Religious views affect undergraduates’ endorsement of teleological reasoning and understanding of natural selection, but not their ability to learn evolution: A preliminary mixed-methods study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1609548/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Religious views affect undergraduates’ endorsement of teleological reasoning and understanding of natural selection, but not their ability to learn evolution: A preliminary mixed-methods study

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1609548/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 13 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in Evolution: Education and Outreach →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Creationist religious views have a large influence on the public’s views and learning related to evolution, especially human evolution. Creationism has been shown to reinforce students’ design teleological stance, which creates challenging conceptual obstacle for learning evolution. The purpose of the current study was to determine if students with creationist views responded differently to education intended to directly challenge design teleological reasoning in the context of a human evolution course, compared to students with naturalist views. In a convergent mixed-methods design this study combined pre- and post-semester survey data (N = 48) on student endorsement of teleological reasoning, acceptance of evolution, and understanding natural selection, with thematic analysis of student reflective writing on their understanding and acceptance of natural selection and teleological reasoning. This study found that students with creationist views had higher levels of design teleological reasoning and lower levels of acceptance of evolution at the beginning of the semester, compared to students with naturalist views (p<0.01). Students with creationist views experienced significant (p<0.01) improvements in teleological reasoning and acceptance of evolution. While the changes teleological reasoning, understanding and acceptance experienced by students with creationist views were similar in magnitude to changes in students with naturalist views, creationists never achieved levels of evolution understanding and acceptance seen in students with naturalist views. Thematic analysis revealed that a majority of students believed that religion and evolution are discordant. However, over one-third of students expressed openness to learning about evolution alongside their religious views. This paper describes pedagogical practices to help students understand their own teleological reasoning and support students with creationist views who are learning about evolution.

design teleology

teleological reasoning

evolution acceptance

evolution pedagogy

creationism

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection in his On the Origin of Species (1) was largely viewed as heretical in the Christian historical context in which it was published (Kampourakis 2020). Prior to the publication of Darwin’s theory, the Christian view of creationism was articulated by William Paley, who argued that organisms are so complex, that they could only be created by a designer. Paley further argued that since organisms are more complex and superior than anything created by humans, their designer must be God (2). Even after more than 160 years of evidential support for Darwin’s theories, Paley’s Christian views of creationism continue to have an outsized influence on the public’s views and learning related to evolution, particularly human evolution. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey found that 18% of adults in the United States believe that humans have always existed in their current form (and therefore, have not evolved); 48% believe that humans have evolved, but that God or a higher power played a role; and 33% believe that humans evolved by natural forces (3). Other recent US public opinion surveys have shown that 38% of US adults have creationist views on human origins (4) and 52% disagreed that humans have evolved from other animal species (5). In contrast, an overwhelming majority of non-religiously affiliated US adults believe that humans have evolved over time (3).

Although people of Christian faith have a wide range of attitudes toward evolution (6, 7), numerous studies have shown that one’s level of religiosity negatively impacts their acceptance of evolution (8–11). In a recent study of undergraduates in a human evolution course, we reported a significant positive correlation between level of religiosity and endorsement of teleological reasoning, as well as significant negative correlations between religiosity and acceptance and understanding of evolution (12). One potential cognitive mechanism by which Christian creationism may influence evolution acceptance and learning is its reinforcement of design teleological reasoning because creationists believe, fundamentally, that God is the designer of living things (13). Many previous studies have shown that people who believe in God have higher levels of unwarranted, design teleological reasoning (14–17) than non-believers. Efforts to attenuate student design teleological reasoning are relevant to science educators because numerous authors have suggested that design teleological reasoning disrupts student ability to learn about biology, especially evolution (18–27) and yet, science educators may underestimate the prevalence of the teleological bias and its cognitive impacts (28). Therefore, understanding the relationship between creationism, students’ endorsement of design teleological reasoning, and accepting and understanding of natural selection is imperative to improving the public’s knowledge of evolution. To replace the design teleological bias with veridical views on the natural world is cognitively challenging, but necessary to accurately understand biological sciences (29, 30). Additionally, decreasing teleological thinking in an effort to facilitate greater understanding and acceptance of evolution has implications that reach beyond the classroom as application of evolution to societal issues such as climate change and health decisions can help students make more educated decisions grounded in science (Barnes and Bronwell, 2016).

Several authors (6, 12, 22, 26, 27, 30–33) have proposed that a goal of teaching evolution is to explicitly address the design teleology stance and provide opportunities for students to experience conceptual conflict from which they can come to regulate their teleological reasoning as they realize that design-based explanations are insufficient. However, the extent to which creationism affects students’ responses to such pedagogies challenging design teleology has not been tested.

The purpose of the current study was to determine if students with creationist views responded differently to education intended to directly challenge design teleological reasoning in the context of a human evolution course, compared to students with naturalist views. We also assessed whether pedagogy directed at design teleological reasoning differentially affected students’ understanding and acceptance of natural selection. We hypothesized that students with creationist views would enter a human evolution course with higher levels of design teleological reasoning, lower levels of evolution acceptance, especially related to macroevolution and human evolution, and lower levels of understanding of natural selection, compared to their counterparts with naturalist views. We additionally hypothesized that students with creationist views would have smaller learning gains in these variables in response to a course on human evolution and direct pedagogical challenges to design teleological reasoning.

