« Minnesota & Evolution | Gene Expression Front Page | Creationism & many polls » | |
December 01, 2003
Biology & the students
Below I have cut & pasted (excuse formatting issues) an article that surveys the opinions on evolution from biology & medical students at the University of Glasgow. Here is the abstract:
From: Evolution and religion: attitudes of Scottish first year biology and medical students to the teaching of evolutionary biology. By: Downie, J.R.; Barron, N.J.. Journal of Biological Education, Summer2000, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p139, 8p; (AN 3300734) Introduction Outside the USA, creationism seems much less important. Pigliucci (1997) was astonished at the situation in the USA, after meeting only one creationist in many years working in Italy. Devlin (1999) recounts his experiences with 'extremely well-educated and widely read' anti-evolution students in the USA, and claims that 'nothing you will have experienced in the UK will have prepared you for that'. Jones (1987; 1989) reported that Australia experienced an upsurge of evangelical Protestant teaching in the 1980's. She found, in a sample of 613 first year university students (of biology or education), that 19 per cent took some sort of creationist view of the origin of species, though only 5 per cent adhered to the strict Genesis account. We have not been able to find any comparable study of student attitudes to evolution and creation from the UK or any other country: educators may have felt it better to let this particular 'sleeping dog' lie. However, we believe it is important to have some idea of the numbers of students who hold anti-evolutionary views, for several reasons: Effective teaching of the theory of evolution is difficult enough without having to teach it against deep-seated opposition. To assess the relative extent of pro- and anti-evolution beliefs in university students of biology and medicine. Methods During our survey, the coverage of evolution changed somewhat but, essentially, there were a series of 4 - 6 lectures on the origins and evidence for the theory that today's living organisms are the result of a long period of biological evolution. This included some discussion of the mechanisms of gene frequency changes and speciation: the lectures were supported by some practical and tutorial work. Only during the final year covered were the lectures given by one of the authors. The survey involved an anonymous questionnaire, completed by the students during a practical class or tutorial on evolution that followed the lecture course. After completing and handing in the questionnaire, students were encouraged to discuss it with tutors. As a comparison, we surveyed our first year medical students at the start of their course in 1999. These students are not taught any evolutionary biology as part of their course, but do have school educational backgrounds very similar to those of biology students. The survey questions for medical students were identical to those for biologists, except that we asked them some questions about the relevance of evolutionary biology to medicine and medical education. The questionnaire The first question asks students whether they accept that some kind of biological evolution, lasting many millions of years, has occurred on earth. On the basis of their answer, students then proceed to either section A or section B of the questionnaire, each of which contains six or seven questions, three of which are identical in the two sections. A copy of the complete questionnaire is available from the authors on request. Analysis Since effectively all students attending the class completed questionnaires, and handed them in anonymously, there should be little prospect of bias in the sample, or incentive to the students to make false responses. Results Since we tend to think of anti-evolutionary thinking as a mainly American trait, it is salutary to find as many as 11 per cent of a UK university class rejecting the occurrence of biological evolution. Significantly, these students have chosen to study biology, and have just been exposed to a course in evolution. The percentage of rejectors does, however, appear to be reducing, with all the highest figures being near the start of our survey and the lowest the most recent. A Spearman correlation showed that there has been a significant decline (r = 0.83; p < 0.005) in the proportion of rejectors over the period of the study. The proportion of medical student rejectors is over twice as high as for the most comparable biology class (1998/9). Reasons for rejecting evolution -- and how fixed that rejection is The acceptance of a literal religious creation account is consistently the most common reason, with conflicts and contradictions in the evidence for evolution generally second. The written-in answers were very varied, with the most frequent ones stating that the theory of evolution seems too improbable. We asked a further question to test how completely these students were rejecting evolutionary ideas. We pointed out that people could reject the idea that species can change from one kind to another, yet accept that natural selection can operate within a species to adapt it to fine-scale environmental