Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human

A dissertation submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of Political Science

of the College of Arts and Sciences

by

Misook Gwon,

M.A. Political Science, University of Cincinnati

December 2012

Committee Chair: Stephen T. Mockabee, PhD

ABSTRACT

The theory of evolution has long generated controversy in American society, but Americans‘ attitudes about human evolution are often neglected in studies of ―culture wars‖ and the nature of mass belief systems more generally (Berkman and Plutzer 2010; Freeland and Houston 2009). Gallup and other survey organizations have polled about evolution, but offered limited response categories that mask complexity in public opinion (Bishop 2006; Moore 2008). The main problems concerning the leading survey questions about evolution are: first, questions measure only a single dimension, thus they ignore the potential for multidimensionality in people‘s attitudes. Second, depending on question wording and response options, the results of public opinion surveys vary by polling groups. This is an example of measurement error which misleads the interpretation and impression of American public opinion on the origin of humankind. A number of studies have analyzed Americans‘ beliefs about evolution and hypothesized about the influential effects of several factors (Deckman 2002; Mazur 2005; Mooney 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Newport 2006; Forrest 2007; Nisbet and Goidel 2007; Scott 2009). However, there remains a lack of complete understanding of what Americans know and believe about human evolution. Given the salience of this issue and the significant influence of public opinion on policy-making in America (Page and Shapiro 1992; Stimson 2004; Newport 2004), the measurement error and explanation of polling results on controversial issues related to this topic are in need of clarification. In this study, I address these deficiencies with analyses of data from a 2008 national survey by Harris Interactive (n= 4,626) that included numerous measures of factual knowledge and beliefs about evolution. The items offer more nuanced response options than the standard three-category question asked for decades by the Gallup poll. The Harris survey also had multiple measures of religiosity and the Right-Wing-Authoritarianism personality scale. Using this uniquely rich data set I develop a model of the nature and organization of these various attitude structures. Data analyses on explanation of public acceptance or rejection of evolution indicate that the Right-wing-authoritarianism and religious factors including beliefs in God‘s existence, views of the Bible, frequency of church attendance, and Evangelical Protestant affiliation are significant predictors across all measures. Scientific literacy, genetic science knowledge and familiarity, in general, are another contributor to prediction of public attitudes toward evolution. On measurement validity, consistency of measurement and responses are examined. The results from data analyses reveal the effect of question wording form and context is at play. In addition, public beliefs and knowledge about evolution are not consistent, rather contradictory, and are susceptible to framing effects. As scholars of public opinion warn, we should avoid the referendum view of polls on controversial issues (Schuman 2008; Moore 2008; Bishop 2005). Findings from this research lead to two key conclusions. First, great caution should be taken interpreting poll results on human evolution. Second, for better understanding of public opinion on this issue, a modified standard question should replace the current question.

ii

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During my time in graduate school, I have received support and encouragement from a great number of individuals. Thank all of you who helped me throughout these past years as I tried to juggle raising children, working, and completing my dissertation. I would like to thank the staff and faculty in the Department of Political Science. In particular, I would first like to thank my dissertation committee for all their help to improve the overall quality of my work. My chairperson, Stephen Mockabee, has been a mentor, colleague, and friend. I would like to thank him for his generous support and extreme patience during numerous obstacles in completing this project. His enthusiasm in research and teaching, as well as his willingness to help students, has motivated me to pursue a career in political science. I am also grateful to Barbara Bardes for her support in numerous ways throughout my graduate studies. Without her encouragement and inspiration, this project would not have been accomplished. Additionally, I would like to thank Andrew Lewis for his insightful feedback on this research. Finally, special thanks to George Bishop for his timely guidance on various aspects of this project. I would like to extend my gratitude to Randy Thomas for generously providing the Harris survey data for my dissertation research. I would like to thank my fellow doctoral students for their support, feedback, and friendship. For all the sharing of time, knowledge, and insight in class and in preparing for comprehensive exams, I thank Ashley Kanotz, Rike Rothenstein, Chad Kinsella, and Jason Wood. I also thank Brad Nestheide and Jenn Dye for proofreading, commenting, and providing feedback on my early manuscript. Lastly, I am especially thankful to Nate Ramsey and Dan Birdsong for their longtime friendship, intellectual stimulation, and endless support. I am grateful to Dan Birdsong for sharing his time and insightful ideas during graduate school. Nate Ramsey has been an ideal research partner who constantly provided thought-provoking ideas and research opportunities. Next, I would also like to thank all the staff at the Institute for Policy Research - Eric Rademacher, Kim Downing, Chuck Hulen, Richard DePrato and others - for giving me a chance to develop my research skills. I am especially grateful to Eric Rademacher for sharing valuable research skills and teaching me to set a high research standard. My special thanks to the staff at the UC Women‘s Center. I am thankful to Barb Rinto, Amy Howton, Ann Brown, Kim Fulbright, and Brandy Turnbow for all their encouragement, insights, and reminding me to maintain balance between work and life. To all of my family, especially my parents and in-laws, I deeply appreciate your unconditional love and support throughout my life. To my late father, who has been in my heart along this long journey, it was your strong faith in me made this possible. I am also grateful to my brother-in-law, Euisuk Park, for introducing me to graduate school, and for constantly providing encouragement and guidance early in my graduate studies. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Young, for his complete support and unwavering love. Without him, my soul mate, I could not dream of this long journey. And just as he has provided me with quiet patience and unending encouragement, I will repay and support him in achieving his dream. Lastly, to my beautiful sons, Yun and Yul, thank you for giving me a push every day to finish ―mommy‘s homework.‖

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter1: Evolution in Scientific and Religious America 1

