Evolution Acceptance Study Suggests Gut Feelings Trump Religious Faith

Why do some people accept evolution while others refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence to support it?

New research published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching suggests that the cold, hard facts about human evolution may not be enough to convince people that it's real. Instead, it may take something akin to a leap of faith.

“The whole idea behind acceptance of evolution has been the assumption that if people understood it – if they really knew it – they would see the logic and accept it,” study co-author David Haury, an associate professor of education at Ohio State University, said in a written statement.

To investigate this assumption, Haury and his team asked 124 college students to answer questions that measured their acceptance of evolution, their level of factual knowledge of evolution and their gut feelings about these ideas. They also considered other possible predictors like academic year and religion.

What did the researchers find? They found that neither being religious nor knowing the facts about evolution were reliable predictors of an individual's acceptance of evolution. But "intuitive cognitions" about evolution were predictive. In other words, students knowledgeable about evolution were more likely to accept evolution if they also had strong “gut” feelings that the facts were real.

"When there’s a conflict between facts and feeling in the brain, feeling wins,” Haury said.

The students who participated in the study were all aspiring biology teachers. The researchers chose this population because they wanted to better understand acceptance of evolution among people who were likely to influence others' beliefs about evolution.

"Many biology teachers do not accept evolution, even though they are expected to teach evolution, so they represent a population of particular interest to us," Haury told The Huffington Post. "Since they influence student learning, we think it is particularly important that we learn what factors lead to lack of acceptance among biology teachers."

Comments

[aolcom]

07:05 PM on 06/04/2012

"Many biology teachers do not accept evolution, even though they are expected to teach evolution, so they represent a population of particular interest to us," Haury told The Huffington Post. "Since they influence student learning, we think it is particularly important that we learn what factors lead to lack of acceptance among biology teachers."

THEY NEED REAL PROOF.

[jbushman12]

07:04 PM on 03/28/2012

The "General theory of evolution" which is taught in the school books does say that life did originate from primordial soup. This is A biogenesis (non scientific). Evolution (as a single word) is defined as things change (scientific). To use the illustration that because there are variations among species is evidence that from a single cell we have bugs, humans, and giant whales swimming in the ocean.

To say that all of this happened long long ago is no different from a religous belief.....or quite possibly a fairy tail

[Marc NL]

04:33 PM on 03/13/2012

Evolution:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/

Yes, sadly people still do not understand what a scientific Theory is.

[tonygumbrell]

03:10 PM on 03/12/2012

Good point in the article "Where there is a conflict between facts and feeling, feeling wins." I have long thought that while all of us have emotions, and we are all influenced by our emotions, for some us evidence and empiricly based understanding is of much higher importance and influencial to our thinking and beliefs than for many others, for whom feeling is much more likely to trump facts and detirmine beliefs. This is a personality difference that perhaps could be researched and analyized more fully. I have friends who are very emotionally attached to some beliefs, e.g. 2nd amendment rights, and who are intelligent enough to need, and do, quite a lot of elaborate and strenuous rationaliztion for what can be detirmined to be a very emotional matter at bottom. Believers in creationism, or simply those who are uncomfortable with evolution, who are emotionally bound to their beliefs, are none the less very desirous of a rationale, some facts, or argument to help them out. But, they won't give up, even as their evidence or argument is demolished.

[klm68]

02:04 AM on 02/05/2012

k9smith1966 wrote "evolution does not appear to have contribute­d one whit to the improvemen­t of either individual­s or society."

That's wrong. Did you ever get a flu vaccine? Did you get the current year's vaccine or the previous year? You should get the current year, because the virus evolves and last year's vaccine won't help much.

Bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. Cancer cells evolve resistance to chemotherapy. If we didn't understand how these things acquire resistance we'd be in big trouble.

Similarly, insects evolve resistance to insecticides used in agriculture and forestry. Likewise for fungi and bacteria that attack our crops. Crop breeders are constantly looking for resistance genes in wild relatives of crops, in order to try to keep ahead of the insects and pathogens.