change, and asked the rejectors to indicate whether or not they accepted within-species natural selection. Over the period 1987 - 95, 89 per cent agreed that they did accept 'evolution' at this level. The proportion in 1998/99 was 88 per cent, and for the 1999 medical students 83 per cent. Clearly, most rejectors object mainly to the idea that new species can originate from old ones. We also wanted to know how fixed these students' rejection was. For example, was their rejection entirely dogmatic, or were they prepared to consider evidence? Our question was 'What evidence would need to be obtained to convince you that evolution has occurred?' Results are shown in Table 3(a). About half (49-55per cent) of these students wrote in a comment, the rest did not reply or simply stated that no such evidence could be obtained. Of those making a reply, 44 per cent asked for evidence we could class as feasible (e.g. more fossils, missing links, demonstration of the origin of life from simple molecules, disproof of alternatives), 16 per cent wanted impracticable evidence (e.g. time travel), and 15 per cent simply stated that they would need 'lots and lots' of evidence. The remaining 25 per cent made comments related to God and faith, not really 'evidence'. Reasons for accepting evolution The results were remarkably consistent over the years, more consistent than for the rejectors (possibly related to the smaller sample sizes for rejectors). It is interesting that two or three times as many (mean percentage = 77) felt that the principal reason for acceptance is the lack of good alternatives, as felt that the quality of evidence for evolution is high (mean percentage = 35). It is also notable how few (mean percentage = 10.5) were prepared to take the 'teacher knows best' option. A much smaller proportion of acceptors than rejectors took the write-in option. Many of these took the opportunity to note that acceptance of evolution did not conflict with their religious beliefs, claiming that God may have started the process off, or have had some other creative input. As a comparison with the rejectors, we asked the acceptors whether there was any evidence they would like to see obtained that would make it more certain that evolution has occurred. Results are shown in Table 3 (b). An obvious contrast with the rejectors is the much smaller proportion that wrote in a reply. In addition, the extra evidence wanted by those writing a comment was generally of a feasible nature, mostly extra fossil evidence, and 'missing links'. Several wrote that sufficient evidence had already been obtained. Religious beliefs The majority of rejectors (mean percentage = 86) were religious. However, the majority of acceptors were also religious, though by a small margin (mean percentage = 57). In the class as a whole, the mean percentage stating that they had a religious belief was 59 per cent. Using a paired t-test, evolution-acceptors were significantly less likely to have a religious belief than the class as a whole (t = 6.9; p < 0.01), though the percentage difference was small; evolution-rejectors were significantly more likely to have a religious belief (t = 9.7; p < 0.001) and with a very large percentage difference. There is no very obvious trend over the years. As we expected, rejectors overwhelmingly professed to have a religious faith. The acceptors are more representative of the biology class as a whole and, over the 11 years span of the survey, show no very obvious trend of change in religious belief. The medical class is at the high end of the range for religious belief among the biologists, but still within that range. From 1990/91 onwards, we asked students to define their religion. Table 6 shows the data from all those stating their religion. Two points stand out: first, the relatively high proportion of Muslims amongst the rejectors; second, the proportions of different sorts of Christians. We did not ask students to specify their branch of Christianity, but many did, and it is common usage for those who belong to the evangelical, Protestant churches to label themselves as 'Christian', rather than Protestant; similarly, Catholics tend to state their Catholicism, rather than writing Christian. 'Christians' tended to be a higher proportion of the rejectors compared to acceptors, and Catholics correspondingly lower. A comparison with other scientific ideas The results from this question are particularly fascinating. Our intention was to test whether evolution-rejectors were sceptical of science in general, or only of evolution and its associated evidence. The results suggest that rejectors generally are somewhat more sceptical and uncertain: they show lower 'well established' ratings than acceptors for all propositions; they also show higher N values (i.e uncertain, ignorant?) on all propositions except for evolution. However, it is only on two propositions that their responses are radically different: those on tectonic plates and on evolution. On tectonic plate theory, they show a high degree of uncertainty, but still a majority regard it as well established, despite the fact that this theory has a close relationship with evolution and is related to an extremely old age for the Earth. It