Chapter 2: Culture Wars and Human Evolution 28

Chapter 3: Validity of Measurement 46

Chapter 4: Social, Religious, and Psychological Roots of

Public Attitudes toward Human Origin 72

Chapter 5: Conclusion 130

Bibliography 137

Appendix A 159

Appendix B 161

Appendix C 162

Appendix D 166

v LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES

Figure 1: Acceptance or Rejection of Evolution in 34 Countries, 2005 9

Table 3-1: Trends in Beliefs About Human Evolution 52

Figure 3-1: Trends in Americans' Knowledge about Human Origins 54

Figure 3-2: Gallup Poll Trends in Evolution, , 56

Figure 3-3: Trends in Americans' Belief in God 59

Table 3-2: Cross tabulation Results for the Modified Gallup by the Harris Five views 60

Table 3-3: Cross tabulation Results for the GSS question by the Harris Five views 61

Table 3-4: Cross tabulation Results for the Modified Gallup by the GSS question 62

Table 3-5: Cluster Membership of variables 65

Figure 3-4: Dendrogram of Cluster Analysis Result 66

Table 3-6: Distribution Consistent Believers of Each Explanation of Human Origins in the Harris Five Views 68

Table 3-7: Cross tabulation Results for Consistent Believers by the GSS question 69

Table 3-8: Cross tabulation Results for Consistent Believers by the Modified Gallup question 70

Table 4-1: Distribution of the Modified Gallup Evolution Question 106

Table 4-2: Demographic Summary: Gallup ―None of these comes close to my beliefs‖ 108

Table 4-3: Demographic Summary: Gallup ―Not at all sure‖ 109

Table 4-4: Multi-nominal Logistic Regression Results For the Modified Gallup question 112

vi Table 4-5A: Distribution of the GSS Evolution Question 116

Table 4-5B: Findings from the GSS Evolution Question Cross-tabulation Results 118

Table 4-6: Demographic Summary: Natural Evolution believer in the GSS evolution question 119

Table 4-7: Demographic Summary: Natural Evolution Denier in the GSS evolution question 120

Table 4-8A: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for The GSS evolution and the Modified Gallup evolution 121 Table 4-8B: Changes in Predicted Probability of Endorsing Selected View by Demographics, Religious, Science, and Psychological Factors 122

Table 4-9: Distributions of Five human origins views in Harris Interactive 2008 survey 124

Table 4-10: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for Harris Five World Views 126

vii Chapter 1: Evolution in Scientific and Religious America

“The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up‖ (Kentucky Rep. Ben Waide, quoted in the Lexington Herald-Leader, August 14, 2012)

―To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology. …From vaccines, viral cancer genes, and nerve cell communication to drug trials, and genes controlling cholesterol and heart disease, evolutionary insights are crucial.‖(James McCarter, quoted in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 2005)

In modern science, the theory of evolution is regarded as a cornerstone of life science.

From biomedical research, genomics, to bioinformatics, the theory of evolution plays a central role. The concepts and its application to other areas in science and related industries demonstrate that the theory of evolution is not just ―a theory‖ but ―the dominant scientific theory,‖ as the representative scientific community affirmed (NAS 1999) and several court cases supported (Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover 2005, p.83). Despite the public‘s high appreciation of advances in medical discoveries and its contribution to public health (The National Science

Board 2012), the widespread rejection of evolution is a serious concern.

8 Figure 1: Acceptance or Rejection of Evolution in 34 Countries, 2005

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

TRUE FALSE Not Sure Source: ICPSR Databank, Euro Barometer Survey Study No. 63.11

As displayed in Figure 1, recent international surveys show that among advanced countries, the United States is one of the countries where the acceptance of evolution, particularly, that of human evolution, is low (Miller et al. 2006). In addition, according to the

Programme for International Student Assessment (hereafter PISA), American students scored

502 in the science component2 of the 2009 PISA assessment ranking twenty-third out of sixty- five countries (OECD 2010). Science and technology are crucial in economic competiveness.

1Note: Japan data was found at http://www.nistep.go.jp/achiev/sum/eng/rep072e/rep72se.pdf. United States 2005 data came from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2006/08/08/313.5788.765.DC1/Miller.SOM.pdf. See also http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_224_report_en.pdf. 2This core U.S. average score of 502 not measurably different from the OECD average of 501. 12 OECD countries such as Finland, Japan, and South Korea had higher average scores.

9 The recent America COMPETES act in 2007 reflects national concern with respect to science and technology 3(Otto 2011, p. 156).

Given American dominance in science and technology worldwide, the poor score on public acceptance of evolution is viewed by advocates of science education as quite discouraging. The theory of evolution in the U.S. is highly accepted by the majority of scientists, especially biologists, and is regarded as a unifying theory of biology (Futuyma 2005;

Wiles 2011). For example, according to the Pew poll in 2009, ―Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time,‖ while only 61% of the public agree

(the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press). Despite the public‘s overwhelming praise of science‘s impact and contribution to the society4, the idea of evolutionary explanation of human origins and its development on the earth still remain controversial in American society.

Compared to other European countries, the United States is not only more reluctant to accept the concept of human evolution, but also wages more political and cultural debates over the issue of human evolution to the present (Mooney and Kirshenbaum 2009). For instance, in the 2008 presidential nomination campaign, Republican presidential candidates expressed views on teaching evolution in the classroom during debates and in interviews. Numerous US national surveys regarding the beliefs about the origin of life have shown that the disagreement over the origins of human beings, specifically speaking, has been an enduring issue in American society since as early as the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial (Larson 1997, 2003).

