedom to teach evolution, including human evolu- the Assemblies of God. While a stance on evolution is not a core tion, and affirm its continuity with Christian faith. However, the doctrine of the denomination, a creation position paper was majority of the students come from church backgrounds averse revised in 2010 and 2014 (https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics to such reconciliation. -Index/The-Doctrine-of-Creation). This paper states, “Any evo- lutionary theory, including theistic evolution/evolutionary cre- Objectives. The introductory biology courses have been imple- ationism, that claims all forms of life arose from a common menting strategies for students to reconcile evolution and faith ancestry is thereby ruled out.” However, Assemblies of God for many years. The goal is to expose students to multiple per- constituents hold diverse views on evolution (Tenneson and spectives on the relationship between scripture and creation, Badger, 2010). About half align with YEC, about a fourth to a and to enhance their appreciation for the broad spectrum of third align with OEC, and about 15% align with TE. Very few positions a Christian can hold. hold an agnostic evolution or atheistic evolution view. Methodology. The module spanned the length of the evolution Objectives. Integration of faith, life, and learning is a core value unit with the brief reconciliation activities introduced both in at EU. Consequently, students study origins from theological, class and as homework. Before the beginning of instruction on philosophical, and scientific perspectives simultaneously. In the evolution, the students read excerpts from the book Origins module, students were taught that deistic and atheistic evolu- (Haarsma and Haarsma, 2011), which allows the class to enter tion constructs clearly lie outside the domain of biblically con- a discussion with everyone at a similar starting point, under- servative Christianity (affirmation of biblical infallibility and standing that there are various positions people can hold. After inspiration). On the other hand, YEC, OEC, and evolutionary the instructor shares his or her own personal story reconciling creation are embraced by Christians who hold a high view of evolution and faith, the module incorporates reading, writing, scripture. While natural selection and subsequent evolutionary and discussion assignments that explore aspects of this conver- outcomes (a.k.a. microevolution) are not contested by informed sation. These assignments are designed to help students culti- members of this group, macroevolution and human evolution vate humility and charity toward others and alternate positions. are. Students explore the reasons for this and are provided with Our theology faculty teach their courses in Bible and Christian examples of conciliatory approaches. tradition in ways that seek to support and build on the goals of the biology faculty. Methodology. The module began with a discussion of data- driven decision making and civility. Civil discourse was mod- CCU Module eled from the beginning of the course in an attempt to make the Denominational Information. CCU is an interdenominational classroom environment a safe one to discuss potentially inflam - Christian university whose philosophy, while broadly evangeli- matory topics. The reconciliation module took place over the cal, seeks to nurture and develop each individual student’s per- first six classroom periods, based largely on the book Christian sonal Christian faith. Included in the 13 university-wide strate- Perspectives on Origins (Badger and Tenneson, 2014). Students 18:ar58, 4 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance also read and critiqued Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” come to their current viewpoint. They were given a target of or NOMA (Gould, 1997). Multiple class periods were spent ∼500 words. The second essay prompt asked them to re-evalu- exploring mainstream evolutionary theory and animal taxon- ate what they had written in the first prompt and to comment omy. When applicable, references were made to reconciliation on if and how their opinions of evolution had changed over the module components studied earlier in the semester. convening time since the first prompt. Again, they were given a target of ∼500 words. Experimental Design BYU, PLNU, and one instructor at CCU administered prompt To determine the effects of our reconciliation modules, we gath- 1 at the start of the evolution unit and prompt 2 at the end of ered data before and following implementation in the class- the semester. The other instructor at CCU administered prompt room. We used both qualitative (essays) and quantitative (sur- 1 just before the module and prompt 2 just after. EU adminis- veys) methods to gauge acceptance. In addition to determining tered prompt 1 at the beginning of the semester and prompt 2 changes in acceptance, data from the preinstruction instru- directly after the evolution unit. The timing of prompt 2 differed ments allowed us to identify potential predictors of initial between institutions due to the nature of the module (whether acceptance and of a change in acceptance with reconciliation. it was one class period or spread out within the evolution unit) and convenience of sampling times within the curricula. While Instruments some students may have been given additional time to contem- Demographic and Opinion Survey. For determining predictors plate reconciliation, we do not believe this affected results of of evolution acceptance and change, a survey was created and reconciliation, given that all evolution content was taught administered before intervention. Items included age, geographic between prompts. Each instructor sent his or her students’ location in childhood, gender, religious affiliation, chosen major essays to a single research team at BYU for coding. The coding (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [STEM] or team consisted of multiple authors, including a professor, J.L.J., non-STEM), whether a student received public or private school- a PhD student, D.G.F., and several undergraduate students, J.L., ing in high school, the degree to which a student interpreted the A.A., C.L.S., and E.R.T. biblical Genesis narrative as a literal or figurative event, the To code essays, the research team used previously estab- extent to which evolution was covered in a student’s high school, lished essay codes (see Bradshaw et al., 2018) and spent sev- and a student’s reaction to his or her high school instruction (the eral weeks together reading essays and coding them into sev- instrument can be found in the Supplemental Material). eral different categories until interrater reliability surpassed 90%. Researchers looked for overall themes from each student’s Predictors from Survey. Two predictors from the survey were response to code the essays into the most appropriate category. statistically significant and are described here: interpretation of Many essays displayed multiple themes; in such cases, the most Genesis and reaction to the teaching of evolution in high school. prominent theme was chosen. Codes for essay prompt 1 with Respondents were given five options for the interpretation of sample quotations are shown in Table 2. Two additional codes the “six days of creation” in the book of Genesis: 1) They are six were added to essay prompt 2 (13 and 14; see Table 3) to consecutive 24-hour days. 2) They are six 24-hour days with accommodate two additional common essay responses from gap(s) of time. 3) They are six periods of time of unknown the present study. For analysis purposes, these 13 codes were length. 4) They are six figurative days, not to be understood as grouped into four categories: full acceptance (11 only), limited real periods of time. 5) I am not sure. For analysis purposes, a acceptance (7 and 12), rejection (2–4, 6), and other (1, 5, response of 1 was coded as a “literal” interpretation of Genesis. 8–10, 13). Codes and sample quotes for essay prompt 2 are Responses of 2 and 3 were considered semiliteral, in that shown in Table 3. Again, for analysis purposes, these 14 codes respondents were allowing for some figurative interpretation. A were grouped into four categories: full acceptance (1, 6, 12), response of 4 was considered a “figurative” interpretation of limited acceptance (2, 7, 13, 14), rejection (4, 8), and other Genesis. Any response of 5 was eliminated from analysis. (3, 5, 9–11). Full acceptance refers to any response in which For the other predictor, reaction to the teaching of evolution the student expressed an acceptance of evolution with no indi- in high school, respondents were given six options: 1) It was not cation of any rejection of individual components (e.g., human taught in my high school. 2) Acceptance without conflict. evolution). Note, however, that, if a student did not mention 3) Concern about the validity of evolution. 4) Feelings of mild human evolution in the essay (i.e., we are unaware of the stu- conflict. 5) Feelings of severe conflict leading to rejection of evo - dent’s acceptance or nonacceptance of this particular point), lution. 6) Feelings of neutrality; no strong reaction either way. the student could still be coded as a “full acceptor.” Thus, it is Any response of 1 was eliminated from analysis. The remaining possible that the category is an overestimation of acceptance. responses were ordered as follows: 3 and 5 as rejection or dis- However, given the open-ended nature of the essay prompt, missive responses, 4 as mild conflict, 6 as neutral, and 2 as this was unavoidable. As seen in the codes in Tables 2 and 3, acceptance. None of the other variables measured in the survey limited acceptance referred to any response in which students were significant predictors. acknowledged that evolution occurs but took specific issue with one or more components of the theory (most common Essays. In addition to the surveys, we administered essay components included human origins and speciation events or prompts before and after the intervention. The first essay macroevolution). prompt asked students to reflect on their current, individual opinions about evolution. They were asked to define evolution Quantitative Measure of Evolution Acceptance. We used and discuss the emotions and feelings that the word “evolution” the Generalized Acceptance of EvolutioN Evaluation, or evokes in them. They were also asked to explain how they have GAENE (Smith et al., 2016), as a quantitative measure of the CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 5 J. Lindsay et al. TABLE 2. Essay prompt 1 codes Code Brief description Example quote Final coding 1 Discomfort: fear, discomfort, “It’s confusing to me to think of us once being little cells floating around and then Other confusion becoming people who can think and talk and do so many things.” 2 Demeaning: the idea is repugnant “When I hear the word evolution I cringe. I absolutely hate the word evolution.” Rejection or offensive 3 Improbable: the idea cannot be “The word that first pops into my head when I think about evolution would be Rejection true fake/false.” 4 Religious conflict: rejection for “Although I don’t think evolution and Christianity can coexist, I do believe that it Rejection religious reasons is important to learn about both ends of the spectrum.” 5 Avoidance: avoid because of “It seems that evolution really just brings up controversy and arguments about Other controversy who’s right and who’s wrong.” 6 Theory: only a theory with serious “I believe that evolution is more of a theory than a fact” Rejection flaws 7 Man different: accept evolution “I do know that there is substantial evidence that animals evolve. I do not Limited with exception of mankind believe, however, that humans evolved from apes.” acceptance 8 Ignorance: do not have an opinion “For the most part, I just haven’t had really any interest into the idea.” Other 9 Equivocal: uncertain, some “Basically, overall I am unsure how to really feel about evolution because I do not Other evidence compelling, some not think that I have received adequate education on both sides of the argument to date.” 10 Suspended judgment: resolving “I couldn’t care less honestly how we got here because I have full faith in that Other the matter not a high priority God created Earth.” 11 Acceptance: full acceptance of the “I have been taught evolution from the Darwin perspective and have accepted it Full theory wholeheartedly, despite my religious nature and upbringing.” acceptance 12 Adaptation only: accept small “I do believe that microevolution exists, but I don’t believe that one species Limited changes and adaptation, but (humans), can evolve completely from another” acceptance not speciation 13 Other: essays that do not fit in any “Some random and not very sound ideas I have is that we have misinterpreted Other of the categories above the artifacts we have found and the Neanderthals were actually the angel hybrids talked about in Genesis.” acceptance of evolution. The total score is the sum of each summing responses to the 15 items for a total possible score of response on 13 five-point Likert-scale items, for a total of 75 points. 65 points. The GAENE was administered before and following the intervention. Note that we intentionally did not measure Statistical Analyses evolution knowledge for three reasons. First, knowledge was To determine which demographic factors predicted the pre- not the objective of our study, as we were focused on accep- GAENE and change in GAENE, we used multiple linear regres- tance only; second, several studies show that knowledge and sion. To compare qualitative essay scores before and after acceptance are tenuously correlated (for positive and negative intervention, we used a chi-square goodness of fit to compare the examples, see Johnson and Peeples, 1987; Bishop and Ander- distributions of the four binned categories (full acceptance, son 1990; Rutledge and Warden, 2000; Brem et al., 2003; limited acceptance, rejection, and other). To quantitatively Sinatra et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2006; Nehm and Schonfeld, determine whether acceptance of evolution changed in response 2007; Chinsamy and Plagányi, 2008; Hasan and Donnelly, to our intervention, we compared pre and post GAENE scores 2011; Hill, 2014; Rissler et al., 2014; Glaze et al., 2015; Dunk using a paired-samples t test, when assumptions of normality et al., 2017; Mead et al., 2017; Weisberg et al., 2018); and third, were met, and an exact sign test when nonparametric alterna- the surveys were long, and survey fatigue can negatively affect tives were needed within each institution (an exact sign test was response rate and results. Thus, we do not believe we would used as an alternative to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test due to gain information relevant to our objective of measuring the nonsymmetrical distributions). Mean of normalized gains (g effect of a reconciliation module on acceptance by including scores) were calculated to compare the progress at each school knowledge instrumentation. (Hake, 1998). Changes in religiosity were assessed, again using paired-samples t tests or exact sign tests within each institution. Measure of Religiosity. To determine whether our interven- tion influenced religiosity of our participants, we measured RESULTS student religiosity before and following the intervention. The Predicting Evolution Acceptance religiosity instrument was taken from a previously validated A multiple regression analysis was performed on combined data study (see Manwaring et al., 2015). It consists of 15 items, from all four institutions to predict pre-GAENE scores from a each on a six-point Likert scale assessing self-reported religious participant’s Genesis interpretation and self-reported reaction to practices (e.g., frequency of prayer), religious influence (e.g., evolution in high school. (The following variables were run in religion’s influence on the food you eat), and religious hope an initial regression but were found to be insignificant and were (e.g., belief in miracles). Total religiosity was calculated by excluded from our final model: age, geographic location in 18:ar58, 6 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance TABLE 3. Essay prompt 2 codes Code Brief description Example quote Final coding 1 Change toward acceptance “Similar to the different views that Origins refers to, I would now consider myself a Full acceptance believer in evolutionary creationism.” 