university student understanding of evolutionary biology's place in

The Ohio State University

1984-12

University Student Understanding of

Evolutionary Biology's Place in the

Creation/Evolution Theory

Fuerst, P. A. The Ohio Journal of Science. v84, n5 (December, 1984), 218-228http://hdl.handle.net/1811/23026

Downloaded from the Knowledge Bank, The Ohio State University's institutional repository

Knowledge Bank kb.osu.edu

Ohio Journal of Science (Ohio Academy of Science) Ohio Journal of Science: Volume 84, Issue 5 (December, 1984)

http://kb.osu.edu

http://hdl.handle.net/1811/23026

Copyright © 1984 Ohio Acad. Sci. 0030-0950/84/0005-0218 $2.00/0

UNIVERSITY STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTIONARYBIOLOGY'S PLACE IN THECREATION/EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY1

PAUL A. FUERST, Department of Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210

ABSTRACT. A questionnaire was used to survey 2,387 students in 10 different sciencecourses at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Students were questioned abouttheir views on the creation/evolution controversy, especially their acceptance of theconcept of Darwinian evolution and on the concept of equal time for "creation science."Biology students in Ohio showed a surprisingly low level of acceptance for the theory ofevolution, and by an 80%-to-20% rate favored the concept of equal time for competingtheories of origins. Students with increased education in biology were significantly lesslikely to accept co-instruction of alternative theories of origins in high school. Only eightpercent of students could correctly identify the concept of differential reproduction asbeing most consistent with Darwinian evolution, among a set of five choices. Twenty-five percent believe that scientists doubt the validity of evolution as a science, while 22%feel that teaching naturalistic theories of science may lead to a decay in American society.Age and college rank had no effect on students' answers when the amount of scienceeducation in biology was taken into account. Students who had been exposed to evolutionduring high school biology courses were more likely to accept the concept of Darwinianevolution. Those students who have experienced more education in biology tend toanswer questions in a manner which is more favorable to evolutionary biology andless favorable to creationist ideas. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that currentmass biological education is not very successful in conveying the scientific basis ofevolutionary biology.

OHIO J. SCI. 84 (5): 218-228, 1984

INTRODUCTIONPublic opinion concerning equal edu-

cational time for creationist "science" playsan important role in the current evolution/creation controversy. Politically, even avocal minority of American society can ef-fect educational policy changes which areneither wise, nor supported by verifiabledata. This can happen in any educationalarea, but can be most detrimental if forcedupon instruction in a subject which is basedupon the methods of hypothesis testing.

Several public opinion surveys have in-dicated that the non-scientific communitystrongly supports the teaching of cre-ationist doctrines on an equal footingwith evolutionary explanations of origins.

Manuscript received 28 October 1983 and inrevised form 28 September 1984 (#83-40).

Surveys from the 1970s and before werereviewed by Edwords (1981). The propor-tion of individuals favoring the teaching ofcreation, either alone or together with evo-lutionary biology, ranged from 83% to89% in three separate studies conductedbetween 1973 and 1976. Several recentsurveys indicated that the earlier senti-ments of the general public remain basi-cally unchanged, but others indicated apotential shift in opinion. Among thosewhich were concordant with earlier reportswas a poll reported in the August 1982issue of Glamour magazine which showedthat 74% of approximately 1,000 re-spondents favored teaching "other views(including the divine origin of life)" if evo-lution was taught in public schools. AnAssociated Press-NBC poll taken inOctober 1981 found that 86% of the 1,598

218

OhioJ. Sci. STUDENT THOUGHT ON CREATION/EVOLUTION 219

persons polled favored teaching either onlythe biblical view (10%) or both biblicaland scientific theories of evolution. Fi-nally, a Gallup poll taken during thesummer of 1982 found that 44% of re-spondents agreed with the statement that"God created man pretty much in hispresent form at one time within the last10,000 years," while only 9% of re-spondents felt that purely naturalistic pro-cesses, operating over millions of years,could account for the human species.