3This bill is not titled as LEARN Actin 112th Congress. The latest major action was taken on 9/8/2011; Referred to House subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. To check latest status, see the Library of Congress website, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas 4http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1546 (accessed on Jan-10-2011)

10 The trend on the public beliefs and attitudes toward the origin and development of life and teaching this issue in schools has shown that a majority of the public believes in biblical creationism or theistic evolution. While a solid majority favors teaching evolution in the classroom, when asked about adding creationism or intelligent design to the explanation for the origin of human life, nearly two-thirds of the public support this so-called ―‖ or ―fair treatment‖ public school policy (Berkman and Plutzer 2008). According to the recent Gallup Poll on the origin of humans, nearly 42% of the public believes that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so while another 34% of the public believes that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. The remaining segments of the public believe in natural evolution.5

Borrowing Alexis de Tocqueville‘s term, this phenomenon seems to be an example of

American exceptionalism (for anti-evolution movement in other countries, see Koenig 2007;

Branch 2008; Numbers 2009; Williams 2009; also, see Nature for recent anti-evolution movement‘s impact on science textbook revision on the evolution of the horse and of the avian ancestor Archaeopteryx in South Korea6).

Given the reflection of public opinion from polls on public policy (Page and Shapiro

1992; Stimson 2004; Newport 2004; among others) and its important role for democratic society, the picture of American attitudes regarding the theory of evolution should get more

5The percentage of the respondents who believe in natural evolution has been increased recently.http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx 6On June 5, 2012 Nature reported that ―the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx.‖ After the report, the South Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology have received an avalanche of criticism. The overseeing panel including experts in evolution and fossils was set up by the government. Finally the panel concluded Archaeopteryx must be included in Korean science textbooks and reaffirmed the theory of evolution‘s role in modern science. http://www.nature.com/news/science-wins-over- creationism-in-south-korea-1.11377

11 attention with a thorough examination. Here, the first question is whether the picture of public opinion on this issue is clear enough. This is a question of measurement validity. Are the polls measuring in the way they intend to? Then, another question comes from the background; what causes this seemingly exceptional rejection of evolution in America?

A number of studies have analyzed Americans‘ beliefs about evolution and hypothesized several factors, including , measured by religiosity indicators, scientific literacy7, education, partisanship or political ideology, and other demographic indicators such age, gender, race, region of residence, etc. (Mazur 2005; Miller et al. 2006;

Cobern and Loving2005; Freeman and Houston 2009, 2011; Keeter, Smith, and Masci 2012;

Deckman 2004; Cobern 1994, 2000, 2007). On the other hand, in the literature on this issue there is still a lack of thorough understanding of what Americans know and believe about human evolution. Put another way, there is a great deal of variation unexplained by existing indicators. Almost no literature explains and predicts the strong indicators for beliefs and attitudes toward human evolution systematically. Part of this problem is due to measurement error; are we measuring what we intended to measure? While the survey results show a mostly consistent portrait of public opinion on human evolution and related public policy in schools, there are still conflicting and even contradictory results on this issue (Duncan 2004; Bishop

2006, 2007; Mooney and Nisbet 2007; Nisbet and Mooney 2007). This varying division of public opinion mostly is due to different wording and response options.

7 The OECD noted that literacy had several components. ―Current thinking about the desired outcomes of science education for all citizens emphasizes the development of a general understanding of important concepts and explanatory frameworks of science, of the methods by which science derives evidence to support claims for its knowledge, and of the strengths and limitations of science in the real world. It values the ability to apply this understanding to real situations involving science in which claims need to be assessed and decisions made…‖

12 As stated above, the current problems of leading survey questions about evolution are; first, questions such as the Gallup Poll and the General Social Survey (GSS) questions measure not a single dimension; i.e., knowledge or beliefs or attitudes, but multidimensional aspects.

Second, depending on question wording and response options, the results of public opinion vary by polling organizations. This is an example of measurement error which misleads the interpretation and impression of American public opinion on the origin of humankind. Given the importance of public opinion‘s reflection on public policy in America (Monroe 1979, 1998;

Page and Shapiro 1992; Bardes and Oldendick 2000; Erickson, Mackuen, and Stimson 2002;

Burnstein 2003; Stimson 2004; Asher 2004; Newport 2004; Erickson and Ted 2010; Shapiro

2011), the measurement error and explanation of polling results on this ongoing controversial issue should be improved significantly.

Based on this, the goal of this research is to answer these two research questions:

1) What are the driving forces shaping beliefs about human evolution?

This question seeks to reveal the key factors that account for the variation in Americans‘

belief about the origin of humans and its development. Specifically, how much can

socio-political, religious and psychological indices along with scientific knowledge and

familiarities with evolutionary concepts explain the variation in the public belief or

disbelief of human evolution? Based on the results found in pursuit of answers to this

question, I propose a theoretical framework to explain a deeper, fundamental influence

on beliefs about the origin of human life.

2) What is the optimal method for measuring public opinion on human

evolution?

13 In answering this second question, I seek to reveal the problems associated with current

measurement of public attitudes on human evolution. In this study, three questions

asking the public views about human evolution are assessed: the modified Gallup Poll

question, the Harris Interactive survey question with five different evolution theories,

and the NORC General Social Survey question. By examining statistical explanatory

power along with theoretical ground, I propose a better instrument in measuring public

beliefs about humankind‘s origin. I go on to explain how the findings related to this

question can lead to better measures of public understanding and attitudes about science.

