On Citing Dobzhansky about the Significance of Evolution to Biology

Evolutionary thinking illuminates biology. Dobzhansky advocated this view in two distinct papers. The earliest paper (1964) is a discussion of the relationship between distinct biological disciplines, and one of the key ideas is that evolution is an integrative principle of biology. The later paper (1973) is a long argument to the effect that evolution makes more sense of the living than some creationist doctrines. The first paper should then be the primary reference for those biologists who cite Dobzhansky to champion among their peers the added value of evolutionary thinking in a specific scientific problem. Here, looking at citation data, we find evidence that this expected referencing practice does not coincide with the actual referencing practice in the scientific literature.

The dinosaur from 600 BCE! Interpreting the dragon of Babylon, from archaeological excavation into fringe science

In 1918, German archaeologist Robert Koldewey, excavator of Babylon, Iraq, observed that the depiction of the fantastical "dragon of Babylon" on the sixth century BCE Ishtar Gate must reference a real animal whose closest relatives would be dinosaurs like the iguanodon. Though ignored within archaeology, Koldewey's comments were taken up in German-American popular science writer Willy Ley's "romantic zoology" (1941), then by Bernard Heuvelmans (1955), founding figure in the fringe field of cryptozoology. Their interpretations would ultimately inspire expeditions by the International Society of Cryptozoologists in Central Africa to find the Mokele-Mbembe, a "living dinosaur," and migrate into Young Earth Creationist and ancient aliens theories. An analysis of Koldewey's marginal academic observation serves as a means of considering the process of knowledge formation and canonization and the unpredictable life of scholarly ideas.

Evolution as a fact? A discourse analysis

Since the middle of the twentieth century, there has been a heated debate between evolutionists and antievolutionists regarding whether or not evolution is a 'fact'. The debate has spawned a number of court cases involving antievolutionists describing evolution as a 'theory, not a fact'. An analysis of the 'fact of biological evolution' discourse reveals several overarching agreements among its advocates, but also a contradictory morass of positions regarding how scientific theories, hypotheses and facts interrelate, how these terms are related to biological evolution, what a scientific fact is, and how science popularizers use the scientific and public vernaculars. The formation, structure and development of the discourse is assessed through a Foucauldian discourse analysis, as well as through the lens of Gieryn's conceptions of public science and cultural cartography.

Creationist and evolutionist views of South African teachers with different religious affiliations

Abstract Concerns have been raised in the scientific community that many teachers do not accept evolution as a scientific, testable phenomenon, and this is evident in their teaching. The non-acceptance of evolution theory is often heavily influenced by religious groups that endeavour to eliminate evolution from the curriculum. In South Africa, the inclusion of evolution in the curriculum is a recent event. This study focused on teachers’ views of evolution in relation to their religious affiliations. A questionnaire was developed and was validated by the Biohead–Citizen Project, and was then administered to more than 300 South African teachers and student teachers. Equal numbers of pre-service and in-service teachers were sampled. The groups included equal numbers of biology, English, and generalist teachers at primary school level. The results showed differences between teachers from different religions with regard to their views of evolution. Among teachers who identified as agnostic or atheist, 17% held creationist views. Among teachers who identified as Protestant, other Christian, or Muslim, 70% held creationist views. This study also examined, for the first time, the views of teachers belonging to religions not included in previous research. Of these, only 25% of Hindus held creationist views. Fewer adherents of African Independent Churches held creationist views compared with teachers from traditional Protestant denominations; for example, only 30% of Zionist followers and 40% of Shembe followers held creationist views. This study adds important knowledge by including the views of teachers from religions not previously researched.

The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults

Do non-religious adults - despite their explicit disavowal of religious beliefs - have a tacit tendency to view nature as purposefully created by some being? This question was explored in three online studies using a speeded judgment procedure, which assessed disbelievers in two different Western cultures (United States and Finland). Despite strong performance on control trials, across all three studies non-religious individuals displayed a default bias to increasingly judge pictures of natural phenomena as "purposefully made by some being" under processing constraints. Personal beliefs in the supernatural agency of nature ("Gaia beliefs") consistently predicted this tendency. However, beliefs in nature as purposefully made by some being persisted even when such secular agency beliefs were controlled. These results suggest that the tendency to view nature as designed is rooted in evolved cognitive biases as well as cultural socialization.

Experiential thinking in creationism--a textual analysis

Creationism is a religiously motivated worldview in denial of biological evolution that has been very resistant to change. We performed a textual analysis by examining creationist and pro-evolutionary texts for aspects of "experiential thinking", a cognitive process different from scientific thought. We observed characteristics of experiential thinking as follows: testimonials (present in 100% of sampled creationist texts), such as quotations, were a major form of proof. Confirmation bias (100% of sampled texts) was represented by ignoring or dismissing information that would contradict the creationist hypothesis. Scientifically irrelevant or flawed information was re-interpreted as relevant for the falsification of evolution (75-90% of sampled texts). Evolutionary theory was associated to moral issues by demonizing scientists and linking evolutionary theory to atrocities (63-93% of sampled texts). Pro-evolutionary rebuttals of creationist claims also contained testimonials (93% of sampled texts) and referred to moral implications (80% of sampled texts) but displayed lower prevalences of stereotypical thinking (47% of sampled texts), confirmation bias (27% of sampled texts) and pseudodiagnostics (7% of sampled texts). The aspects of experiential thinking could also be interpreted as argumentative fallacies. Testimonials lead, for instance, to ad hominem and appeals to authorities. Confirmation bias and simplification of data give rise to hasty generalizations and false dilemmas. Moral issues lead to guilt by association and appeals to consequences. Experiential thinking and fallacies can contribute to false beliefs and the persistence of the claims. We propose that science educators would benefit from the systematic analysis of experiential thinking patterns and fallacies in creationist texts and pro-evolutionary rebuttals in order to concentrate on scientific misconceptions instead of the scientifically irrelevant aspects of the creationist-evolutionist debate.

