Educational Professionals' Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution

Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2009. 7(4): 490-516
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Original Article
Educational Professionals’ Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution

Louis S. Nadelson, College of Education, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA. Email:
LouisNadelson@BoiseState.edu (Corresponding author).
Gale M. Sinatra, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
Abstract: This study sought to determine if we could identify a cadre of educational
professionals with sufficient knowledge and acceptance of biological evolution to objectively
evaluate the merits of the emerging discipline of evolutionary educational psychology. Members
of APA and AERA were recruited to complete surveys measuring demographic characteristics,
evolution knowledge (specifically natural selection), and evolution acceptance. We tested a
model representing propensity toward open-minded examination of the merits of evolutionary
educational psychology. Results showed evolution knowledge and acceptance, personal beliefs,
academic and research experience, were key indicators of willingness to engage in objective
evaluation of this new discipline. We conclude that there are a number of educational
professionals with sufficient levels of evolution knowledge and acceptance to evaluate the
plausibility and applicability of this new perspective.
Keywords: evolutionary psychology, knowledge and acceptance, personal beliefs, professional
experience
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Introduction
A burgeoning area of research posits that our phylogenic history may have important
implications for cognition and learning (see Carlson and Levin, 2007, 2008). From a phylogenic
perspective, humans have evolved certain anatomical and physiological configurations which
result in cognitive attributes that influence learning (Gazzaniga, 2008). Our anatomical and
cognitive structures equip us to make sense of the world beginning in the early stages of
development (Gazzaniga, 2008). For example, “naïve theories,” evident as early as infancy,
which may have been selected for their usefulness in thinking and reasoning in natural
environments, place constraints on learning in academic and informal educational settings.
Developmentalists describe major milestones in learning as the process of overcoming the
constraints posed by naïve theories (Kelemen, 1999). Geary (2007, 2008) similarly describes
how learners are endowed with “intuitive biases” or “folk knowledge” of biology, mathematics,
physics, and psychology. Geary argues that folk knowledge or naïve theories form a basis for
learning and can facilitate some learning tasks, such as the acquisition of language. The learning

---

Knowledge and acceptance
of more complex concepts, such as those associated with mathematics or physics, may be
hampered by the presence of folk knowledge or naïve theories. These findings are leading to the
emergence of a new discipline, “evolutionary educational psychology” (Carlson and Levin,
2007).
Evolutionary educational psychology seeks to understand learning as an evolved ability.
One goal of this emerging discipline is to understand how the evolution of human cognition
differentially impacts domains of study. Specifically, it is speculated that domains that build on
the fundamentals of our folk knowledge of psychology, biology, and physics are considered to be
biologically primary because interactions within these domains have been of fundamental
importance to survival (Geary, 2008). Applying this same line of reasoning, it is postulated that
domains stemming from cultural inventions such as reading, algebra, or Newtonian physics pose
different challenges for learning and motivation. Since these areas of study extend well beyond
our evolved learning skill set they are considered to be biologically secondary.
Evolutionary educational psychology seeks to understand the advantages of learning in
these domains, but also the challenges of overcoming cognitive biases associated with the
corresponding foundational folk knowledge. These biases may have developed to provide useful
shorthand techniques for recognizing and categorizing objects and others in the environment, but
when in contradiction with scientific knowledge in the disciplines, biases may lead to the
development of misconceptions. For example, infants are very good at recognizing faces, but our
amazing ability to recognize faces may lead to a tendency to superimpose faces when they are
not there (such as the face many perceive as the “man in moon”). Thus, biologically primary
content may be easy to learn but comes with “baggage” that makes overcoming the associated
potential biases pedagogically challenging.
An understanding of the evolved nature of our learning skills and motivational
dispositions in the context of different domains may be used to develop more effective
instruction. The application of evolutionary educational psychology in the context of domain
knowledge can be illustrated by the following example. Children acquire oral language, a
biologically primary skill, with relative ease and therefore tend to require less formal instruction
to learn to speak, whereas reading, a biologically secondary skill, tends to require systematic
structured instruction and sustained effort on the part of the learner to acquire proficiency. The
recognition of these domain differences and other aspects of learning that can be understood
using an evolution-based perspective supports the possible utility of evolutionary educational
psychology.
The increasing reference to evolutionary psychology in cognition research and the
associated theory refinement raises the question of whether there is a cadre of researchers or
university instructors in education domains (what we call educational professionals) with
sufficient comprehension and acceptance of biological evolution to adequately and objectively
evaluate the merits and validity of this perspective. We contend that this requires experience with
scientific research and a working knowledge of and openness to biological evolution. To our
knowledge, educational professionals’ levels of understanding and acceptance of biological
evolution levels have never been documented.

Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -491-

---

Knowledge and acceptance
Knowledge and acceptance of evolution
Developments in evolutionary educational psychology provide justification to examine
educational professionals’ preparedness to evaluate the merits and plausibility of this
perspective. Despite the volumes of evidence supporting the scientific explanation of biological
evolution (Dawkins, 1996; Gould, 2002; Miller, 1999) and the abundance of educational
materials available to support teaching evolution (Alters and Alters, 2001; National Academy of
Sciences [NAS], 1999), research shows that the scientific understanding of biological evolution
continues to remain elusive to many (Alters and Alters, 2001; Gallup, 2008). It is argued that
evolution is complex and controversial, accounting for why it is either poorly taught or not
taught at all in many K-12 settings (Alters and Alters, 2001; Catley, 2006; NAS, 1999).
However, studying biology in post-secondary education increases the opportunity to gain deeper
understanding of evolution (Alters and Nelson, 2002; Lawson and Worsnop, 1992). This
suggests that the number of college level biology courses completed by an individual is a
potential indicator of preparedness to evaluate the merits of evolution-based research.
Working knowledge of biological evolution requires the acceptance of natural selection
and descent with modification as plausible scientific explanations for speciation and an
understanding of the associated variables and processes (Alters and Alters, 2001; Gallup, 2008;
Rutledge and Warden, 1999). An accurate understanding of the processes that make up the
structure of evolutionary theory is required to effectively generate related models and hypotheses
(Alters, 2004; McComas, 2006). We contend that more accurate conceptions of biological
evolution enhance the capacity to comprehend and evaluate the plausibility of evolutionary
educational psychology. Since advanced courses in biology or evolution are not required for a
terminal degree in psychology, educational psychology, or most education fields, it is worth
asking whether educational professionals are sufficiently prepared with knowledge of evolution
to effectively understand or scientifically evaluate evolutionary educational psychology.
Miller, Scott, and Okamoto (2006) report that the majority of individuals in the United
States do not believe in (accept) evolution, which is typically viewed as different from
understanding evolution (Rutledge and Warden, 1999; Smith and Siegel, 2004; Southerland,
Sinatra, and Matthews, 2001). It has been argued that belief and knowledge are sufficiently
different constructs that both must be examined when considering individuals’ perspectives on
evolution (Shtulman, 2006; Southerland et al., 2001). Those that make this distinction posit that
belief is based on faith, whereas knowledge is acquired through observations, logical proof, or
empirical evidence (Smith, 1994; Southerland et al., 2001). The distinction may be critical
because as Palmquist and Finley (1997) report, professional scientists transitioning to careers in
education had difficulty distinguishing their beliefs from their knowledge. Research on
acceptance and knowledge of evolution has revealed these constructs to be either associated
(Nadelson and Southerland, under review; Rutledge and Mitchell, 2002) or independent (Bishop
and Anderson, 1990; Demastes, Settlage, and Good, 1995; Lawson and Worsnop, 1992; Sinatra,
Southerland, McConaughy, and Demastes, 2003). The variation in results from research supports
the need to investigate these two constructs with our population of interest.
The strong association between acceptance of evolution and belief systems makes
individual attitudes toward evolution resistant to change (Southerland and Sinatra, 2003). Over
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -492-

---

Knowledge and acceptance
the course of instruction, evolution acceptance is not anticipated to change to the same degree as
evolution knowledge (Lawson and Worsnop, 1992). We argue that acceptance of evolution
would be predictive of an individual’s motivation to engage in the objective evaluation of the
merits of evolutionary educational psychology. We contend that rejection of the theory of
biological evolution would impede an individual’s willingness to give full consideration to this
perspective. Individual consideration of whether to accept or reject evolutionary educational
psychology requires willingness to objectively examine the idea as plausible, compelling, and
comprehensible (Dole and Sinatra, 1998).