Theory and Hypotheses

Explaining Beliefs and attitudes about Human Evolution

The literature on Americans‘ belief or disbelief in evolution has shown several theories: lack of education or scientific literacy, fundamentalist views, political ideology, socio-cultural variation such as being female, Black, Southerner, etc. and issue framing. Among these theories, the scientific literacy explanation posits that those who do not believe in evolution lack education or proper scientific literacy (Miller et al. 2006; Nisbet and Goidel 2007; to name a representative few). Scientific communities including scientists, educators and organizations such as the

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Center for

Educational Progress (NCEP), the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the National

Academies of Science/National Research Council (NAS/NRC), and the National Science

Foundation (NSF) make efforts to promote science literacy to society. For these science-groups the public‘s lack of scientific skills or knowledge is an impediment to a greater degree of belief in evolution. In this case, the remedy is education, specifically, science courses, communication between scientists and laypersons and education through media (Lambright 2008).

14 Another primary explanation in the extant literature is religiosity, particularly fundamentalism which is mostly identified with Biblical literalism and born-again experience.

This model is in line with a so-called ―God gap‖ between traditionalists or orthodox and the progressivists on the value-laden issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and family issue. In his seminal book, ―Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America‖ (1991) Hunter argues that the denominational differences among religious group are no longer important; rather it is deeper division between two incommensurate worldviews which encompass moral issues as a philosophical lens. The crucial difference between these two worldviews, ―orthodoxy‖ or

―progressivism,‖ centers on where they concede ultimate authority. Depending on the source of moral authority, individuals‘ attitudes toward social and political issues vary between these two camps. According to this explanation, people who accept or reject the theory of evolution do so based on the authority of either science or transcendent God. As Scott (1997; 2009, p. 371) hypothesized, parents who fear teaching evolution in their children‘s classroom equate belief in evolution with deserting God. In this way believing Darwinian evolution equals betrayal of belief in God and this atheism is a culprit of destroying traditional moral values (Eve, Losh and

Nzekwe 2010; fear of materialism and rejection of evolution, see Foster et al. 2008). This hypothesis is supported in The Wedge of Truth (2000) and The Wedge Document by Philip

Johnson, a leading proponent of creationism/Intelligent Design. In this book Johnson clarified the notion of Wedge and the goal of this strategy in the introduction: ―The log in this metaphor is the ruling philosophy of modern culture, a philosophy called naturalism or materialism or physicalism or simply modernism. Under any of those names this philosophy assumes that in the beginning were the fundamental particles that compose matter, energy and the impersonal laws of physics. To put it negatively, there was no personal God who created the cosmos and

15 governs it as an act of free will. If God exists at all, he acts only through inviolable laws of nature and adds nothing to them.‖ (p. 13) Then, he identified the specific population while differentiating these audiences from general theists: ―In particular, it is time to set out more fully how the Wedge program fits into the specific Christian gospel (as distinguished from a generic theism), and how and where questions of biblical authority enter the picture.‖ (p. 16)

Johnson also categorized ―Marxism, Freudianism and ‖ as ―.‖(p. 161).

This is a combination of psychological and religious roots of disbelief in evolution to some segments of population.

Framing theory explores the effect of questionnaire design on the public attitudes toward evolution. The proponents of creationism in the society characterize evolution as ―just a theory8‖ rather than ―fact,‖ to promote support for equal treatment in public school (Gregory

2008; Jelen 2009, chap. 8; Newport 2006; Forrest 2007; Mooney and Kirshenbaum 2005).

Given that there is a very little empirical research on the effect of question framing on this issue, this explanation can be developed by experimental questionnaire design with alternative frames.

Overall, few empirical studies exist which support these theories using mostly survey data and contain sophisticated analytic power.

Miller and his colleagues conducted comparative data analyses using survey results in

32 European countries, United States and Japan. To predict attitudes toward evolution, Miller and his colleagues employed a two-group structural equation model using data from the United

8The National Academy of Science‘s 1999 statement proclaimed that ―The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.‖ Available at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024)

16 States and nine European countries. In their study, the dependent variable is attitude toward evolution, measured with the five category question—definitely false, probably false, not sure, probably true, or definitely true. Ten independent variables are used in this model: age, gender, education, genetic literacy, religious belief, attitude toward life, attitude toward science and technology, belief in science and technology, reservations about science and technology, and political ideology. In Miller et al.‘s model, three primary predictive variables include an index of fundamentalist religious beliefs, political ideology, and genetic literacy compared to other

European countries. Their findings are very similar to the study of Mazur (2005) and other

National Science Foundation-funded studies in terms of the predictive power of education and scientific literacy. However, in Mazur‘s study the single best predictor is Christian religious fundamentalism. Previous researchers have found that the United States has exceptionally higher level of politicization of science and religion (Newport 2011). Therefore, political ideology or party identification is one of the strong indicators in predicting one‘s attitudes toward religion and science-related issues. Miller and his colleagues‘ study supports empirically this pattern.

Using combined GSS data on belief in evolution, Mazur concluded that Christian religiosity, especially in a fundamentalist variety, is the strongest predictor of disbelief in evolution. Political conservatism is identified as a correlate of disbelief in evolution. In addition to scientific knowledge, religiosity, political views, and primary demographic variables, Mazur examined dogmatism (closed-mindedness is used interchangeably) to measure its relation to acceptance of evolution. However, after controlling for other variables, dogmatism turned out to be unrelated to one‘s views about evolution. Related to the public beliefs about human evolution, Deckman (2002) found that religious fundamentalism (measured by identification

17 with a faith tradition) and a conservative political ideology were statistically significant predictors of support for teaching creationism.

In the light of the salience of the issue, empirical studies to explain and predict the factors shaping public opinion on human evolution still lack explanatory power. There are many descriptive studies with respect to public beliefs about the origin of human life, but empirical research with testable hypotheses is rare.

Hypotheses

The core question at issue in this study centers on the public attitudes toward human origins and their development. Primarily, the goal is to explain key influences on public opinion toward human evolution by answering these questions: what are the driving forces for belief or disbelief in human evolution? How much variation can we explain about beliefs in human evolution?

