Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:58:24.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problem Concepts in Evolution: Cause, Purpose, Design, and Chance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2017

Eugenie C. Scott
Eugenie C. Scott*
Affiliation:
National Center for Science Education, Inc., P.O. Box 9477, Berkeley, CA 94709-0477
Get access

Abstract

The American student population is largely religious and a significant minority rejects evolution. Evolution and other scientific theories are restricted to explaining through natural cause (methodological materialism), but because evolution has existential connotations, many students confuse the ability to explain through natural cause with a conclusion that therefore God does not exist (philosophical materialism). To some, if God does not exist, life has no purpose or meaning, and acceptance of evolution brings on an existential crisis. Differing understandings of four concepts (cause, purpose, design, and chance) commonly used in the teaching of evolution may exacerbate antievolutionism if students conflate their own existential meanings of these terms with the definitions within science. Cause, purpose, and design to many students include the notion of supernatural cause, purpose, and design, whereas chance is often thought to mean “purposeless” or “random” (in the sense of unpredictable.) Professors should teach evolution in a religiously-neutral fashion, thus allowing religious students to find compatibility between their religious views and science.

Information

Type
Philosophical and Biblical Perspectives
Information
The Paleontological Society Papers , Volume 5: The Evolution-Creation Controversy II: Perspectives on Science, Religion, and Geological Education , October 1999, pp. 169 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Aguillard, D. 1999. Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: A decade following Edwards v Aguillard, American Biology Teacher 61: 182–188.Google Scholar
Almquist, A. and Cronin, J. E. 1988. Fact, fancy and myth on human evolution, Current Anthropology 29: 520–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, G. 1998. The religious worldview and American beliefs about human origins, The Public Perspective 39–44.Google Scholar
Elgin, P. G. 1983. Creationism vs. evolution: A study of the opinions of Georgia teachers, Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
Eve, R. A. and Dunn, D. 1990. Psychic powers, astrology and creationism in the classroom? Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology and life science teachers, American Biology Teacher 52: 10–21.Google Scholar
Feder, K. L. 1995. Cult archaeology and creationism: A coordinated research project, p. 34–48. In Harrold, F. B. and Eve, R. A. (eds), Cult Archaeology and Creationism: University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, pp. 34–48.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. and Gallup, A. 1999. Teen-agers favor religious explanations over science, Baton Rouge Advocate, March 27, 1999, Baton Rouge, LA, pp. 2E.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, T. H. 1991. The biological roots of human nature; forging links between evolution and behavior. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Harrold, F. B. and Eve, R. A. 1995. Patterns of creationist belief among college students, pp 68–90. In Eve, R. A. and Harrold, F. B. (eds), Cult archaeology and creationism. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. E. 1963. A Reply To My Critics. In Johnson, P. E. (ed) Evolution as dogma. Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Dallas, TX, pp. 33–37.Google Scholar
Matsumura, M. 1998. What do Christians really believe about evolution? Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18: 8–9.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1991. One long argument: Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Morin, R. 1998. Keeping the faith: A survey shows the United States has the most churchgoing people in the developed world, The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, January 12, 1998, Washington, DC, pp. 37.Google Scholar
Nickels, M. K. and Drummond, B. A. 1985. Creation/Evolution: Results of a survey conducted at the 1983 ISTA convention, ISTA Spectrum 11: 11–15.Google Scholar
Numbers, R. L. 1998. Darwinism comes to America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Osif, B. A. 1997. Evolution & religious beliefs: A survey of Pennsylvania high school teachers, American Biology Teacher 59: 552–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennock, R. T. 1996. Naturalism, creationism and the meaning of life: The case of Phillip Johnson revisited, Creation/Evolution 16 (39): 10–30.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. 1993. Evolution. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Scott, E. C. 1996. Dealing with antievolutionism. In Scotchmoor, J. and McKinney, F. K. (eds), Learning through the fossil record, Paleontological Society Papers. The Paleontological Society, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 15–28.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1967. The meaning of evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Tatina, R. 1989. South Dakota high school biology teachers and the teaching of evolution and creationism, American Biology Teacher 51: 275–279.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. 1992. Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, M. 1987. The evolution-creation controversy: Opinions of Ohio high school biology teachers, Ohio Journal of Science 7: 115–121.Google Scholar