Religiosity and evolution
Despite an abundance of evidence supporting the scientific explanation of biological
evolution, the majority of individuals in the U.S. neither understands nor accepts the theory
(Gallup, 2008: Miller, 1999). Recent Gallup polls (2008) indicate about 80% of Americans
believe humans develop only with the influence of God. This reveals perhaps one of the
strongest indicators of evolution rejection, an individual’s level of religious commitment, also
known as religiosity (Alters and Alters, 2001; Mazur, 2004 Miller, 1999; Scott, 2005). The
significance of the relationship between acceptance and religiosity is made evident by the anti-
evolution movements that have been motivated by individuals who hold strong religious beliefs
(Alters and Alters, 2001; Scott, 2005). Although anti-evolution activities have been documented
primarily in the United States, recent reports indicate similar movements are occurring in Europe
(Graebsch and Schiermeir, 2006) and in Australia (Sutherland, 2005). Lack of evolution
acceptance and resistance to learning about the theory are often due to individuals’ religious
convictions that may conflict with the scientific perspective on humans’ phylogenetic
relationships to other organisms (Alters and Alters, 2001).
The acceptance or rejection of evolution based on religious perspectives is
psychologically analogous to situations in which personal beliefs influence the decision to
engage in the consideration of new evidence or perspectives (Kuhn, 1999). The influence and
application of personal conceptions or beliefs on decision making can impede the ability to
reason scientifically (Tversky and Kahneman, 1982). Kuhn contends that individuals’ inability to
recognize the influence of their personal beliefs on the evaluation of evidence and concepts
constrains their capacity for objective scientific reasoning. Biases against evolution may
contribute to the development and reinforcement of fallacies about the theory. The documented
association between the rejection of the theory of evolution and levels of religiosity (Alters and
Alters, 2002; Trani, 2004) suggests that the constructs interact to impede impartiality required
for objective evaluation. The documented influence of religious beliefs on the willingness to
consider evolution-based conjectures provides warrant for assessing levels of religiosity in our
population of interest.

Evaluating scientific research
Professional experience conducting and evaluating research enhances the domain-general
abilities to analyze evidence, scrutinize research methodology, and judge logical arguments
supporting new perspectives (Schauble, 1996). The ability to apply scientific reasoning skills that
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -493-

---

Knowledge and acceptance
are both domain-specific and domain-general is particularly important with evolutionary
educational psychology which combines content domains, sources of evidence, research
methodologies, and logical arguments (Carlson and Levin, 2007).
Assessing an individual’s knowledge and capability to effectively and objectively weigh
scientific evidence regarding evolution is a relatively complex process. There are, however,
factors which may serve as proxies for assessing domain-general scientific reasoning capacity.
We contend that experience judging evidence (Schunn and Anderson, 1999), conducting
research (Kuhn, Amsel, and O’Loughlin, 1988) and evaluating research (Schoenfeld, 1985), are
indicators of capacity for effective decision making.
The ability to evaluate scientific research requires expertise in analyzing and critiquing
scientific evidence, hypotheses, and theories (Hogan and Maglienti, 2001; Kuhn et al., 1988;
Kuhn and Pearsall, 2000). Acquiring expertise in evaluating scientific research is a long term
process of developing understanding of when and how to attend to critical variables, explain
effects, interpret data, and test hypotheses systematically (Klahr and Simon, 1999; Schoenfeld,
1985). This suggests that the development of the domain-general ability to effectively evaluate
scientific research is influenced by exposure and opportunity to engage in and review scientific
investigations. Therefore, it stands to reason that increases in educational professionals’
academic rank, highest held degree, institutional responsibility, experience with researching or
teaching of science, and years of academic experience, would be accompanied by a
corresponding increase in the domain-general capacity to effectively evaluate scientific research.
This relationship provides justification for assessing professional academic histories and
characteristics.