In a mixed-methods design, we combined pre- and post-intervention quantitative assessments of teleological reasoning, evolution acceptance, and understanding of natural selection, with thematic analysis of student reflective writing on evolution acceptance and personal experience of design teleological reasoning. We sought to extend the existing literature by (1) differentially quantifying changes in teleological reasoning over the course of the semester in response to explicit instruction on teleological reasoning between two groups: students with and without creationist views, (2) differentially quantifying changes in acceptance and understanding of natural selection between groups, and (3) gaining a deeper qualitative understanding of student perceptions of potential discordance or compatibility between religion and the study of evolution. This study presents data on the impact of creationist views on student endorsement of design teleology and acceptance and understanding of natural selection in undergraduates at the beginning, during, and end of a human evolution course. Educational recommendations to support students encountering conceptual barriers associated with creationism will be presented.

Participants

Forty-eight undergraduate students (N = 48, mean age (SD) = 23.5 (7.3) years, 64.5% female) in a course on the evolutionary principles of health volunteered for all aspects of this study, which occurred at a public liberal arts college in the Southeastern United States during three consecutive Fall semesters. This study was deemed exempt from further review by the Institutional Review Board at UNC Asheville and all participants provided signed informed consent prior to participating in the study.

This course explored fundamental concepts of human evolution, teleological thinking, disease processes attributable to evolution, and environmental and social evolutionary mismatches in the modern world which contribute to disease. By examining evolutionary principles of health and disease, students gained insights into how humans have adapted to various environments, and why particular diseases occur in the modern world. This course consisted of lectures, group discussions on readings, weekly quizzes, and a final paper exploring the evolutionary principles of a chosen disease. One aim of this course was frequent discussion on design teleological reasoning, including the potential disruption of teleology to students’ learning about evolution, particularly human evolution. To accomplish this aim there were three consecutive weekly quizzes in the first month of the semester asking students to identify the statement(s) with design teleological reasoning out of a list of otherwise veridical evolutionary statements. Students were also asked to re-write the teleological statements with veridical evolutionary mechanisms. Once quizzes were graded, the correct answers to these quizzes were discussed with students. This course and its teleology interventions are described in more detail in a previous study (12).

Assessment

Students completed three quantitative surveys during the first and last weeks of the semester, in the order presented below. The first survey measured students’ understanding of natural selection with the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS), which consists of 20 multiple-choice questions each with one correct answer (34) and has been shown to be valid and reliable (34, 35). The second survey was a 36-item survey of teleological reasoning adapted from the larger measure created by Kelemen et al (36), which originally included 100 one-sentence explanations for “why things happen,” to which participants responded “true” or “false”. Kelemen et al (2013) presented the explanations as timed, two-alternative forced-choice statements. In the current study, the Kelemen et al (2013) measure was adapted to include 20 test sentences and 16 control sentences (4 true causal explanations, 5 true teleological explanations, 4 false causal explanations, and 3 false teleological explanations), chosen at random from each statement type in the original study. Only student responses to the unwarranted teleological statements were included in the analysis. A further adaptation of the original measure is the use of a 5-point Likert scale in the current study to determine the student’s level of agreement, rather than the previously used timed, two-alternative forced-choice test. The third measure included the 24-item Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA) which has been shown to be a reliable measure of evolution acceptance in college students (37, 38). This survey also included student demographic information, level of prior exposure to evolution, number of previous courses on evolution in high school and college, level of religiosity, and specific religious affiliation. Level of religiosity was assessed by asking students to self-report how important religion was in their life, using a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from not important to very important. An additional survey question on the pre-semester survey asked: Which of the following views comes closest to your belief about the origins of the world? (a) God created the world or (b) The world is the product of purely natural forces like the Big Bang or evolution (39). Students who selected the former option were categorized as having creationist views (CV) and students who selected the latter option were categorized as having naturalist views (NV).

Additionally, during the tenth week of the semester, students were asked to complete written responses to the following four open-ended questions: 1) Please describe your level of acceptance of evolution. 2) Have your views on evolution changed since an earlier point in your life? If so, what has caused this change? If not, please describe your reasons. 3) Have the readings and discussions in class been consistent with your views about life or has it been challenging? Please explain your answer. 4) Please describe your thinking about the causes of nature, evolution, and human life, rather than the purpose. Has your use of teleology changed?

Quantitative Analysis

Mann-Whitney U tests examined between-group (CV vs. NV) differences at both pre- and post-semester. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests examined paired within-group differences between pre-and post-semester. Values are presented as mean (SD) and effect sizes are presented as Hedges’ g.

We also ran three independent multiple regressions to determine the relative influence of each variable on understanding of natural selection at post-semester (CINS-post), the change in CINS score, and acceptance of human evolution at post-semester. GraphPad Prism Version 9.3.1 (San Diego, CA) was used for all statistical analyses, except for the multiple regression analyses and effect sizes, which were calculated with R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.01, after Bonferroni correction for five comparisons per measured variable.

Qualitative analysis

Two reviewers conducted a thematic analysis on the student responses to the open-ended questions. The first step of the thematic analysis was for both reviewers to independently read each student response and determine recurring themes mentioned. The reviewers then independently re-read the student responses and identified when the themes were mentioned. If a student mentioned the theme at least once in their responses to any of the open-ended questions, a score of “1” was recorded for that theme in the student’s response. Once interrater reliability of this method was established (12), the total number of mentions from one reviewer (JW) was summed across students for each theme. Only the themes related to students’ views on religion and learning/acceptance of evolution were included in this analysis.