Every living thing evolves. Conservation requires that we understand evolution. Hunting and fishing act as evolutionary pressures on wild species, and we need to understand that in order to maintain sustainable wild populations.

Ok, so there's medicine, food production, forestry, conservation, fisheries, wildlife. We could go on. An understanding of evolution is key for everything we do that involves living things.

[McKayla]

01:01 AM on 02/07/2012

Those are all examples of small variations which were passed on because they were favorable to survival...otherwise known as Micro-Evolution. In all of scientific history (as far as I understand it), there has no been one clear, proven example of one organism changing into another type of organism, Macro-Evolution, such as is necessary for the proposed evolution of all of life on Earth. Things reproduce after their own kind (species), even though they can differ by type (like different breeds of dogs).

Based on my own studies and the opinions of many prestigious scientists, I reject the statement that there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" for evolution such that to reject the theory one must reject facts. There are two sides to this issue, each with different types of factual proof, and there always will be. Frankly, it is just bad reporting to say otherwise

[Rene Luke]

01:55 AM on 02/05/2012

Believing in god and biblical genesis is an easier path than educating one's self about the actual how. The thing about science is that it is constantly adapting to new findings while, like Khrysdy said, religion offers one consistent answer that needs no further examination than this: "God made it happen." It's easy. It's simple. It requires no more than blind faith.

But those of us who seek answers cannot accept "because god made it happen." We want to know how, why and where! We want the hard answers that only science can give us. The bible was written 2000 years ago by people who were afraid of scientific knowledge (they called it "witch craft and blasphemy") but science is being written every day. What's more cool than that?

I'll take evolution over "because god made it happen" any day of the week.

[oldsarge1]

12:38 AM on 02/05/2012

The fact is "scientifically", evolution cannot be proven. For something to be proven scientifically you must be able to reproduce the results consistantly. Prove to me and the rest of the world that life can come from dead matter. Where did the dead matter come from? What exactly is this "overwhelming evidence" that you talk about?Just because you make these outlandish statements doesn't make them true!

[carmenalex]

10:54 AM on 02/29/2012

Prove to me and the rest of the world that life can come from dead matter. Where did the dead matter come from?
None of these questions have anything to do with evolution, oh, and everything about creationism screams outlandish statements. yet people want those beliefs respected, no matter how outlandish "on faith alone". Ridiculous.

[Marc NL]

04:22 PM on 03/13/2012

first off, the origin of species does not explain the origin of life. It explains the how life evolved.

I am going to stop there so you can spend some time understanding that. I know it sound like I am making fun of you but I am not. From where you are standing this will be hard enough to accept.

After you understand what Evolution really is teaching and what it is not we can perhaps take the next step.

[Khrysdy]

11:23 PM on 02/04/2012

Why do some people accept evolution while others refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence to support it?

The word "refuse" is derogatory at minimum. The reason many people go with feelings is because feelings are god-given, scientific fact is not. The only thing I know about science for sure is that it keeps changing. Things are a fact in one decade, but not in the next. God doesn't change. Just because you are educated with university degrees, doesn't make you an expert in the ways of God. We are created by Him, therefore our innate loyalty is to Him. What is there to not understand?

[carmenalex]

11:00 AM on 02/29/2012

The reason many people go with feelings is because feelings are god-given, scientific fact is not
-----------------------------------------------------------------
God-given? drivel

That is the wonderful thing about science, that it changes. It changes when we come in contact with more information and better technology. We have come from spontaneous regeneration to what we know today. Things are not "fact" one decade and not fact the other. That is not how it works. Only the scientifically illiterate would make such statements. It means you know nothing about scientific theories or laws or the difference between them. Not having those degrees does not make you into an expert on god either. Very easy for the uneducated to just believe what they are told, and that reason and education is "bad"
God did not create us, we created god in our image. What is there not to understand?