is only on evolution that this group lose their uncertainty: they are remarkably sure that the evidence for evolution is poor. The medical students showed a very similar pattern of responses to the biologists. It is worth emphasising that the students were asked to give their opinions on how well established particular propositions are. It is unlikely that they are, in fact, well informed on the evidence for most of the propositions listed (perhaps more should have answered in the N category). Indeed, the biology students, having just completed a course on evolution, should have been better informed on the evidence for evolution than on any of the other propositions. The place of evolution in the biology or medical curriculum To put this response into context, we asked both groups which parts of the biology course should be deleted and why. The majority gave no response. Of those replying, evolution was the commonest response for rejectors: one wrote 'it is hard to learn something you don't believe in and conflicts with your beliefs'. They also listed 'dissection' commonly as 'unnecessary'; plants and genetics were both described as 'boring'. Acceptors had a similar pattern of response, except for evolution --though this was mentioned by a few as 'ambiguous' or 'contentious'. We asked the medical students to rate the relevance of evolutionary biology to an understanding of medicine. The responses of acceptors and rejectors (Table 8) were near mirror images of each other. We find it interesting that so many medical students, amongst the evolution-acceptors, saw a relevance for evolutionary biology in medicine, despite their course not covering it. When asked whether evolution should be included in the medical course, rejectors mainly (78 per cent) responded 'no', but nearly half (49 per cent) of acceptors responded 'yes'. Discussion Many of the students in our survey would not be proceeding to courses where evolutionary biology is a major component. At a large Scottish university like Glasgow, the first year biology course acts as an introduction to the biological disciplines -- anatomy, molecular biology, sports science, zoology, etc. -- and is the only biology course taken by students specialising in chemistry, psychology etc. Non-acceptance of evolution may not, therefore, have direct bearing on the later work of most students. However, we should ask what rejection of evolution implies about these young people as potential scientists in any sphere. Attitudes to evolution may seem even less important for the medical students, given the lack of evolutionary biology in their course. However, there is a growing interest in the relevance of evolutionary thinking to medicine (Nesse and Williams, 1995), so student attitudes now may be important for the future. Our results are somewhat different from the few similar surveys we have found in the literature. Jones's (1987; 1989) study of first year Australian biology and education students is similar to ours, but she surveyed only one year's intake and her sample was, in religious terms, more homogeneous than ours. Nineteen per cent of her students took a creationist view, but only 5 per cent were 'Genesis fundamentalists'. Short (1994) found 27 per cent of his Australian first year medical class rejected evolution, both before and after his evolution course. Sinclair and Pendarvis (1998) asked their first year Louisiana zoology students a series of questions before and after their course on evolution. Before, 45.6 per cent felt that there was a conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs, reducing to 29.6 per cent afterwards. However, 74.0 per cent felt it possible to accept evolution and believe in God, both before and after the course. Though there is a general tendency to associate evolution-rejection with a literal interpretation of the Bible by Christians, Short (1994) noted that his staunchest anti-evolutionists were Muslims. Our results also show that a high proportion of Muslim students reject evolution, but by no means all. We are told (Siddiqui, personal communication) that there is no definitive Muslim position on the origin of species in general, but that Muslims reject 'the idea of human evolution from other lesser creations'. Ali (1997) emphasises the Qur'an's active encouragement of scientific enquiry, but he does not mention evolution. In Turkey, an organisation called the Science Research Foundation has promoted a series of popular anti-evolution conferences where the main speakers have been American 'creation scientists' (Yahya, 1999). Alters (1999) notes that though USA opinion polls generally show about 50 per cent of the public rejecting evolution, this does not mean that these are all religious literalists. They have a diversity of beliefs, including many who simply want God to have some role in evolution, and others whose problem is essentially with the origin of human beings. Further to this point, in a comment on recent 'creationist' developments, Berry (1997) contends that evolutionary biologists who dismiss any role for a god, and who claim that science can answer all questions, are doing evolutionary biology no favours. It is certainly not the case that there is a necessary conflict