Scientific reasoning
Advances in science require experts to be informed and prepared to reason scientifically
to accurately examine and critique new developments (Kuhn, 1970). Sadler and Zeidler (2004)
report greater domain-specific content knowledge results in higher quality reasoning abilities.
This suggests that scientific reasoning is domain-specific, with individuals’ abilities to
understand explanations and supporting evidence within a field constrained by their content
knowledge. The domain specificity of scientific reasoning is supported by research suggesting
individuals can effectively evaluate evidence in some domains but not in others (Schoenfeld,
1985).
We argue that scientific reasoning is best viewed as a combination of domain-general
reasoning ability resulting from engagement in the research enterprise (Kuhn et al., 1995;
Schauble, 1996), and domain-specific abilities based on content knowledge (Hogan and
Magleinti, 2001; Schoenfeld, 1985). Therefore, we posit that the ability to objectively evaluate
the merits of evolutionary educational psychology is dependent on individuals’ domain-specific
knowledge of the theory of evolution, and their domain-general professional scientific research
and academic experiences.

Study objectives
The purpose of our study was to determine the propensity for a sample of members of
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -494-

---

Knowledge and acceptance
educational professional organizations in the USA to engage in the objective consideration of the
merits or shortcomings of evolutionary educational psychology. Our research assessed
participants’ key personal characteristics, level of religious commitment, research and academic
experience, knowledge of evolution (specifically understanding of the process of biological
change through natural selection), and levels of acceptance of the theory of evolution. The
measured data was used to form a structural model representing educational professionals’
preparedness and willingness to objectively examine the validity and credibility of evolutionary
educational psychology.
The questions guiding this investigation were:

1. What are the levels of acceptance and knowledge of evolution held by this sample of
educational professionals?
2. What is the relationship among participants’ knowledge of evolution, acceptance of
evolution, and levels of religiosity?
3. How do levels of acceptance and knowledge of evolution vary among the participants
in relation to their academic rank, years of academic work, primary academic
responsibility, and highest held degree?
4. Do academic experience, individual characteristics, evolution knowledge and
acceptance relate to the willingness and ability to objectively consider the plausibility
and coherence of evolution-based conjectures?
Methods
Participants
Study participants were 337 educational professionals recruited through their
membership in Division 15 (Educational Psychology) of the American Psychological
Association (APA), and Division C (Learning and Instruction) of the American Educational
Research Association (AERA). The membership of these two organizations is composed in large
part of professors, doctoral level researchers, and other graduate students, with primary
professional involvement in teaching or research in education or educational psychology. We
anticipated the members of AERA Division C and APA Division 15 were to be most likely to
encounter situations in which they would be evaluating the merits of evolutionary educational
psychology; therefore, we limited our sampling to membership of these two Divisions.
A total of 406 individuals completed the demographics survey, but only 337 completed
all three of the study surveys. To maintain confidentiality we did not ask participants to identify
their professional affiliation, therefore, we were not able to determine the proportion of the APA
Division 15 or AERA Division C membership that responded. However, our goal was not to
achieve a representative sample of the population, but instead, to determine if there was a cadre
of education professionals prepared to evaluate the plausibility of evolutionary educational
psychology.
Data analysis was conducted on the 337 participants who completed all surveys and
provided us with full data sets. Of the 337 valid responses, approximately 60% were female and
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -495-

---

Knowledge and acceptance
40% were male. The greater number of women than men in our sample was representative of the
gender distribution found in the field of education (Organization for Economic and Co-operation
and Development, 2004). Sixty-seven percent held either a Ph.D. or Ed.D. The majority of the
participants’ degrees were in education, psychology, or educational psychology. About 40% of
our respondents indicated that research was their primary institutional activity, 30% indicated
teaching, with the remaining 30% indicating administration, service to patients, and other
activities (such as graduate student or retired). Almost 45% were tenured or tenure track. Over
half had either taken zero or one undergraduate biology course and 80% indicated having taken
no graduate level biology courses. The average number of biology courses reported taken by the
sample was 5.26 (SD = 4.79) and the median was 4.0. Over 50% had conducted research in
science, science education, or science learning. The average age was 45.37 years (SD = 13.82).
See Table 1 for demographics by highest earned academic degree.

Table 1. Demographics based on highest academic degree.