Some polls, however, have indicatedother results. A phone-in poll by the SanFrancisco Chronicle in March 1981showed that 73% of 13,5 12 callers did notwant "the biblical version of creation [to]be taught in science class." The DetroitFree Press polled readers in 1981 andfound that only 29% favored the compul-sory teaching of two models of origins. Adifferent poll, also in 1981, conducted bythe California Poll found only 50% of re-spondents in favor of a two—model ap-proach to origins.

The opinions of university students weredetermined in a poll at Bowling GreenState University, Bowling Green, Ohio(Bergman 1979). Student opinion wassimilar to much of the findings on thegeneral public. Ninety-one percent of the442 undergraduates and 72% of the 74graduate students polled felt that bothideas should be taught. However, only fiveof the 516 students polled were majoringin biology.

Taken as a whole, these results, al-though methodologically different, indi-cate a general public sentiment whichfavors the teaching of origins in a two-model setting, giving equal time to bothcreationist and evolutionist viewpoints.The results do not indicate whether thepublic understands the scientific validityof either viewpoint on origins, nor whetherchanges in opinion might result from in-creased education in the biological sci-ences. A survey of students at The OhioState University was conducted during thefall of 1981 to examine further the opin-

ions of university students and to deter-mine the effects of increased educationin biology.

METHODS AND MATERIALSStudents were polled using a questionnaire of nine

questions. Four questions dealt with balanced treat-ment of "creation science" and evolution and weretaken from the Glamour survey to allow a directcomparison of results. The remaining five questions,specific to this survey, investigated opinions on thevalidity of evolution as a science. The entire ques-tionnaire is presented in Appendix 1.

The questionnaire was distributed by instructorsin 10 courses. Answer sheets were anonymous; noattempt was made to ensure that all students re-turned answers. The exact response rate was notdetermined but was very high and appeared to besimilar for different courses. A total of 2,387 stu-dents returned the questionnaire. These studentsand courses represent a spectrum of exposure to edu-cation in biology at The Ohio State University. TheOhio State University is a large (enrollment over54,000) Midwestern university which exists in anurban setting. Its undergraduate students are drawnmostly from Ohio, both urban and rural back-grounds. Undergraduate admission is open to anyOhio high school graduate meeting minimum highschool course requirements. Students tend to havepredominantly white, middle to lower class socio-economic backgrounds. As listed in table 1, thecourses included three introductory biology courses,Biology 106 (B106, aimed at non-science students),Biology 110 (B110, agriculture, science and somenon-science students), and Biology 113 (B113, sci-ence and biology majors). There is an ordering ofbeginning students with respect to scientific interestand, presumably, ability. The courses would ordi-narily be the first college-level biology courses thata student would complete. Two introductory courses

TABLE 1

Number of students responding for each course.

Course

L201*B106B110B113A200G140G500G678Total

Respondents

5868082432615711313990

2387

*L = Linguistics, B = Biology, A = Anthropol-ogy, G = Genetics

220 P. A. FUERST Vol. 84

in social sciences were also surveyed. Linguistics 201(L201) caters predominantly to a non-physical-science and non-life-science audience but is a subjectwith evolutionary implications. No science prereq-uisites exist for this course. Its students have proba-bly had less formal education in biology than thosein other surveyed courses. Anthropology 200(A200, physical anthropology) has a stronger evo-lutionary orientation than the other undergraduatecourses examined in the survey. It also has no scienceprerequisites. Like the biology courses, it is likely tobe the first life-science course taken by its students.Students enrolled in this course are presumably in-terested in human evolution, are likely to representa preselected group favorable to evolutionary theory,and are less open to creationist arguments.