Regarding the theoretical origins of beliefs about human , the present study will 1) identify key predictors in explaining beliefs and disbeliefs in human evolution, 2) propose a theoretical framework to explain and predict beliefs about the origin and development of human being. Regarding the methodological discrepancies surrounding the means used to measure and assess attitudes about human evolution, this research will 1) deconstruct the standard Gallup question in order to examine multidimensional aspects of the beliefs and knowledge about human evolution, 2) compare the measures of attitudes toward evolution in terms of its predictive power, 3) investigate response consistency, and 4) propose better measurement in examining human evolution beliefs in the U.S.

18 Theoretical Model Proposed

Demographic variables, religion, education, and scientific knowledge are key independent variables in theories explaining attitudes about human evolution. As previous studies have shown, older adults and women tend to be more religious than their counterparts.

Also, as the culture war literature has suggested, region of the respondent is included as another indicator of one‘s religiosity and political ideology. Race is another primary demographic variable in the United States in predicting one‘s religious and political views (see e.g., Kohut et al. 2000; Kosmin and Keysar 2006, 20099). Education is related to one‘s age, gender, and also race. In addition, education is related to one‘s religiosity and scientific knowledge. Then, religiosity turns to predict one‘s beliefs in human origin. Here, the main difference between

Miller‘s model and the author‘s is critical. First, in my model, the concept of religiosity is measured using more indicators such as religious affiliation, church attendance, belief in God and views of the Bible. In particular, among religiosity indicators, the respondent‘s view of the

Bible is the strongest indicating whether or not one is a Biblical literalist (Wald 2003, chap. 6;

Mazur 2005, 2007). In Miller‘s model, religiosity is measured by a four-category ordinal variable. The four categories are (1) no religious belief, (2) some religious belief but a strong belief in human control, (3) belief in substantial divine control but infrequent prayer, and (4) belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer. Compared to a measure constructed by

Miller et al., the religiosity measure in the Harris data and the model in this study is more complicated and better captures behavioral and attitudinal measures of one‘s religiosity.

9In this survey conducted in 2008, ―American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population,‖ highlights indicate the main characteristics of those who do not identify with any religion. They are more likely to be ages 18- 29¸ reside in Western states or New England region, either agnostics or deist, and more likely to be male than female. For details see http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/american-nones-the-profile-of-the-no-religion- population/

19 Second, neither Miller et al.‘s study nor Mazur‘s study included a psychological measure in predicting one‘s attitude toward human evolution.

According to Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992), there is a link between authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism. In particular, a Biblical literalist who is accepting the Genesis version of human origin is an example of one of the indicators of the Right-Wing-

Authoritarianism, submissions to authority. Previous research used indicators of scientific knowledge or genetic literacy or attitudes toward science and technology. However, those factual knowledge questions mostly formatted as a dichotomy of true or false may not directly relate to one‘s concept of specific human evolution. In my model, better measurement is used to capture the respondent‘s general knowledge of science, knowledge of evolutionary science, and familiarity with evolutionary concepts. Last but most importantly, the dependent variable in this model is not a single question as outlined in the standard Gallup question. Rather, three versions of evolution question are asked: the modified Gallup question, the GSS single item question, and the Harris‘ question which includes five different beliefs about human origins: Creationism,

God-guided evolution, Intelligent Design, God-initiated evolution, and Natural evolution. As

Scott (1997) suggested there is a creation-evolution continuum though without the same distance between each view. By that means, those five views are not exclusive with some differing degree. However, compared to the standard Gallup question which is also used in the

Miller et al.‘s research these questions better measure the respondent‘s complicated attitude toward human evolution.

Descriptive analysis of 2008 Harris data shows that the respondents who identified as creationist hold contradictory beliefs about evolution and knowledge of evolutionary concepts.

According to Altemeyer (1996) who developed the RWA scale, right-wing authoritarians tend

20 to hold contradictory ideas which result from compartmentalized thinking. The results of preliminary analysis of 2008 Harris data support this compartmentalization hypothesis between knowledge and beliefs about human evolution. Three components of the RWA scale are authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism which are related to religiosity, in particular, to Christianity. Authoritarianism index presents a high degree of submission to the authorities, a general degree of aggressiveness against outgroups and deviants, and also includes a high degree of adherence to the traditional views which are perceived to be endorsed by its established authorities. As Robert Bellah (1967) puts it, Christianity is a civil religion in the United States where its Constitution holds separation of state and church.

Altemeyer‘s study shows a high correlation of the right-wing authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism; in politics, the interaction of these two traits plays an increasingly central role in making conservative public policies. The last concept of conventionalism in RWA is in the same line with Noelle-Neumann‘s (1974, 1993) spiral of silence theory. According to this theory, individuals are affected by perceived majority opinion and when one who perceives their opinion is in a minority position they are less willing to speak out. Given that this theory only applies to the moral or value-laden issues, only beliefs about human origins (not knowledge) can be explained by this theory. Taken together, my hypothesis is that Americans‘ beliefs, not knowledge about human evolution, are affected by strong religiosity, biblical literalism particularly, and authoritarian personal traits which are highly related to conformity to traditional Christian views.

Data and Method of Analyses

The data used in this research comes from the 2008 Harris Interactive poll which is an on-line survey conducted internationally. This survey contains multiple dimensions of

21 Americans‘ beliefs and knowledge about evolution along with batteries of questions measuring religiosity, psychological traits and familiarities with evolutionary concepts. Unlike the Gallup standard question for human origins, the 2008 Harris poll question has three different versions: the modified Gallup question, the GSS question, and the Harris five different beliefs about human origins which include Creationism, God-guided evolution, Intelligent Design, God- initiated evolution, and Natural evolution.