Experience
Years of
College
Researching or
Highest
n
Sex Age
Academic
Biology
Teaching Science
Academic
Experience
Courses *
Education
Degree
M/F
M(SD)
M(SD)
M(SD) Yes/No
M.S. 31
26/5
35.48(9.25)
6.23(6.3)
7.39(6.3)
16/15
M.A. 45
14/31
34.13(9.09)
6.24(6.8)
4.49(3.75)
16/29
M.Ed. 31
20/11
38.68(10.46)
6.77(6.47)
4.77(3.89)
14/17
Ed. Specialist
4
0/4
42.00(7.53)
6.50(3.70)
6.50(4.79)
2/2
Ed.D. 27
14/13
56.96(11.59)
20.26(13.16)
7.30(6.79)
14/13
Ph.D. 199
85/114
48.98(13.23)
15.64(13.45)
4.88(4.39)
119/80
Total 337
159/178
45.37(13.82)
12.97(12.51)
5.26(4.79)
181/156
*Number of college level biology courses completed by the participants

Materials and Procedures
The leadership of both APA Division 15 and AERA Division C distributed an e-mail to
the organizations’ list-serves requesting members’ participation in our study. The letter detailed
the intent of our investigation and provided a link to a web page that contained instructions for
participation, a link to our consent form, and links to our study measures.
All surveys were administered and data collected through Zoomerang, an internet based
secure survey web site. Participation was anonymous. Those who did participate were asked to
provide the same last five digits of any phone number for each measure which we used as a
unique code in our data analysis to track individual responses to our three study measures.
Participants were requested to consent to partake in the study and then complete our
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -496-

---

Knowledge and acceptance
demographics survey and two study instruments. We used a series of web pages to guide
participants through the completion of the surveys, starting with the informed consent, followed
by demographics, which included our religious beliefs questions.
Our demographics survey was used to gather personal characteristics data, including
gender, ethnicity, highest academic degree, academic rank, and years of academic experience
and educational background. We also included items that asked participants to rate their
familiarity with the theory of evolution (a measure of participants’ perceptions of their general
evolution knowledge), level of religious commitment (a measure of religiosity), personal
perceptions of the importance of religion (a measure of religiosity), and perceived level of
conflict between their individual religious views and personal acceptance of evolution (a
measure of evolution acceptance) an item similar to one used by Evans and colleagues (2007).
The participants were asked to respond to these four items using a five point Likert scale, with 1
indicating the lowest degree to which the statement was true and 5 the highest degree in which
the statement was true. See Table 2 for the average responses to these items.
Once the participants completed our demographics survey, they were directed to the
Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) (Rutledge and Warden, 1999). This
20-item evolution acceptance questionnaire is scored from 20-100 possible points, with 20 being
the lowest level of acceptance and 100 being the highest level of acceptance. The MATE uses
items such as, “The theory of evolution is incapable of being scientifically tested,” and five point
Likert scale with responses ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” In the
instrument validation study of participating high school teachers, the reliability of the instrument
was determined to be 0.98. The high level of internal reliability reported from previous studies,
the construct validation confirmed with high school biology teachers, and the instrument’s
measure of evolution acceptance, suggest that the MATE was appropriate for use in our study.
The corresponding scores and categories for acceptance are; 89-100, Very High Acceptance; 77-
88, High Acceptance; 65-76 Moderate Acceptance; 53-64, Low Acceptance; and 20-52, Very
Low Acceptance (Rutledge, 1996).
Following the completion of the MATE instrument, the participants were directed to the
Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) (Anderson, Fisher, and Norman, 2002). The
20 item CINS instrument uses scenarios and corresponding selected response items to assess
knowledge of natural selection, which is a fundamental concept of the theory of evolution
(Gould, 2002; Miller, 1999). There are multiple processes guiding evolution, however, natural
selection is an essential and dominant mechanism. The salience of natural selection to the
understanding of evolution provided justification for inferring our participants’ general
knowledge of evolution based on their CINS scores. Further, there is a dearth of extant
instruments available to assess general knowledge of evolution. Therefore, we used the CINS, an
instrument with established reliability and validity, to assess our participants’ knowledge of
natural selection and infer their general knowledge of evolution from these scores.
In the development of their instrument, Anderson et al. (2002) assessed undergraduate
students targeting a level of difficulty of 50%, and achieved a level of 46.4% correct. This
indicates that individuals with a science background similar to that of an undergraduate would be
expected to answer about 50% of the questions on the CINS correctly. In their description of the
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -497-