More advanced students were surveyed in severalcourses in the Department of Genetics. The coursesincluded two introductory genetics courses whichservice different student groups, Genetics 140(G140, agriculture and non-genetics biology majors)and Genetics 500 (G500, predominantly zoology,microbiology and genetics majors). Finally, threegraduate level courses in genetics were surveyed(molecular genetics, evolutionary genetics and bio-statistics), with results combined into a group la-beled G678. These students have had more exposureto biology than undergraduate students and are ex-pected to have a greater scientific maturity whenweighing scientific data and theories. The numbersof students in each course who returned the ques-tionnaire are also shown in table 1. The courses arelisted in order of the expected biological knowledgeand interest of their students with the exception ofA200 which, as mentioned above, represents a pre-selected group and is placed arbitrarily at the moreadvanced end of the introductory courses. In table 1note that the sample is heavily weighted towards thegeneral biology courses, so that averages for the totalsurvey will be more reflective of introductorystudents than of the students in the higherlevel courses.

The relative ranking of students by course, andtherefore with respect to biological background,permits us to see whether interest in the biologicalsciences per se may alter an individual's opinionconcerning the creation/evolution debate. This isbecause students with greater interest in biologywill be enrolled in the higher level courses. How-ever, the rank of a course (with respect to its level ofbiological knowledge) will be related to a student'sage, and possibly to effects such as separation fromfamily environment. Opinions might change simplybecause students grow older, or have been "away atcollege" for a longer time. This effect can be studiedby accounting for the academic rank of differentstudents in the three general biology courses, whichare taken by students with minimal exposure touniversity-level biology. The confounding effects ofage and college experience can be examined by com-paring groups of students with different academicranks (freshmen vs. sophomores, etc.). Differences

among groups were compared by using the like-lihood ratio G-test for independence (Sokal andRohlf 1969).

RESULTSQuestion # 1 asked students if they be-

lieved in Darwin's theory of evolution. Re-sults are given in the first row of table 2,which presents YES answers for severalquestions. Of all students, only 62% re-plied affirmatively, while 30% did not be-lieve in Darwin's theory. Seven percent ofthe students did not answer the question orcircled both yes and no; either response wasinterpreted as a "not sure" answer to thequestion. This category was an addition tothe YES or NO options of the Glamoursurvey, and represents the only changewhich we have made in the interpretationof that questionnaire. The rate of YES re-sponses in the student group represents asignificant increase over the 47% reportedby the Glamour survey. Very significantdifferences were found between students inthe various courses, as seen in table 2. Lessbiologically sophisticated students (L201and B106) did not differ significantly fromthe Glamour survey results. In contrast,students who had completed several biol-ogy courses at the university level (G500 orG678) were much more likely to answeraffirmatively. Examining the effects ofage/college experience on answers from thethree general biology courses (B106, B110and B113) revealed no significant differ-ence between freshmen, sophomores orjuniors/seniors. Thus, the significant in-crease in affirmative answers which accom-panies increased biological education islikely due to the increased education andselection of these courses by students witha bias towards science and not to any con-founding factors.

Students were next asked whether bothevolutionary theory and views such as spe-cial creation should be taught in publicschools. Results are presented in table 2,for question # 2 . The overall studentresponse in favor of equal time (80%) rep-resents a significant increase over the re-sponses of the Glamour poll (74%), and is


TABLE 2

Percentage "YES" answers to question 1-3, 5, 8, 9.

Course

L201 B106 B110 B113 G140 A200 G500 G678 Total sample

Question # 1 50Believe in Theory

of Evolution(n = 2387)

Question # 2 83Should other views be

taught (n = 235 1)Question # 3 33Is creationism religion

in public schools(n - 2337)

Question # 5 67Was evolution taught

in high school(n = 2341)

Question # 8 27Scientists think

evolution is invalid(n = 2265)

Question # 9 27Teaching naturalistic

theories can degradesociety (n = 2276)

50 60 69 69 82 86 84 63

85 83 80 78 75 62 55 80

42 39 45 48 44 52 45 42

65 74 79 84 54 88 92 73

36 23 25 16 15 12 13 25

26 23 22 19 12 9 11 22

consistent with results obtained for similarquestions on the NBC/Associated Presspoll of 1981, the poll of Bowling Greenstudents (Bergman 1979), and two sepa-rate telephone polls conducted by theInstitute of Creation Research in the "Mid-west" (Bergman 1979).