between science and religion. Larson and Witham (1997) were surprised to find no significant change this century in the proportion of USA scientists professing a religious faith (41.8 per cent in 1916; 39.3 per cent in 1996). Our results consistently show that more than half of our first year biology students profess a religious belief Beliefs -- and the teaching of science An aim of science teaching is the development of a new generation of scientists, and a key characteristic of scientists should be an open-mind to new ideas and a willingness to make judgements based on evidence, not on pre-conceptions. Hudson (1967) pointed to the anomaly that much of science teaching involves filling students with facts, rather than encouraging them to think imaginatively and for themselves. Our data show that evolution-rejectors were a little more sceptical than acceptors on three scientific propositions that are unrelated to evolution (on CFCs, acid rain, and lung cancer), but more sceptical on tectonic plates and massively sceptical about evolution. There is no reason to suppose that the two groups differed significantly in their knowledge of the evidence for any of the propositions. Indeed, since our survey of biology students immediately followed our course on evolution, both groups had access to the same range of evidence on this particular proposition. What made the difference? The principal reasons selected by the students for rejecting or accepting evolution give an indication. Rejectors overwhelmingly, especially the medical students, cited acceptance of the literal truth of a religious creation account as the principal reason, and many were prepared to say that no evidence could persuade them that evolution has occurred. The acceptors were quite different: they mainly chose the lack of good alternatives as the principal reason for accepting evolution: very few were prepared to state that they mainly followed their teachers' views. This, to us, is the worrying feature of these results. We would not be concerned if students, having assessed the evidence, were sceptical of aspects of evolution. (Although our survey was not about evolutionary processes, some acceptors expressed doubts about how evolution works, a very reasonable position.) However, most evolution rejectors did so on the basis of religious belief: this is hardly compatible with the open-mindedness expected of a prospective scientist. This has wider implications than biological evolution. As Scott and Padian (1997) point out, there is a close linkage between our knowledge of physics, biology, and geology concerning the origins of the universe and the historical development of Earth and its life forms. At least some of our evolution-rejectors were aware of this when they assessed continental drift to be as poorly established as evolution. In response to the Kansas decision (1999) against evolution in the school curriculum, the Society for the Study of Evolution stated 'if we abandon the usual procedures of acceptance and rejection of scientific hypotheses in one area of science, then the whole of science is in jeopardy' (Anon, 1999). Strategies in the teaching of evolution The theme that the theory of evolution provides an excellent case history of what science is, and how scientists work, is the subject of several valuable articles. Nickels et al. (1996) outline an approach that embeds the teaching of evolution in an exploration of science as an activity 'inescapably rooted in inherent uncertainty and yet capable of producing highly reliable knowledge': their approach emphasises the development of critical thinking. Morishita (1991) describes a project where students prepare cases for and against evolution as in a court of law, and observes that there is more resemblance than generally recognised between legal and science education: in neither science nor law is there usually a single 'right answer'. Jensen and Finley (1997) found that after a 'traditional' evolution course, students had a very 'mixed bag' of notions on species origins. They devised a programme that required students to make explicit, and to work through, Darwinian explanations and to contrast them with pre-Darwinian ideas: teleology, Lamarckism, and natural theology. They found that this approach significantly improved students' understanding of Darwinian explanations. Lawson (1999) similarly outlines a 'learning-cycle' where students go through the same process as early investigators confronting the fossils in successive rock strata, and use the evidence they collect to discriminate between the hypotheses of special creation, spontaneous generation, and evolution. An explicit aim is to improve students' understanding of the nature of science and to develop critical thinking skills. Gauld (1992) also supports a thorough treatment of the historical origins of Darwinism, noting that 19th century religious leaders (as now) were by no means universally opposed to evolution and that arguments against evolution were not at all trivial given the knowledge available at the time. Poole (1995) gives a thorough account of the origin of Darwin and Wallace's theories and of their early reception. It was not the case that all scientists were for, and