2 Change toward accep- “I still do not believe that humans came from monkeys, but I do believe that Limited acceptance tance, with exception evolution is change that is occurring over time.” of man 3 Change toward confusion “At the beginning of the semester, I was a lot more passive about evolution. Now I’m Other and discomfort just confused and depending on the day, sometimes I feel like defending it and sometimes I feel like attacking it.” 4 Change toward rejection “In no way did learning the facts about evolution persuade me to believe it as truth, Rejection in fact it convinced me to believe the exact opposite.” 5 Change to tolerance of a “So, I suppose that my change in position is that I fall somewhere in the middle of Other different point of view everything. I do not agree nor disagree.” 6 No change, still accept “I claim my present point of view as being similar to my earlier one. Evolution is a Full acceptance real thing and Heavenly Father oversees it.” 7 No change, still accept, but “I still support evolution for everything that exists except humans” Limited acceptance not man 8 No change, still reject “I wrote previously I do not disagree with the fact that things change and adapt over Rejection time. I do, however, believe that God spoke everything into existence and He said that it was good.” 9 No change, still confused “One of the biggest questions is concerning Adam and Eve. According to evolution, Other Neanderthals existed before the first “humans” as we know them. What does that mean? I’m not really sure.” 10 Do not care “Evolution has no significance to me.” Other 11 Other (did not fit into any “So, to put it simply: I learn evolution, I recite and memorize facts of evolution, I Other other category) discuss it with my STEM major friends and I discuss it with my conservative parents, but I do not wholly and fully know that it is fact.” 12 Still accept, but received “Before this semester I was a firm believer in evolution. However, this semester has Full acceptance substantial evidence to given me a broader and more extensive knowledge of the evidence supporting support acceptance this theory.” 13 Change toward accep- “As I have gained more knowledge on the different types of evolution, I have come to Limited acceptance tance, adaptation only agree with microevolution, for it consists of small changes, and no new kinds are (microevolution) developed.” 14 No change, still adaptation “I do believe in microevolution of minor changes over time, this being due mainly to Limited acceptance only (microevolution) adaptation, but whole species changes are not logical in my opinion.” childhood, gender, religious affiliation, chosen major [STEM or reaction to evolution in high school (e.g., from mild conflict to non-STEM], whether a student received public or private school- neutral or from neutral to accept) the pre-GAENE score increased ing in high school, the extent to which evolution was covered in by 2.46 points, holding Genesis interpretation constant. a student’s high school, and institution.) All assumptions for lin- A second analysis was run to predict a change in acceptance ear regression were tested and met. Our model significantly pre - via a change in GAENE scores after intervention. None of the dicted pre-GAENE scores, F(2,186) = 40.14, p < 0.001. The R measured variables were significant predictors of change, p > for the overall model was 30.1% with an adjusted R of 29.4%. 0.05. Again, all assumptions were met for linear regressions. Interpretations of coefficients (see Table 4) show that for every step toward figurative interpretation of Genesis (e.g., from lit - Change in Evolution Acceptance eral to semiliteral or from semiliteral to figurative), student Essays. Based on essay responses, providing students with a scores on the pre-GAENE went up by 4.2 points (on a 65-point compatibility module appears to significantly increase evolu - scale), holding high school acceptance constant. In addition, tion acceptance. At BYU, students showed a significant shift in with each step toward full acceptance in a student’s self-reported distribution of essay codes (χ (3) = 54.55, p < 0.001) toward acceptance. Before having the compatibility module adminis- tered, 38.5% of students accepted all components of evolution- TABLE 4. Multiple regression analysis showing the prediction of ary theory. After the module, full acceptance jumped to 70.1%, pre-GAENE scores by a participant’s interpretation of Genesis and a 31.6% increase. reaction to evolution in high school PLNU and CCU showed similar significant shifts in accep - Variable B SE b p value 2 2 tance (PLNU: χ (3) = 24.69, p < 0.001, CCU: χ (3) = 40.22, p < Intercept 27.64 2.85 <0.001 0.001). At PLNU, students went from an initial percentage of Genesis interpretation 4.20 0.87 0.31 <0.001 full acceptance of 51% to a postcourse full acceptance of 83.1%, High school reaction 2.46 0.41 0.38 <0.001 a 32.1% increase. At CCU, 13.0% of students fully accepted evolution at the start of the semester compared with 43.5% at B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error of the coefficient; b = standardized coefficient. the end of the semester, a 30.5% increase. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 7 J. Lindsay et al. showed limited acceptance. After the mod- ule, however, limited acceptance jumped to 69.6%, a 27.9% increase, and rejection dropped to 4.3% (one student; see Figure 1). GAENE. We analyzed the GAENE to quantitatively measure any changes over the course of the semester in student acceptance of evolution. The average pre- GAENE for BYU students was 70.3%, and 80.8% on the post-GAENE. This showed a 10% increase over the course of the semester (t(74) = 9.006, p < 0.001). We saw similar results at PLNU and EU. The pre-GAENE showed that the average score for PLNU students at the beginning of the semester was 72.5%. The post-GAENE for PLNU was 84.0%. This shows an 11.5% FIGURE 1. Pre and post essay distributions at each institution. Horizontal stacked bars increase over the course of the semester indicate the proportion of essays that fell into each of the broad categories before (t(58) = 8.26, p < 0.001). At EU, the pre- (pre = prompt 1) and after (post = prompt 2) intervention. “Full Acceptance” refers to any GAENE was 60.3% and the post-GAENE response in which the student expressed an acceptance of evolution with no indication of was 68.6%, showing an 8% increase any rejection of individual components (e.g., human evolution). “Limited Acceptance” (t(22) = 3.268, p = 0.004). Owing to low refers to any response in which the student acknowledged that evolution occurs but took response rates, CCU was not included in specific issue with one or more components of the theory (most common components included human origins and speciation events or macroevolution). “Rejection” refers to analysis (see Figure 2). Normalized gains any response in which the student denied the validity of evolution. Other refers to any are as follows: 33.5% at BYU, 42.0% at response that could not be categorized into any of the first three. PLNU, and 16.9% at EU. At EU, the results were less dramatic, but still significant, Religiosity (χ (3) = 29.91, p < 0.001), showing an increase of 17.5% in full To determine whether our intervention affected student religi- evolution acceptance. However, the most striking aspect at EU is osity, we compared students’ self-reported religiosity at the that there was a 29% decrease in evolution rejection. Many of the end of the intervention with that reported at the beginning, students who originally rejected evolution were able to at least measured on a 75-point scale. We found no significant changes make the jump to limited acceptance. Before the module, 33.3% in religiosity across all denominations that collected pre and of students rejected evolution, while 20.8% fell into the “other” post data. Before the administration of the intervention, BYU category (i.e., no opinion). Meanwhile, 41.7% of students had a religiosity of 70.8. After the reconciliation module was given to students, religiosity remained relatively consistent at 71.3 (an exact sign test showed no median differences between pre [median = 72.0] and post [median = 74.0], p = 0.078). A post religiosity score was not collected at PLNU; their average pre score was 59.3. At EU, religiosity went from 65.1 to 63.1 (an exact sign test showed no median differences between pre and post [median for both = 65.0], p = 0.832; see Figure 3). DISCUSSION Based on these results, providing students with a reconciliation module alongside evolution instruction significantly increased evolution acceptance. Their acceptance levels as they enter the classroom appear to be influenced by their interpretation of biblical Genesis and their impressions of evolution in high school. Regardless of their acceptance as they enter, based on our hypothesis that providing students with a way to reconcile faith and science can positively influence acceptance, we predicted a significant increase in acceptance following our intervention, a prediction confirmed by our results ( p < 0.001). Students at BYU, PLNU, and CCU each showed a shift of more than 30% toward full acceptance, while EU only showed a shift FIGURE 2. Pre- and post-GAENE scores at each institution. The of 17.5% toward full acceptance but a 46% shift to partial GAENE is scored on a 65-point scale; numbers have been converted to percentages. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. acceptance (Figure 1 shows essay data). Therefore, providing 18:ar58, 8 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance was not affected (Figure 3). Students were able to reconcile their religious beliefs with evolution. Barnes and Brownell (2017) call on scientists and science instructors to bridge gaps between religious and secular views by incorporating ReCCEE practices in their classrooms and other public settings. This is with the hope that we can increase overall student acceptance of evolution and decrease conflict between religion and evolution. It is important to note that the effectiveness of the reconcili- ation module varies with the delivery given by the professor. At BYU and PLNU (which had 10 and 13% increases from pre- to post-GAENE, respectively), the professors presented theistic evolution in a very favorable manner, prompting students to reconcile evolution with their religious beliefs. All the scientific evidence for evolution was presented agnostically. At EU, which increased only 8%, the professor presented detailed informa- tion about five competing origins perspectives (YEC, OEC, the - istic evolution, agnostic evolution, and atheistic evolution). Students identified the strengths and weaknesses of each view posited by proponents and detractors. While it was made clear that Christian faith was incompatible with atheism, students were left to decide for themselves which view to embrace. This FIGURE 3. Pre and post religiosity at each institution. Religiosity is was followed by standard college textbook material on measured on a 75-point scale. Scores have been left raw. Error bars evolution. represent the standard error of the mean. Additionally, because students probably choose to attend universities that are compatible with their worldviews and val- ues, religiously conservative schools are populated by more students with paths to compatibility can significantly increase religiously conservative students than other schools. These uni- acceptance of evolution regardless of their starting points. versities may also be affiliated with conservative religious Additionally, evolution rejection decreased in all of the tested groups (e.g., Assemblies of God). As stated previously, EU is schools. Students at EU were the most striking example, with an affiliated with the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal Christian initial rejection of evolution at 33.33% and a post model rejec- denomination. Assemblies of God adherents typically have a tion at 4.3% (one student), a 29% decrease (Figure 1 shows more conservative view in interpreting and applying scriptures essay data). Similarly, students at BYU, PLNU, and CCU showed compared with the Church of the Nazarene (PLNU) or the significant 9.4%, 3.1%, and 23.3% decreases in evolution rejec - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (BYU). Students tion, respectively. Thus, our reconciliation module appears not who affiliate with the Assemblies of God may find it harder to only to increase full acceptance rates, but it also decreases rejec- reconcile faith and evolution than PLNU and BYU students. tion in favor of accepting at least parts of the theory. While it does not appear that religiosity is affected by accep- An interesting trend was found in the outlying case of EU tance of evolutionary theory, the reverse is very likely. That is, students. In terms of limited acceptance of evolution, numbers religiously conservative people are likely more resistant to evo- dropped at BYU, PLNU, and CCU by 20.5%, 13.3%, and 33.3%, lution acceptance than others (Dagher and BouJaoude, 1997; respectively (Figure 1). Therefore, we reasonably assumed that Hill, 2014). Schools located in regions of the United States many of these students made the leap to full acceptance post whose populations are more resistant to evolution, like the model, and therefore limited acceptance numbers decreased. South (Rissler et al., 2014), will naturally be composed of stu- However, this trend did not prove true at EU, where initial lim- dents with this viewpoint. This may be the case for EU, which ited acceptance of evolution was 41.7%, but post-model limited draws most of its students from Missouri, and may partially acceptance increased to 69.6%, a 27.9% increase. As stated pre- explain the lower evolution acceptance rates found in the EU viously, evolution rejection decreased at EU by 29.03%. With a student population. 