Assessment of Biology Majors Versus Nonmajors Views on Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

Transcription

1 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2:75 83 DOI /s x CURRICULUM/EDUCATION ARTICLE Assessment of Biology Mjors Versus Nonmjors Views on Evolution, Cretionism, nd Intelligent Design Guillermo Pz-y-Miño C. & Avelin Espinos Pulished online: 19 Novemer 2008 # Springer Science + Business Medi, LLC 2008 Astrct The controversy round evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design resides in historicl struggle etween scientific knowledge nd populr elief. Four hundred seventy-six students (iology mjors n=237, nonmjors n=239) t seculr lierl rts privte university in Northestern United Sttes responded to five-question survey to ssess their views out: (1) evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design in the science clss; (2) students ttitudes towrd evolution; (3) students position out the teching of humn evolution; (4) evolution in science exms; nd (5) students willingness to discuss evolution openly. There were 60.6% of iology mjors nd 42% of nonmjors supported the exclusive teching of evolution in the science clss, while 45.3% of nonmjors nd 32% of mjors were willing to lern eqully out evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design (question 1); 70.5% of iology mjors nd 55.6% of nonmjors vlued the fctul explntions evolution provides out the origin of life nd its plce in the universe (question 2); 78% of the comined responders (mjors plus nonmjors) preferred science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively nd humns re prt of it (question 3); 69% of the comined responders (mjors plus nonmjors) hd no prolem nswering questions concerning evolution in science exms (question 4); 48.1% of iology mjors nd 26.8% of G. Pz-y-Miño C. Deprtment of Biology, University of Msschusetts Drtmouth, 285 Old Westport Rod, North Drtmouth, MA , USA A. Espinos () Deprtment of Biology, Roger Willims University, One Old Ferry Rod, Bristol, RI 02809, USA e-mil: espinos@rwu.edu nonmjors ccepted evolution nd expressed it openly, ut 18.2% of the former nd 14.2% of the ltter ccepted evolution privtely; 46% of nonmjors nd 29.1% of iology mjors were reluctnt to comment on this topic (question 5). Comined open plus privte cceptnce of evolution within iology mjors incresed with seniority, from freshmn (60.7%) to seniors (81%), presumly due to grdul exposure to upper-division iology courses with evolutionry content. College curriculr/pedgogicl reform should fortify evolution litercy t ll eduction levels, prticulrly mong noniologists. Keywords Evolution. Cretionism. Intelligent design. College eduction. Assessment Introduction The controversy round evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design, which genertes much dete in the USA (Petto nd Godfrey 2007), resides in historicl struggle etween scientific knowledge nd populr elief. The theory of evolution proposes tht the moleculr nd physiologicl processes responsile for the origin nd diversifiction of life on Erth re the consequence of nturl selection, muttions, gene flow, nd genetic drift (Myr 2001). Since the puliction of The Origin of Species y Chrles Drwin, in 1859, Drwinin evolution hs een scrutinized experimentlly; tody, Drwinism is widely ccepted y the scientific community. Cretionism nd its vrious forms, including theistic evolution, cretion science, or young-erth cretionism (Petto nd Godfrey 2007), rely on the ssumption tht the universe nd life were creted y Cretor who guided the process. This fithsed view is not recognized y scientists s rtionl

2 76 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2:75 83 explntion out the wys of the cosmos. Intelligent design (ID), doctrine orn in the 1980s, proposes tht Designer is responsile for the complexity in iologicl systems nd tht Drwinism cnnot explin holisticlly the origin nd evolution of the nturl world, nor the intricte chemicl ssemlge of most orgnic structures (Forrest nd Gross 2004; Young nd Tner 2004; Miller 2007). In 2005, ID ws exposed in court (Dover, Pennsylvni, Kitzmiller versus Dover Are School District) for violting the rules of science y invoking nd permitting supernturl custion in mtters of evolution nd for filing to gin cceptnce in the scientific community (Kitzmiller et l. versus Dover School District et l. 2005). Thousnds of rticles nd hundreds of ooks ddress the philosophicl, politicl, socil, nd scientific components of the evolution/cretionism/id dete. Little is known, however, out how students views vry concerning the cceptnce, lerning, nd teching of evolution in college. Here, we explore students perspectives out: evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design in the science clss; students ttitudes towrd evolution; students position out the teching of humn evolution; evolution in science exms; nd students willingness to discuss evolution openly. We compre/contrst the views of iology mjors (BM) with those of nonmjors (NM) nd document how mjors cceptnce of evolution increses with their cdemic level, from freshmn to senior. By ssessing students opinions concerning evolution, we hope to improve the pproch with which evolution is tught nd contriute to curriculr/pedgogicl reform for its effective teching in college. Methods Four hundred seventy-six students (iology mjors n=237, nonmjors n=239), ntive to 17 sttes in the USA, ut mostly from the Northestern region (Tle 1), responded to five-question nonymous survey to ssess their views out evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design. All prticipnts signed consent form prior the completion of the survey, which ws conducted Septemer 17 24, 2007 (weeks 4 5 of clsses). The Humn Suject Review Bord t Roger Willims University, seculr lierl rts privte school, pproved the study. Students nswered questions 1 5 in order nd were instructed to not skip or go ck to previous questions to fix nd/or compre nswers. Ech question hd five possile choices, which were presented rndomly, nd only one choice ws possile per question; however, for the purpose of reporting the dt in this rticle nd mtching the description of ech question with the figure legends (results, elow), here, we stte the questions s follows: Question 1: Evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design in the science clss. Which of the following explntions out the origin nd development of life on Erth should e tught in science clsses? A = evolution, B = equl time to evolution, cretionism, intelligent design, C = do not know enough to sy, D = cretionism, E = intelligent design. Question 2: Evolution nd your rection to it. Which of the following sttements fits est your position concerning evolution? A = hering out evolution mkes me pprecite the fctul explntion out the origin of life on Erth nd its plce in the universe, B = hering out evolution mkes no difference to me ecuse evolution nd cretionism re in hrmony, C = do not know enough to sy, D = hering out evolution mkes me uncomfortle ecuse it is in conflict with my fith, E = hering out evolution mkes me relize how wrong scientists re concerning explntions out the origin of life on Erth nd the universe. Question 3: Your position out the teching of humn evolution. With which of the following sttements do you gree? A = I prefer science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively nd humns re prt of it, B = I prefer science courses where plnt nd niml evolution is discussed ut not humn evolution, C = do not know enough to sy, D = I prefer science courses where the topic evolution is never ddressed, E = I void science courses with evolutionry content. Question 4: Evolution in science exms. Which of the following sttements fits est your position concerning science exms? A = I hve no prolem nswering questions concerning evolution, B = science exms should lwys include some questions concerning evolution, C = do not know enough to sy, D = I prefer not to nswer questions concerning evolution, E = I never nswer questions concerning evolution. Question 5: Your willingness to discuss evolution. Select the sttement tht descries you est: A = I ccept evolution nd express it openly regrdless of other s opinions, B = no opinion, C = I ccept evolution ut do not discuss it openly to void conflicts with friends nd fmily, D = I elieve in cretionism nd express it openly regrdless of others opinions, E = I elieve in cretionism ut do not discuss it openly to void conflicts with friends nd fmily. Sttisticl Anlyses We compred two groups, BM versus NM, nd nlyzed seprtely the ctegoricl dt generted in ech of the five questions (i.e., questions 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5; choices A, B, C, D, or E). Dt from questions 2, 4, nd 5 (ove) were orgnized in 2 5 contingency tles: BM, NM A, B, C, D, E (chi-squre tests, null hypotheses rejected t P vlue 0.05). Below, we refer to these groups s ll-comined student responders: BM nd NM in ll five choices (i.e., totl n=476, iology mjors n=237, nonmjors n=239). Becuse choices 1D, 1E nd 3D, 3E hd very few responders (<1.6%), we eliminted them nd