Of the 48 students who completed all surveys at both pre- and post-semester, 15 (31%) had creationist views and 31 (65%) had naturalist views. Two students (4%) selected both (a) God created the world and (b) The world is the product of purely natural forces like the Big Bang or evolution, and were subsequently dropped from further analysis because the option to choose both answers was not offered as a choice. Six percent (6%) of the students were sophomores, 35% juniors, 54% seniors, and 4% post-baccalaureate students. There were no group differences in number of prior courses on evolution or the students’ self-reported level of prior exposure to evolution (p > 0.05). Self-reported religious affiliation included: 10% Catholic, 0% Eastern Religion, 15% Fundamental Christian, 2% Jewish, 0% Muslim, 17% Other Protestant, 19% Other, and 36% reported None. On the importance of religion in the students’ lives, 35% listed “not important,” 21% “slightly important,” 17% “moderately important,” and 25% listed “very important.” Students with creationist views (CV) had higher levels of religiosity than students with naturalist views (NV), at both pre- (CV mean (SD): 3.40 (0.63) vs. NV mean (SD): 1.74 (1.03); p < 0.0001) and post-semester (CV mean (SD): 3.56 (0.63) vs. NV mean (SD): 1.48 (0.68); p < 0.0001). There was no change in level of religiosity across the semester for either group.

Endorsement of teleological reasoning

Students with creationist views (CV) entered the class with higher endorsement of teleological reasoning than students with naturalist views (NV) (Hedges’ g = 0.73; p = 0.0089) (Table 1). Over the semester, endorsement of teleological reasoning decreased for both CV (Hedges’ g=-1.12; p = 0.0041) and NV (Hedges’ g=-1.24; p < 0.0001), but the magnitude of teleology change was similar between groups.

Understanding of natural selection

Understanding of natural selection (CINS score) was similar between groups at pre-semester (Hedges’ g = 0.74; p = 0.037), but significantly higher for the NV group compared to CV at post-semester (Hedges’ g = 1.30; p = 0.00049). Understanding of natural selection increased over the semester for both CV (Hedges’ g = 0.70; p = 0.010) and NV (Hedges’ g = 0.76; p < 0.0001), but the magnitude of change did not differ between groups. Yet, at the end of the semester understanding of natural selection in the CV group remained lower in magnitude than the NV group at pre-semester, indicating that the CV group never achieved the NV group level of understanding of natural selection.

Multiple linear regression determined the relative influence of each measured variable (CINS_pre, teleological reasoning_post, ISEA_post, and view on life’s origins (CV vs. NV)) on student post-semester understanding of natural selection (Table 2): R² = 0.53; F(4, 41) = 11.40, p < 0.0001 (Adjusted R² = 0.48). Together, these variables accounted for 48% of the variance with significant unique variance contributed by incoming understanding of natural selection and whether the student had creationist or naturalist views. Therefore, the student’s baseline natural selection understanding (CINS_pre) and their views on life’s origins, creationist or naturalist, were the greatest predictors of their final understanding of natural selection. These same two factors, CINS_pre and their views on life’s origins, were also the greatest predictors of pre- to post-semester change (CINS_diff) score on the CINS (Table 3, R² = 0.44; F(4, 41) = 7.97, p < 0.0001 (Adjusted R² = 0.38), with other measures controlled. In this latter regression model, having naturalist views correlated with larger CINS_diff score.

Acceptance of evolution

Acceptance of evolution (I-SEA_total) was significantly higher for the NV group compared to CV at both pre- (Hedges’ g = 1.35; p = 0.00023) and post-semester (Hedges’ g = 2.03; p < 0.0001) (Table 1). Level of acceptance increased during the semester for the NV group (Hedges’ g = 0.57; p = 0.0003), but not for the CV group. Even at post-semester, the magnitude of acceptance of evolution for the CV group remained below acceptance levels for the NV group at the beginning of the semester.

Further analysis of the I-SEA subscales showed additional differences in evolution acceptance between groups (Table 4). The NV group had higher acceptance of macroevolution compared to the CV at both pre- (Hedges’ g = 1.45; p = 0.00011) and post-semester (Hedges’ g = 2.05; p < 0.0001) (Table 4). The NV group’s acceptance of macroevolution increased (Hedges’ g = 0.46; p = 0.0017) during the semester, but there was no such change in the CV group. However, the magnitude of macroevolution acceptance change did not differ between groups.

Acceptance of microevolution did not significantly differ between groups at pre-semester. The NV group had increased acceptance of microevolution during the semester (Hedges’ g = 0.58; p = 0.0022), but the CV group did not change. At post-semester, the NV group had significantly higher acceptance of microevolution compared to the CV group (Hedges’ g = 1.31; p = 0.00042) (Table 4).

Acceptance of human evolution increased for both CV (Hedges’ g = 0.45; p = 0.0016) and NV (Hedges’ g = 0.56; p = 0.00071) during the semester and the changes for both groups were similar in magnitude (Table 4). But, the NV group had higher magnitude of human evolution acceptance compared with the CV group at both pre- (Hedges’ g = 1.50; p < 0.0001) and post-semester (Hedges’ g = 2.03; p < 0.0001). In fact, human evolution acceptance for the CV group remained lower at post-semester than the level of human evolution acceptance for the NV group at pre-semester (Hedges’ g = 1.01; p = 0.0035).

To control for all other variables and determine the relative influence of each variable (CINSpre, Teleological reasoning_pre, and view on life’s origins (CV vs. NV)) on students’ post-semester acceptance of human evolution, we conducted a multiple linear regression (Table 5): R² = 0.55; F(3, 41) = 16.78, p < 0.0001 (Adjusted R² = 0.51). Together, these variables accounted for 51% of the variance in student acceptance of human evolution scores, with significant unique variance contributed only by the student’s creationism vs naturalist views.

Qualitative analysis

In the thematic analysis of the responses to the open-ended questions 66.7% of students mentioned religion in their responses to four open-ended questions. Examples include,

I am at a crossroads when it comes to evolution. Being raised in a Christian household, we never really talked about evolution, so it is interesting to learn about different ways the earth came about. I will say, this class has opened my eyes to many things, because the research is certainly there and is compelling. So, the crossroads I am at is balancing my beliefs in Christianity but also wanting to learn more about the earth and the human race as a whole. I would say my ideas of evolution have definitely developed from what they were before. As someone who didn’t really understand or accept evolution (mostly because I wasn’t introduced to it) I didn’t really know much about its concepts. But this semester has been extremely fascinating in understanding viewpoints on how we’ve developed.