27.9% increase in limited evolution acceptance, it can be rea- sonably assumed these students who initially rejected evolution Broader Connections made the leap to at least limited acceptance, if not full. There- Research shows that evolution acceptance in the United States fore, although the increase in full acceptance was not as large as is lower than in 32 European nations (Miller et al., 2006). at the other institutions, progress was still made. Also notable is Researchers and scientists have attempted to address this dis- that this limited acceptance includes ideas such as evolutionary crepancy through various teaching strategies. These strategies adaptation and natural selection, which may be useful in mak- have been predicated upon finding which factors most greatly ing informed decisions about antibiotic usage, conservation influence evolution acceptance. Many researchers have sug - efforts, vaccine usage, and other topics informed by evolution- gested potential factors as being influential, such as an under - ary thinking. Thus, although not a full acceptance of evolution, standing of the nature of science (Cavallo and McCall, 2008; our intervention has helped students accept valuable principles Cofré et al., 2017; Dunk et al., 2017), student knowledge of related to many practical applications of evolution. evolutionary theory (Rissler et al., 2014; Glaze et al., 2015; Our results also showed that, over the course of the semester, Weisberg et al., 2018), reasoning ability (Lawson and Weser, as students increased in acceptance of evolution, their religiosity CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 9 J. Lindsay et al. 1990; Honey, 2015; although see Manwaring et al., 2018), and module. Going forward, this has major implications for science individual religiosity (Dagher and BouJaoude, 1997; Hill, 2014; education. Educators, as they become willing and able to admin- Rissler et al., 2014). Research is mixed on the effectiveness of ister such models, will have a greater opportunity to relate to each of these approaches. Our findings oppose those of students and create a safe learning environment. Religious Coyne (2012), however, who contended that the only way to students will not feel as much tension exploring scientific fields increase evolution acceptance is for individuals to completely and data from a perspective built on the nature of science. Thus, abandon their religiosity. it is possible that more individuals will be interested in scientific It is also interesting to consider that the way in which stu- discovery and can make greater contributions to the scientific dents interpret Genesis and the impressions they get during endeavor. high school coverage of the subject are influential factors in Additionally, we argue that many of the stumbling blocks sur- acceptance as they enter a college course. This would suggest rounding faith and evolution can eventually be overcome. With that perhaps this reconciliatory approach should start earlier in a promising method of reconciling science and religion, co-exis- a student’s exposure to the subject, that is, in the high school tence of these ideas can be established. The current director of setting. It is unlikely, however, that any one of these approaches National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, captures this can completely mitigate the lack of evolution acceptance in the nicely: “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression United States. Nevertheless, we have argued that an individual that has been created that science and religion have to be at war” can maintain religiosity and increase evolution acceptance if (Swinford, 2006). Our findings demonstrate that they do not. the subject is approached in a way that suggests potential com- patibility. We add our findings to other recent research (Barnes ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and Brownell, 2017) that emphasizes a more culturally/reli- Work presented in this article was supported by the Howard giously conscious approach to teaching evolution. We have Hughes Medical Institute. We are grateful for its support of this shown that, with a reconciliatory approach that focuses on important work. acceptance of evolution, we do not diminish religiosity. REFERENCES Alles, D. L. (2001). Using evolution as the framework for teaching biology. Limitations American Biology Teacher, 63, 20–23. Despite the significant results of our study, we recognize that Badger, S., & Tenneson, M. (2014). Christian perspectives on origins (3rd ed., there are potential limiting factors when administering this rev.). Springfield, MO: Evangel University. model. One such factor is the influence of a role model. Research Baker, J. O. (2013). Acceptance of evolution and support for teaching has shown that the influence of a religious, evolution-accepting creationism in public schools: The conditional impact of educational at- role model can play a significant factor in whether a student tainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 52, 216–228. will accept evolution (e.g., Barnes and Brownell, 2017; Holt Barnes, M. E., & Brownell, S. E. (2017). A call to use cultural competence et al., 2018). Given that the majority of biologists are not reli- when teaching evolution to religious college students: Introducing reli- gious cultural competence in evolution education (ReCCEE). CBE—Life gious (Graffin and Provine, 2007), having a role model who Sciences Education, 16, es4. models religious and scientific commitment to students may Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to prove to be difficult in some situations. There are, however, control America’s classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. resources that can assist students in finding role models outside Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural se- the classroom (e.g., the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Broader lection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Social Impacts Committee provides videos from scientists of 27, 417–425. diverse religious backgrounds to help students navigate faith Bradshaw, W. S., Phillips, A. J., Bybee, S. M., Gill, R. A., Peck, S. L., & Jensen, J. L. (2018). A longitudinal study of attitudes toward evolution among and science; Smithsonian, 2019). The presentation of these undergraduates who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of resources to religiously minded students by culturally sensitive Latter-day Saints. PLoS One, 13, e0205798. https://doi.org/10.1371/ nonreligious educators may provide a model to enhance accep- journal.pone.0205798 tance of evolution. Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of Another limitation is our intentional decision not to measure evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social evolution knowledge or nature of science knowledge. As previ- impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 87, 181–206. ously stated, this was not the objective of the current study. Cavallo, A. M. L., & McCall, D. (2008). Seeing may not mean believing: Examining students’ understandings and beliefs in evolution. American However, it is certainly possible (and likely probable, given the Biology Teacher, 70, 522–530. literature) that increased knowledge and understanding of the Cherif, A., Adams, G., & Loeher, J. (2001). What on “earth” is evolution? The nature of science acquired during the course of the semester geological perspective on teaching evolutionary biology effectively. were additional contributors to the increase in students’ accep- American Biology Teacher, 63, 576–591. tance of evolution. We are certainly not claiming that the recon- Chinsamy, A., & Plagányi, É (2008). Accepting evolution. Evolution, 62, ciliation modules were the only causal factor for gains in accep- 248–254. tance. However, the gains that we saw in this study are large in Cofré, H., Cuevas, E., & Becerra, B. (2017). The relationship between biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and the understanding comparison to what is in the literature, suggesting that the rec- and acceptance of the theory of evolution. International Journal of onciliation approach is likely a large contributing factor. Further Science Education, 39, 2243–2260. research on these two variables is warranted. Coyne, J. A. (2012). Science, religion, and society: The problem of evolution in America. Evolution, 66, 2654–2663. CONCLUSION Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of As demonstrated in this study, religious students demonstrate college students: The case of biological evolution. Journal of Research gains in evolution acceptance when offered a reconciliation in Science Teaching, 34, 429–445. 18:ar58, 10 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance Dawkins, R. (1989). Book review of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolu- Blueprint. New York Times, section 7, 34. tion. Science, 313, 765. Dawkins, R. (2008). The God delusion. New York: Mariner Books. National Center for Science Education. (2019). The creation/evolution con- tinuum. Retrieved July 1, 2019, from https://ncse.com/library-resource/ Deniz, H., Donnelly, L. A., & Yilmaz, I. (2007). Exploring the factors related to creationevolution-continuum acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological Nehm, R., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowl- evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 420–443. edge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Dunk, R., Petto, A., Wiles, J., & Campbell, B. (2017). A multifactorial analysis of Education, 18, 699–723. acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education & Outreach, 10I, 1–8. PBS. (2007). Bill Moyers talks with E. O. Wilson. Bill Moyers Journal. Retrieved Evenson, W. E., & Jeffery, D. E. (2005). Mormonism and evolution: The April 10, 2019, from www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07062007/transcript1 authoritative LDS statements. Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Koor ff d Books. .html Farber, P. (2003). Teaching evolution and the nature of science. American Pew Research Center. (2014). 2014 Religious landscape study. Retrieved April Biology Teacher, 65, 347–354. 10, 2019, from www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study Gallup. (2017). In US, belief in creationist view of humans at new low. Pew Research Center. (2016). Religious belief and national belonging in Cen- Retrieved April 10, 2019, from www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief tral and Eastern Europe. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from www.pewforum -creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx .org/2017/05/10/science-and-religion Glaze, A. L., Goldston, M. J., & Dantzler, J. (2015). Evolution in the southern Pew Research Center. (2017). Key findings about Americans’ belief in God. USA: Factors influencing acceptance and rejection in pre-service science Retrieved April 10, 2019, from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/ teachers. International Journal of Science and Math Education, 13, 1189– 04/25/key-findings-about-americans-belief-in-god Rissler, L., Duncan, S., & Caruso, N. (2014). The relative importance of religion Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106, 16–22. and education on university students’ views of evolution in the Deep Graffin, G. W., & Provine, W. B. (2007). Macroscope: Evolution, religion and South and state science standards across the United States. Evolution: free will. American Scientist, 95, 294–297. Education & Outreach, 7, 1–17. Haarsma, D. B., & Haarsma, L. D. (2011). Origins: Christian perspectives on Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (2000). Science and high school biology creation, evolution, and intelligent design. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive teachers: Critical relationships. American Biology Teacher, 62, 23–31. Christian Resources. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of bio- thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics logic evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510–528. courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–67. Smith, M. U., Snyder, S. W., & Devereaux, R. S. (2016). The GAENE—General- Hall, G. E., & Woika, S. A. (2018). The fight to keep evolution out of schools: The ized Acceptance of EvolutioN Evaluation: Development of a new mea- law and classroom instruction. American Biology Teacher, 80, 235–239. sure of evolution acceptance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Hasan, D., & Donnelly, L. (2011). Preservice secondary science teachers’ ac- 53, 1289–1315. ceptance of evolutionary theory and factors related to acceptance. Smithsonian. (2019). Thoughts on science, religion, and human origins. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 31(4), 2.1–2.8. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader Hill, J. P. (2014). Rejecting evolution: The role of religion, education, and so- -social-impacts-committee/thoughts-science-religion-and-human cial networks. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 53, 575–594. -origins Holt, E. A., Ogden, T. H., & Durham, S. L. (2018). The positive effect of role Swinford, S. (2006). LONDON: I’ve found God, says man who cracked the models in evolution instruction. Evolution: Education & Outreach, 11, 11. genome. VirtueOnline. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from www.virtueonline Honey, L. P. (2015). Why I teach the controversy: Using creationism to teach .org/london-ive-found-god-says-man-who-cracked-genome critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 793. Taylor, J. (2019). The new atheists. Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Johnson, R. L., & Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in Retrieved July 1, 2019, from www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/ college: Student acceptance of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 49, Tenneson, M., & Badger, S. (2010, Spring). A brief overview of Pentecostal 93–96. views on origins. Enrichment Journal (online edition). Retrieved April 10, Lamoureux, D. O. (2008). Evolutionary creation: A Christian approach to 2019, from http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ejonline_201002 evolution. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. _origins.cfm Lawson, A. E., & Weser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about Weisberg, D. S., Landrum, A. R., Mertz, S. E., & Weisberg, M. (2018). No miss- life: Eects ff of instruction and reasoning skills. Journal of Research in ing link: Knowledge predicts acceptance of evolution in the United Science Teaching, 27, 589–606. States. BioScience, 68, 212–222. Legare, C. H., Lane, J. D., & Evans, E. M. (2013). Anthropomorphizing science: What does the church believe about evolution? (2016). New Era, October, 41. How does it aect ff the development of evolutionary concepts? Mer- Winslow, M. W., Staver, J. R., & Scharmann, L. C. (2011). Evolution and person- rill-Palmer Quarterly, 599, 168–197. al religious belief: Christian university biology-related majors’ search for Manwaring, K. F., Jensen, J. L., Gill, R. A., & Bybee, S. M. (2015). Influencing reconciliation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1026–1049. highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution: Mormons as a Yerky, M. D., & Wilczynski, C. J. (2014). The mystery of the skulls: What can case study. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8, 1–12. old bones tell us about hominin evolution? American Biology Teacher, Manwaring, K. F., Jensen, J. L., Gill, R. A., Sudweeks, R. R., Davies, R. S., & 76, 109–117. Bybee, S. M. (2018). Scientific reasoning ability does not predict scientific YouGov. (2017). Science and religion: Exploring the spectrum. Retrieved views on evolution among religious individuals. Evolution: Education & April 10, 2019, from www.google.com/url?q=https://docs.google.com/ Outreach, 11, 2. viewerng/viewer?url%3Dhttps://sciencereligionspectrum.org/wp Mead, R., Hejmadi, M., & Hurst, L. D. (2017). Teaching genetics prior to teach- -content/uploads/2017/09/SRESYouGov-survey-preliminary-findings ing evolution improves evolution understanding but not acceptance. -5.9.17.pdf%26hl%3Den_GB&sa=D&ust=1554847443513000&usg PLoS Biology, 15, 388–394. =AFQjCNE8zmLbvGaH-xrskiBNRI9AUFP_hg CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 11 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png CBE Life Sciences Education Pubmed Central

Using a Reconciliation Module Leads to Large Gains in Evolution Acceptance

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/pubmed-central/using-a-reconciliation-module-leads-to-large-gains-in-evolution-oCnp6Hd0ho

References (95)

Publisher
Pubmed Central
Copyright
© 2019 J. Lindsay et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2019 The American Society for Cell Biology. “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology.
