Scientist speaks on accepting evolution, religion
UM researcher explores undergraduate students’ opinions on origin of human life
Eastern Michigan University hosted “Creationism is Not the (Only) Problem: Cognitive Constraints on Undergraduates’ Understanding of Evolution,” a symposium on how students’ religious beliefs affected their acceptance of evolution on Thursday.
Presenter E. Margaret Evans is an assistant research scientist for the University of Michigan’s Center for Human Growth and Development. She explained that undergraduate students sometimes have a hard time grasping the concept of evolution due to cultural and cognitive factors.
Charles Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species” remains a controversial explanation of human existence even 150 years after it was first published on November 24, 1859.
Possibly related:
- EMU-AAUP reaches agreement with administration · Sep 1
- SEEUS offers students safety when walking campus at night · Sep 1
- Rent-A-Text offers books at a more affordable price · Sep 1
- Police release sketch of suspect in assault on security guard · Aug 14
- Stolen Meals on Wheels vehicle found in Detroit · Aug 10
A person’s acceptance of evolutionary origins “was related to religious belief, while an understanding of natural selection was related to the intuitive belief that biological change is goal directed and to how much students learned about evolution previously,” Evans said.
In 2007, United States Gallop polls showed that 45 percent of people believe that God created humans a couple thousand years ago. This is called the young earth creationist perspective, and it is the idea that God put each species of animals on earth with a purpose and these species cannot be changed.
The same poll says 13 percent of people believe in evolution and creationism, a point of view called theistic evolution, and 13 percent of people only believe in evolution.
“The origin of species is the idea that people come from other forms of life,” Evans said.
She also said, people that have the hardest time accepting this idea are literalists or people who take the bible literally, which is roughly one third of the United States.
Evans worked on a research project with 186 undergraduate student participants from an evolution and medicine class. The students took a pre-test about their knowledge of evolution before and after they completed the course.
When asked if evolution explains the origin of animals, most of the participants in the study agreed that it did, but they agreed less with the idea that evolution explains the origin of humans.
The participants were also asked if their religious beliefs were compatible with the theory of evolution. The majority of people said it was neither compatible nor incompatible. They were also questioned about how much they had learned about evolution prior to the class. The majority of people said they had received some information but not much.
The conclusions of this study found that the acceptance of evolutionary origins was affected by prior knowledge. Parents’ attitudes were negatively correlated with the acceptance of evolutionary origins.
Therefore, if an individual’s parents have negative attitudes about evolution, they were less likely to accept evolution.
The study also addressed why evolution is so difficult to talk about and how that affects how evolution is taught.
“A common misconception is that evolution helps the animal adapt better and more complex,” Evans said. “This is not always the case.”
The question of whether evolution should even be taught in school causes a continuous debate.
“Creationism does not belong in a science class because it cannot be observed, measured or proven,” Evans said. “It should not be in a science class as much as math should not be including in an English class.”









by 4Truth
The Old Testament is a collection of stories, parables and accounts dating back over 2500 years. The New Testament is a collection of stories centering on Jesus of Nazareth from about 1900-1700 years ago. NONE of the original writers had any idea of what Science was about, the Scientific Method did not yet exist in that region.
Yet today, we have a significant number of “nominally educated” adults who accept the notion that the Bible is somehow a superior source of knowledge on scientific matters. This is sheer nonsense, logically it cannot possibly be true.
This minority must come to understand that we all have a religious impulse – which must be understood as a separate part of our cognitive existence. Confusing religious legends with scientific theories is just a careless mistake. But it’s a mistake which could destroy our science and technology based society.
Flag for moderationby Tucker
While I agree with 4Truth on many levels, I would also say that for many this is an emotional issue that spans both religiona and science and therefore must be considered on both fronts.
Flag for moderationTo say we have a scientific/technological based society is a little myopic, as we see from the “news” worthy items we as a culture and society focus on. When our most important issues revolve around stories from Hollywood or the wrongdoings of sport celebrities, then we can not say we have a technological society as many adbvancements in science take back page to such stories. I can say that we need to focus more on our understanding of science as we are just breaking ground on so many new technologies and branches of science, and less on who is sleeping with who.
The need to see the world in non-religious fashion is just as detrimental as seeing it only through the lenses of a holy text. Either frame of reference leaves us blind to some of the intricacies of life. But neither religion or science has the right to handicap the other, and I think that was the point 4Truth was trying to make.
by John Faith
I fear for my country’s future, that so many are so ignorant of scientific facts. For them, belief trumps evidence, and the rest of the world is about to bypass us in business and science. Their beliefs are damaging our country’s ability to perform.
Flag for moderation