Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 577–603 | Cite as

Proponents of Creationism but not Proponents of Evolution Frame the Origins Debate in Terms of Proof

  • Ralph M. Barnes
  • Rebecca A. Church
Article

Abstract

In Study 1, 72 internet documents containing creationism, ID (intelligent design), or evolution content were selected for analysis. All instances of proof cognates (the word “proof” and related terms such as “proven”, “disproof”, etc.) contained within these documents were identified and labeled in terms of the manner in which the terms were used. In Study 2, frequency counts for six terms (proof, evidence, establish, experiment, test, trial) were conducted on a sample of peer-reviewed research articles in the journal Science and the 72 internet documents included in Study 1. Quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed that proponents of creationism were much more likely than proponents of evolution to frame the creationism/evolution issue in terms of proof (ID proponents fell partway between the other two). Proponents of creationism frequently described empirical data favoring their position as proof of their position. Even more frequently, proponents of creationism described evolutionary scientists as being engaged in failed attempts to prove the truth of the evolutionary position. Evolution documents included fewer proof cognates than creationism or ID documents and the few proof cognates found in evolution documents were rarely used to describe the status of the theory of evolution. Qualitative data analysis indicated that proof cognates were often used to indicate certainty. The asymmetry between evolution and creationism documents was limited primarily to proof cognates; there were no major asymmetries for the terms evidence, establish, experiment, test, and trial. The results may reveal differences in the epistemological commitments of the involved parties.