The results show a significant change inattitude as biological education increases.The two upper level groups (G500 andG678) have significantly lower percentagesopting for co-instruction of theories of ori-gins, opinions different both from othercourse groups and from the results of theGlamour poll. Nevertheless, despite thedecline there is still strong support amongall student groups for the inclusion of spe-cial creation somewhere in the publicschool curriculum. Since this questionused the wording of the Glamour ques-tionnaire, no specifications were madeconcerning the location of instruction in

origins. The students were not given theoption of deciding whether a course such associology or comparative religions wouldbe more appropriate than a biology coursefor the presentation of alternative theoriesof first origins. There were no differencesbetween the various academic groups with-in the general biology courses, again indi-cating that biological education is theprincipal factor affecting the responses.There were very significant differences inresponses, however, depending on a stu-dent's response to question # 1 , as shownin table 3. Ninety-one percent of studentswho answered NO or UNSURE for ques-tion # 1 wanted both theories to be taught,compared with 74% of those who said theybelieved in Darwin's theory of evolution.This last figure is obviously still quitehigh.

The third Glamour question investi-gated a respondent's feelings concerning


TABLE 3

Relationship between student answers to question #1and their responses to other questions. Percentage

answering YES to other questions.

Percentage whichanswered yes to:

Question #2Question #3Question #5Question #8Question #9

Among those who gavefollowing answer to

question

YES

7447751912

NO

9139704040

# 1

UNSURE

9232661724

creationism as religion in the publicschools. Results are given in table 2.Among the entire student group, 58% didnot agree that giving creationism equaltime would be allowing religion into pub-lic schools. Although there was someheterogeneity in responses among the dif-ferent courses, in only a single course(G500) did a majority (52%) of studentsagree that teaching creationism would beallowing religion into the schools. Therewas no effect of class rank within the gen-eral biology courses upon the studentresponses, nor were the total studentresponses different from the responsesreceived by Glamour magazine to the samequestion. However, if students answeredYES to question # 1 , they were very sig-nificantly more likely to feel that cre-ationism would be religion in the publicschools (47% vs. 34% for students whoanswer NO or UNSURE to question #1).See table 3.

The final Glamour question posed achoice of the methods to implement teach-ing both evolution and creationism. Re-sults are presented in table 4. Of thestudents, 62% felt that textbooks or schoolcurricula should be changed to presentboth theories. This compared to 60% ofrespondents to the original Glamour poll.There was no difference between studentsof different academic rank within the gen-eral biology courses, but very marked

differences were seen between courses. Al-though choice (c) was always chosen mostoften, where was a tendency for it to be lessacceptable to the more advanced students(G678 students chose this option 41% ofthe time). Interestingly, L201 studentsranked second lowest for this answer andalso ranked second highest to G768 in theproportion of students opting to teach cre-ationism at home (19% for L201, 20% forG678, overall response 10%). This com-pares with 17% of the respondents to theGlamour poll. Only eight percent of thestudents opted to require students to takecourses in both biology and religion, while20% of the students favored "other," com-pared to nine percent and 13% of theGlamour respondents. Option (c) was lessacceptable (by 56% vs. 71%) to the stu-dents who answered YES to question # 1 ,compared to those answering NO/UN-SURE, as given in table 5. The questionwas worded to reflect the Glamour survey,and results might have been different ifworded to permit a choice of requiringonly one subject but not the other.

The second part of the questionnaire,which was not part of the Glamour maga-zine survey, attempted to ascertain studentopinion concerning the validity of evo-lution as a scientific theory. Question #5asked whether the students had been intro-duced to the biological theory of evolutionin their high school studies. It should beremembered that such answers will dependupon the student's recall and cannot ascer-tain in any way the extent or quality ofhigh school instruction of evolutionary bi-ology. Results are given in table 2. Amongthe total group of students, 73% had beenintroduced to evolutionary biology at sometime during their high school education.There were significant differences betweencourses. The two non-biology courses wereamong the lowest in positive responses tothis question (54% for A200 and 67% forL201), being joined at the low end of thescale by the non-major general biologycourses (65%, B106). Among the biologyand genetics courses catering to more bio-

Ohio J. Sci. STUDENT THOUGHT ON CREATION/EVOLUTION 223

TABLE 4

Opinions in favor of various methods to implement teaching of creationism. (Total sample size — 2259.)