eISSN
1931-7913
DOI
10.1187/cbe.19-04-0080
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

ARTICLE Using a Reconciliation Module Leads to Large Gains in Evolution Acceptance † † ‡ § John Lindsay, Adhieu Arok, Seth M. Bybee, Walter Cho, § † ∥ April Maskiewicz Cordero, Daniel G. Ferguson, Leontine L. Galante, † ¶ † † # Richard Gill, Mark Mann, Steven L. Peck, Cassidy L. Shively, Michael R. Stark, † @ †† Joshua A. Stowers, Michael Tenneson, Ethan R. Tolman,** Thomas Wayment, and Jamie L. Jensen * † ‡ # Department of Biology, Department of Biology, Monte L. Bean Museum, Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology, **Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, and †† § Comparative Arts and Letters, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602; Department of Biology and School of Theology and Christian Ministry, Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, CA 92106; School of Science and Engineering, Colorado Christian University, Lakewood, CO 80226; Department of Natural and Applied Sciences, Evangel University, Springfield, MO 65802 ABSTRACT Too many students reject the theory of evolution because they view it as incompatible with their religious beliefs. Some have argued that abandoning religious belief is the only way to help religious individuals accept evolution. Conversely, our data support that highlighting faith/evolution compatibility is an effective means to increase student ac - ceptance. We surveyed students enrolled in entry-level biology courses at four religious- ly affiliated institutions. At each university, teachers gave students a presentation that demonstrated potential compatibility between evolution and faith within the teachings of each university’s respective religious affiliation. Students were asked to evaluate their own beliefs about evolution both before and after this instruction. After instruction at each university, students showed significant gains in evolution acceptance without abandoning their religious beliefs. These results demonstrate that giving religious students the oppor- tunity to reconcile their religious beliefs with the theory of evolution under the influence of intentional instruction on the compatibility of belief and evolution can lead to increased evolution acceptance among religious students. INTRODUCTION From the perspective of some faith traditions, there is perhaps no greater cause of tension between faith and science than the theory of evolution. This tension has been Peggy Brickman, Monitoring Editor highlighted in various court cases over the past century and by certain religious activ- Submitted Apr 29, 2019; Revised Aug 28, 2019; ists protesting its inclusion in public school curricula (Hall and Woika, 2018). Recent Accepted Sep 13, 2019 polls have also shed light on the tension. In a 2017 survey, nearly 38% of Americans CBE Life Sci Educ December 1, 2019 18:ar58 responded that they still believe God created humans in their current state within the DOI:10.1187/cbe.19-04-0080 last 10,000 years (i.e., young Earth creationism; Gallup, 2017). This number is high *Address correspondence to: Jamie L. Jensen (jamie.jensen@byu.edu). compared with other developed countries such as Greece (29%; Pew Research Center, © 2019 J. Lindsay et al. CBE—Life Sciences 2016), Russia (26%; Pew Research Center, 2016), the United Kingdom (9%; YouGov, Education © 2019 The American Society for Cell 2017), and Canada (15%; YouGov, 2017). In the United States, a number of solutions Biology. This article is distributed by The have been proposed to address the problem of widespread rejection of evolution in American Society for Cell Biology under license religious populations. This paper discusses several approaches and then presents a from the author(s). It is available to the public promising solution to this persistent problem from the perspective of researchers under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License teaching evolution in religiously affiliated institutions. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-sa/3.0). Teaching That Evolution Rejection Is a Product of Ignorance “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell The first commonly used approach to evolution instruction is to view the conflict Biology®” are registered trademarks of The between religion and science with a “deficit model,” arguing that a lack of acceptance American Society for Cell Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, 1–11, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 1 J. Lindsay et al. of evolutionary theory is simply a result of a deficit of under - concepts” (see www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience standing or inadequate reasoning ability (e.g., Lawson and .aspx). Using this approach has generally proven effective in Weser, 1990; Honey, 2015). Unfortunately, weakly supported helping students increase both their understanding and accep- claims that rejection is a product of low subject aptitude con- tance of evolution (e.g., Cavallo and McCall, 2008; Cofré et al., tinue to propagate this simplistic deficit argument (Mead et al., 2017; Dunk et al., 2017). Thus, teaching an understanding of 2017), and highly recognized evolutionary biologists, most how science is conducted, and what it can and cannot explain, notably Richard Dawkins (1989), polemically employ this view: is an excellent starting point for increasing acceptance. “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stu- Offering a Reconciliation of Religion and Evolution pid or insane” (p. 34). Anecdotally, our experience has shown Although emphasizing the nature of science has been shown to that such polemical statements are unproductive in changing be generally effective at promoting acceptance, religious stu- attitudes toward acceptance of evolution. dents/individuals in particular still often perceive evolution acceptance as something opposed to faith claims (Lamoureux, Teaching Students the Facts 2008). This is exacerbated by the disparity between the reli- The second common approach promotes the idea that educat- gious beliefs of biology educators and those of students. Only ing students and teachers about the facts of evolution would ∼10% of evolutionary biologists self-report as religious (Graffin directly correlate with a resolution toward acceptance, that is, a and Provine, 2007), while 80% of the American population “resolution model” (e.g., Alles, 2001; Cherif et al., 2001; Farber, reports a belief in God (Pew Research Center, 2017). Clearly 2003; Legare et al., 2013; Yerky and Wilczynski, 2014). The there is a potential disconnect between educators and their results of research on this approach are conflicting and compli - audiences’ religious beliefs. This disconnect is also manifest in cated. Some studies have indicated a positive correlation studies that show that an individual’s religiosity—strong between knowledge and acceptance (e.g., Johnson and Pee- religious feeling or belief—is the most predictive factor of ples, 1987; Rutledge and Warden, 2000), while others indicate evolution acceptance (Dagher and BouJaoude, 1997; Hill, there is no correlation (e.g., Bishop and Anderson 1990; Brem 2014; Rissler et al., 2014). et al., 2003; Sinatra et al., 2003; Nehm and Schonfeld, 2007; One recent review offers ways to remedy this divide by out- Chinsamy and Plagányi, 2008; Hasan and Donnelly, 2011; lining six steps of “cultural competence” that can help educa- Mead et al., 2017). In one study, once demographic characteris- tors better teach evolution to religious students without under- tics including religion and political ideology were controlled for, mining religiosity (Barnes and Brownell, 2017). Their religious educational attainment was not a factor in evolution rejection cultural competence in evolution education (ReCCEE) frame- (Miller et al., 2006; Hill, 2014). However, four recent and work is grounded in existing research (see Table 2 of their paper robust studies have suggested a well-supported positive rela- for the literature base), and promotes six practices: 1) Acknowl- tionship between knowledge and acceptance (e.g., Rissler et al., edge that some students may see a conflict between evolution 2014; Glaze et al., 2015; Dunk et al., 2017; Weisberg et al., and their religious beliefs. 2) Discuss and encourage the explo- 2018). ration of students’ personal views on evolution and religion. While the data are inconclusive, it is reasonable to assume 3) Explain to students the bounded nature of science and differ- that knowledge plays some kind of interactive role in the accep- ent ways of knowing. 4) Explain that there are diverse view- tance of evolution. Although a good starting point, and likely a points on evolution and religion and that viewpoints are not necessary precursor to increasing acceptance, focusing only on restricted to atheistic evolution and special creationism. Discuss knowledge of evolution may not be sufficient to increase accep - the possibility of theistic evolution. 5) Highlight religious lead- tance among religious individuals. The relationship between ers and biologists who accept evolution. 6) Explicitly discuss knowledge and acceptance appears to be influenced by a the potential compatibility between evolution and religion. We number of other external factors, including religion, making it a build on Barnes and Brownell’s study, specifically step 6, which multifaceted issue. Religious beliefs and background (Dagher encourages professors to use potential compatibility to help and BouJaoude, 1997; Miller et al., 2006; Deniz et al., 2007), religious students come to accept evolution. This method (here- views about the nature of religion (Winslow et al., 2011), and after referred to as the “reconciliation module”) centers on edu- pressure from parents (Winslow et al., 2011) influence one’s cators providing religious students with potential religion- views of evolution. In fact, several studies agree that those who specific compatibility links between their respective religions hold a literal interpretation of scripture are more likely to reject and the theory of evolution. We suggest that this method will evolution (Berkman and Plutzer, 2010; Baker, 2013; Hill, 2014). lead to a significant increase in student acceptance of evolution without diminishing an individual’s religious conviction. We Emphasizing the Nature of Science echo the words of biologist E. O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Another approach to increase acceptance of evolution is to Prize winner, “Science and religion are the two most powerful focus on helping students develop a clear and precise under- forces in the world. Having them at odds … is not productive” standing of the nature of science. According to the National Sci- (PBS, 2007). ence Teachers Association, “Science is characterized by the sys- tematic gathering of information through various forms of MATERIALS AND METHODS direct and indirect observations and the testing of this informa- Informed Consent tion by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. Permission for this study was obtained from each institution’s The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of institutional review board. Students were informed of the naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those research and gave their consent to participate. 18:ar58, 2 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance Sample Population materials already existed) or designed (where materials did not Students were recruited from four religiously affiliated institu - previously exist) reconciliation modules that showed compati- tions for this study: Brigham Young University (BYU; affiliated bility between respective church doctrine and evolutionary with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Point theory and adapted them specifically to each university’s Loma Nazarene University (PLNU; affiliated with the Church of religious affiliation. The duration of each module and exactly the Nazarene), Colorado Christian University (CCU; an interde- what should be included were not prescribed. Some schools nominational Christian university), and Evangel University chose to create a 1-hour classroom-based module, while others (EU; affiliated with the Assemblies of God). BYU is a private developed a variety of shorter activities for both the classroom institution located in the western region of the United States and as homework spread out over the entire evolution unit. and founded in 1875. It has a total undergraduate enrollment Each unique implementation is described in the following sec- of 31,233 with an average grade point average (GPA) of 3.86 tions; however, the common focus for each module was provid- and an average American College Testing (ACT) score of 28.8 ing compatibility possibilities between their respective religions for incoming freshmen. PLNU is a private Christian liberal arts and the theory of evolution. institution, founded in 1902 and also located in the West. It has The National Center for Science Education (NCSE; 2019) a total undergraduate enrollment of 3150 with an incoming provides a continuum of possible religious and philosophical freshman average GPA of 3.79 and an average ACT score of 26. beliefs toward evolution and creation, including an explanation CCU is a private institution located in the West. It has an under- of the various positions. The five most common positions are graduate enrollment of 1393 with an average