Does religion breed trust? A cross-national study of the effects of religious involvement, religious faith, and religious context on social trust. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 54 4 , — A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 10 , 4. Conflict between religion and science among academic scientists? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 48 2 , — Scientists negotiate boundaries between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 50 3 , — Religion among academic scientists: Distinctions, disciplines, and demographics.
Social Problems , 54 2 , — The religiosity of academic scientists in the United Kingdom: Assessing the role of discipline and department status. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 57 4 , — Link , Google Scholar Eignor, D. The standards for educational and psychological testing. In Geisinger, K. Bracken, B. Carlson, J. Hansen, J.
Kuncel, N. Reise, S. Rodriguez, M. Cognitive interviews to test and refine questionnaires. Public Health Nursing , 28 5 , — Evolution in the southeastern USA: Factors Influencing acceptance and rejection in pre-service science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 13 6 , — Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. Google Scholar Ha, M. Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 49 1 , 95— Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar Harris, S. The end of faith: Religion, terror, and the future of reason.
New York: Norton. Google Scholar Hermann, R. Cognitive apartheid: On the manner in which high school students understand evolution without believing in evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach , 5 4 , — Rejecting evolution: The role of religion, education, and social networks. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 53 3 , — Agnosticism: A symposium. The Agnostic Annual.
Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley Vol. 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. And what about the theory of gravity? The correct response is to say that evolution is a theory — like gravity is a theory — and then redirect attention to the evidence.
And that evidence is overwhelming. Start with family relationships. Carl Linnaeus showed how living things can be classified into species, genera, families and so on, and Darwin pointed out that this is exactly the structure we would expect from a family tree. All dogs are canines, so dogs share an ancestor with foxes; all canines are carnivora, so dogs share a more remote ancestor with bears; all carnivora are mammals, so dogs and sheep are, albeit more remotely, related, and so on.
Then look at the discovery over the past few decades of family relationships at the molecular level, and the fact that the molecular family tree matches that based on anatomical resemblances. Observe the fossil record. Once lamentably full of gaps Darwin was among the lamenters , it is now densely populated. Now we know of several different hominin species living alongside each other, and the problem becomes one of distinguishing our grandparents from our great uncles.
And yes, there are missing links in the chain, but without evolution we would not have a chain at all. Plus we can actually observe evolution, and study it in the field or in the lab. Sediments containing the fossils of only unicellular organisms appear earlier in the fossil record than do sediments containing the remains of both unicellular and multicellular organisms. The sequence of fossils across Earth's sediments points unambiguously toward the occurrence of evolution.
Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations.
Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system.
Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter. Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them. Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects such as genes and atoms or the phenomena such as the Earth going around the Sun that are now well-established facts.
Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different. Indeed, for the reasons described in this booklet, evolutionary science provides one of the best examples of a deep understanding based on scientific reasoning.
This contention that nobody has seen evolution occurring further ignores the overwhelming evidence that evolution has taken place and is continuing to occur. The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of bacteria resistant to antibiotics are both products of evolutionary forces.
Another example of ongoing evolution is the appearance of mosquitoes resistant to various insecticides, which has contributed to a resurgence of malaria in Africa and elsewhere.
The transitional fossils that have been found in abundance since Darwin's time reveal how species continually give rise to successor species that, over time, produce radically changed body forms and functions. It also is possible to directly observe many of the specific processes by which evolution occurs.
Scientists regularly do experiments using microbes and other model systems that directly test evolutionary hypotheses. Creationists reject such scientific facts in part because they do not accept evidence drawn from natural processes that they consider to be at odds with the Bible. But science cannot test supernatural possibilities. To young Earth creationists, no amount of empirical evidence that the Earth is billions of years old is likely to refute their claim that the world is actually young but that God simply made it appear to be old.
Because such appeals to the supernatural are not testable using the rules and processes of scientific inquiry, they cannot be a part of science.
Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design. If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly.
Because even such "simple" biological structures as the flagellum of a bacterium are so complex, proponents of intelligent design creationism argue that the probability of all of their components being produced and simultaneously available through random processes of mutation are infinitesimally small. The appearance of more complex biological structures such as the vertebrate eye or functions such as the immune system is impossible through natural processes, according to this view, and so must be attributed to a transcendent intelligent designer.
However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes.
For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement.
Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins.
Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex. Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems.
With the clotting of blood, some of the components of the mammalian system were present in earlier organisms, as demonstrated by the organisms living today such as fish, reptiles, and birds that are descended from these mammalian precursors.
Mammalian clotting systems have built on these earlier components. Existing systems also can acquire new functions. For example, a particular system might have one task in a cell and then become adapted through evolutionary processes for different use. The Hox genes described in the box on page 30 are a prime example of evolution finding new uses for existing systems. Molecular biologists have discovered that a particularly important mechanism through which biological systems acquire additional functions is gene duplication.
Segments of DNA are frequently duplicated when cells divide, so that a cell has multiple copies of one or more genes. If these multiple copies are passed on to offspring, one copy of a gene can serve the original function in a cell while the other copy is able to accumulate changes that ultimately result in a new function.
The biochemical mechanisms responsible for many cellular processes show clear evidence for historical duplications of DNA regions. In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists' claims.
There may be alternative explanations. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that because there is no evidence that it is raining outside, it must be sunny. Other explanations also might be possible.
Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one's opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested. Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities.
But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. Unexplained observations are eagerly pursued because they can be signs of important new science or problems with an existing hypothesis or theory.
History is replete with scientists challenging accepted theory by offering new evidence and more comprehensive explanations to account for natural phenomena. Also, science has a competitive element as well as a cooperative one.
If one scientist clings to particular ideas despite evidence to the contrary, another scientist will attempt to replicate relevant experiments and will not hesitate to publish conflicting evidence. If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eager to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative.
That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence.
0コメント