Require biology andreligion courses

Teach creationismat home

Change textsOther

L201

11

19

5219

B106

8

8

6420

B110

5

9

6620

B113

10

13

6215

Course

G140

9

12

6316

A200

7

13

5525

G500

9

17

5222

G678

12

20

4127

Total sample

8%

10%

62%20%

TABLE 5

Relationship bet-ween answers to question # 7 andopinions on methods to implement teaching

of creationism.

Percentage whichanswered question #4: YES NO UNSURE

Require biology andreligion courses

Teach creationismat home

Change textsOther

8

13

5722

8

6

7016

5

6

7316

logically oriented students there was anincrease in positive responses from 74% forBl 10 to 92% for G678. We interpret thisincrease as an indication that students whoeventually decide on biologically orientedcareers are more likely to have had a morethorough high school education in biologythan non-science students in the same uni-versity. There were no significant differ-ences between the various academic ranksin the percentage of students having highschool instruction in biology.

There was a significant tendency forthose with high school education in evo-lution to answer YES to the question # 1 ,as shown in table 3 although the absolutedifference between those with high schoolevolution (64% answered YES to question#1) and those without high school evo-lution (58%) was not great.

The students were next asked to identi-fy a statement which best agreed with theiridea of the modern theory of evolution.

The potential answers can be ranked bytheir accord with modern evolutionaryteachings. Thus, answer (b) (differentialoffspring production) was the best answer,with answers (a) and (e), which are relatedto general survival, being the next mostacceptable, and neither of the answers(c) or (d) being in accord with modernevolutionary theory. Answer (d) representsa vitalistic viewpoint of evolution, whileanswer (c) is a popular misrepresentation ofevolutionary interpretations.

Only eight percent of all students choseanswer (b) as their most appropriate an-swer. Among various courses, only thegraduate students in genetics (G678) choseanswer (b) more than 11% of the time, buteven here just 21% recognized differentialreproduction as the most appropriate choi-ce. Answers (a) and (e) were chosen by 31%and eight percent of the total studentgroup, respectively. If we consider the ag-gregate of student answers for either choice(a), (b) or (e), under a heading of "naturalselection," there was a significant increasein student response according to course, asshown in table 6. All of the general biol-ogy courses, as well as L201, chose naturalselection oriented answers less than 50% ofthe time. The graduate students (G678)chose either of the three most appropriateanswers 77% of the time. Turning to thetwo "wrong answers," six percent of allstudents said that answer (c) (man evolvedfrom the chimpanzee or gorilla) was mostappropriate. Only 1% of the students inG500 and G678 chose this option. More


TABLE 6

Percentage of answers to question # 6 concerning possible statements of evolution (n = 2146).

Course

"Survival of fittest"(answer a)

"Different # ofoffspring"(answer b)

"Strong eliminateweak" (answer e)

"Natural selection"(either a, b, or e)

"Purposeful striving"(answer d)

"Evolution fromgorilla" (answer c)

L201

23

7

14

44

52

4

B106

26

7

9

44

46

11

B110

30

8

10

48

48

4

B113

27

4

6

37

55

8

G140

38

9

8

55

43

2

A200

35

11

6

51

42

6

G500

47

11

8

66

32

2

G678

52

21

3

77

22

1

Total sample

31

8

8

48

46

6

interesting, however, was the dramatic re-sponse to answer (d). This answer, whichexplicitly calls for purposeful striving to"higher" forms, was chosen by 46% ofall students, easily garnering a pluralityamong any of the choices, and only barelylower than the combined total for answers(a), (b) and (e) (48%). In two courses (L201and B113) over 50% of the students feltthat answer (d) was most representative ofthe modern theory of evolution. There wasa significant decrease in the proportion ofstudents choosing answer (d) as course levelincreased, but even in G500 and G678,32% and 22%, respectively, of studentsfelt that this answer represented their im-pression of the modern theory of evolution.