I’m a creationist. It is undeniable that microevolutionary occurrence has happened at a cellular level but I do not believe that we evolved over billions of years.

"I struggle to say that I believe in evolution in its entirety, due to my being raised as a Christian."

Of those who mentioned religion in their responses, 73.5% mentioned religion as a perceived obstacle to learning or accepting evolution, as if religion and evolution cannot be compatible with each other or are mutually exclusive. For example,

"Growing up as a Christian at first it was hard to connect with the content of what we were reading and discussing in class. After learning about it, I can see and understand the ideas of evolution. I'm not 100% sure if I accept it, just from my religious background but I'm not opposed to learning more about evolution."

"I grew up in a household where religion was not present and so evolution has always been an easy concept for me to digest and to understand."

Evolution is a topic that I have not had much experience with growing up. I grew up in a Christian home with creationism as the main topic I was taught throughout my life. My Christian faith and beliefs are still extremely important to me, and are the way I see and view the world today. Coming into this class, I told myself to keep an open mind and strive to learn as much as I could about a topic I had not only hardly ever talked about in my childhood, but was also starkly different from my current beliefs. While I have appreciated the many different topics and discussions we have had in class, as well as the thought-provoking questions and readings, if I am to be fully honest I would have to say that up to this point there is still a lot about evolution that is hard for me to accept. I acknowledge the fact that there is a plethora of information that I am not an expert in, nor would I claim to know everything about Evolution or Christianity either. There is so much I still want to learn and understand, but a few months of this class has not been enough to change my thoughts about the world and my faith that have been characteristic of my life up to this point. Throughout this class there have been many points in time where I have struggled with questions and topics that have been hard to reconcile with my own beliefs. I think the one thing that has changed in my own head is just hearing and understanding that Evolution is simply change over time. I think this idea was largely absent in any mention of evolution throughout my life. Again, I believe that there is much I do not know on the arguments and research for evolution and that is something I hope to continue to educate myself on and learn. I have greatly appreciated hearing and learning so much about a topic that was not spoken of much in my upbringing, and it has been a very enlightening experience. However, even still evolution is difficult for me to accept in the present moment as I believe that God created the world, we are not here on accident, and there is intentional design in every human being. Along with this line of thinking, I also struggle with the concept of an extremely old earth and have always heard and believed that the earth was much younger than this.

“This course has been challenging because it does contradict my faith and personal beliefs. My faith is something that is real. I choose to live my life trusting that God is my Creator and will continue to provide my basic needs and that I need Jesus Christ as my savior."

"I have believed in evolution for a long time. My belief really started when I moved away from religion in my personal life."

A smaller portion of students (39.2%) mentioned that they are able to hold their religious views and their acceptance of evolution in mind together. For example,

While I still believe that there may be higher powers at work in the universe, I do not believe that these higher powers had any say in evolution or that anything happens for a reason when it comes to mutations and adaptations.

"Evolution does not conflict with my spirituality because they can exist in tandem. We may all be expressions of God but that doesn't take away from the hard evidence that we evolved from apes. Both can be true. If anything, the wondrous process of evolution validates and strengthens my faith in the divine mysteries of the universe."

I am almost leading a double life with what I believe. I believe in evolution to an extent but I also have faith. This class has made this a struggle for me! Accepting both has been an interesting journey this semester.

"It is interesting to me as a Christian to believe in both evolution as well as god. There's a level to my acceptance as well as to my belief."

The data presented in this exploratory study provide preliminary evidence describing the influence of creationist views on levels of design teleological reasoning and acceptance and understanding of natural selection in students in an undergraduate course on human evolution. The purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitative data alongside a thematic analysis of student reflective writing on their experiences of religion, increasing awareness of teleological reasoning, and acceptance of evolution by natural selection. Taken together, these data reveal the real and perceived challenges that people with creationist views face when learning evolution.

As hypothesized, students with creationist views entered the human evolution course with significantly higher levels of design teleological reasoning compared with students with naturalist views. Several previous studies have shown that people with religious, especially, fundamentalist Christian, views are more likely to explain the existence of behaviors and origins of entities in the natural world with reference to design that serves a purpose, function, or goal (14). According to this view, Christians believe that God is the sole design agent for things in the natural world. The design-based teleological stance is reinforced by the creationism of fundamental Christianity (15). Numerous reports have described design-based teleological reasoning as an impediment to accurate learning of natural selection (18, 21, 22, 27) and other biological sciences (40). Level of endorsement of teleological reasoning was recently shown to be the strongest predictor of understanding of natural selection prior to a course on evolution (12).

Importantly, and perhaps surprisingly, students with creationist views were highly receptive to instruction on design-based teleology. In fact, the data presented indicate that student endorsement of teleological reasoning declines in magnitude similarly in both CV and NV groups in response to pedagogical activities intended to teach students to regulate their teleological reasoning. By the end of the semester, students with creationist views had lower levels of teleological reasoning than the NV group began the semester with. This finding suggests that religious faith does not restrict students to a design-based stance on nature, but that CV students can learn to regulate their teleological reasoning. Nonetheless, religious faith does appear to represent a sizeable emotional and conceptual obstacle for students with CV when learning about evolution (22). Students with CV have been taught that God has a purposeful plan and being confronted with the reality that evolution is directionless and devoid of a greater meaning can cause these students to feel as though their belief system is incompatible with this new information. As a result, they may face an emotional, cognitive, and/or existential conflict (41, 42). Our data show that having creationist views is indeed a strong predictor of both lower understanding of natural selection at the end of the semester and decreased learning of natural selection over the course of the semester.