3 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2: Tle 1 Profile of prticipnts in the study (n=476) in respect to the totl numer of full time students t Roger Willims University nd the Biology Deprtment (Roger Willims University Fct Book ) Students t RWU Biology Deprtment Prticipnts in study Biomjors i Nonmjors k Numer Percent Numer Percent e Numer Percent j Numer Percent j Totl 3, e NA Femles 1, Mles 1, Freshmn 1, Sophomore Junior Senior New Englnd 2, f NA NA NA NA Est Cost c g NA NA NA NA Other d h NA NA NA NA Note tht except for the lrger enrollment of femle thn mle students in iology, the iology profile is in ccordnce with the entire university, trend tht coincides with the iomjors susmple. The nonmjors susmple hs hevier representtion of sophomores who re expected to enroll in science core during their second cdemic yer. Prticipnts in the study represent 12.5% of the totl numer of students t RWU Percentges in respect to totl numer of full time students t Roger Willims University RWU New Englnd ntives correspond to MA 36.3%, CT 20.8%, RI 11.6%, NH 4.7%, ME 2.4%, VT 1.5% c RWU Est Cost ntives correspond to NY 10.0%, NJ 6.8%; PA, MD, DC, VA (<2%) d RWU other ntives correspond to 20 sttes (<1%) e Percentges in respect to Biology Deprtment f Biology Deprtment New Englnd ntives correspond to MA 34.3%, CT 18.5%, RI 10.8%, NH 5.9%, VT 2.5%, ME 2.2% g Biology Deprtment Est Cost ntives correspond to NY 10.2%, NJ 7.4%, PA 2.5%, MD 0.3% h Biology Deprtment other ntives correspond to seven sttes (<2%) i Biology mjors responded to the survey during lecture hours in ten courses (Fll semester). Freshmn: Introductory Biology (91); sophomore: Antomy nd Physiology (19), Animl Behvior (13), Conservtion Biology (4); junior: Ichthyology (28), Mrine Verterte Biology (23), Genetics (4); senior: Ecology (23), Phycology (17), Developmentl Biology (15). Note tht Evolution, Cell Biology, Biochemistry, Virology, nd Microiology (not listed) re offered in the Spring semester; iology courses t RWU hve n evolutionry perspective j Percentges in respect to prticipnts in the study k Nonmjors responded to the survey during lecture hours of Core-101 Scientific Discoveries in Context (eight sections, 30 students/section) creted 2 3 contingency tles for the remining groups in ech question, i.e., for question 1 or 3: BM, NM A, B, C (chi-squre tests, null hypotheses rejected t P vlue 0.05). Below, we refer to these groups s comined student responders: BM nd NM in three choices (note: totl vlue of n, s well s n for iology mjors or nonmjors, vried depending on the numer of responders). Pir-wise comprisons etween BM nd NM of the relevnt groups were nlyzed with Sign test two-til, null hypotheses rejected t P vlue 0.05). Becuse t Roger Willims University exposure to evolutionry theory increses with cdemic level, from sic to dvnce iology mjor courses (Tle 1), while nonmjors ttend single core course with introductory evolutionry content (Core-101 Scientific Discoveries in Context, sophomore yer), we nlyzed responses of iology mjors to questions 1 5 (ove) s function of school yer of enrollment (i.e., freshmn, sophomore, junior, senior; chi-squre tests of percentge vlues, null hypotheses rejected t P vlue 0.05). Results Evolution, Cretionism, nd Intelligent Design in the Science Clss Fifty-one percent of the comined student responders (n=467, iology mjors n=231, nonmjors n= 236) considered tht evolution should e tught in science clsses s n explntion out the origin nd development of life on Erth (Fig. 1); 39% fvored equl time to evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design, nd 10% did not know enough to sy (chi-squre=16.594, df= 2, P vlue 0.001). Pir-wise comprisons indicte tht significntly more iology mjors (60.6%) thn nonmjors (42%) supported the exclusive teching of evolution, while more nonmjors (45.3%) thn mjors (32%) were willing to lern eqully out evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design (Sign test two-til P vlue 0.02). Agreement with the teching of evolution in science clsses incresed s function of iology mjors cdemic level, from 50.6% mong freshmn to 81.6% mong seniors (Fig. 1); lthough 41.2% of freshmn greed with the sttement of

4 78 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2: % % % equl time [in the science clss] to evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design, this opinion dropped to 13.1% mong seniors (Fig. 1; chi-squre of percentge vlues= , df=6, P vlue=0.001). Evolution nd Students Rection to It Sixty-three percent of ll-comined student responders (n=476, iology mjors n=237, nonmjors n=239) thought tht hering out evolution mkes them pprecite the fctul explntion out the origin of life on Erth nd its plce in the universe (Fig. 2); 17% considered tht hering out evolution mkes no difference ecuse evolution nd cretionism re in hrmony; the remining 20% either did not know enough 32.0% 45.3% 7.4% 63.9% 64.3% F 81.6% 41.2% 28.6% 27.8% 13.1% 12.7% 8.3% 8.2% 7.1% 5.3% So J Sr F So J Sr F So J