From the answers to question # 6 , itseems that many students do not have aclear understanding of the underlyingmechanisms causing evolutionary changesin populations, as postulated by evo-lutionary biologists. There was a barelysignificant difference, within the generalbiology courses, in the answers given bystudents having different academic rank.Upper level students (juniors or seniors)were more likely to choose answer (b) (by13% to six percent) than were freshmen orsophomores. However, if we consider an-swers (a), (b) and (e) as one group, therewas no heterogeneity among the various

TABLE 7

Relationship between answers to question #1 and choiceof best statement of modern theory of evolution.

Percentage which gaveanswer to question #6

a)b)c)d)e)

Among those whofollowing answer

YES

3285

478

question #

gaveto

NO UNSURE

299

114110

3163

537

academic ranks. There was no hetero-geneity among the groups which answeredYES, NO or UNSURE to question # 1 , asshown in table 7, suggesting that simplebelief in evolution did not imply betterunderstanding of the scientific theory. Ifwe examine the pattern of answers to ques-tion # 1 , in the reverse way to that givenin table 7 as a dependent variable of theanswers to question # 6 , significant differ-ences were seen for one group, those whogave answer (c) as the most appropriateresponse to question # 6 . This group an-swered YES to question # 1 only 47% ofthe time (equivalent to the Glamour re-sults) while other answers to question # 6were associated with 65% YES responses

Ohio J. Sci. STUDENT THOUGHT ON CREATION/EVOLUTION 225

for question # 1 . We interpret this differ-ence to indicate that students who haveonly the most superficial knowledge of thetheory of evolution (i.e. would choose(c) for question #6) are least likely to ac-cept that evolution has occurred. Therewas no heterogeneity in the percentageof "correct" answers (a, b, or e) amonggroups who did or did not have exposure toevolutionary biology in high school. Itwould appear that high school biologycourses are not very successful in conveyinga correct understanding of modern evo-lutionary ideas.

Two questions were concerned with de-termining the students' opinions of thevalidity of evolutionary biology as a scien-tific discipline. One question dealt withthe students' opinions directly, while asecond dealt with the students' under-standings of the scientific community'sopinion of evolutionary theory.

Question #7 gave several options con-cerning the scientific foundation of evo-lutionary theory. Results are given in table8. Of the total student group, only 59%felt that the modern theory of evolutionhas a valid scientific foundation, with overhalf of these (35% of the total) feeling thatit was both valid and testable. Of the 41%of students who felt that evolutionarytheory does not have a valid scientific foun-dation, almost half (19% of the total) saidthat this was because the theory was prin-cipally based on speculation. There was asignificant increase in the proportion of

students saying that evolutionary theoryhas a valid foundation (answers # 1 or #2)as the course level increased (table 8), butno difference was found within the generalbiology courses between students havingdifferent academic ranks. One interestingpoint emerges if we examine only studentswho felt that evolutionary theory was notscientifically valid. Among only thosestudents in the upper level courses (G140-G678) with such negative responses toquestion #7 (answers c-e), there was a sig-nificantly increased proportion (55% to44%, compared to introductory level stu-dents) of those who felt that evolutionarytheory was invalid because it was basedon speculation.

Seventy-eight percent of students whosaid they believed in Darwinian evolution(YES to question #1) felt that evolutionhas a valid scientific base. This was signifi-cantly different from students who an-swered NO to question # 1 (22% valid) orUNSURE (46% valid). Thirty-six percentof those who did not believe in evolutionsaid that evolutionary theory was based onspeculation, compared to 25% of thosewho were UNSURE on question # 1, andonly 10% of those who believe in evo-lution. Details on the relationship betweenanswers to question # 1 and student opin-ions on the validity of evolutionary theoryare given in table 9-

Having given their own opinions on thevalidity of evolutionary theory, the stu-dents were asked about their under-

TABLE 8

Percentage of answers to question # 7 , does evolution have a valid scientific foundation.

a.b.c.

d.

e.

yes, because testableyes, but not testableno, because nottestableno, based onspeculationno, other reasons

L201

272214

20

18

B106

362115

23

15

B110

342212

19

14

B113

37294

21

9

Course

G140

4127

5

18

8

A200

41336

14

5

G500

5533

2

6

4

G678

55312

8

3

Total sample

352510

19

12


TABLE 9

Relationship between student answers to question #1and their opinion of validity of evolutionary theory

(question 7).