In this research, the three dependent variables are examined;

1. Modified Gallup evolution question: ―Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?‖ 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had NO PART in this process. 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. 4) None of these comes close to my beliefs 5) Not at all sure which is true 2. GSS evolution question in 2008 Harris: ―…how much do you believe it to be true or false?‖ (Definitely true, Probably true, Probably false, Definitely false, Not at all sure) ―Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.‖ 3. Harris Five Worldview question: ―How likely is it that each is true or false? (Definitely false, Probably false, Probably true, Definitely true, Not at all sure) 1) Creationism – God created the universe, the Earth, and all of life within the past 10,000 years 2) God-guided Evolution – God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago; God started and has guided human evolution over millions of years.

22 3) Intelligent Design – the universe and Earth came into being billions of years ago, and humans evolved over millions of years according to the design of an Intelligent Force. 4) God-initiated Evolution – God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago; but all life, including humans, evolved over millions of years from earlier life forms due to environmental pressures to adapt and without any guidance from God or an Intelligent Force. 5) Natural Evolution – the universe and Earth came into being billions of years ago; all life, including humans, evolved over millions of years from earlier life forms due to environmental pressures to adapt; there was no God or Intelligent Force involved in either the creation or evolution of life.

Key independent variables are: gender, age, race, region, education, party identification, religious affiliation (religious belonging), church attendance (religious behavior), belief in

God‘s existence (religious belief), views of the Bible (biblical literalism), knowledge of general science (10 scientific knowledge questions ), knowledge of evolutionary science (5 genetic literacy question such as the age of Earth and universe, etc.), familiarity with evolutionary biology concepts (adaptation , natural selection, genetic mutation, speciation and genetic drift) and the index of the Right-Wing-Authoritarianism. (Please see Appendix for question wording).

Based on literature review and preliminary data analysis, the proposed hypotheses related to the study‘s core theoretical questions are as follows:

1. The relationship between Americans‘ beliefs in human evolution and scientific knowledge of it is not linear.

In other words, the degree of scientific knowledge influences differently in each belief system; for instance, scientific literacy will predict better in natural evolution belief, but not in

23 intelligent design. The five belief systems examined in this study using data from a survey by

Harris Interactive are not mutually exclusive, nor are they regarded as a continuum.

2. Americans‘ beliefs and attitudes toward human evolution are affected by mostly strong biblical literalism and authoritarian personal traits which are highly related to conformity to traditional Christian views.

Due to the compartmentalization between scientific knowledge and beliefs in God, the knowledge index itself has a limit to capture hidden driving forces shaping one‘s attitude toward the origin of human beings. Basic, deep-seated, psychological and emotional traits are at play.

The data in this research will show how these two religious and psychological factors structure

American‘s beliefs about the origin and development of human beings.

3. The modified version of Gallup evolution question overestimates belief in theistic evolution.

4. Among the three versions of evolution questions, Harris‘s five category questions will better capture the multidimensional nature of public beliefs about human evolution when compared to the standard questions such as those used by Gallup. Prior data analysis shows that beliefs about human origins are not one-dimensional as the Gallup poll results and trends indicated (Bishop et al. 2010).

Contribution to the Discipline

Since Hunter‘s work (1991) and then, Buchanan‘s 1992 speech, scholarly debates over culture war issues largely focused on whether American electorates are divided over contentious issues such as abortion, homosexuality, stem cell research, euthanasia, and so forth. The theory

24 of evolution has been one of the ―culture war‖ issues which have polarized the political and social landscape in the United States (Keeter, Smith, and Masci 2012).

Numerous literatures largely focus on theoretical framework, but there is still a lack of empirical research on the core concept of the orientation of authority and its influences on culture war issues. Lack of empirical study on authority‘s role in the culture war thesis is in part due to the limitation of available public opinion data (Mockabee 2007). When it comes to the controversies over evolution vs. creationism and public attitudes toward the origin of life, there are many descriptive studies, but empirical research with testable hypotheses is rare. Given the fact that the theory of evolution is regarded as a cornerstone of biology to majority of scientists

(Dobzhansky 1973; AAAS 1993, 2006 ; National Research Council 1996; NAS 1999; National

Science Teachers Association 2012; National Association of Biology Teachers 1997, 2004;

Futuyma 2005), public attitudes toward human evolution will remain an enduring culture war issue with another evolving issues such as Big Bang theory, vaccines, stem cell research and climate change/global warming (Mazur 2010; Berkman and Plutzer 2012; National Science

Board 2012; Otto 2011).

This research expects to enrich the theory of cultural wars, specifically on the issue of traditional Christian perspective and beliefs in human evolution in two ways: providing a theoretical framework which explains the fundamental influences on public beliefs about human origins, and proposing better indicators of public knowledge of evolution and human evolution specifically and measurement of public beliefs about human origin. The findings of this research will enhance the importance and comprehension of core arguments of culture war theory by explaining ultimate authority‘s role in public beliefs about human evolution.

Examining not only religious factors, but also deeply-seated psychological factors and their

25 interplay with religious commitment can provide a comprehensive explanation of value-laden controversial social and political issues.

Americans‘ views about human origin play a critical role in shaping public education policy as to teaching evolution and science funding policy mostly related to the National

Science Foundation. As stated above, the recent National Science Foundation and the National

Science Board‘s recommendations (2010) pinpoint the importance of developing better indicators of public understanding and attitudes toward science and technology. Empirically, given the urgent need of better measurement of public understanding and attitudes about science in general, and evolution in particular, the findings of this research will be of great interest to pollsters and policy makers and ultimately both opponents and proponents of evolution.