Keywords

Intelligent Design Epistemological Belief Origin Debate Oxford English Dictionary Creationism Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dan Drebing who helped us code the position of the author for each document. We would also like to thank Glenn Branch at the National Center for Science Education who provided detailed feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge the financial support of Haverford College.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student-teachers’ conceptions of science, teaching and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12(4), 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Antolin, M. F., & Herbers, J. M. (2001). Evolution’s struggle for existence in America’s public schools. Evolution, 55(12), 2379–2388.Google Scholar
  6. Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: A look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85(4), 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branch, G. (2009). Creationism as a global phenomenon. In R. H. Robbins & M. N. Cohen (Eds.), Darwin and the Bible: The cultural confrontation (pp. 137–209). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  8. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1027–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Samuelstuen, S. N. (2008). Are sophisticated students always better? The role of topic-specific personal epistemology in the understanding of multiple expository texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 814–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2005). Motivation and performance differences in students’ domain-specific epistemological belief profiles. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 697–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, J. A. (1990). Scientific discovery and rhetorical invention: The path to Darwin’s origin. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry (pp. 58–91). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. A. (1995). Topics, tropes, and tradition: Darwin’s reinvention and subversion of the argument to design. In H. Krips, J. E. McGuire, & T. Melia (Eds.), Science, reason, and rhetoric (pp. 211–235). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, J. A. (1997). Charles Darwin: Rhetoritician of science. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 3–18). Mahwah, NJ: Hermagoras Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chan, K., & Elliot, R. G. (2002). Exploratory study of Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs: Cultural perspectives and implications on beliefs research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 392–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cracraft, J. (1982). The scientific response to creationism. Science, Technology and Human Values, 7(40), 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duhem, P. (1954). Aim and structure of physical theory (Philip P. Wiener, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Eckberg, D. L., & Nesterenko, A. (1985). For and against evolution: Religion, social class, and the symbolic universe. The Social Science Journal, 22(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, E. M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 19–52.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42(3), 217–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eve, R. A., & Dunn, D. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology & creationism in the classroom? Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology & life science teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 52(1), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forrest, B. (2008). Still creationism after all these years: Understanding and counteracting intelligent design. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregoire, G. M., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2004). Changing preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics: An intervention study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 164–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haarscher, G. (2009). Perelman’s pseudo-argument as applied to the creationism controversy. Argumentation, 23(3), 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hedegaard, M. (1996). How instruction influences children’s concepts of evolution. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hodge, C. (1874). Systematic theology (Vol. 1). New York: Scribner, Armstrong.Google Scholar
  27. Hodge, M. J. S. (1977). The structure and strategy of Darwin’s long argument. British Journal of the History of Science, 10(3), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.Google Scholar
  29. Hovenkamp, H. (1978). Science and religion in America 1800–1860. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hume, D. (1975). Enquiries concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press (original work published in 1748).Google Scholar
  31. Isaak, M. (2005). The counter-creationism handbook. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1995). Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79(2), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, R. L., & Peebles, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in college: Student acceptance of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 49(2), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, J. (2005). Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005).Google Scholar
  35. Kardash, C. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic-specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dual-positional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 524–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. King, P. A., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Klaczynski, P. A., & Aneja, A. (2002). The development of quantitative reasoning and gender biases. Developmental Psychology, 38, 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klaczynski, P. A., Gordon, D. H., & Fauth, J. (1997). Goal-oriented critical reasoning and individual differences in critical reasoning biases. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 470–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klaczynski, P. A., & Lavallee, K. L. (2005). Domain-specific identity, epistemic regulation, and intellectual ability as predictors of belief-biased reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klaczynski, P. A., & Robinson, B. (2000). Personal theories, intellectual ability, and epistemological beliefs: Adult age differences in everyday reasoning biases. Psychology and Aging, 15, 400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive Development, 15(3), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 121–144). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, D., Weinstock, M., & Flaton, R. (1994). How well do jurors reason? Competence dimensions of individual variation in a juror reasoning task. Psychological Science, 5(5), 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lawson, A. E. (1999). A scientific approach to teaching about evolution and special creation. American Biology Teacher, 61(4), 266–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skills, prior knowledge, prior belief, and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lovely, E. C., & Kondrick, L. C. (2008). Teaching evolution: Challenging religious preconceptions. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 48(2), 164–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lyne, J., & Howe, H. F. (1997). “Punctuated equilibria”: Rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 69–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Mason, L. (2002). Developing epistemological thinking to foster conceptual changes in different domains. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Conceptual change reconsidered. Issues in theory and practice (pp. 301–336). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mason, L. (2003). Personal epistemologies and intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 199–236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 165–196). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  55. Mason, L., & Sciricia, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller, J. D., Scott, E. C., & Okomoto, S. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313(5788), 765–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  58. Noll, M. (1994). The scandal of the evangelical mind. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  59. Numbers, R. L. (1998). Darwinism comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Oxford English Dictionary Online, 3rd ed., n. “proof”. http://www.oed.com/. Accessed 2 Feb 2012.
  61. Page, A. L., & Clelland, D. A. (1978). The Kanawha County textbook controversy: A study of the politics of life style concern. Social Forces, 57(1), 265–281.Google Scholar
  62. Pennock, R. T. (1996). Naturalism, evidence, and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy, 11(4), 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pennock, R. T. (2009). Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion? Demarcation revisited. In R. T. Pennock & M. Ruse (Eds.), But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy (rev ed., pp. 536–577). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  64. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the Nature of Science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77(3), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Qian, G., & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned helplessness in secondary school students learning science concepts from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 282–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roberts, J. H. (1988). Darwinism and the divine in America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  68. Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1995). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rubba, P., & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rukavina, I., & Daneman, M. (1996). Integration and its effect on acquiring knowledge about competing scientific theories from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 272–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sá, W., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The domain specificity and generality of belief bias: Searching for a generalizable critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scharmann, L. C. (1990). Enhancing an understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of a diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90(2), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance among secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (1995). Cognitive processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  78. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sinclair, A., & Baldwin, B. (1995). Biology students’ beliefs about evolutionary theory and religion. Research in the Schools, 2(2), 31–38.Google Scholar
  80. Sinclair, A., Pendarvis, M. P., & Baldwin, B. (1997). The relationship between college zoology students’ beliefs about evolutionary theory and religion. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 30(2), 118–125.Google Scholar
  81. Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science? A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 83, 493–509.Google Scholar
  83. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Southerland, S. A. (2000). Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science & Education, 9(3), 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Southerland, S. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Learning about biological evolution: A special case of intentional conceptual change. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 317–345). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  86. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stempien, R., & Coleman, S. (1985). Processes of persuasion: The case of creation science. Review of Religious Research, 27(2), 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tyler, S. (1844). A discourse of the Baconian philosophy. Frederick City, MD: Ezekiel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weaver, R. M. (1997). Dialectic and rhetoric at Dayton, Tennessee. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 107–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  90. West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 930–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wise, D. U. (1998). Creationism’s geologic time scale. American Scientist, 86, 160–173.Google Scholar
  92. Zimmerman, M. (1991). The evolution-creation controversy: Opinions of Ohio school board presidents. Science Education, 75(2), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Haverford CollegeHaverfordUSA
  2. 2.WayneUSA
  3. 3.ConneautUSA

Personalised recommendations