Sr Fig. 1 Percentge of iology mjors (lck rs, n=231) nd nonmjors (white rs, n=236) who consider one of the following explntions out the origin nd development of life on Erth should e tught in science clsses: A = evolution, B = equl time to evolution, cretionism, intelligent design, nd C = do not know enough to sy. Rw dt chi-squre=16.594, df=2, P vlue 0.001; sterisks indicte Sign test two-til pir-wise comprisons P vlue Percentge of freshmn (F), sophomore (So), junior (J), nd senior (Sr) iology mjors who consider tht A, B, orc (ove) should e tught in science clsses. Chi-squre of percentge vlues=22.129, df=6, P vlue=0.001 to sy or greed tht evolution mkes them uncomfortle ecuse it is in conflict with their fith or mkes them relize how wrong scientists re concerning explntions out the origin of life on Erth nd the universe (chisqure=19.725, df=4, P vlue 0.001). More iology mjors (70.5%) thn nonmjors (55.6%) pprecited the fctul explntions evolution provides out the origin of % % % 69.3% F 55.6% D E So 17.7% 16.7% 89.5% 7.2% 25.0% 17.2% 17.9% 11.1% 7.9% 3.4% 6.3% 1.2% 4.2% 9.0% 5.7% 8.3% 2.6% J Sr F So J Sr F So J Sr Fig. 2 Percentge of iology mjors (lck rs, n=237) nd nonmjors (white rs, n=239) who think one of the following sttements fits est their position concerning evolution: A = hering out evolution mkes me pprecite the fctul explntion out the origin of life on Erth nd its plce in the universe, B = hering out evolution mkes no difference to me ecuse evolution nd cretionism re in hrmony, C = do not know enough to sy, D = hering out evolution mkes me uncomfortle ecuse it is in conflict with my fith, nd E = hering out evolution mkes me relize how wrong scientists re concerning explntions out the origin of life on Erth nd the universe. Rw dt chi-squre=19.725, df=4, P 0.001; sterisks indicte Sign test two-til pir-wise comprisons A P vlue=0.056, C P vlue Percentge of freshmn (F), sophomore (So), junior (J), nd senior (Sr) iology mjors who think sttements A, B, or C (ove) fit est their position concerning evolution (D nd E were excluded from the nlysis ecuse over 20% of their expected vlues were less thn 5). Chisqure of percentge vlues=17.418, df=6, P vlue=0.008

5 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2: life (Sign test two-til P vlue=0.056) ut significntly more nonmjors (17.2%) thn mjors (7.2%) did not know enough to ssess this topic (Sign test two-til P vlue 0.01). Agreement with fctul explntions out the origin of life on Erth nd its plce in the universe incresed s function of iology mjors cdemic level, from 69.3% mong freshmn to 89.5% mong seniors (Fig. 2); lthough 25% of freshmn thought tht hering out evolution mkes no difference ecuse evolution nd cretionism re in hrmony, this opinion dropped to 7.9% mong seniors (Fig. 2; chi-squre of percentge vlues= , df=6, P vlue=0.008) % 72.7% 10.2% 10.1% 6.8% 17.2% Students Position Aout the Teching of Humn Evolution Seventy-eight percent of the comined student responders (n=461, iology mjors n=234, nonmjors n=227) preferred science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively nd humns re prt of it (Fig. 3); 10% preferred evolution discussions out plnts nd nimls ut not humns; the remining 12% did not know enough to sy (chi-squre=11.879, df=2, P vlue 0.01). Nonmjors (17.2%) were significntly less informed thn mjors (6.8%) out this topic (Sign test two-til P vlue 0.01). Agreement with science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively nd humns re prt of it incresed s function of iology mjors cdemic level, from 82.2% mong freshmn to 92.1% mong seniors (Fig. 3; the vlue for sophomores (75.7%) my hve een low, or the freshmn s high, t the time of the survey); lthough 11.1% of freshmn preferred evolution discussions out plnts nd nimls ut not humns, this opinion dropped to 2.6% mong seniors (Fig. 3; the vlue for sophomores (15.7%) my hve een high, or the freshmn s low, t the time of the survey; chi-squre of percentge vlues=13.676, df=6, P vlue=0.033). Evolution in Science Exms Sixty-nine percent of llcomined student responders (n=476, iology mjors n= 237, nonmjors n=239) hd no prolem with nswering questions concerning evolution in science exms (Fig. 4); 14% considered tht science exms should lwys include some questions concerning evolution; the remining 17% either did not know enough to sy, or greed to prefer not to nswer questions concerning evolution, or never nswer such questions (chi-squre=27.026, df=4, P vlue 0.001). Significntly more iology mjors (20.3%) thn nonmjors (7.9%) considered tht evolution should e in science tests, while nonmjors (13%) were significntly less informed thn mjors (4.2%) out this topic (Sign test two-til P vlue 0.002). Agreement with