GPA of 3.68 and briefly defined here. Young Earth creationists (YEC) “reject the an average incoming freshman ACT score of 25. EU is a private conclusions of modern physics, astronomy, chemistry, and geol- comprehensive Christian university founded in 1955 and ogy concerning the age of Earth, and they deny biological located in the Midwest. It has a total undergraduate enrollment descent with modification. Earth, in their view, is between 6000 of 1,631 with an average GPA of 3.34 with an average incoming and 10,000 years old” (NCSE, 2019). Old Earth creationists freshman ACT score of 23. (OEC) “accept most of modern physics, chemistry, and geol- ogy,” acknowledging the scientific consensus about the age of Student Selection the Earth, but most reject large-scale biological evolution and These universities were selected due to the majority of stu- human evolution. Theistic evolutionists (TEs) “accept all the dents having religious backgrounds and a willingness of fac- results of modern science, in anthropology and biology as well ulty to participate in the study. Students were enrolled in intro- as in astronomy, physics, and geology,” including human evolu- ductory biology courses that included both majors and tion. Their theological belief is that God creates through the nonmajors. This study was conducted during the Fall 2017 and laws of nature. Agnostic evolutionists accept all of the results Spring 2018 semesters. At each institution, varying numbers of from modern science, but claim that science cannot prove any- students participated, depending on how the instructor incen- thing about God’s existence. Alternately, atheistic evolutionists tivized the surveys (see Table 1). Unfortunately, at some insti- argue that science can provide an explanation for everything tutions, like CCU, incentive was low, attrition rates from the there is to know, and thus science proves there is no God course were high, and the post quantitative instrument admin- (Dawkins, 2008; Taylor, 2019). istration was delayed. Low response rates were likely due to a lack of incentive or simply a lack of time on the part of the BYU Module students, but it is also a possibility that the CCU sample is Denominational Information. BYU is affiliated with the Church biased: that is, those who had something negative to say were of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Although the church has most likely to respond. As such, the remaining survey results had a somewhat undulating history of influential religious lead - were deleted from the quantitative analysis, although essay ers split on their opinions about evolution (for a review, see results were maintained. Evenson and Jeffery, 2005), the official teaching on evolution is neutral: “The Church has no official position on the theory of Reconciliation Modules evolution … Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution” In October 2017, BYU held a Roads to Reconciliation workshop (“What Does the Church Believe about Evolution?,” 2016, bringing together four teams from the four religiously affiliated p. 41). However, due to prominent religious authorities sharing institutions. Teams consisted of a university theologian or conflicting opinions over the years, a majority of church mem - scholar of religion, a university biologist, and a local commu- bers reject the theory (51% rejected human evolution as of nity pastor. During the workshop, each team discussed (where 2014; Pew Research Center, 2014). TABLE 1. Response rates from each institution Total Completed Have matched pre/ Have matched pre/ % Full participation survey/ enrollment pre surveys post surveys post essays essays BYU 144 117 75 101 52/70 PLNU 66 66 59 47 89/71 CCU 120 25 — 46 —/38 EU 29 29 23 23 79/79 TOTAL 359 237 157 217 44/60 BYU, Brigham Young University; PLNU, Point Loma Nazarene University; CCU, Colorado Christian University; EU, Evangel University. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 3 J. Lindsay et al. Major Objective. The major focus of the reconciliation mod- gic priorities are to “teach students how to learn, teach students ule at BYU is to help students become familiar with the to think for themselves, and to be a magnet for outstanding church’s official statements that there is no doctrine dismiss - students and prepare them for positions of significant leader - ing evolution. ship” (www.ccu.edu/About/strategic-priorities/). CCU does not have an official position on evolution or the pedagogy thereof. Methodology. The module was conducted in class during a 50-minute lecture period directly before the evolution Objectives. The university provides ample exposure to the multi- unit. We provided students with a copy of all official declara - tude of positions on evolution. This is done through a lecture tions of the church on evolution and human origins series that is held roughly once every 4 years in which speakers (referred to as the Evolution Packet, it can be accessed at representing a spectrum of positions toward the diversity of life BYU’s Biology website: https://brightspotcdn.byu.edu/0d/ on Earth present to students, faculty, staff, and the general public. cc/3094a8654f60b552fa97c3df9999/evolution-packet.pdf). We then allowed the students time to consider and then dis- Methodology. Within the School of Science and Engineering, sci- cuss what the scriptures say about creation, emphasizing a ence majors are exposed to the concepts of evolution during their figurative interpretation, and how this could potentially be freshman year through the introductory biology courses Biologi- compatible with the scientific account of evolution, including cal Principles and, subsequently, Biological Diversity. As an exclu- that of humans, allowing for openness and consideration of sively Christian faculty, during the introductory courses, instruc- flexible viewpoints (e.g., on human origins). The presentation tors teach predominantly that theistic evolution and Christian was given in a faith-friendly atmosphere by faculty who are faith are not mutually exclusive, while allowing room for discus- members of the faith. sion within this Christian framework. The reconciliation module served as an invaluable way to help open the door for discussion PLNU Module among these freshmen who had recently matriculated from a Denominational Information. PLNU is affiliated with the Church vast range of Christian backgrounds. It was taught directly before of the Nazarene, which embraces a doctrine of scripture allow- the evolution unit at the beginning of the semester. ing a wide breadth of interpretations regarding the relationship between scripture and scientific teachings, including evolution. EU Module For decades, science and theology faculty alike have been pro- Denominational Information. EU is the national university of vided great freedom to teach evolution, including human evolu- the Assemblies of God. While a stance on evolution is not a core tion, and affirm its continuity with Christian faith. However, the doctrine of the denomination, a creation position paper was majority of the students come from church backgrounds averse revised in 2010 and 2014 (https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics to such reconciliation. -Index/The-Doctrine-of-Creation). This paper states, “Any evo- lutionary theory, including theistic evolution/evolutionary cre- Objectives. The introductory biology courses have been imple- ationism, that claims all forms of life arose from a common menting strategies for students to reconcile evolution and faith ancestry is thereby ruled out.” However, Assemblies of God for many years. The goal is to expose students to multiple per- constituents hold diverse views on evolution (Tenneson and spectives on the relationship between scripture and creation, Badger, 2010). About half align with YEC, about a fourth to a and to enhance their appreciation for the broad spectrum of third align with OEC, and about 15% align with TE. Very few positions a Christian can hold. hold an agnostic evolution or atheistic evolution view. Methodology. The module spanned the length of the evolution Objectives. Integration of faith, life, and learning is a core value unit with the brief reconciliation activities introduced both in at EU. Consequently, students study origins from theological, class and as homework. Before the beginning of instruction on philosophical, and scientific perspectives simultaneously. In the evolution, the students read excerpts from the book Origins module, students were taught that deistic and atheistic evolu- (Haarsma and Haarsma, 2011), which allows the class to enter tion constructs clearly lie outside the domain of biblically con- a discussion with everyone at a similar starting point, under- servative Christianity (affirmation of biblical infallibility and standing that there are various positions people can hold. After inspiration). On the other hand, YEC, OEC, and evolutionary the instructor shares his or her own personal story reconciling creation are embraced by Christians who hold a high view of evolution and faith, the module incorporates reading, writing, scripture. While natural selection and subsequent evolutionary and discussion assignments that explore aspects of this conver- outcomes (a.k.a. microevolution) are not contested by informed sation. These assignments are designed to help students culti- members of this group, macroevolution and human evolution vate humility and charity toward others and alternate positions. are. Students explore the reasons for this and are provided with Our theology faculty teach their courses in Bible and Christian examples of conciliatory approaches. tradition in ways that seek to support and build on the goals of the biology faculty. Methodology. The module began with a discussion of data- driven decision making and civility. Civil discourse was mod- CCU Module eled from the beginning of the course in an attempt to make the Denominational Information. CCU is an interdenominational classroom environment a safe one to discuss potentially inflam - Christian university whose philosophy, while broadly evangeli- matory topics. The reconciliation module took place over the cal, seeks to nurture and develop each individual student’s per- first six classroom periods, based largely on the book Christian sonal Christian faith. Included in the 13 university-wide strate- Perspectives on Origins (Badger and Tenneson, 2014). Students 18:ar58, 4 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance also read and critiqued Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” come to their current viewpoint. They were given a target of or NOMA (Gould, 1997). Multiple class periods were spent ∼500 words. The second essay prompt asked them to re-evalu- exploring mainstream evolutionary theory and animal taxon- ate what they had written in the first prompt and to comment omy. When applicable, references were made to reconciliation on if and how their opinions of evolution had changed over the module components studied earlier in the semester. convening time since the first prompt. Again, they were given a target of ∼500 words. Experimental Design BYU, PLNU, and one instructor at CCU administered prompt To determine the effects of our reconciliation modules, we gath- 1 at the start of the evolution unit and prompt 2 at the end of ered data before and following implementation in the class- the semester. The other instructor at CCU administered prompt room. We used both qualitative (essays) and quantitative (sur- 1 just before the module and prompt 2 just after. EU adminis- veys) methods to gauge acceptance. In addition to determining tered prompt 1 at the beginning of the semester and prompt 2 changes in acceptance, data from the preinstruction instru- directly after the evolution unit. The timing of prompt 2 differed ments allowed us to identify potential predictors of initial between institutions due to the nature of the module (whether acceptance and of a change in acceptance with reconciliation. it was one class period or spread out within the evolution unit) and convenience of sampling times within the curricula. While Instruments some students may have been given additional time to contem- Demographic and Opinion Survey. For determining predictors plate reconciliation, we do not believe this affected results of of evolution acceptance and change, a survey was created and reconciliation, given that all evolution content was taught administered before intervention. Items included age, geographic between prompts. Each instructor sent his or her students’ location in childhood, gender, religious affiliation, chosen major essays to a single research team at BYU for coding. The coding (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [STEM] or team consisted of multiple authors, including a professor, J.L.J., non-STEM), whether a student received public or private school- a PhD student, D.G.F., and several undergraduate students, J.L., ing in high school, the degree to which a student interpreted the A.A., C.L.S., and E.R.T. biblical Genesis narrative as a literal or figurative event, the To code essays, the research team used previously estab- extent to which evolution was covered in a student’s high school, lished essay codes (see Bradshaw et al., 2018) and spent sev- and a student’s reaction to his or her high school instruction (the eral weeks together reading essays and coding them into sev- instrument can be found in the Supplemental Material). eral different categories until interrater reliability surpassed 90%. Researchers looked for overall themes from each student’s Predictors from Survey. Two predictors from the survey were response to code the essays into the most appropriate category. statistically significant and are described here: interpretation of Many essays displayed multiple themes; in such cases, the most Genesis and reaction to the teaching of evolution in high school. prominent theme was chosen. Codes for essay prompt 1 with Respondents were given five options for the interpretation of sample quotations are shown in Table 2. Two additional codes the “six days of creation” in the book of Genesis: 1) They are six were added to essay prompt 2 (13 and 14; see Table 3) to consecutive 24-hour days. 2) They are six 24-hour days with accommodate two additional common essay responses from gap(s) of time. 3) They are six periods of time of unknown the present study. For analysis purposes, these 13 codes were length. 