26 General Chapter Outline

Chapter 2 starts with the overall culture wars in the United States, and in particular, the conflicts between science and religion, public policy related to human evolution. In this chapter I review literature on the origin and development of anti-evolution movement in the United States and discuss its implication in society in general, and in academia in particular. Given the history, scope of the creationism/evolution controversy and mobilization effort by religious groups, the salience of the issues in education, science policy, and politics, I argue evolution is a culture war issue at present and will not disappear in the near future.

Chapter 3 begins by addressing conflicting public opinion results on human evolution beliefs. This chapter focuses on the validity of measurement. I first examine validity of the standard Gallup question by comparing the modified Gallup question in the Harris 2008 survey. I then investigate the similarities and dissimilarities between all response categories in three evolution questions: the modified Gallup, the GSS, and Harris Five views. Cluster analysis and factor analysis will reveal whether each question achieves measurement validity.

Chapter4 first provides previous research in explaining the American public acceptance or rejection of evolution theory as an explanation of the origin of human life. In this chapter I describe major findings in the literature on belief and attitude toward human origins and its associated factors. Following several leading scholars (Miller et al. 2006; Mazur 2005; Berkman and Plutzer 2008, 2010; Altemeyer 2006; among many others), I examine the theoretical model which explains beliefs in evolution. Methodological differences from previous research will highlight the predictive power of independent variables in the model. Though it is not a perfect measurement, I use Harris five views questions to explain driving forces shaping public attitudes toward human evolution.

Chapter 5 is the concluding chapter, which summarizes the major findings of this research. Here, I will discuss the implication of the study; providing framework of understanding American attitudes toward human evolution, proposing better measurement, and contributing to the culture war literature. The caveats and limitations of the research will be discussed. Finally the directions for future research will be provided.

27 Chapter 2: Culture Wars and Human Evolution

―Evolution: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also: the process described by this theory‖ (definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary10)

―And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being‖ (Genesis 2;7. New King James Version)

―No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution.‖ (American Academy for the Advancement of Science Resolution passed December 26, 1922)

The history of the anti-evolution movement in the United States has been well documented by many scholars across disciplines (Eve and Harrold 1991; Scott 2004. 2009;

Lienesch 2007; Singham 2009; Ruse 2005; among others) and the origin of this controversy dates back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 ( for details, see Lienesch 2007; Larson 1997,

2003). The controversy started with biology textbooks in public school in the 1920s. The issue was whether to allow using Darwinian evolution theory in biology classes. The involved groups were religious leaders, teachers, and human rights groups. Since the Scopes trial the evolution controversy has received attention nationally and internationally, with more proponents in each camp expanding the area of combat. Now the controversy is beyond the matter of public school biology textbooks; rather, it is a proxy for differing worldviews such as religious fundamentalism which promotes its doctrine throughout the school system where early socialization occurs. The organized movement surrounding the creation/evolution controversy is now regarded as multidimensional, with issues reaching pedagogical, legal, cultural and political areas.

10This dictionary shows six definitions of evolution. The theory of evolution is described under medical definition of evolution. Available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

28 In this chapter I review literature on the origin and development of the anti-evolution movement in the United States and discuss its implication in society in general, and in academia in particular. Given the history and scope of the creationism/evolution controversy and mobilization efforts by religious groups, the salience of the issues in education, science policy, and politics, I argue evolution is a culture war issue at present and will not disappear in the near future.

The History of Creation/Evolution Controversy

The publication of ‘s ―The Origin of Species‖11 brought about some religious antagonism (Ruse 1999; Numbers 1998; Eve and Harrold 1990; among others) but it was limited to an intellectual community. Darwin‘s ideas about the origin and nature of humankind were highly welcomed by the scientific community in Europe and later in the

United States (Numbers 1998). Until the 1920s, there was no widespread anti-evolution movement in America.

The leading botanist and the president of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the mid-nineteenth century (1872), Asa Gray, was the first

American who arranged for the initial publication of On the Origins of Species by Means of

Natural Selection in the United States (Moore 1998, 2002). On the science side, Asa Gray was a chief proponent of evolutionary theory and a friend of Darwin in the US, and on the religion side, he was a devout evangelical Christian. Asa Gray‘s idea of theistic evolution which reconciled God and evolution was accepted by many American Protestants (Larson 1989, 2003;

Eve and Harrold 1991; Scott 1994; Moore 1997, 1998; Numbers 2009, p. 29).Time has changed and so did the acceptance of Darwin‘s evolutionary theory. After World War 1, Americans‘

11As the title shows, Darwin did not use ―evolution‖ in his 1895 book, On the Origin of Species. (See Gilson 1984, p.52; Kehoe 2007, p.381)

29 religious attitudes along with the social and political landscape changed (Padian and Matzke

2009). Eugenie C. Scott (2006) identified three trends which were associated with the antievolutionism in the twentieth century: the growth of secondary education (Larson 1985; Eve and Harrold 1991, p. 21), the appearance of Protestant fundamentalism, and the association of evolution with the ideas of social Darwinism and eugenics, which became unpopular after

World War I. (Not in Our Classroom, 2006, chap. 1).

Eve and Harold (1991, p. 21) argue that ―widespread sense of cultural crisis‖ (Marsden

1984, p. 104) after World War 1 contributed to the emergence of an antievolution movement.

With more modernized Protestants who adapt their views to social changes and numerous immigrants from other countries who were mostly Catholics or Jews, conservative Protestants had a fear that their beliefs were threatened (Marsden 1982; Eve and Harrold 1991, p. 22).

Consistent with Eve and Harrold, Numbers (2006) also points out the fragmentation of

Christianity and the growth of fundamentalists‘ mobilization and its impact on society

(Woodberry and Smith 1998; Ruse 2005; Numbers 2006).