[carloarnone]

04:51 PM on 02/03/2012

An article about evolution? Im getting ready for a war zone in the comments

[Rabbit51]

02:18 PM on 02/03/2012

I for one have no problem with evolution as a fact. The evidence is overwhelmingly abundant. It is the Genesis creation story that I find so unbelievable! No evidence, no logic, and no proof. Just a bunch of religious non-sensense. Nothing more.

[carloarnone]

04:12 PM on 02/03/2012

Thank you

[k9smith1966]

12:28 PM on 02/03/2012

In the final analysis, whether one believes in evolution or not is irrelevant regarding two of the most important questions in one's individual life and in the overall "health" of society, which are: 1) whether or not one leads a life of moral discipline- doing no harm to oneself or others 2) whether one can earn an honest living- enough to take care of one's individual economic survival and that of one's family. Unlike, for example, "scientific" breakthroughs from the invention of agriculture to the exploration of space (which resulted in myriad everyday applications in health and technology), evolution does not appear to have contributed one whit to the improvement of either individuals or society. BTW: I personally believe in evolution because, to me, it seems intuitively obvious and because the fossil record seems to provide scientific evidence.

[True redwhiteblue]

11:46 AM on 02/03/2012

Evolution is a farce.They not only don't have the"missing link" they don't have any of them.Why haven't they ever found something that died in mid-evolution?Many things they found were hoaxs i.e."Nebraska man".
With all the creation(animals,insects,plant life,planets,etc.)how can people believe this came out of the primordial mud.Get use to it, there's a God,and he became man,his name is Jesus Christ.

[kennyc213]

02:44 PM on 02/03/2012

Died in mid-evolution? We're not talking about pokemon.

[carloarnone]

04:14 PM on 02/03/2012

lol

[carloarnone]

04:15 PM on 02/03/2012

Lol, actually they have found numerous missing links. What makes you say that haven't found any?

[saighead]

10:26 PM on 02/02/2012

"Many biology teacher don't accept evolution.." ???? WTF???
That's like saying many physics teachers don't accept the Third Law of Thermodynamics, or a math teacher that doesn't accept irrational numbers. Let them teach macrame, or mythology. Sorry, shouldn't have conflated those two. Just, get 'em out of the biology class!

[angry pancho]

11:04 PM on 01/29/2012

Evolution is more a descriptive statement than a theory and not very explanatory. Why all the fuss?

[SeattleSlough]

03:23 PM on 01/31/2012

Evolution is a phenomenon. It is not a theory. It is an occurrence.

There is also a theory of evolution. This is not the theory that explains whether species evolve or not, it is the explanation for HOW they evolve. The theory of evolution is that random mutation and natural selection is the means by which evolution works.

Consider that the existence of gravity is an observable fact. Yet the theory of gravity (again, the HOW) is not. And truth be told, the theory of gravity is a lot more up in the air than the theory of evolution.

When people say evolution is a theory, they are wrong. It's an observable fact that has a theory as to how it operates.

[carmenalex]

11:01 AM on 02/29/2012

Fanned!

[Eclipse33]

10:29 PM on 01/29/2012

@Maezeppa

You said:
"“Darwinius masillae is a transition­al example and yes, something lemur-like would be what we'd expect to see at the juncture where the ancestors of apes and monkeys began to diverge."

So then Darwin falsified.

It appears to be just a lemur after all.

http://www.livescience.com/17856-lemur-ancestor-grooming-claw.html
(Not a creationist site, even though the creationist had it right from the start)

Another transitional fossil debunked by SCIENCE!

[Dimensio]

11:09 PM on 01/29/2012

Difficulty in conclusively classifying a fossil specimen does not falsify the theory of evolution.

[Eclipse33]

10:19 AM on 01/30/2012

Evolutionist claimed that this was predicted by evolution. That was the amazing story.