nswering questions concerning evolution in science exms ws eqully high mong ll iology mjors cdemic levels (men=71%, Fig. 4); support for the ide tht science exms should % 82.2% 86.1% 75.7% % 11.1% 5.6% 2.6% 8.6% 8.3% 6.7% 5.3% F So J Sr F So J Sr F So J Sr Fig. 3 Percentge of iology mjors (lck rs, n=234) nd nonmjors (white rs, n=227) who gree with one of the following sttements concerning their own eduction: A = I prefer science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively nd humns re prt of it, B = I prefer science courses where plnt nd niml evolution is discussed ut not humn evolution, nd C = do not know enough to sy. Rw dt chi-squre=11.879, df=2, P 0.01; sterisk indicte Sign test two-til pir-wise comprison P Percentge of freshmn (F), sophomore (So), junior (J), nd senior (Sr) iology mjors who gree with sttements A, B, or C (ove) concerning their own eduction. Chi-squre of percentge vlues=13.676, df=6, P vlue=0.033 lwys include some questions concerning evolution vried with no prticulr trend (rnge %), perhps ecuse twice s mny freshmn, or more, expressed not knowing enough to sy in respect to other cdemic levels (chisqure of percentge vlues=15.316, df=6, P vlue= 0.018). Students Willingness to Discuss Evolution Thirty-seven percent of ll-comined student responders (n=476, iology mjors n=237, nonmjors n=239) indicted to ccept evolution nd express it openly regrdless of others opinions (Fig. 5); 38% preferred not to comment on this

6 80 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2: % 68.6% 20.3% A B C D E % 70.9% 73.0% 68.1% % 4.2% 13% 16.3% issue; 16% dmitted to ccept evolution ut not discuss it openly to void conflicts with friends nd fmily; the remining 9% either elieve in cretionism nd express it openly regrdless of others opinions, or elieve in cretionism ut do not discuss it openly to void conflicts with friends nd fmily (chi-squre=34.573, df=4, P vlue 0.001). Significntly more iology mjors (48.1%) thn nonmjors (26.8%) dmitted to ccept evolution nd express it openly, ut nonmjors (46%) were more reluctnt thn iology mjors (29.1%) to comment on this topic (Sign test two-til P vlue 0.04). Biology mjors 29.0% 23.5% 21.6% 5.9% 8.4% 0.4% 2.1% 12.8% 3.0% 5.4% 2.9% F So J Sr F So J Sr F So J Sr Fig. 4 Percentge of iology mjors (lck rs, n=237) nd nonmjors (white rs, n=239) who gree with one of the following sttements concerning evolution in science exms: A = I hve no prolem nswering questions concerning evolution, B = science exms should lwys include some questions concerning evolution, C = do not know enough to sy, D = I prefer not to nswer questions concerning evolution, nd E = I never nswer questions concerning evolution. Rw dt chi-squre=27.026, df=4, P 0.001; sterisks indicte Sign test two-til pir-wise comprisons P Percentge of freshmn (F), sophomore (So), junior (J), nd senior (Sr) iology mjors who gree with sttements A, B, or C (ove) concerning evolution in science exms (D nd E were excluded from the nlysis ecuse over 20% of their expected vlues were less thn 5). Chi-squre of percentge vlues=15.316, df=6, P vlue=0.018 willingness to discuss evolution incresed s function of their cdemic level, from 44% mong freshmn to 64.8% mong seniors (Fig. 5); lthough 39.3% of freshmn preferred not to comment on this topic, this view dropped to 18.9% mong seniors. An verge of 18.2% iology mjors dmitted to ccept evolution ut not discuss it openly to void conflicts with friends nd fmily (Fig. 5; chi-squre of percentge vlues=14.535, df=6, P vlue= 0.024) % 44.0% F 48.1% % 29.1% 26.8% A B C D E 58.3% So 64.8% 18.2% 14.2% 39.3% 30.9% 22.3% 18.9% 2.5% 7.1% 20.6% 19.4% 16.7% 16.2% 5.9% 2.1% J Sr F So J Sr F So J Sr Fig. 5 Percentge of iology mjors (lck rs, n=237) nd nonmjors (white rs, n=239) who consider one of the following sttements descries them est: A = I ccept evolution nd express it openly regrdless of other s opinions, B = no opinion, C = I ccept evolution ut do not discuss it openly to void conflicts with friends nd fmily, D = I elieve in cretionism nd express it openly regrdless of others opinions, nd E = I elieve in cretionism ut do not discuss it openly to void conflicts with friends nd fmily. Rw dt chi-squre=34.573, df=4, P 0.001; sterisks indicte Sign test two-til pir-wise comprisons P Percentge of freshmn (F), sophomore (So), junior (J), nd senior (Sr) iology mjors who consider sttements A, B, or C (ove) descries them est (D nd E were excluded from the nlysis ecuse over 20% of their expected vlues were less thn 5). Chi-squre of percentge vlues=14.535, df=6, P vlue=0.024