4) They are six figurative days, not to be understood as grouped into four categories: full acceptance (11 only), limited real periods of time. 5) I am not sure. For analysis purposes, a acceptance (7 and 12), rejection (2–4, 6), and other (1, 5, response of 1 was coded as a “literal” interpretation of Genesis. 8–10, 13). Codes and sample quotes for essay prompt 2 are Responses of 2 and 3 were considered semiliteral, in that shown in Table 3. Again, for analysis purposes, these 14 codes respondents were allowing for some figurative interpretation. A were grouped into four categories: full acceptance (1, 6, 12), response of 4 was considered a “figurative” interpretation of limited acceptance (2, 7, 13, 14), rejection (4, 8), and other Genesis. Any response of 5 was eliminated from analysis. (3, 5, 9–11). Full acceptance refers to any response in which For the other predictor, reaction to the teaching of evolution the student expressed an acceptance of evolution with no indi- in high school, respondents were given six options: 1) It was not cation of any rejection of individual components (e.g., human taught in my high school. 2) Acceptance without conflict. evolution). Note, however, that, if a student did not mention 3) Concern about the validity of evolution. 4) Feelings of mild human evolution in the essay (i.e., we are unaware of the stu- conflict. 5) Feelings of severe conflict leading to rejection of evo - dent’s acceptance or nonacceptance of this particular point), lution. 6) Feelings of neutrality; no strong reaction either way. the student could still be coded as a “full acceptor.” Thus, it is Any response of 1 was eliminated from analysis. The remaining possible that the category is an overestimation of acceptance. responses were ordered as follows: 3 and 5 as rejection or dis- However, given the open-ended nature of the essay prompt, missive responses, 4 as mild conflict, 6 as neutral, and 2 as this was unavoidable. As seen in the codes in Tables 2 and 3, acceptance. None of the other variables measured in the survey limited acceptance referred to any response in which students were significant predictors. acknowledged that evolution occurs but took specific issue with one or more components of the theory (most common Essays. In addition to the surveys, we administered essay components included human origins and speciation events or prompts before and after the intervention. The first essay macroevolution). prompt asked students to reflect on their current, individual opinions about evolution. They were asked to define evolution Quantitative Measure of Evolution Acceptance. We used and discuss the emotions and feelings that the word “evolution” the Generalized Acceptance of EvolutioN Evaluation, or evokes in them. They were also asked to explain how they have GAENE (Smith et al., 2016), as a quantitative measure of the CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 5 J. Lindsay et al. TABLE 2. Essay prompt 1 codes Code Brief description Example quote Final coding 1 Discomfort: fear, discomfort, “It’s confusing to me to think of us once being little cells floating around and then Other confusion becoming people who can think and talk and do so many things.” 2 Demeaning: the idea is repugnant “When I hear the word evolution I cringe. I absolutely hate the word evolution.” Rejection or offensive 3 Improbable: the idea cannot be “The word that first pops into my head when I think about evolution would be Rejection true fake/false.” 4 Religious conflict: rejection for “Although I don’t think evolution and Christianity can coexist, I do believe that it Rejection religious reasons is important to learn about both ends of the spectrum.” 5 Avoidance: avoid because of “It seems that evolution really just brings up controversy and arguments about Other controversy who’s right and who’s wrong.” 6 Theory: only a theory with serious “I believe that evolution is more of a theory than a fact” Rejection flaws 7 Man different: accept evolution “I do know that there is substantial evidence that animals evolve. I do not Limited with exception of mankind believe, however, that humans evolved from apes.” acceptance 8 Ignorance: do not have an opinion “For the most part, I just haven’t had really any interest into the idea.” Other 9 Equivocal: uncertain, some “Basically, overall I am unsure how to really feel about evolution because I do not Other evidence compelling, some not think that I have received adequate education on both sides of the argument to date.” 10 Suspended judgment: resolving “I couldn’t care less honestly how we got here because I have full faith in that Other the matter not a high priority God created Earth.” 11 Acceptance: full acceptance of the “I have been taught evolution from the Darwin perspective and have accepted it Full theory wholeheartedly, despite my religious nature and upbringing.” acceptance 12 Adaptation only: accept small “I do believe that microevolution exists, but I don’t believe that one species Limited changes and adaptation, but (humans), can evolve completely from another” acceptance not speciation 13 Other: essays that do not fit in any “Some random and not very sound ideas I have is that we have misinterpreted Other of the categories above the artifacts we have found and the Neanderthals were actually the angel hybrids talked about in Genesis.” acceptance of evolution. The total score is the sum of each summing responses to the 15 items for a total possible score of response on 13 five-point Likert-scale items, for a total of 75 points. 65 points. The GAENE was administered before and following the intervention. Note that we intentionally did not measure Statistical Analyses evolution knowledge for three reasons. First, knowledge was To determine which demographic factors predicted the pre- not the objective of our study, as we were focused on accep- GAENE and change in GAENE, we used multiple linear regres- tance only; second, several studies show that knowledge and sion. To compare qualitative essay scores before and after acceptance are tenuously correlated (for positive and negative intervention, we used a chi-square goodness of fit to compare the examples, see Johnson and Peeples, 1987; Bishop and Ander- distributions of the four binned categories (full acceptance, son 1990; Rutledge and Warden, 2000; Brem et al., 2003; limited acceptance, rejection, and other). To quantitatively Sinatra et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2006; Nehm and Schonfeld, determine whether acceptance of evolution changed in response 2007; Chinsamy and Plagányi, 2008; Hasan and Donnelly, to our intervention, we compared pre and post GAENE scores 2011; Hill, 2014; Rissler et al., 2014; Glaze et al., 2015; Dunk using a paired-samples t test, when assumptions of normality et al., 2017; Mead et al., 2017; Weisberg et al., 2018); and third, were met, and an exact sign test when nonparametric alterna- the surveys were long, and survey fatigue can negatively affect tives were needed within each institution (an exact sign test was response rate and results. Thus, we do not believe we would used as an alternative to the Wilcoxon signed-rank test due to gain information relevant to our objective of measuring the nonsymmetrical distributions). Mean of normalized gains (g effect of a reconciliation module on acceptance by including scores) were calculated to compare the progress at each school knowledge instrumentation. (Hake, 1998). Changes in religiosity were assessed, again using paired-samples t tests or exact sign tests within each institution. Measure of Religiosity. To determine whether our interven- tion influenced religiosity of our participants, we measured RESULTS student religiosity before and following the intervention. The Predicting Evolution Acceptance religiosity instrument was taken from a previously validated A multiple regression analysis was performed on combined data study (see Manwaring et al., 2015). It consists of 15 items, from all four institutions to predict pre-GAENE scores from a each on a six-point Likert scale assessing self-reported religious participant’s Genesis interpretation and self-reported reaction to practices (e.g., frequency of prayer), religious influence (e.g., evolution in high school. (The following variables were run in religion’s influence on the food you eat), and religious hope an initial regression but were found to be insignificant and were (e.g., belief in miracles). Total religiosity was calculated by excluded from our final model: age, geographic location in 18:ar58, 6 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance TABLE 3. Essay prompt 2 codes Code Brief description Example quote Final coding 1 Change toward acceptance “Similar to the different views that Origins refers to, I would now consider myself a Full acceptance believer in evolutionary creationism.” 2 Change toward accep- “I still do not believe that humans came from monkeys, but I do believe that Limited acceptance tance, with exception evolution is change that is occurring over time.” of man 3 Change toward confusion “At the beginning of the semester, I was a lot more passive about evolution. Now I’m Other and discomfort just confused and depending on the day, sometimes I feel like defending it and sometimes I feel like attacking it.” 4 Change toward rejection “In no way did learning the facts about evolution persuade me to believe it as truth, Rejection in fact it convinced me to believe the exact opposite.” 5 Change to tolerance of a “So, I suppose that my change in position is that I fall somewhere in the middle of Other different point of view everything. I do not agree nor disagree.” 6 No change, still accept “I claim my present point of view as being similar to my earlier one. Evolution is a Full acceptance real thing and Heavenly Father oversees it.” 7 No change, still accept, but “I still support evolution for everything that exists except humans” Limited acceptance not man 8 No change, still reject “I wrote previously I do not disagree with the fact that things change and adapt over Rejection time. I do, however, believe that God spoke everything into existence and He said that it was good.” 9 No change, still confused “One of the biggest questions is concerning Adam and Eve. According to evolution, Other Neanderthals existed before the first “humans” as we know them. What does that mean? I’m not really sure.” 10 Do not care “Evolution has no significance to me.” Other 11 Other (did not fit into any “So, to put it simply: I learn evolution, I recite and memorize facts of evolution, I Other other category) discuss it with my STEM major friends and I discuss it with my conservative parents, but I do not wholly and fully know that it is fact.” 12 Still accept, but received “Before this semester I was a firm believer in evolution. However, this semester has Full acceptance substantial evidence to given me a broader and more extensive knowledge of the evidence supporting support acceptance this theory.” 13 Change toward accep- “As I have gained more knowledge on the different types of evolution, I have come to Limited acceptance tance, adaptation only agree with microevolution, for it consists of small changes, and no new kinds are (microevolution) developed.” 14 No change, still adaptation “I do believe in microevolution of minor changes over time, this being due mainly to Limited acceptance only (microevolution) adaptation, but whole species changes are not logical in my opinion.” childhood, gender, religious affiliation, chosen major [STEM or reaction to evolution in high school (e.g., from mild conflict to non-STEM], whether a student received public or private school- neutral or from neutral to accept) the pre-GAENE score increased ing in high school, the extent to which evolution was covered in by 2.46 points, holding Genesis interpretation constant. a student’s high school, and institution.) All assumptions for lin- A second analysis was run to predict a change in acceptance ear regression were tested and met. Our model significantly pre - via a change in GAENE scores after intervention. None of the dicted pre-GAENE scores, F(2,186) = 40.14, p < 0.001. The R measured variables were significant predictors of change, p > for the overall model was 30.1% with an adjusted R of 29.4%. 