all churchmen against. Harper (1977; 1979) argues against the teaching of science by 'indoctrination' and suggests a number of alternatives to evolutionary explanations that could be used in discussion of species origins. Allchin (1989) tackles the key point that for many people, the difficulty is the evolution of humans and the origin of ethics and morality. His evolution course concentrates on the distinctions between humans and other animals in terms of personal behaviour, and helps many students overcome mental barriers. It is worth pointing out to students that science is an activity practised by people, not by saints. We do the cause of science education no favours by attempting to hide the existence of error and fraud: the history of evolutionary biology has its share in the Piltdown Man story and the recent exposure of Haeckel's too perfectly recapitulationist embryos (Wells, 1999). Anti-evolutionists have seized on such examples to discredit evolution. By drawing them explicitly to students' attention, we can demonstrate that science is a human activity and that it was scientists who exposed these errors, not creationists. Educational implications As we have discussed, it is an unusual situation in science education for a part of the subject, viewed by professionals in the field as a fundamental cornerstone, to not be accepted as true by a group of students, and for reasons which are not accessible to normal scientific argument. The educational implications of these findings relate to how we should handle this level of non-acceptance. We reviewed earlier the diversity of approaches devised by US teachers to cope with a much larger problem. In our view, it is good science education practice to show the historical development of a major theory such as evolution and to discuss how science advances by the testing of hypotheses. If this is done, creationist and other alternative views can be covered as part of the theory's development. This is the approach of our first year biology course on evolution: in addition to lectures, we give students the opportunity to debate the relationship between religious and scientific knowledge and to discuss this relationship, particularly in the context of evolution. The questionnaire described here is used as a follow-up to this session. There remains the problem of examinations. It is perfectly reasonable to ask all students to be able to describe the theory of evolution, and the evidence that led Darwin and Wallace to propose it. Even amongst our evolution-rejectors, about half agreed that evolution should be taught. However, can we ask students, as part of their examinations, and knowing that some of them reject evolution, to evaluate all the evidence for and against the theory? This is tantamount to asking some students to lie, since they will be aware of what the examiners wish to read, but do not themselves believe it. Acknowledgements Table 1 Proportions of students in each year who rejected the proposition that a long period of biological evolution has occurred. A - Year A B C 1987/88 221 11.3 Table 2 Reasons for rejecting evolution: proportions of students in each year who chose particular reasons. Year by year percentages choosing the various reasons (total is in brackets); the 'Biols mean' column shows the mean values for biology students over the 9 years. Legend for Chart: A - Reasons for rejecting evolution A B C D E F The evidence for evolution is full of conflicts and 28 17 43 35 53 I accept the literal truth of a religious creation 84 67 70 71 80 I think that there are good alternatives to evolution 8 17 17 24 13 Other reasons Percentages do not total 100 because students were asked to Table 3 Responses to (a) Rejectors: what evidence would need to be obtained to convince you that evolution has occurred? (b) Acceptors: is there any evidence you would like to see obtained that would make it certain for you that evolution occurs? Legend for Chart: A - Years A B C D E 87 - 95 171 30 21 49 (b) Acceptors -- distribution of responses Legend for Chart: A - Years A B C D E 87 - 95 931 71 3 26 Table 4 Reasons for accepting evolution: proportions of students in each year who chose particular reasons. Year by year percentages choosing the various reasons (total is in brackets); the 'Biols mean' column shows the mean values for biology students over the 9 years. Legend for Chart: A - Reasons for accepting evolution A B C D E The evidence for evolution is clear 31 34 23 45 I tend to accept what my teachers 10 6 12 12 I do not think there are any good 80 72 80 77 Other reasons 7 11 10 11 Percentages do not total 100 because students were asked to Table 5 Proportions (%) year by year of the whole class (evolution acceptors and rejectors) stating a religious belief (sample numbers as in Tables 2 and 3). The 'Biols mean' line shows the mean values for biology students over the 9 years. A - Year A B C D 87/88 64 61 84 Table 6 Proportions (%) of the different religions, stated by evolution acceptors and rejectors. A - Religion A B C D E F G Judaism 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 Table 7 Students' ratings on how well a range of scientific theories are established (evolution acceptors and rejectors given