7 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2: Discussion Acceptnce of evolution differs etween iology mjors nd nonmjors: 60.6% of iology mjors versus 42% of nonmjors supported the exclusive teching of evolution in science clsses, 70.5% of iology mjors versus 55.6% of nonmjors vlued the fctul explntions evolution provides out the origin of life nd its plce in the universe, nd 48% of iology mjors versus 26.8% of nonmjors expressed their cceptnce of evolution openly (Figs. 1, 2, nd 5, choice A). In contrst, 45.3% of nonmjors versus 32% of iology mjors fvored equl time in the science clss to evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design, nd 46% of nonmjors versus 29.1% of iology mjors preferred not to comment on their willingness to discuss evolution or cretionism openly (Figs. 1 nd 5, choice B). The comined responses of students who ccept evolution nd express it openly plus those who ccept evolution privtely (Fig. 5, choices A plus C) show tht 66.3% of ll iology mjors versus 41% of ll nonmjors ccept evolution. Acceptnce of evolution within iology mjors incresed with their cdemic level, from the freshmn to the senior yer, e.g., support to the teching of evolution in the science clss (50.6% in freshmn, 81.6% in seniors; Fig. 1, choice A), pprecition for the fctul explntions out the origin of life on Erth nd its plce in the universe (69.3% in freshmn, 89.5% in seniors; Fig. 2, choice A), or willingness to discuss evolution openly (44% in freshmn, 64.8% in seniors; Fig. 5, choice A). The comined responses of iology mjors who ccept evolution nd express it openly plus those who ccept evolution privtely (Fig. 5, choices A plus C) show tht 60.7% of freshmn nd 81% of seniors ccept evolution. Freshmn iology mjors lone showed higher overll cceptnce of evolution thn nonmjors (e.g., 50.6% of freshmn iology mjors versus 42% nonmjors supported the exclusive teching of evolution; Fig. 1,, choice A; 69.3% of freshmn iology mjors versus 55.6% of nonmjors vlued the fctul explntions evolution provides out the origin of life nd its plce in the universe; Fig. 2,, choice A; 44% of freshmn iology mjors versus 26.8% of nonmjors expressed their cceptnce of evolution openly; Fig. 5,, choice A), suggesting precollege ckground in support of evolution, proly linked to household influence nd/or high school science eduction. In some cses, freshmn s views were comprle to nonmjors (e.g., 41.2% of freshmn iology mjors versus 45% nonmjors fvored equl time in the science clss to evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design; Fig. 1,, choice B), ut the overll trend showed n increse in cceptnce of evolution (Figs. 1, 2, nd 5, choice A) nd decrese in support of other lterntives (Figs. 1, 2, nd 5, choice B) from the freshmn to the senior yer. Grdul exposure to upper-division iology courses with evolutionry content might explin this trend (i.e., freshmn Introductory Biology; sophomore Antomy nd Physiology, Animl Behvior, Conservtion Biology; junior Ichthyology, Mrine Verterte Biology, Genetics; senior Ecology, Phycology, Developmentl Biology; Tle 1). Note tht t Roger Willims University, nonmjors ttend single core course, minly during their sophomore yer, with introductory evolutionry content (Core-101 Scientific Discoveries in Context; eight sections, 30 students/section; Tle 1). We hd no ccurte wy to ssess their longitudinl rnge of views out evolution ut suspect tht nonmjors my not increse their cceptnce of evolution chronologiclly s much s iology mjors, considering tht nonmjors never reched the freshmn s iology mjors seline support of evolution (dt ove). We point out, however, tht nonmjors re willing to lern evolution: 55.6% of them pprecite fctul explntions out the origin of life on Erth nd its plce in the universe (Fig. 2, choice A), 72.7% prefer science courses where evolution is discussed comprehensively nd humns re prt of it (Fig. 3, choice A), nd 68.6% hve no prolem nswering questions concerning evolution in science exms (Fig. 4, choice A). It is intriguing tht 32% of iology mjors fvored equl time in the science clss to evolution, cretionism, nd intelligent design (Fig. 1, choice B). Further nlysis of this group revels tht 41.2% of freshmn iology mjors greed with this view, n opinion tht drops to only 13.1% y the senior yer (Fig. 1, choice B). There is little knowledge, however, out ID mong ll-comined student responders (iology mjors plus nonmjors): 48.5% hve no opinion out it, 18% elieve it is scientific theory out the origin nd evolution of life on Erth, 15.5% consider it religious doctrine consistent with cretionism, 11% see it s not scientific ut proposed to counter evolution sed on flse scientific clims, nd 7% think it is scientific lterntive to evolution of equl scientific vlidity mong scientists (chi-squre=2.227, df=4, P vlue= 0.69, dt not shown). A smll proportion of the students in this study oject to evolutionry theory: 3.4% of iology mjors nd 6.3% of nonmjors feel uncomfortle hering out evolution ecuse it is in conflict with their fith nd 1.2% of iology mjors nd 4.2% of nonmjors think tht hering out evolution mkes them relize how wrong scientists re concerning explntions out the origin of life on Erth nd the universe (Fig. 2, choices D, E); 10% of oth iology mjors nd nonmjors prefer science courses where plnt nd niml evolution is discussed ut not humn evolution (Fig. 3, choice B); 5.9% of iology mjors nd 8.4% of nonmjors prefer not to nswer questions

