Contradictory or Complementary? Creationist and Evolutionist Explanations of the Origin(s) of Species

Abstract

Almost half of the US public rejects the idea that humans originated via evolution rather than by supernatural design. Moreover, studies demonstrate that even biology teachers have difficulty teaching their students about evolution, often including creationist explanations as well. A typical response to such findings is the argument that greater exposure to evolutionary theory would eliminate these unscientific alternatives. However, creationist ideas are not easily extinguished. Even after repeated exposure to evolutionary concepts, creationist ideas are more likely to be incorporated into hybrid frameworks along with evolutionary ideas, rather than completely rejected. Thus, members of the public often find these ideas complementary rather than contradictory. In this review, we apply dual-process theory to examine individuals’ understandings of the origins of species. We describe cognitive biases that operate at the intuitive-autonomous level (system 1), some of which, we argue, anchor belief in supernatural design, and others of which potentially anchor evolutionary ideas. At the other end of the continuum, reflective and abstract reasoning (system 2) processes are apparent in both scientific and theological explanations of origins. We conclude that presenting supernatural and natural explanations of biological origins as contradictory belies the way they function in everyday reasoning. By understanding the theological and the scientific arguments as well as the way most people intuitively reason about such existential questions, teachers might be better prepared to deal with these issues in the classroom.

Is it believable when it's scientific? How scientific discourse style influences laypeople's resolution of conflicts

“…Credibility refers to what is considered valid by standards of science, whereas personal agreement refers to what individuals subjectively believe to be true. According to Evans and Lane () and Keil (), laypeople's belief systems can contain inconsistencies and contradictions. Apparently, when it comes to personal agreement, individuals do not necessarily revert to the same rules of “cold logic” that are likely to underlie judgments of credibility (cf.…”

Predictors of evolution acceptance in a museum population

“…While the project we have developed examines education and religion-related pathways (in what could be termed a "sociocultural pathway model"), other factors have been suggested to play a role in acceptance of evolutionary theory. In particular, Evans and Lane (2011) propose that creationist reasoning and evolutionary understanding are best considered jointly as a function of intuitive and analytic beliefs. Furthermore, it has been suggested that factors such as feeling of certainty (Ha et al 2012) and suspicion of science (Eve et al 2004) are important in one's willingness to embrace evolution.…”

Children’s Ability to Learn Evolutionary Explanations for Biological Adaptation

“…Tensions between evolutionary and nonevolutionary explanations either go unrecognized by those who endorse both or are reconciled in terms of a synthetic model of evolution that captures aspects of both intuitive and scientific reasoning, such as a theistic model of evolution in which evolutionary change is intentionally and teleologically guided by a divine agent (Evans & Lane, 2011).…”