0.05. Again, all assumptions were met for linear regressions. Interpretations of coefficients (see Table 4) show that for every step toward figurative interpretation of Genesis (e.g., from lit - Change in Evolution Acceptance eral to semiliteral or from semiliteral to figurative), student Essays. Based on essay responses, providing students with a scores on the pre-GAENE went up by 4.2 points (on a 65-point compatibility module appears to significantly increase evolu - scale), holding high school acceptance constant. In addition, tion acceptance. At BYU, students showed a significant shift in with each step toward full acceptance in a student’s self-reported distribution of essay codes (χ (3) = 54.55, p < 0.001) toward acceptance. Before having the compatibility module adminis- tered, 38.5% of students accepted all components of evolution- TABLE 4. Multiple regression analysis showing the prediction of ary theory. After the module, full acceptance jumped to 70.1%, pre-GAENE scores by a participant’s interpretation of Genesis and a 31.6% increase. reaction to evolution in high school PLNU and CCU showed similar significant shifts in accep - Variable B SE b p value 2 2 tance (PLNU: χ (3) = 24.69, p < 0.001, CCU: χ (3) = 40.22, p < Intercept 27.64 2.85 <0.001 0.001). At PLNU, students went from an initial percentage of Genesis interpretation 4.20 0.87 0.31 <0.001 full acceptance of 51% to a postcourse full acceptance of 83.1%, High school reaction 2.46 0.41 0.38 <0.001 a 32.1% increase. At CCU, 13.0% of students fully accepted evolution at the start of the semester compared with 43.5% at B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error of the coefficient; b = standardized coefficient. the end of the semester, a 30.5% increase. CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 7 J. Lindsay et al. showed limited acceptance. After the mod- ule, however, limited acceptance jumped to 69.6%, a 27.9% increase, and rejection dropped to 4.3% (one student; see Figure 1). GAENE. We analyzed the GAENE to quantitatively measure any changes over the course of the semester in student acceptance of evolution. The average pre- GAENE for BYU students was 70.3%, and 80.8% on the post-GAENE. This showed a 10% increase over the course of the semester (t(74) = 9.006, p < 0.001). We saw similar results at PLNU and EU. The pre-GAENE showed that the average score for PLNU students at the beginning of the semester was 72.5%. The post-GAENE for PLNU was 84.0%. This shows an 11.5% FIGURE 1. Pre and post essay distributions at each institution. Horizontal stacked bars increase over the course of the semester indicate the proportion of essays that fell into each of the broad categories before (t(58) = 8.26, p < 0.001). At EU, the pre- (pre = prompt 1) and after (post = prompt 2) intervention. “Full Acceptance” refers to any GAENE was 60.3% and the post-GAENE response in which the student expressed an acceptance of evolution with no indication of was 68.6%, showing an 8% increase any rejection of individual components (e.g., human evolution). “Limited Acceptance” (t(22) = 3.268, p = 0.004). Owing to low refers to any response in which the student acknowledged that evolution occurs but took response rates, CCU was not included in specific issue with one or more components of the theory (most common components included human origins and speciation events or macroevolution). “Rejection” refers to analysis (see Figure 2). Normalized gains any response in which the student denied the validity of evolution. Other refers to any are as follows: 33.5% at BYU, 42.0% at response that could not be categorized into any of the first three. PLNU, and 16.9% at EU. At EU, the results were less dramatic, but still significant, Religiosity (χ (3) = 29.91, p < 0.001), showing an increase of 17.5% in full To determine whether our intervention affected student religi- evolution acceptance. However, the most striking aspect at EU is osity, we compared students’ self-reported religiosity at the that there was a 29% decrease in evolution rejection. Many of the end of the intervention with that reported at the beginning, students who originally rejected evolution were able to at least measured on a 75-point scale. We found no significant changes make the jump to limited acceptance. Before the module, 33.3% in religiosity across all denominations that collected pre and of students rejected evolution, while 20.8% fell into the “other” post data. Before the administration of the intervention, BYU category (i.e., no opinion). Meanwhile, 41.7% of students had a religiosity of 70.8. After the reconciliation module was given to students, religiosity remained relatively consistent at 71.3 (an exact sign test showed no median differences between pre [median = 72.0] and post [median = 74.0], p = 0.078). A post religiosity score was not collected at PLNU; their average pre score was 59.3. At EU, religiosity went from 65.1 to 63.1 (an exact sign test showed no median differences between pre and post [median for both = 65.0], p = 0.832; see Figure 3). DISCUSSION Based on these results, providing students with a reconciliation module alongside evolution instruction significantly increased evolution acceptance. Their acceptance levels as they enter the classroom appear to be influenced by their interpretation of biblical Genesis and their impressions of evolution in high school. Regardless of their acceptance as they enter, based on our hypothesis that providing students with a way to reconcile faith and science can positively influence acceptance, we predicted a significant increase in acceptance following our intervention, a prediction confirmed by our results ( p < 0.001). Students at BYU, PLNU, and CCU each showed a shift of more than 30% toward full acceptance, while EU only showed a shift FIGURE 2. Pre- and post-GAENE scores at each institution. The of 17.5% toward full acceptance but a 46% shift to partial GAENE is scored on a 65-point scale; numbers have been converted to percentages. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. acceptance (Figure 1 shows essay data). Therefore, providing 18:ar58, 8 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance was not affected (Figure 3). Students were able to reconcile their religious beliefs with evolution. Barnes and Brownell (2017) call on scientists and science instructors to bridge gaps between religious and secular views by incorporating ReCCEE practices in their classrooms and other public settings. This is with the hope that we can increase overall student acceptance of evolution and decrease conflict between religion and evolution. It is important to note that the effectiveness of the reconcili- ation module varies with the delivery given by the professor. At BYU and PLNU (which had 10 and 13% increases from pre- to post-GAENE, respectively), the professors presented theistic evolution in a very favorable manner, prompting students to reconcile evolution with their religious beliefs. All the scientific evidence for evolution was presented agnostically. At EU, which increased only 8%, the professor presented detailed informa- tion about five competing origins perspectives (YEC, OEC, the - istic evolution, agnostic evolution, and atheistic evolution). Students identified the strengths and weaknesses of each view posited by proponents and detractors. While it was made clear that Christian faith was incompatible with atheism, students were left to decide for themselves which view to embrace. This FIGURE 3. Pre and post religiosity at each institution. Religiosity is was followed by standard college textbook material on measured on a 75-point scale. Scores have been left raw. Error bars evolution. represent the standard error of the mean. Additionally, because students probably choose to attend universities that are compatible with their worldviews and val- ues, religiously conservative schools are populated by more students with paths to compatibility can significantly increase religiously conservative students than other schools. These uni- acceptance of evolution regardless of their starting points. versities may also be affiliated with conservative religious Additionally, evolution rejection decreased in all of the tested groups (e.g., Assemblies of God). As stated previously, EU is schools. Students at EU were the most striking example, with an affiliated with the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal Christian initial rejection of evolution at 33.33% and a post model rejec- denomination. Assemblies of God adherents typically have a tion at 4.3% (one student), a 29% decrease (Figure 1 shows more conservative view in interpreting and applying scriptures essay data). Similarly, students at BYU, PLNU, and CCU showed compared with the Church of the Nazarene (PLNU) or the significant 9.4%, 3.1%, and 23.3% decreases in evolution rejec - Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (BYU). Students tion, respectively. Thus, our reconciliation module appears not who affiliate with the Assemblies of God may find it harder to only to increase full acceptance rates, but it also decreases rejec- reconcile faith and evolution than PLNU and BYU students. tion in favor of accepting at least parts of the theory. While it does not appear that religiosity is affected by accep- An interesting trend was found in the outlying case of EU tance of evolutionary theory, the reverse is very likely. That is, students. In terms of limited acceptance of evolution, numbers religiously conservative people are likely more resistant to evo- dropped at BYU, PLNU, and CCU by 20.5%, 13.3%, and 33.3%, lution acceptance than others (Dagher and BouJaoude, 1997; respectively (Figure 1). Therefore, we reasonably assumed that Hill, 2014). Schools located in regions of the United States many of these students made the leap to full acceptance post whose populations are more resistant to evolution, like the model, and therefore limited acceptance numbers decreased. South (Rissler et al., 2014), will naturally be composed of stu- However, this trend did not prove true at EU, where initial lim- dents with this viewpoint. This may be the case for EU, which ited acceptance of evolution was 41.7%, but post-model limited draws most of its students from Missouri, and may partially acceptance increased to 69.6%, a 27.9% increase. As stated pre- explain the lower evolution acceptance rates found in the EU viously, evolution rejection decreased at EU by 29.03%. With a student population. 27.9% increase in limited evolution acceptance, it can be rea- sonably assumed these students who initially rejected evolution Broader Connections made the leap to at least limited acceptance, if not full. There- Research shows that evolution acceptance in the United States fore, although the increase in full acceptance was not as large as is lower than in 32 European nations (Miller et al., 2006). at the other institutions, progress was still made. Also notable is Researchers and scientists have attempted to address this dis- that this limited acceptance includes ideas such as evolutionary crepancy through various teaching strategies. These strategies adaptation and natural selection, which may be useful in mak- have been predicated upon finding which factors most greatly ing informed decisions about antibiotic usage, conservation influence evolution acceptance. Many researchers have sug - efforts, vaccine usage, and other topics informed by evolution- gested potential factors as being influential, such as an under - ary thinking. Thus, although not a full acceptance of evolution, standing of the nature of science (Cavallo and McCall, 2008; our intervention has helped students accept valuable principles Cofré et al., 2017; Dunk et al., 2017), student knowledge of related to many practical applications of evolution. evolutionary theory (Rissler et al., 2014; Glaze et al., 2015; Our results also showed that, over the course of the semester, Weisberg et al., 2018), reasoning ability (Lawson and Weser, as students increased in acceptance of evolution, their religiosity CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 9 J. Lindsay et al. 1990; Honey, 2015; although see Manwaring et al., 2018), and module. Going forward, this has major implications for science individual religiosity (Dagher and BouJaoude, 1997; Hill, 2014; education. Educators, as they become willing and able to admin- Rissler et al., 2014). Research is mixed on the effectiveness of ister such models, will have a greater opportunity to relate to each of these approaches. Our findings oppose those of students and create a safe learning environment. Religious Coyne (2012), however, who contended that the only way to students will not feel as much tension exploring scientific fields increase evolution acceptance is for individuals to completely and data from a perspective built on the nature of science. Thus, abandon their religiosity. it is possible that more individuals will be interested in scientific It is also interesting to consider that the way in which stu- discovery and can make greater contributions to the scientific dents interpret Genesis and the impressions they get during endeavor. high school coverage of the subject are influential factors in Additionally, we argue that many of the stumbling blocks sur- acceptance as they enter a college course. This would suggest rounding faith and evolution can eventually be overcome. With that perhaps this reconciliatory approach should start earlier in a promising method of reconciling science and religion, co-exis- a student’s exposure to the subject, that is, in the high school tence of these ideas can be established. The current director of setting. It is unlikely, however, that