While the theory of evolution itself is not controversial, there is political controversy around the teaching of evolution among creationists, which may cause CV students to perceive evolution and religion as antithetical (43). In their reflective writing, some students expressed a clear discordance between their belief in God and full acceptance of evolution or an inability to fully accept evolution as a result of their religious upbringing. However, no student directly attributed their perceived challenges of thinking about evolution non-teleologically to their belief in Christianity. Our data support efforts of science instructors to teach about the disruptive impact of design-based teleological explanations alongside the veridical evolutionary mechanisms. Encouragingly, our data also show that students with creationist views are responsive to these messages. It is possible that this latter finding may be specific to only students with creationist views who chose to take a human evolution course. Perhaps these students are more open to non-teleological thinking and human evolution instruction than people with creationist views in the general public who would be unwilling to take a course on human evolution. Barnes et al suggested that teaching the application of evolution, in this case the application of evolution to understanding human health and disease, may enhance the ease of acceptance, especially acceptance of human evolution (18). Future research should look at the difference between applied and non-applied evolution courses and the level of acceptance in NV and CV students.

While magnitude of teleological reasoning of the CV group declined over the course of the semester to levels similar to the NV group at pre-semester, acceptance and understanding of natural selection did not approach pre-semester NV levels. Both the CV and the NV group demonstrated significant gains in natural selection understanding, but the CV group mean CINS score at post-semester remained below the NV group mean CINS score prior to instruction. In fact, as discussed above, having creationist views was a significant predictor of lower post-semester understanding of natural selection. Therefore, our data indicate that students with creationist views began the course on evolution with a significant knowledge gap on natural selection, despite similar levels of prior education on evolution. If the primary objective of a course on evolution is to improve understanding of natural selection, our data indicate that those with creationist views are capable of achieving learning gains similar to those with naturalist views, but they are not able to catch up with those with naturalist views by the end of the semester. Unfortunately, we were unable to directly associate student course grades with their quantitative data or reflective writing due to anonymous data collection to protect privacy of our sample. However, we suspect that given the significantly lower CINS scores of the CV group at post-semester compared to the NV group, students with creationist views likely ended the semester with lower grades. Future research should investigate whether students with creationist views are at a grade-disadvantage in evolution courses, or science courses more generally, as a result of the presence of creationist views and/or a design-teleology stance.

The CINS does not include questions of understanding of human evolution, which was the focus of this course. Instead, it assesses general knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms using other animals (e.g., guppies, lizards, and finches), requiring a generalized understanding of natural selection. It is possible that students in the NV group were more capable than the CV group of applying the evolutionary concepts presented on humans to other species.

The CV group had lower overall acceptance of evolution than the NV group at both pre- and post-semester. Acceptance of evolution in the CV group did not change over the course of the semester, as it did in the NV group. The I-SEA allows a more granular look at component parts of evolution acceptance, namely macroevolution, microevolution, and human evolution (37). The three sub-disciplines of evolutionary study carry different levels of acceptance for people with creationist views. Macroevolution is the study of speciation and the evolution of new taxonomic groups over long periods of time and is challenging for those who believe that God created immutable organisms (44). As predicted, students in the CV group entered the course with significantly lower acceptance of macroevolution than those with naturalist views and acceptance of macroevolution remained lower over the semester for the CV group. Acceptance of macroevolution did not change in the CV group, but did increase for the NV group.

In contrast, people with creationist views tend to be more accepting of microevolution because it describes small, less conspicuous changes within a species (13). Consistent with this, our data showed no group difference in acceptance of microevolution at the beginning of the semester, but the NV group did make significant gains in microevolution acceptance over the course of the semester which did not occur for the CV group. These data suggest that students in the NV group were more receptive to learning about microevolution than the CV group, which was not predicted. Smith presented evidence that acceptance may lead to belief in evolution over time, even if there was initial resistance (45). Future research could assess the levels of acceptance of evolution in CV students over multiple semesters of exposure to evolution education.

Perhaps most relevant in a course on human evolution is level of student acceptance of human evolution. Students in the NV group had higher acceptance of human evolution compared to the CV group at both pre- and post-semester. This is consistent with the public opinion surveys showing that people with fundamental religious, especially creationist, views believe that God created humans and tend to disagree with human evolution (3, 4). Surprisingly, students in the CV group did demonstrate significant gains in their acceptance of human evolution over the semester, suggesting that students with creationist views are receptive to learning about human evolution. However, the CV group’s human evolution acceptance at post-semester remained lower than the NV group’s human evolution acceptance prior to instruction. Therefore, similar to the CINS scores, acceptance of human evolution in the CV group never caught up with the levels of the NV group. In fact, multiple regression analysis showed that having creationist views, along with incoming understanding of natural selection, were predictors of lower human evolution acceptance at the end of the semester.

The thematic analysis showed that the majority of students who mentioned religion in their reflective writing on acceptance of evolution described a potentially insurmountable conflict between religion and accepting evolution. The majority of students (73.5%) who mentioned religion in their reflective writing, described believing that religion and evolution are discordant. Even several students with naturalist or atheistic views wrote that they believe in evolution because they did not grow up in a religious family, describing a perceived conflict between the two. Consistent with this finding, a Pew Center Research survey found that people who are not affiliated with a religious tradition are more likely to think that science and religion conflict (76%), while about half of surveyed evangelical Protestants and Catholics believe science and religion are mostly compatible (46). Over one-third (39.5%) of students in our study mentioned an interest in or willingness to learn more about evolution alongside their religious views, an openness that is sometimes referred to as theistic evolution (13) or accommodation (47). Below, we discuss ways to support these students’ learning of evolution.

