Why believe in evolution

Most biologists and other scientists contend that evolutionary theory convincingly explains the origins and development of life on Earth. So why are some Americans still arguing about it today? The answer lies, in large part, in the theological implications of evolutionary thinking.

For many religious people, the Darwinian view of life—a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change—may conflict with both the biblical creation story and the Judeo-Christian concept of an active, loving God who intervenes in human events. A look back at American history shows that, in many ways, questions about evolution have served as proxies in larger debates about religious, ethical and social norms.

In particular, religious concerns with evolutionary theory have driven the decades-long opposition to teaching it in public schools. Even within the last 15 years, educators, scientists, parents, religious leaders and others in more than a dozen states have engaged in public battles in school boards, legislatures and courts over how school curricula should handle evolution. These battles have ebbed in recent years, but they have not died out.

The highly charged debates over evolution make it particularly difficult to measure public views on the topic. Recently, the center conducted a survey in which respondents were randomly assigned to be asked about evolution in one of two ways. First, they were asked whether they believe that humans have always existed in their present form, or that humans have evolved over time. Then, those who said humans have evolved were branched to a second question, asking whether they believe that evolution occurred in a process guided or allowed by God, or that evolution occurred through processes like natural selection without involvement from God.

When asked the single-question version, just 18 percent of U. In: The origins of theoretical population genetics. Originally published Reid GB. Biological emergences. Evolution by natural experiment. Reiss JO. Not by design. Richards RA. Philosophical challenges in teaching evolution. Darwin and the Bible. The cultural confrontation. Rosset E. Rudolph JL. J Curric Stud.

Rudolph JL, Stewart J. Evolution and the nature of science: on the historical discord and its implications for education. Ruse M. Keywords in evolutionary biology. The Darwinian revolution. Science red in tooth and claw.

Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Darwinism and mechanism: metaphor in science. Reliability of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution MATE instrument with university students. The development and validation of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument.

Sch Sci Math. Rutledge L, Warden MA. Evolutionary theory, the nature of science and high school biology teachers: critical relationships. Sagan C. The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine Books; Samarapungavan A, Wiers RW. Cogn Sci. Sandvik H. Tree thinking cannot be taken for granted: challenges for teaching phylogenetics. Theor Biosci. Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology.

Scott EC. Evolution vs. Scott EC, Branch G. Scott-Kakures D. Self-deception and internal irrationality. Philos Phenom Res. Shanks N. God, the Devil, and Darwin. A critique of intelligent design theory. Sharot T. The optimism bias. A tour of the irrationally positive brain. New York: Pantheon; Shermer M. Why Darwin matters. The case against intelligent design. New York: Times Books; Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time.

The believing brain. From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies -- How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. Shtulman A. Why people do not understand evolution. An analysis of the cognitive barriers to fully grasping the unity of life. Shtulman A, Schulz L. The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning. Shtulman A, Calabi P. Learning, understanding, and acceptance: the case of evolution.

Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Sinclair A, Pendarvis MP. J Res Dev Educ. Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training. Cogn Instr. Smith MU. Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: I. Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. Pedagogical issues. Smith MU, Siegel H. Knowing, believing, and understanding: what goals for science education?

Foundational issues in evolution education. Sci Edu. Sokal AD. Beyond the hoax. Science, philosophy and culture. New York: Oxford University Press; The development and evaluation of the measure of understanding of macroevolution: introducing the MUM.

J Exp Educ. Belief, knowledge, and science education. Educ Psychol Rev. Sutherland S. Irrationality: the enemy within. New York: Penguin; Tamir P, Zohar A. Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Thagard P, Findlay S. Getting to Darwin: obstacles to accepting evolution by natural selection.

Thompson JN. Use the word evolution. Thomson KS. The meanings of evolution. Death and science: the existential underpinnings of belief in intelligent design and discomfort with evolution.

Trani RI. And now for the rest of the story. Trivers R. Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings; Verhey SD. Watts DJ. New York: Crown Business; Weinberg S.

Peace at last? The one culture? A conversation about science. Weiss K. Evol Anthr. Wells J. Icons of evolution: science or myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery; Principles and practice. Wiles JR. Overwhelming scientific confidence in evolution and its centrality in science education—and the public disconnect. Sci Educ Rev. Wiles JR, Alters B. Effects of an educational experience incorporating an inventory of factors potentially influencing student acceptance of biological evolution.

Int J Sci Educ. Williams JD. Belief versus acceptance: why do people not believe in evolution? Wilson DS. Evolution for everyone: how to increase acceptance of, interest in, and knowledge about evolution. New York: Delacorte; Wolpert L. Six impossible things before breakfast: the evolutionary origins of belief.