Percentage who gaveanswer to question #7

a)b)c)d)e)

Among; those who gavefollowing answer to

question

YES

4731

7105

NO

1013153528

# 1

UNSURE

2719182511

standing of the scientific community'sopinion on the validity of the theory. Theresults are given in table 2. Twenty-fivepercent of the students said that scientistsdo not consider evolutionary theory to be avalid scientific theory. As course level in-creased there was a significant decrease inthe proportion of students who said thatscientists considered evolutionary theoryinvalid. There was no effect of academicrank. As with question #7, there was astrong correspondence between the an-swers students gave on question #8 andtheir answers to question # 1 , given intable 3. Students who said they did notbelieve in evolution were twice as likelyas students who did believe in evolution,or who were UNSURE, to say that scien-tists considered evolution invalid (40%versus 19%).

An interesting contradiction arises whenthe answers of a particular student to ques-tions #7 and #8 are compared. Thirty-sixpercent of students who answered thatscientists consider evolutionary theory in-valid, nevertheless personally felt thatevolutionary theory had a valid scientificfoundation. Only 67% of students who be-lieve that scientists consider evolution tobe a valid science will themselves acceptthat evolution has a valid scientific base.

The final question of the survey askedthe students to consider the effect on thefuture of our society of teaching subjectssuch as evolutionary biology. Results are

given in table 2. Twenty-two percent ofstudents felt that teaching naturalistic the-ories of science could lead to a "decay" inAmerican society. Once again, we see adecline in the anti-evolutionary answer asbiological education increases, from 27%in the L201 students to a low of nine per-cent in the G500 students. There was noeffect of academic standing on the answersof students in general biology courses.High school education in evolutionary bi-ology had no effect on this answer. Thequestion showed one of the strongest asso-ciations with answers to question # 1 ,given in table 3. Students who answeredYES, UNSURE or NO felt that natural-istic theories could lead to a decline inAmerican society by 12%, 24% and 40%proportions respectively.

DISCUSSIONAt the politically sensitized interface be-

tween lay society and science, it seems thatfew topics have generated as much conflictas the creation/evolution controversy. Ad-vocates who oppose "dogmatic" science at-tempt to influence the public against ascientific establishment that is portrayed asengaging in a conspiracy to suppress thoseseeking the equal consideration of equalhypotheses. Equal time or balanced treat-ment arguments provide seemingly plau-sible bases for legislative actions or schoolboard mandates on scientific educationpolicy. That the American public has aright, through their elected school boards,to determine the overall content of publicschool education is undeniable. That thecontent of science education should be de-termined by the outcome of popularitycontests is, in contrast, a very deniablecontention. Public opinion is of interest tothe educator who can use it to gauge howeducational methods have succeeded orfailed in their purpose of conveying objec-tive knowledge. In this second area, evo-lutionary biologists can be concerned withevaluating whether public perception oftheir science is accurate.

The present survey suggests that accu-rate perceptions of evolutionary science are


not being communicated effectively, evento those with more opportunities for expo-sure to science education. That only abouttwo-thirds of students taking universitylevel biology courses are willing to acceptDarwinian evolution should be troublingto any biologist. Some may quibble withthe wording of particular questions in thissurvey, but the results seem to give a clearpicture. Biology students, like the publicin general, feel that the equal teaching of"creation science" is fair when evolutionaryscience is being taught. Yet, the resultsalso suggest that the current teaching ofthat evolutionary science is not successfullyconveying a correct impression of theDarwinian theory of evolution. Ideas, suchas those conveyed by question #6's option(d) may well be those which are beingpresented to many students when they geta single lecture or two on evolution in theirhigh school biology classes. This can leadus to wonder about the level of under-standing of evolutionary biology which ex-ists among high school teachers of biology.