8 82 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2:75 83 concerning evolution in science exms; nd 0.4% of iology mjors nd 2.1% of nonmjors never nswer such questions (Fig. 4, choices D, E). These results my represent generl tendency mong seculr lierl rts privte colleges in Northestern United Sttes, prticulrly those similr to Roger Willims University (middle/upper-middle income popultion); more thn 90% of the students t this institution re ntive to New Englnd (77.3%) nd the Est Cost of the US (18.9%; Tle 1). Becuse pulic support to science correltes positively to level of schooling nd income (Ntionl Science Foundtion 2006), locl nd regionl differentil cceptnce of evolution should e expected if similr ssessments were conducted t pulic or religious institutions. Ojections to teching evolution in the science clss presumly come from misinformed dults, rther thn college students. In fct, cceptnce of the theory of evolution in the USA increses with level of eduction, from 20% in high school to 52% nd 65% mong collegeor postgrdutes, respectively (Brumfield 2005); our results (70.5% iology mjors (Fig. 2 choice A); 66.3% iology mjors (Fig. 5 choices A plus C)) surpss the ltter. Adults who, for exmple, elieve tht humns were designed in the present form within the lst 10,000 yers coincide with the views of the lest educted popultion of dolescents etween the ges 13 nd 17 (Brumfield 2005). The literture illustrtes this further nd helps us understnd the trnsition of the evolution/cretionism controversy from high school to college. Becuse prents nd some community leders influence high school policies, techers void conflicts with them y wekening the science curriculum. To comply with prents demnds nd student s curiosity for ctchy jrgon, such s intelligent design, 43% of high school techers re willing to dedicte equl time to science nd ID (Ntionl Science Foundtion 2006), nd 30% nd 31% dmit to hving omitted evolution from their lessons or included nonscientific lterntives to evolution in their clsses due to pressure, respectively (US Ntionl Science Techers Assocition 2005). As result, students rrive t college with wek science ckgrounds; our dt on nonmjors cceptnce of evolution (41%; Fig. 5, choices A plus C) demonstrtes tht. Does ssessing student cceptnce of evolution mtter? Becuse college curriculum development is conceptulized y institutionl committees (Ntionl Science Foundtion 2006), influenced y pulic opinion (Petto nd Godfrey 2007; The Gllup Poll 2007), it is crucil to understnd students perception of science nd tendency of cceptnce of scientific principles. The mjor impliction of our findings, for the purpose of curriculr/pedgogicl reform, is tht evolution (the course, the core theme of ll sciences, the centerpiece of ll rtionl explntions out the nturl world nd the cosmos) should e required t nd integrted into ll eductionl levels. Evolutionry theory should e offered widely nd tught without distinction etween iology mjors nd nonmjors s prt of their science litercy. Our study demonstrtes tht students cn e, nd re, enthusistic out lerning fctul explntions out the origin nd diversifiction of life, including humns, nd tht contct with science eduction, prticulrly iology, determines their cceptnce of evolutionry theory. Students exposed to evolution in the clssroom ccept it, while those deprived of it cn dopt nonscientific interprettions out the relity of the universe in which they live. We re confident tht comprehensive science eduction, prticulrly directed t noniology mjors, cn correct this nomly, ut pulic nd institutionl support re crucil to gurntee such outcome. Outrech eduction progrms for nontrditionl students, school techers, nd the pulic re fundmentl to integrte evolution into our society s culture. Although the mjority of students in our survey seem receptive to lerning out evolution, possile trend t sister seculr lierl rts privte institutions in Northestern United Sttes, we must continue ssessing how their views evolve with time, prticulrly now tht ojections to evolutionry theory repper with vigor. We consider it importnt to improve