---

Knowledge and acceptance
CINS instrument Anderson and colleagues reported sufficient construct validity and adequate
levels of reliability (KR20 = .64). The validation with undergraduates with limited biology
knowledge, the demonstration of instrument internal reliability, and the assessment of knowledge
of natural selection supports the use of the CINS as an appropriate assessment of participants’
knowledge of evolution. Once the CINS was completed the participants were directed to a web
page which thanked them for their participation and again provided them with our contact
information.
Results
Instrument reliability
We began our analyses with a determination of the reliability of the MATE and the
CINS. Our analysis of the MATE began with recoding the reverse coded items. Maintaining the
five point Likert scale, the SPSS based internal reliability analysis produced a Cronbach’s alpha
value of .96, indicating a high level of instrument reliability.
The CINS responses where recoded to dichotomous values of 0 for incorrect and 1 for
correct. Although it is appropriate to apply the Kuder-Richardson-20 test of reliability for
dichotomous data, the outcome and process used in SPSS for the calculation of the KR-20 and
Cronbach’s alpha resulted in the same values. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis of the
CINS using SPSS resulted in a value of .86, indicating that for our application the instrument
was revealed to have a high degree of internal reliability.

Religiosity views
Our participants responded to the question regarding their level of religious commitment
with a mean of 2.66 (SD = 1.35) which would fall between “minimally religious” and “somewhat
religious” on our Likert scale (see Table 2). Approximately 49% of participants responded as
“not religious” or “minimally religious,” 21% responded as “somewhat religious,” and 31%
responded with “religious” or “very religious”. It is interesting to note that the participants were
nearly equally distributed on the five point scale, which indicates that our sample includes
individuals with a broad range of religious commitment. In an effort to provide a context for
interpreting our participants’ level of religiosity and to establish a reference for future analysis,
we made an attempt to compare the religiosity of our sample to outcomes from Gallup (2008)
and other reports of various behavior measures associated with religious commitment of the
general public (e.g. church attendance). However, we could not locate any data that were similar
enough to allow for a direct comparison of the religious commitment of our sample and the
general public.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -498-

---

Knowledge and acceptance
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the Measures of Religiosity, and the Knowledge of
Evolution and Acceptance of Evolution scales (n = 337).

Measure
M SD
Level of religious commitment (Scale 1 - 5)
2.66
1.35
Importance of religion (Scale 1 - 5)
2.95
1.47
Familiarity with evolution (Scale 1 - 5)
3.63
.91
Knowledge of Evolution (CINS) (Scale 0 - 20)
15.41
4.26
Religious beliefs compatible with evolution (Scale 1 - 5)
3.97
1.15
Acceptance of Evolution (MATE) (Scale 20 – 100)
87.77
13.41

The distribution of participants’ responses to our question regarding personal importance
of religion was very similar to our item assessing perceived religious commitment. The average
of 2.95 (SD = 1.47) placed our participants very near “somewhat important” for our measure of
the personal importance of religion (see Table 2). The similarity in responses to our importance
of religion item and the previous item examining religious commitment provided evidence of
consistency in our measures of religiosity. The correlation between religious commitment and
importance of religion was r(337) = .90, p < .01. This indicated there was a high level of shared
variance between these two items. The high level of correlation between these items provided
justification for combining the two measures to form a single composite variable representing of
our participants’ levels of religiosity.

Acceptance and knowledge
We began our main analyses of interest by examining our first research question: What
are the levels of acceptance and knowledge of evolution held by this sample of educational
professionals? The MATE measure of evolution acceptance uses a scale of 20 (representing no
acceptance) to 100 (representing full acceptance). Over 75% of our participants scored in the 80
to 100 range on the MATE. This indicates that the majority of our participants rated their level of
acceptance of the theory of evolution as High to Very High acceptance (Rutledge, 1996). The
mean score of our 337 participants, 87.77 (SD = 13.41), was significantly higher [t(887) = 16.52,
p < .01] than the levels of acceptance of a previous study that examined the acceptance of
evolution of 552 high school biology teachers in which Rutledge and Warden (2000) reported a
mean of 77.59 (SD = 4.26) on the same scale. This indicates that participants in our sample had
significantly higher levels of acceptance of the theory of evolution than the biology teachers
assessed in a prior study. This was intriguing since our participants reported taking about half the
number of college level biology courses on average (M = 5.26, Mdn = 4.0 SD = 4.79) than
recommended for biology teacher certification (National Science Teacher Association, 1992).
See Table 2 for the means and standards deviations of the MATE.
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -499-

---

Document Outline

• ??
• ??
• ??

---