The results suggest that increased inter-est in science, and the accompanyingincrease in education in the biological sci-ences does lead to greater acceptance ofevolution as a scientifically valid disci-pline. The fact that as many as 36% ofsome student groups in the sciences stillshould perceive scientists as doubting thisvalidity has to be especially troubling. Canthis be the result of a complete mis-understanding of the methods of scientificinquiry on the part of these students? Al-ternatively (or additionally), there appearsto be great misunderstanding of thecreation/evolution controversy, itself, andof the more scientifically meaningful con-troversies within evolutionary biology.Such disagreement within evolutionary bi-ology includes the concepts of selectiveneutrality in molecular evolution, andpunctuated equilibria in paleontology. Ifthis is so, how much more misunder-standing exists in the general public whichwill have less exposure to biological edu-cation? The current wave of anti-evolu-tionary rhetoric cannot help but result in

the reduction of the time spent on evo-lution in biology courses at the high schoollevel (Nelkin 1976). The low level of ac-ceptance of evolution indicated by thepresent results must, therefore, causebiologists to rethink ways to better com-municate to the general public the actualtheory and results which underly this ma-jor fundamental viewpoint of life.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I want to thank the variousinstructors of the courses which were surveyed fortheir cooperation in this study, and to thank thestudents themselves for their willingness to take partin the survey. Additional thanks to Glamour maga-zine and Associated Press for making available de-tails of their surveys.

LITERATURE CITEDBergman, J. 1979 The attitude of university

students toward the teaching of creation and evo-lution in the schools. Origins 6: 60-70.

Edwords, F. 1981 Why creationism should notbe taught as science. 2. The educational issues.Creation/Evolution 3: 6-36.

Nelkin, D. 1976 The science textbook contro-versies. Scientific American. 234: 33-39.

Sokal, R. R. and F. O. J. Rohlf 1969 Biometry.W. H. Freeman Co., San Francisco.

APPENDIX 1

THE QUESTIONNAIRE1. Do you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?

a. yes; b. no. (Students who answered neither orboth were classified as "unsure.")

2. If Darwin's theory of evolution is taught inpublic schools, should other views (including thedivine origin of life through special creation) betaught too? a. yes; b. no.

3. Do you think that scientists are right in theirargument that by giving creationism equal timethey are allowing religion into the public schools? a.yes; b. no.

4. If you think Darwinism and creationism areboth valid theories, what is the best way to teachthem? a. require all students to take courses in biol-ogy and religion; b. teach creationism at home; c.change textbooks or school curricula to present boththeories; d. other.

5. Were you taught about evolution in your highschool biology course? a. yes; b. no.

6. Which of the following best agrees with yourimpression of the Modern Theory of Evolution? a.The phrase "Survival of the Fittest"; b. evolutionoccurred because different individuals left differentnumbers of offspring; c. man evolved from either thegorilla or chimpanzee in Africa; d. evolution in-volved a purposeful striving towards "higher"forms, (that is a steady progress from microbes to


man); e. evolution occurred because the strong even-tually eliminated the weak.

7. Do you think the modern theory of evolutionhas a valid scientific foundation? a. yes, because it ispossible to test many "predictions" of evolutionaryscience; b. yes, even though we can never test"predictions" about events in the past; c. no, be-cause we can never be sure about the past; d. no,because evolutionary science is principally based on

speculation, and not on "hard" scientific facts; e. no(for other reasons).

8. Is it your impression that most scientists nowbelieve that the modern theory of evolution is not avalid scientific theory? a. yes; b. no.

9- Do you believe that the teaching of conceptswhich rely on a purely naturalistic explanation of theworld, such as that used in the modern theory ofevolution, might eventually lead to a "decay" ofAmerican society? a. yes; b. no.

university student understanding of evolutionary biology's place in

Documents