any one of these approaches National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, captures this can completely mitigate the lack of evolution acceptance in the nicely: “One of the great tragedies of our time is this impression United States. Nevertheless, we have argued that an individual that has been created that science and religion have to be at war” can maintain religiosity and increase evolution acceptance if (Swinford, 2006). Our findings demonstrate that they do not. the subject is approached in a way that suggests potential com- patibility. We add our findings to other recent research (Barnes ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and Brownell, 2017) that emphasizes a more culturally/reli- Work presented in this article was supported by the Howard giously conscious approach to teaching evolution. We have Hughes Medical Institute. We are grateful for its support of this shown that, with a reconciliatory approach that focuses on important work. acceptance of evolution, we do not diminish religiosity. REFERENCES Alles, D. L. (2001). Using evolution as the framework for teaching biology. Limitations American Biology Teacher, 63, 20–23. Despite the significant results of our study, we recognize that Badger, S., & Tenneson, M. (2014). Christian perspectives on origins (3rd ed., there are potential limiting factors when administering this rev.). Springfield, MO: Evangel University. model. One such factor is the influence of a role model. Research Baker, J. O. (2013). Acceptance of evolution and support for teaching has shown that the influence of a religious, evolution-accepting creationism in public schools: The conditional impact of educational at- role model can play a significant factor in whether a student tainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 52, 216–228. will accept evolution (e.g., Barnes and Brownell, 2017; Holt Barnes, M. E., & Brownell, S. E. (2017). A call to use cultural competence et al., 2018). Given that the majority of biologists are not reli- when teaching evolution to religious college students: Introducing reli- gious cultural competence in evolution education (ReCCEE). CBE—Life gious (Graffin and Provine, 2007), having a role model who Sciences Education, 16, es4. models religious and scientific commitment to students may Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to prove to be difficult in some situations. There are, however, control America’s classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. resources that can assist students in finding role models outside Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural se- the classroom (e.g., the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Broader lection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Social Impacts Committee provides videos from scientists of 27, 417–425. diverse religious backgrounds to help students navigate faith Bradshaw, W. S., Phillips, A. J., Bybee, S. M., Gill, R. A., Peck, S. L., & Jensen, J. L. (2018). A longitudinal study of attitudes toward evolution among and science; Smithsonian, 2019). The presentation of these undergraduates who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of resources to religiously minded students by culturally sensitive Latter-day Saints. PLoS One, 13, e0205798. https://doi.org/10.1371/ nonreligious educators may provide a model to enhance accep- journal.pone.0205798 tance of evolution. Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of Another limitation is our intentional decision not to measure evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social evolution knowledge or nature of science knowledge. As previ- impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 87, 181–206. ously stated, this was not the objective of the current study. Cavallo, A. M. L., & McCall, D. (2008). Seeing may not mean believing: Examining students’ understandings and beliefs in evolution. American However, it is certainly possible (and likely probable, given the Biology Teacher, 70, 522–530. literature) that increased knowledge and understanding of the Cherif, A., Adams, G., & Loeher, J. (2001). What on “earth” is evolution? The nature of science acquired during the course of the semester geological perspective on teaching evolutionary biology effectively. were additional contributors to the increase in students’ accep- American Biology Teacher, 63, 576–591. tance of evolution. We are certainly not claiming that the recon- Chinsamy, A., & Plagányi, É (2008). Accepting evolution. Evolution, 62, ciliation modules were the only causal factor for gains in accep- 248–254. tance. However, the gains that we saw in this study are large in Cofré, H., Cuevas, E., & Becerra, B. (2017). The relationship between biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and the understanding comparison to what is in the literature, suggesting that the rec- and acceptance of the theory of evolution. International Journal of onciliation approach is likely a large contributing factor. Further Science Education, 39, 2243–2260. research on these two variables is warranted. Coyne, J. A. (2012). Science, religion, and society: The problem of evolution in America. Evolution, 66, 2654–2663. CONCLUSION Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of As demonstrated in this study, religious students demonstrate college students: The case of biological evolution. Journal of Research gains in evolution acceptance when offered a reconciliation in Science Teaching, 34, 429–445. 18:ar58, 10 CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 Reconciliation and Evolution Acceptance Dawkins, R. (1989). Book review of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okamoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolu- Blueprint. New York Times, section 7, 34. tion. Science, 313, 765. Dawkins, R. (2008). The God delusion. New York: Mariner Books. National Center for Science Education. (2019). The creation/evolution con- tinuum. Retrieved July 1, 2019, from https://ncse.com/library-resource/ Deniz, H., Donnelly, L. A., & Yilmaz, I. (2007). Exploring the factors related to creationevolution-continuum acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological Nehm, R., & Schonfeld, I. S. (2007). Does increasing biology teacher knowl- evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 420–443. edge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? Journal of Science Teacher Dunk, R., Petto, A., Wiles, J., & Campbell, B. (2017). A multifactorial analysis of Education, 18, 699–723. acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education & Outreach, 10I, 1–8. PBS. (2007). Bill Moyers talks with E. O. Wilson. Bill Moyers Journal. Retrieved Evenson, W. E., & Jeffery, D. E. (2005). Mormonism and evolution: The April 10, 2019, from www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07062007/transcript1 authoritative LDS statements. Salt Lake City, UT: Greg Koor ff d Books. .html Farber, P. (2003). Teaching evolution and the nature of science. American Pew Research Center. (2014). 2014 Religious landscape study. Retrieved April Biology Teacher, 65, 347–354. 10, 2019, from www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study Gallup. (2017). In US, belief in creationist view of humans at new low. Pew Research Center. (2016). Religious belief and national belonging in Cen- Retrieved April 10, 2019, from www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief tral and Eastern Europe. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from www.pewforum -creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx .org/2017/05/10/science-and-religion Glaze, A. L., Goldston, M. J., & Dantzler, J. (2015). Evolution in the southern Pew Research Center. (2017). Key findings about Americans’ belief in God. USA: Factors influencing acceptance and rejection in pre-service science Retrieved April 10, 2019, from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/ teachers. International Journal of Science and Math Education, 13, 1189– 04/25/key-findings-about-americans-belief-in-god Rissler, L., Duncan, S., & Caruso, N. (2014). The relative importance of religion Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106, 16–22. and education on university students’ views of evolution in the Deep Graffin, G. W., & Provine, W. B. (2007). Macroscope: Evolution, religion and South and state science standards across the United States. Evolution: free will. American Scientist, 95, 294–297. Education & Outreach, 7, 1–17. Haarsma, D. B., & Haarsma, L. D. (2011). Origins: Christian perspectives on Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. A. (2000). Science and high school biology creation, evolution, and intelligent design. Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive teachers: Critical relationships. American Biology Teacher, 62, 23–31. Christian Resources. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of bio- thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics logic evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 510–528. courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–67. Smith, M. U., Snyder, S. W., & Devereaux, R. S. (2016). The GAENE—General- Hall, G. E., & Woika, S. A. (2018). The fight to keep evolution out of schools: The ized Acceptance of EvolutioN Evaluation: Development of a new mea- law and classroom instruction. American Biology Teacher, 80, 235–239. sure of evolution acceptance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Hasan, D., & Donnelly, L. (2011). Preservice secondary science teachers’ ac- 53, 1289–1315. ceptance of evolutionary theory and factors related to acceptance. Smithsonian. (2019). Thoughts on science, religion, and human origins. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 31(4), 2.1–2.8. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader Hill, J. P. (2014). Rejecting evolution: The role of religion, education, and so- -social-impacts-committee/thoughts-science-religion-and-human cial networks. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 53, 575–594. -origins Holt, E. A., Ogden, T. H., & Durham, S. L. (2018). The positive effect of role Swinford, S. (2006). LONDON: I’ve found God, says man who cracked the models in evolution instruction. Evolution: Education & Outreach, 11, 11. genome. VirtueOnline. Retrieved April 10, 2019, from www.virtueonline Honey, L. P. (2015). Why I teach the controversy: Using creationism to teach .org/london-ive-found-god-says-man-who-cracked-genome critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 793. Taylor, J. (2019). The new atheists. Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Johnson, R. L., & Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in Retrieved July 1, 2019, from www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/ college: Student acceptance of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 49, Tenneson, M., & Badger, S. (2010, Spring). A brief overview of Pentecostal 93–96. views on origins. Enrichment Journal (online edition). Retrieved April 10, Lamoureux, D. O. (2008). Evolutionary creation: A Christian approach to 2019, from http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ejonline_201002 evolution. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. _origins.cfm Lawson, A. E., & Weser, J. (1990). The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about Weisberg, D. S., Landrum, A. R., Mertz, S. E., & Weisberg, M. (2018). No miss- life: Eects ff of instruction and reasoning skills. Journal of Research in ing link: Knowledge predicts acceptance of evolution in the United Science Teaching, 27, 589–606. States. BioScience, 68, 212–222. Legare, C. H., Lane, J. D., & Evans, E. M. (2013). Anthropomorphizing science: What does the church believe about evolution? (2016). New Era, October, 41. How does it aect ff the development of evolutionary concepts? Mer- Winslow, M. W., Staver, J. R., & Scharmann, L. C. (2011). Evolution and person- rill-Palmer Quarterly, 599, 168–197. al religious belief: Christian university biology-related majors’ search for Manwaring, K. F., Jensen, J. L., Gill, R. A., & Bybee, S. M. (2015). Influencing reconciliation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 1026–1049. highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution: Mormons as a Yerky, M. D., & Wilczynski, C. J. (2014). The mystery of the skulls: What can case study. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8, 1–12. old bones tell us about hominin evolution? American Biology Teacher, Manwaring, K. F., Jensen, J. L., Gill, R. A., Sudweeks, R. R., Davies, R. S., & 76, 109–117. Bybee, S. M. (2018). Scientific reasoning ability does not predict scientific YouGov. (2017). Science and religion: Exploring the spectrum. Retrieved views on evolution among religious individuals. Evolution: Education & April 10, 2019, from www.google.com/url?q=https://docs.google.com/ Outreach, 11, 2. viewerng/viewer?url%3Dhttps://sciencereligionspectrum.org/wp Mead, R., Hejmadi, M., & Hurst, L. D. (2017). Teaching genetics prior to teach- -content/uploads/2017/09/SRESYouGov-survey-preliminary-findings ing evolution improves evolution understanding but not acceptance. -5.9.17.pdf%26hl%3Den_GB&sa=D&ust=1554847443513000&usg PLoS Biology, 15, 388–394. =AFQjCNE8zmLbvGaH-xrskiBNRI9AUFP_hg CBE—Life Sciences Education • 18:ar58, Winter 2019 18:ar58, 11

Journal

CBE Life Sciences Education – Pubmed Central

Published: Mar 1, 169

There are no references for this article.