Evolution-centered teaching of biology

University teaching remains an area of concern, and perhaps the most difficult discipline for both teaching and learning is evolution. The concepts that underpin evolution, although complex, have been shown to be fairly straightforward, yet students arrive at and leave university with serious misconceptions, misunderstandings related to language, and often a reluctance to learn the subject because of cultural or societal pressures. Because of the unifying power of the theory, however, it is necessary not only for biology students to have a thorough understanding of evolution, but also for them to learn it in their first year so that this knowledge can then be taken into further years of study. Rather than teaching evolution at the end of a degree program, embedding it as a semester-long first-year course will ensure that a far larger number of students are made aware of misconceptions that they have brought with them from high school. Teaching through traditional passive lectures makes learning difficult conceptual material more difficult, and needs to be replaced with more interactive lectures coupled with inquiry-based practicals and small group-learning sessions to increase student engagement and interest in the subject. A new approach in pedagogy, curriculum design, and academic staff professional development is essential, especially at this time, when enrollments across science courses in many countries around the world are in decline.

Does evolution matter?: a case study in Brazil of the effects of an evolutionary-thinking academic atmosphere in postgraduate students' belief in God/religious belief

Although the theory of evolution is more than 150 years old, a substantial proportion of the world population does not mention it when explaining the origin of human beings. The usual alternative conception is offered by creationism, one of the main obstacles to full acceptance of evolution in many countries. National polls have demonstrated that schooling and religiosity are negatively correlated, with scientists being one of the least religious professionals. Herein we analyzed both (1) the profile of 1st semester undergraduate students and (2), thesis and dissertations, concerning religious and evolutionary thoughts from Biology and Veterinary Schools at the largest university of South America. We have shown that students of Biology are biased towards evolution before they enter university and also that the presence of an evolutionary-thinking academic atmosphere influences the deism/religiosity beliefs of postgraduate students.

Ella Thea Smith and the lost history of American high school biology textbooks

Two influential articles published in the 1970s suggested that pressure from Christian fundamentalists, subsequent to the Scopes trial of 1925, forced American high school biology textbook authors and publishers to significantly limit discussion of the topic of evolution. The conclusions reached by these studies have become foundational for historians examining the interplay between science and religion in the United States in the twentieth century. However, a reexamination of key twentieth century biology textbooks suggests that the narrative that the treatment of the theory of evolution was held hostage to anti-rational cultural forces is largely a myth, created first as part of a public relations effort by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) to differentiate, defend, and promote its work, and later as part of an attempt by scholars to sound a warning concerning the rise of the religious right. A focus on this narrative has not only allowed biologists to sidestep uncomfortable questions regarding the race-biased and class-biased assumptions embedded within the concept of evolutionary progress, it has also limited reliance on the texts in question as reliable reflections of the cultural assumptions of educators and scientists. A reexamination of the most popular American biology textbooks from 1907 to 1963, particularly the work of Ella Thea Smith, provides evidence in support of these contentions.

Darwin's Dilemma: Science in the Public Forum

This article explores the basis of the public debate between Darwinian evolution and creationism. Using dramatic analysis, we show that the source for the debate is due to what we call “Darwin's Dilemma,” which is found in Darwin's Origin of Species. In the Origin, Darwin extends the mechanistic metaphor featured in Enlightenment science by devising the concept of “natural selection.” In the process, however, he also ascribes a motive to nature, which moves his theory outside the boundaries of Enlightenment science. We show that he is aware of this dilemma in his theory, and that he tries to pass it off as a metaphorical maneuver for the sake of brevity. Darwin's inability to resolve this dilemma, however, opens the door for purveyors of creationism and intelligent design. Indeed, much of the debate today over Darwinian evolution still pivots on our inability to come to terms with Darwin's dilemma.

Perspective: evolution's struggle for existence in America's public schools

The ongoing creation-evolution controversy in North America thrives on the widespread special creationist beliefs of a significant portion of the public. Creation science supports a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible, an earth that is no more than 10.000 years old and created ex nihilo in six days by a monotheistic God, with no new kinds arising since the period of creation, and with a single flood of staggering force shaping layers of rocks and trapping the organisms fossilized within them. Despite decisions in numerous court cases that specifically exclude creationism and creation science from primary and secondary biology classes in America's public schools, creationists now work locally to minimize or remove evolution from science teaching standards. The nationally organized movement to resist the teaching of evolution has proven highly effective, influencing state and district school boards in addition to individual teachers and schools. Thus, if teaching about evolution and the nature of science is to survive in America's primary and secondary schools, scientists must likewise work with teachers and reach out to state and local school boards. In this perspective we outline the typical creationist arguments we encounter from students, teachers, school board members, and neighbors. We explain briefly how knowledge of both microevolution and macroevolution is important in medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology. We describe a science education controversy that arose within our own school district, how we responded, and what we learned from it. Finally, we argue that even modest outreach efforts to science teachers will be richly repaid.