the pproch with which evolution should e tught. The following tips hve helped us communicte evolutionry theory to our students nd motivte them to pursue creers in the sciences: (1) e s sensitive to students fith preferences s to other types of diversity in the clssroom, such s culturl ckgrounds nd gender orienttion; (2) discuss evolution s scientific fct nd in comprtive mnner cross tx, lwys including humns s prt of nture (Gould 2002; Dwkins 2004), i.e., humns s vertertes, mmmls, primtes, pes; (3) tech humn evolution comprehensively from the moleculr, morphologicl, nd cognitive perspectives (Lewin nd Foley 2004; Stringer nd Andrews 2005; McKee et l. 2005); (4) emphsize tht microevolution (chnge in the genetic mkeup of popultions) nd mcroevolution (specition nd the development of mjor processes nd ptterns in nture) re interdependent nd tht one cnnot occur without the other (Myr 2001); (5) remrk on the moleculr unity of life nd link ll orgnisms to common ncestor y using phylogenetic nlyses sed on DNA/RNA (Lecointre nd Le Guyder 2007); (6) introduce students to the concepts nturl selection, muttions, gene flow, nd genetic drift y running numeric simultions in lortory settings (Simultions on Bird Popultion Biology or Simultions on Nenderthl Popultion Genetics, ville from the uthors upon request); (7) tke dvntge of the students current fscintion with fossils, prticulrly dinosurs nd hominids, nd use them

9 Evo Edu Outrech (2009) 2: to illustrte dptive rdition, specition, nd extinctions of formerly successful tx (Humn Evolution L: Using Fossil Replics, ville from the uthors); (8) conduct field courses in exemplr environments where geologic time cn e pprecited t lrge scle, i.e., Grnd Cnyon, Hwiin, or Glpgos rchipelgos (Evolution on Islnds: Using the Glpgos Archipelgo s Model, syllus ville from the uthors); (9) discuss novel exmples of micro- nd mcroevolution currently t work, e.g., tuerculosis resistnce to ntiiotics (Ernst et l. 2007), ek evolution in Drwin s finches (Grnt nd Grnt 2006); nd (10) leve the students with the ide tht evolution is grdul process y which the universe chnges nd tht it includes the origin of life, its diversifiction, nd the synergistic phenomen resulting from the interction etween life nd the environment. Acknowledgments We thnk the students t Roger Willims University for prticipting in this study; Kerri Wrren, Brin Wysor, Dle Levitt, Dvid Tylor, Hrold Pomeroy, Loren Byrne, Mrcie Mrston, Pul We, Scott Rutherford, Sen Colin, Timothy Scott, Tom Sorger, Anthony Viol, Christopher Lperle, nd Mry Rpien distriuted the surveys to the students. Ptrici Kennedy fcilitted the dministrtive nd logistics spects of the study. Gregory Rogers provided the rw dt used to uild Tle 1. The Humn Suject Review Bord t Roger Willims University pproved the protocol. Two reviewers nd guest editor provided comments tht helped us improve the mnuscript. References Brumfield G. Who hs designs on your students minds. Nture 2005;434: Dwkins R. The ncestor s tle. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Compny; Ernst JD, Trevejo-Nuñez G, Bniee N. Genomics nd the evolution, pthogenesis, nd dignosis of tuerculosis. J Clin Invest. 2007;117: Forrest B, Gross RP. Cretionism s Trojn Horse: the wedge of intelligent design. New York: Oxford University Press; Gould SJ. The structure of evolutionry theory. Cmridge: The Belknp Press of Hrvrd University; Grnt PR, Grnt BR. Evolution of chrcter displcement in Drwin s finches. Science 2006;313: Kitzmiller et l. versus Dover Are School District et l.; msncmedi.msn.com/i/msnc/sections/news/051220_kitzmiller_ 342.pdf; Lecointre G, Le Guyder H. The Tree of Life, phylogenetic clssifiction. Cmridge: Belknp; Lewin R, Foley RA. Principles of humn evolution. Mlden: Blckwell; Myr E. Wht evolution is. New York: Bsic Books; McKee JK, Poirier FE, McGrw WS. Understnding humn evolution. Upper Sddle River: Person Prentice Hll; Miller KR. Flling over the edge. Nture 2007;447: Ntionl Science Foundtion. Science nd technology: pulic ttitudes nd understnding. In: Science nd engineering indictors, chpter 7; p Petto AJ, Godfrey LR, editors. Scientists confront intelligent design nd cretionism. New York: Norton; 2007 Roger Willims University Fct Book Office of Institutionl Reserch, p Stringer C, Andrews P. The complete world of humn evolution. London: Thmes & Hudson; The Gllup Poll. Evolution, cretionism, intelligent design US Ntionl Science Techers Assocition. Survey indictes science techers feel pressure to tech nonscientific lterntives to evolution _03_28_pressrelese.htm; Young M, Tner E, editors. Why intelligent design fils: scientific critique of the new cretionism. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 2004.