London: Faber and Faber; Electronic J Sci Educ. Young RM. Ziman J. Real science. What it is, and what it means. Download references. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. Correspondence to Warren D. Reprints and Permissions. Allmon, W. Implications for Teaching, In and Out of the Classroom. Evo Edu Outreach 4, — Download citation. Published : 14 December Issue Date : December Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Skip to main content. Search all BMC articles Search. Download PDF. Volume 4 Supplement 4. Abstract The causes of non-acceptance of evolution are groupable into five categories: inadequate understanding of the empirical evidence and the content of modern evolutionary theory, inadequate understanding of the nature of science, religion, various psychological factors, and political and social factors.

Introduction About half of American adults do not accept organic evolution as an accurate factual statement about nature, a number that, according to polls, has remained approximately constant over the past several decades Bishop ; Plutzer and Berkman Definitions Many authors have pointed out that much confusion around the topic of evolution can be traced to terminology Thomson ; Kugler ; Moore et al. Full size image. Religion Historically, religious objections were perhaps the strongest among the immediate negative reactions to the publication of the Origin Hull ; Farley ; Ruse ; but see Livingstone , and religious belief is widely regarded by education researchers as a major reason for modern non-acceptance of evolution Bishop and Anderson ; Osif ; Lawson and Worsnop ; Sinclair and Pendarvis ; Aguillard ; Downie and Barron ; Antolin and Herbers ; Evans ; Brem et al.

Psychological Obstacles A large and rapidly growing body of psychological research points strongly to a major role for psychological factors in how and why particular ideas are more readily adopted than others, and such factors constitute a significant but frequently underrecognized element of non-acceptance of evolution.

Teleology Teleological thinking—the concept that natural objects have some kind of goal direction, provided by either a self-directing vital power or divine source, which is the cause of their functionality—has a long and problematic history in evolutionary biology. I do not presume to provide an answer here, only to offer a few conclusions based on the foregoing discussion: 1.

Concluding Remarks One of the main motivations behind this paper was my growing perception that what appeared to be an adequate understanding of the causes for and solutions to the widespread non-acceptance of evolution was not in fact a solid consensus.

References Abd-El-Khalick F. Google Scholar Aguillard D. Google Scholar Allmon WD. Google Scholar Alters B. Google Scholar Antolin M.

Google Scholar Audi R. Google Scholar Bering J. Google Scholar Bishop G. Google Scholar Bowler PJ. Google Scholar Bowman KL. Google Scholar Branch G. Google Scholar Bridgman PW. Google Scholar Brown CM. Google Scholar Browne J. Google Scholar Brumby MN. Google Scholar Brumfiel G. Google Scholar Chalmers AF. Google Scholar Cobern WW. Google Scholar Cooper RA. Google Scholar Coyne JA. Google Scholar Davson-Galle P. Google Scholar Dawkins R. Google Scholar Dennett DC. Google Scholar Denton M.

Google Scholar Diamond J, editor. Google Scholar Edis T. Google Scholar Ellis J. Google Scholar Evans EM. Google Scholar Farber P. Google Scholar Farley J. Google Scholar Fine C. Google Scholar Fingarette H. Google Scholar Futuyma DJ. Google Scholar Gauch HG. Google Scholar Gibson MT.

Google Scholar Gish DT. Google Scholar Golinski J. Google Scholar Gould SJ. Google Scholar Grantham TA. Google Scholar Greene ED. Google Scholar Gregory TR. Google Scholar Griffiths M. Google Scholar Harvey N. Google Scholar Hofstadter R. Google Scholar Holland JH. Google Scholar Hull DL. Google Scholar Isaacowitz DM. Google Scholar Isaak M.

Google Scholar Jakobi SR. Google Scholar Johnson PE. Google Scholar Jungwirth E. Google Scholar Kelemen D. Google Scholar Kugler C. Google Scholar Lachman SP. Google Scholar Largent MA. Google Scholar Lawson AE. Google Scholar Lazar A. Google Scholar Lederman NG. Google Scholar Lennox JG. We started realizing this deficiency when long sea voyages became more common. After a couple of months at sea eating only things like dried meat and hardtack biscuits, humans had high rates of scurvy and many died.

But the animals on board like horses, dogs, and mice did not contract the disease. We now know that this is due to the human inability to synthesize vitamin C the way these other animals can and the problem was addressed by the British Navy by supplying their ships with lemon juice for sailors to drink.

The species at the bottom printed in red are unable to produce vitamin C. It has also been discovered that other primates—chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and monkeys—cannot make their own vitamin C either. So that leads to a very specific prediction: if these primates are related to us through a common ancestor, we would expect the same gene to be broken in them in the same way. And it turns out, that is just what we find. The best explanation is that a mutation event occurred in the common ancestor of these species, rendering all of their descendants unable to make vitamin C.

The common ancestry explanation predicts these to be different mutations, because it would be highly unlikely for the same mutation to occur a second time. When the genetic codes of guinea pigs and fruit bats are examined, we find different mutations than the one primates have, which is what common ancestry predicts. As genetic information has become more widely available in the last two decades, many more of these kinds of nested relationships among species have been found.