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study is its small sample size, which compromises generalizability to the wider population. Further affecting generalizability is the fact that students who strictly oppose human evolution are doubtful to elect a class on human evolution, which may cause selection bias and skewed data toward acceptance and decreased teleological thinking compared with a representative sample. The extent to which the wider population of people with creationist views could alter their endorsement of design teleology and acceptance and understanding of evolution is unknown. However, this study does provide evidence to support pedagogies directed at decreasing design teleology.

Another limitation is our use of a single dichotomous question to determine whether students have creationist or naturalist views on life’s origins. This method may not have captured students’ true or nuanced views on the origins of life. For example, two students in our sample selected both options, suggesting that our two options, presented as such, did not match their views (data from these students were discarded). Perhaps a third option that a higher power created life and that evolution had an influence, should have been included as an option (39).

Another limitation is that all data were collected anonymously to protect privacy of students, which prevented the direct linking of quantitative data with qualitative responses or final course grades. Therefore, we were unable to determine if certain themes in student writing were related to the quantitative measures of design teleological reasoning, understanding natural selection, or acceptance of evolution. Another limitation may be the result of students trying to meet their perceived expectations of the professor (41). This could lead to students not sharing their true beliefs about evolution in their open responses or selecting a choice on the survey because they know that is the correct answer in terms of the course but not because they actually think it is correct. However, the anonymity of the responses and surveys hopefully attenuated the extent to which this occurred. A further potential limitation identified by Gouvea and Simon is that the wording of questions in the surveys may cause students to acknowledge a teleological statement as correct because they identify a true relationship between two variables, however the use of a Likert scale in this study sought to address this by not requiring students to fully accept or reject each statement (48). Furthermore, it is possible students may be confused by questions, especially ones that implicitly rather than explicitly present teleology (48).

Implications for Teaching

The data presented adds support to the findings of many others that students with creationist views have higher endorsement of design-teleological reasoning and lower acceptance and understanding of natural selection. This study adds to previous work by also showing that similar levels of improvement on all of these measures were evident in both groups. Taken together, our quantitative and qualitative data support the idea that religion, even creationism, and evolution do not have to be strictly opposed within students’ thinking. Many instructors do not address this perceived conflict, but this study supports the stance of Barnes and Brownell that allowing room for open discussion may help CV students accept evolution to a greater extent than if their views on life’s origins are rejected outright (49). Therefore, evolution instructors should assess student views on the origins of life and their openness to evolution in order to find ways of supporting student learning for students with diverse backgrounds. Our data indicate that students with creationist views who choose to take a course on human evolution are more likely to begin the course with higher levels of teleological endorsement, likely resulting from their greater exposure to design-based theology (14, 15). We agree with Barnes et al (6) that evolution should be taught in agnostic, rather than atheistic, terms in order to facilitate learning in students with creationist views, especially those who are open to learning about evolution. In teaching this course, we utilized advocacy and procedural neutrality, two approaches described by Hermann as being effective in the teaching of evolution (50). Advocacy specifically targets increasing student understanding which can lead to improved acceptance, and neutrality is aimed at promoting acceptance. Both approaches allow opportunities for students to investigate their own views on evolution (50).

Our data also provided further evidence that ingrained teleological reasoning is a mechanism for decreased understanding of evolution. We encourage evolution instructors to discuss the ubiquity, universality, and potential pitfalls of design-based teleological reasoning and the potential reinforcing influence of fundamental religious views, particularly creationism, on teleological reasoning as part of a course on evolution. The purpose of this discussion with students is not to be critical of their creationist views, but to describe the documented challenges in an evolution classroom associated with those views. Awareness of the understanding and acceptance deficits associated with creationist views may motivate some students to think deeper about the evolution evidence and their own beliefs and design-based teleological reasoning. While some authors have suggested that students with creationist views be examined separately in evolution courses from students with naturalist views (6), we believe the instructor should provide support to students with religious views in this important critical thinking process by providing opportunities for students to self-assess and receive feedback on their teleological tendencies. Such support is intended to acknowledge, not ignore, that there can be tension between the concepts of evolution and one’s religious views (43). This approach does not disregard the value of one’s religious beliefs, but emphasizes that science is uniquely able to explain the natural world (43). The evolution teacher will be better positioned to achieve greater learning gains across students with diverse backgrounds when they acknowledge the tension between religious and scientific thinking, the differences between the two ways of understanding life, and the effects of teleology on learning.

Despite being commonly used in scientific explanations, design teleological reasoning is learned behavior and can be modified with additional causal evolution evidence and opportunities for reflection on one’s cognitive biases. A course on human evolution provides opportunities for the instructor to exhibit a strong scientific foundation with appropriate uses of teleological thinking patterns, which has the potential to modify students’ cognitive processes (22, 32, 33). We presented evidence to show that directly addressing the tendency to rely on design teleological reasoning and to challenge this way of thinking supports students’ conceptual change (30). To decrease design teleological reasoning and increase evolution learning, we suggest the pedagogical methods presented here: a series of quizzes which ask the student to identify and then re-write the teleological statement, class discussion on design teleology with numerous examples, and reflective writing on one’s experiences with teleological thinking.

Availability of Data and Materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/4cq3e/?view_only=252d3ee79e944ad48797f00a3a48131b.

Funding and Conflicts of Interest

There was no funding for this project and the authors have no conflicts of interest.