separately). Data are shown as % of those giving a ranking on a 5 point scale from 1 = very poorly to 5 = very well established (poor = 1, 2; N = 3; well = 4, 5). Legend for Chart: A - Theory A B C D E Tectonic plates 87-95 9 13.5 77.5 98-99 2 4 94 Medics 99 5 14 80 CFCs 87-95 7 18 75 98-99 0 18 82 Medics 99 5 10 85 Acid rain 87-95 5 13 82 98-99 1 9 90 Medics 99 0 8 92 Cigarettes 87-95 6 13 81 98-99 1 5 94 Medics 99 0 5 94 Evolution 87-95 6 22 72 98-99 1 27 72 Medics 99 5 33 62 The full statement of each theory, as given to the students, Tectonic plates: the continents are not fixed in position, CFCs: chlorofluorocarbon gases (CFCs), mainly from aerosol Acid rain: sulphur dioxide from power stations causes damage Cigarettes: cigarette smoke causes lung cancer. Evolution: biological evolution, lasting many Table 8 Medical students' ratings of the relevance of evolutionary biology to an understanding of medicine. A - Relevance A B C Low 16 55 Figures are percentage responses to a 5 point scale, References Ali, N. (1997) Compatibility of Islam and science. Nature, 387, 448. Allchin, D. (1999) Teaching Darwin seriously--addressing evolution and ethics. American Biology Teacher, 61, 350-355. Alters, B. J. (1999) What is creationism? American Biology Teacher, 61, 103 - 106. Anon. (1999) Kansas evolution ban under attack. Nature, 401, 200. Beardsley, T. (1995) Darwin denied -- opponents of evolution make gains in schools. Scientific American, 273, 8-10. Behe, M. J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box. New York, USA: Simon & Schuster. Berry, R. J. (1997) The new anti-evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 228. Cooper, R. A. (1996) Should creationism be part of evolution statement? American Biology Teacher, 58, 133-134. Devlin, K. (1999) Where Darwin is a dirty word. The Guardian, Higher Education 14th September, 4. Esbenshade, D. H. (1993) Student perceptions about science and religion. American Biology Teacher, 55, 334-335. Futuyma, D. J. (1995) Science on Trial (second edition). Massachusetts, USA: Sinauer. Gauld, C. (1992) Wilberforce, Huxley, and the use of history in teaching about evolution. American Biology Teacher, 54, 406-410. Harper, G. H. (1977) Darwinism and indoctrination. School Science Review, 59, 258-268. Harper, G. H. (1979) Alternatives to evolutionism. School Science Review, 61, 15-27. Holden, C. (1999) Kansas dumps Darwin, raises alarm across the United States. Science, 285, 1186-1187. Hudson, L. (1967) Contrary imaginations. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin books. Jensen, M. S. and Finley, E N. (1997) Teaching evolution using a historically rich curriculum and paired problem solving instructional strategy. American Biology Teacher, 59, 208-212. Jones, R. E. (1987) Evolution & creationism: the consequences of an analysis for education. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 12, 324-332. Jones, R. E. (1989) Evolution, creationism, and science education. In Allen, K. C. and Briggs, D. E. G. (eds), Evolution and the Fossil Record. London, UK: Belhaven Press. Katung, M., Johnstone, A.H., and Downie, J.R. (1999) Monitoring attitude change in students to teaching and learning in a university setting: a study using Perry's developmental model. Teaching in Higher Education, 4, 43-59. Larson, E .J. and Witham, L. (1997) Scientists are still keeping the faith. Nature, 386, 435-436. Lawson, A. E. (1999) A scientific approach to teaching about evolution and special creation. American Biology Teacher, 61, 266-274. Moore, R. (1997) The business of creationism. American Biology Teacher, 59, 196. Moore, R. (1999) Creationism in the United States. 8. The lingering threat. American Biology Teacher, 61, 330-340. Morishita, F. (1991) Teaching about controversial issues: resolving conflict between creationism and evolution through law-related education. American Biology Teacher, 53, 91-93. Nesse, R. M. and Williams, G. C. (1995) Evolution and Healing: the new science of Darwinian medicine, London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Nickels, M. K., Nelson, C. E., and Beard, J. (1996) Better biology teaching by emphasising evolution and the nature of science. American Biology Teacher, 58, 332-336. Pigliucci, M (1997) The new anti-evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 228. Poole, M. (1995) Beliefs and values in Science Education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Robbins, E C. (1995) Science, creationism and public understanding. American Scientist, 83, 394. Scott, E. C. and Padian, K. (1997) The new anti-evolution -- and what to do about it. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 84. Short, R. V. (1994) Darwin, have I failed you? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 275. Sinclair, A. and Pendarvis (1998) Evolution vs. conservative religious beliefs. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27, 167-170. Wells, J. (1999) Haeckel's embryos and evolution: setting the record straight. American Biology Teacher, 61, 345-349. Wuethrich, B. (1999) Science education: scientists strike back against creationism. Science, 286, 659. Yahya, H. (1999) The evolution deceit. London, UK: Ta-Ha publishers.
Posted by razib at
01:09 PM
|
|
|