Common ancestry explains the genetic evidence beautifully, while alternative explanations seem less and less plausible. No matter what position a person takes on evolution, it is important to understand why almost all professional biologists affirm the evolution of all life on Earth. At BioLogos, we see God as crafting and governing the entire evolutionary process to bring about the abundance of species we see today.

Of course it is possible that God supernaturally created each of the species separately, but did so in the pattern that so strongly suggests common ancestry. So too we believe that body plans, fossils, biogeography, and the genetic code all testify truly to the way God created. We may legitimately wonder why God chose to create species in this long and meandering fashion, instead of snapping his fingers and having things appear fully formed.

From Genesis to Revelation, God works with and through his creation, bringing his plans to fruition slowly and carefully. We are admonished many times in the Bible to trust in God and his ways, even if they do not fit our limited human ideas of what is optimal or most expedient.

What seems to us to meander—in body plans no less than salvation history—reflects the providence of God. Join us to receive the latest articles, podcasts, videos, and more, and help us show how science and faith work hand in hand. Evolutionary creationists believe that God created humans in his image, and that God created humans using natural processes that scientists describe as evolution.

London: Macmillan. Google Scholar Ingram, E. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 43 1 , 7— Rationality and belief in human evolution SSRN scholarly paper no. ID All scientists should be militant atheists. Retrieved May 19, , from www. Applied linear statistical models Vol.

Google Scholar Landis, J. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics , 33 , — Medline , Google Scholar Manwaring, K. Influencing highly religious undergraduate perceptions of evolution: Mormons as a case study.

Evolution: Education and Outreach , 8 1 , Scientific aptitude better explains poor responses to teaching of evolution than psychological conflicts. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 11 1 , Intimidation in small learning groups: The roles of social-comparison concern, comfort, and individual characteristics in student academic outcomes.

Active Learning in Higher Education , 12 3 , — Public acceptance of evolution. Science , , — New York: Harper-Collins. Google Scholar Nadelson, L. International Journal of Science Education , 34 11 , — Teaching about evolution and the nature of science.

National Academies Press. Google Scholar NAS. Science, evolution, and creationism. Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: Special report NSF Retrieved August 25, , from www. Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: Biology versus non-biology teachers.

Science Education , 93 6 , — The nature of science as a foundation for fostering a better understanding of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 12 1 , 6. Advances in Health Sciences Education , 15 5 , — The creationists: From scientific creationism to intelligent design. Google Scholar Pew. Scientists and belief. Retrieved March 14, , from www. Retrieved October 19, , from www.

Using human case studies to teach evolution in high school A. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 11 1 , 3. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Hutchinson. Google Scholar Rissler, L. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 7 1 , The development and validation of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument.

School Science and Mathematics , 99 1 , 13— Record few Americans believe Bible is literal word of god. Do you see what I-SEA? Science Education , 2 , — Evolution and nature of science instruction. The use of journaling to assess student learning and acceptance of evolutionary science. Journal of College Science Teaching , 45 1 , Google Scholar Scott, E. Evolution vs. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 40 5 , — Counterpoint: Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 31 5 , — Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 9 , — Why Methodological Naturalism. Google Scholar Southerland, S. Acknowledging the religious beliefs students bring into the science classroom: Using the bounded nature of science.

Theory Into Practice , 52 1 , 59— Pope Francis says evolution is real and God is no wizard. Washington Post. Retrieved August 31, , from www. Student perception of group dynamics predicts individual performance: Comfort and equity matter.

No missing link: Knowledge predicts acceptance of evolution in the United States. BioScience , 68 3 , — Google Scholar Willis, G. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Google Scholar Winslow, M. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 9 , — Student positions on the relationship between evolution and creation: What kinds of changes occur and for what reasons?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 3 , — Figures References Related Details. Elizabeth Barnes , K. Supriya , Yi Zheng , Julie A. Roberts , and Sara E. Brownell Rebecca Price, Monitoring Editor. Elizabeth Barnes , Samantha A. Maas , Julie A. Brownell Molly S. Bolger, Monitoring Editor. Submitted: 3 June Close Figure Viewer. All forms of life were first brought into being in their present form by God —10, years ago at the same time. All forms of life were first brought into being in their present form by God at different times over billions of years.

Some forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God created groups of organisms such as reptiles, birds, mammals, and humans separate from one another, and organisms that currently exist have evolved slowly from those first creations.

Almost all forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but humans were created by God in their present form separate from the rest of life. All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but God intervenes from time to time to shape or override evolution.

All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but life and evolution were first set in motion by God without a specific purpose or plan. All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but it is uncertain whether God was involved in evolution. All forms of life evolved from earlier forms, but no God has ever played any role in evolution.