Author’s contributions

Jason Wingert Conception and design of study, statistical analysis, data interpretation, prepared figures and tables, manuscript authorship

Gennie Bassett Manuscript authorship

Caitlin Terry Data analysis and interpretation, manuscript authorship

Jimin Lee Statistical analysis, data interpretation, manuscript authorship

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Darwin C. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray; 1859.
Paley W. Natural theology: or, Evidences of the existence and attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearances of nature. By William Paley, … F.C. and J. Rivington; 1819. 502 p.
Funk C. How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they’re asked about it [Internet]. Pew Research Center. 2019 [cited 2021 Mar 11]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/06/how-highly-religious-americans-view-evolution-depends-on-how-theyre-asked-about-it/
Swift A. In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low [Internet]. Gallup News. 2017 [cited 2021 Mar 17]. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx
National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators. National Science Foundation; 2016. 498 p.
Barnes ME, Dunlop HM, Sinatra GM, Hendrix TM, Zheng Y, Brownell SE. “Accepting Evolution Means You Can’t Believe in God”: Atheistic Perceptions of Evolution among College Biology Students. LSE. 2020 May 26;19(2):ar21.
Yasri P, Mancy R. Student positions on the relationship between evolution and creation: What kinds of changes occur and for what reasons? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2016;53(3):384–99.
Dunk RDP, Petto AJ, Wiles JR, Campbell BC. A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2017 Jul 17;10(1):4.
Glaze AL, Goldston MJ, Dantzler J. EVOLUTION IN THE SOUTHEASTERN USA: FACTORS INFLUENCING ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION IN PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS. Int J of Sci and Math Educ. 2015 Dec 1;13(6):1189–209.
Ha M, Haury DL, Nehm RH. Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2012;49(1):95–121.
Rissler LJ, Duncan SI, Caruso NM. The relative importance of religion and education on university students’ views of evolution in the Deep South and state science standards across the United States. Evo Edu Outreach. 2014 Oct 15;7(1):24.
Wingert JR, Bassett GM, Terry CE, Lee J. The impact of direct challenges to student endorsement of teleological reasoning on understanding and acceptance of natural selection: an exploratory study. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2022 Apr 1;15(1):4.
Scott EC. The Creation/Evolution Continuum. California Journal of Science Education. 2001;1(2):61–73.
Banerjee K, Bloom P. Why did this happen to me? Religious believers’ and non-believers’ teleological reasoning about life events. Cognition. 2014 Oct 1;133(1):277–303.
Diesendruck G, Haber L. God’s categories: the effect of religiosity on children’s teleological and essentialist beliefs about categories. Cognition. 2009 Jan;110(1):100–14.
Kelemen D. Are Children “Intuitive Theists”?: Reasoning About Purpose and Design in Nature. Psychol Sci. 2004 May 1;15(5):295–301.
Kelemen D, DiYanni C. Intuitions About Origins: Purpose and Intelligent Design in Children’s Reasoning About Nature. Journal of Cognition and Development. 2005 Feb 1;6(1):3–31.
Barnes ME, Evans EM, Hazel A, Brownell SE, Nesse RM. Teleological reasoning, not acceptance of evolution, impacts students’ ability to learn natural selection. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2017 Oct 2;10(1):7.
Bishop B, Anderson C. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1990;27(5):415–27.
Demastes SS, Good RG, Peebles P. Patterns of conceptual change in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1996;33(4):407–31.
Hammann M, Nehm RH. Teleology and evolution education: introduction to the special issue. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2020 Jul 7;13(1):16.
Kampourakis K. Students’ “teleological misconceptions” in evolution education: why the underlying design stance, not teleology per se, is the problem. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2020 Jan 9;13(1):1.
Kelemen D. Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In: Rosengren K, Brem S, Evans EM, Sinatra G, editors. Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Settlage J Jr. Conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2007 Jul 1;31:449–57.
Sinatra GM, Brem SK, Evans EM. Changing Minds? Implications of Conceptual Change for Teaching and Learning about Biological Evolution. Evo Edu Outreach. 2008 Apr;1(2):189–95.
Trommler F, Hammann M. The relationship between biological function and teleology: Implications for biology education. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2020 May 29;13(1):11.
Wingert JR, Hale RE. Teaching Evolutionary Principles in Health Promotion: A Pilot Study. Pedagogy in Health Promotion. 2021 Mar 1;7(1):60–70.
Moore R, Mitchell G, Bally R, Inglis M, Day J, Jacobs D. Undergraduates’ understanding of evolution: ascriptions of agency as a problem for student learning. Journal of Biological Education. 2002 Mar 1;36(2):65–71.
Gregory TR. Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2009 Jun;2(2):156.
Kampourakis K. Conceptual obstacles to accepting evolution. In: Understanding Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2020. p. 42–62.
Galli LMG, Meinardi EN. The Role of Teleological Thinking in Learning the Darwinian Model of Evolution. Evo Edu Outreach. 2011 Mar;4(1):145–52.
González Galli L, Peréz G, Gómez Galindo AA. The self-regulation of teleological thinking in natural selection learning. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2020 Apr 30;13(1):6.
Liquin EG, Lombrozo T. Structure-function fit underlies the evaluation of teleological explanations. Cognitive Psychology. 2018 Dec 1;107:22–43.
Anderson DL, Fisher KM, Norman GJ. Development and Evaluation of the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2002;39(10):952–78.
Nehm RH, Schonfeld IS. Measuring Knowledge of Natural Selection: A Comparison of the CINS, an Open-Response Instrument, and an Oral Interview. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2008 Dec;45(10):1131–60.
Kelemen D, Rottman J, Seston R. Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013 Nov;142(4):1074–83.
Nadelson LS, Southerland S. A More Fine-Grained Measure of Students’ Acceptance of Evolution: Development of the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance—I-SEA. International Journal of Science Education. 2012 Jul 1;34(11):1637–66.
Nadelson LS, Hardy KK. Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2015 Jun 16;8(1):9.
Hill J. Rejecting Evolution: The Role of Religion, Education, and Social Networks. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2014;53(3):575–94.
Werth A, Allchin D. Teleology’s long shadow. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2020 Mar 5;13(1):4.
Long DE. The politics of teaching evolution, science education standards, and Being a creationist. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2012;49(1):122–39.
Thagard P, Findlay S. Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to Accepting Evolution by Natural Selection. Sci & Educ. 2010 Jun 1;19(6):625–36.
Hildebrand D, Bilica K, Capps J. Addressing controversies in science education: a pragmatic approach to evolution education. Sci & Educ. 2008 Sep 1;17(8):1033–52.
Padian K. How to Win the Evolution War: Teach Macroevolution! Evo Edu Outreach. 2010 Jun 1;3(2):206–14.
Smith MU, Siegel H. On the Relationship Between Belief and Acceptance of Evolution as Goals of Evolution Education. Sci & Educ. 2016 Aug 1;25(5):473–96.
Pew Research Center. Americans’ Perception of Conflict Between Science and Religion [Internet]. Pew Research Center Science & Society. 2015 [cited 2021 Mar 22]. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/10/22/perception-of-conflict-between-science-and-religion/
Pennock RT. Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. MIT Press; 2000. 452 p.
Gouvea JS, Simon MR. Challenging Cognitive Construals: A Dynamic Alternative to Stable Misconceptions. LSE. 2018 Jun 1;17(2):ar34.
Barnes ME, Brownell SE. Practices and Perspectives of College Instructors on Addressing Religious Beliefs When Teaching Evolution. LSE. 2016 Jun 1;15(2):ar18.
Hermann RS. Evolution as a controversial issue: a review of instructional approaches. Sci & Educ. 2008 Sep 1;17(8):1011–32.

Table 1 Mann-Whitney U tests of the group differences between those with Creationist views and those with naturalist views are described below. Wilcoxon tests assessed within-group differences. Mean (SD) and effect size (Hedges’ g) are reported.

	Creationist (n=15)	Naturalist (n=31)	Effect size
Teleological reasoning
Pre	3.40 (0.41)	2.84 (0.87)	0.73*
Post	2.53 (0.89)	1.78 (0.78)	0.90*
Effect size	-1.12*	-1.24***
Natural selection understanding
Pre	8.93 (2.74)	11.94 (4.49)	0.74
Post	10.87 (2.42)	15.16 (3.56)	1.30**
Effect size	0.70	0.76***
I-SEA-total
Pre	88.20 (12.96)	106.20 (13.22)	1.35**
Post	92.67 (13.52)	113.30 (7.75)	2.03***
Effect size	0.32	0.57**

^*p < 0.01; ^**p < 0.001; ^***p < 0.0001

Table 2 Results from a multiple linear regression of post-semester student understanding of natural selection (CINS).

	B	SE B
Intercept	10.91	5.64
CINS-pre	0.44^***	0.12
Teleological reasoning_post	-0.31	0.60
ISEA-total_post	-0.004	0.044
Creationist views	-2.83^*	1.22
Adjusted R²	0.48

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001

Table 3 Results from a multiple linear regression of pre- to post-semester change in student understanding of natural selection (CINS_diff).

	B	SE B
Intercept	-8.84	1.54
CINS-pre	0.53^***	0.10
Teleological reasoning_diff	-0.32	0.58
ISEA-total_diff	0.048	0.040
Creationist views	-2.69^	0.92
Adjusted R²	0.38

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001

Table 4 Mann-Whitney U tests of the group differences on the I-SEA sub-scales between those with Creationist views and those with naturalist views is described below. Wilcoxon tests assessed within-group differences. Mean (SD) and effect size (Hedges’ g) are reported.

	Creationist (n=15)	Naturalist (n=31)	Effect size
I-SEA-macroevolution
Pre	29.00 (4.12)	35.52 (4.54)	1.48^***
Post	29.53 (4.97)	37.48 (3.13)	2.08^***
Effect size	0.12	0.50^**
I-SEA-microevolution
Pre	32.20 (4.77)	35.39 (4.71)	0.67
Post	33.27 (3.92)	37.81 (3.12)	1.33^**
Effect size	0.25	0.61^*
I-SEA-human evolution
Pre	27.00 (6.13)	35.29 (5.07)	1.53^***
Post	29.87 (5.68)	37.97 (2.73)	2.77^***
Effect size	0.49^**	0.66^**

^*p < 0.01; ^**p ≤ 0.001; ^***p ≤ 0.0001

Table 5 Results from a multiple linear regression of post-semester student acceptance of human evolution (I-SEA human evolution subscale).

	B	SE B
Intercept	46.32	5.28
CINS-pre	-0.06	0.21
Teleological reasoning-pre	-2.69^*	1.23
Creationist views	-6.15^**	1.58
Adjusted R²	0.49

^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 13 Jun, 2023

Read the published version in Evolution: Education and Outreach →

Editorial decision: Major revision
17 Aug, 2022
Reviews received at journal
17 Aug, 2022
Reviews received at journal
13 Jul, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
03 May, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
03 May, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
30 Apr, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
30 Apr, 2022
First submitted to journal
29 Apr, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Religious views affect undergraduates’ endorsement of teleological reasoning and understanding of natural selection, but not their ability to learn evolution: A preliminary mixed-methods study

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Participants

Assessment

Quantitative Analysis

Qualitative analysis

Results

Endorsement of teleological reasoning

Understanding of natural selection

Acceptance of evolution

Qualitative analysis

Discussion

Limitations

Implications for Teaching

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1