The appearance of fundamentalists was between 1910 and 1915 after the publication of a series of small pamphlets titled The Fundamentals of Christian Religion (Lienesch 2007; Eve and Harrold 1991) and The Presbyterians’ Five Fundamentals (Kehoe 2007, p. 389). In reaction to the scholastics ―Higher criticism‖ of the Bible from theologians and historians of religion who trace the origin of the Bible and tried to accommodate traditional beliefs to modern society

(Kehoe 2007, p. 389), these fundamentalists affirmed several core beliefs that included the historical accuracy of the Bible and the literal nature of the Biblical accounts especially the

Creation account in Genesis. In the early 1920s, led by the Southern Baptists who were departed from northern evangelicals in their authoritative interpretation of the Bible and views toward

30 modernity (Berkman and Plutzer 2010, p. 66), fundamentalists attributed to the theory of evolution the moral destruction of society and tried to eliminate teaching evolution from the public schools.

During that era, the most popular biology book, Civic Biology, was written by George

W. Hunter in 1914. According to Shapiro (2008), over 4,000 Tennessee high school students used the book Civic Biology in 1924 and 1925. The content of the textbook includes evolutionary views of biology subjects ranging from human reproduction, sexual health, and eugenics to the improvement of animals and plants for human use. As the subjects indicate the biology textbook reflected the author‘s modern value which is that ―the understanding of human biology was a precondition for social progress along with industrialization and modern economic principles‖ (p. 217). Given the rapid expansion of high school education during that time, ―the values and worldview found in books like Civic Biology were threats to traditional culture‖ (p. 217). Again, as Scott (2004) and other scholars (Larson 1985; Eve and Harrold

1991; Numbers 1992, 2006) point out, the growth of secondary education, the fragmentation of

Christianity, and a widely used biology textbook which contained controversial issues all influenced the organized anti-evolution movement which resulted in 1925 Scopes trial. In short, the origin of anti-evolution movement is linked to the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, and the Creation story in Genesis in particular. Therefore, as Kehoe (2007, p. 392) argues, ―Signing assent to the inerrancy of the Bible is the litmus test of obedience to authority.‖

Fundamentalists‘ organized movements to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools started in Kentucky followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, California and North

Carolina. These anti-evolution movements led to the Scopes trial of 1925. According to Padian and Matzke (2009), twenty state legislatures considered 37 bills banning or otherwise

31 interfering with the teaching of evolution in public schools during 1920s. The ACLU (American

Civil Liberties Union) wanted to challenge Tennessee‘s Butler Act and advertised for the teacher (Padian and Matzke 2009). John Scopes, a general science teacher, volunteered and was convicted of violating the Butler Act which stated that teachers were not permitted ―to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible.‖ (Robbins

2009, p. 100; Numbers 1998, p.77) The textbook used by John Scopes was the aforementioned book, Civic Biology, which includes subjects such as eugenics and sexual health which were seen as threats to traditional beliefs. This historic trial attracted national and international press and has been a never-ending source of not only numerous scholarly articles on legal, philosophical, pedagogical and political issues, but also that of films and cartoons, etc. (Larson

1985, 1997, 2003; Numbers 1986, 2006; The Wind Inherited 1960). The prominent figures in the Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, were often depicted as engaged in a combat of Darwin versus the Bible (Padian and Matze 2009, p. 31). However, with a closer look at Bryan‘s position, it turns out that the nature of the issue was more complicated than its face value interpretation. As Bryan himself expressed (1921) and numerous scholars claim

(Numbers 1982, 1992; Gould 1991c; Toumey 1994; Larson 1997; Robbins 2009) given the widely held beliefs about Darwinism and its link to eugenics and Nazism12 after World War 1,

Bryan‘s fear of the spread of Darwin‘s theory in society was another factor of his political position.

The Scopes trial ended with Scopes‘ conviction which was overturned later due to a technical issue. The aftermath of the Scope trial lingered for decades. Until the 1960s, biology textbook publishers and teachers would often shy away from dealing with the theory of

12In 2004 , a fellow, published, , Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, arguing that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.

32 evolution. It was the launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957 which intensified Americans‘ fear of the Soviet Union‘s lead in science. The financial support from the U.S. government for science education brought the theory of evolution into science classes with newly revised science standards. With this change in science education, the anti-evolution movement re-emerged and this led to another historic legal case, Epperson v. Arkansas13in 1968. The United States

Supreme Court held the Arkansas statute which prohibited the teaching of evolution unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Since the Epperson v. Arkansas case, the evolution/creation controversy appeared in legal cases and the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that creationism or Intelligent Design is a particular religious point of view and that the teaching of it in public schools is unconstitutional on the same ground: violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution (McLean v. Arkansas

Board of Education 1982; Edwards v. Aguillard 1987; Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover 2005, among others).

The Evolving Strategies for Anti-evolution movement: Evolution as “Only a Theory”

―This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered‖ (The Cobb County, Georgia, 2002 textbook disclaimer)14

The National Center for Science Education, a leading proponent of teaching evolution, describes creationists‘ anti-evolution movements as four main phases which are mainly based on major court decisions15: (1) effort to ban the teaching of evolution (1920 -1968), (2) the era of ―‖ (1969 -1987), (3) the era of the ―intelligent design‖ movement (1987-

2005), and (4) stealth creationism (2005 to present).

13For summary of this case, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=epperson&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0393 _0097_ZS.html accessed on Aug 10, 2012 14The removal of these disclaimer stickers was ordered by a federal judge in 2005. 15 For details see Larson‘s Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution, 2003

33 Since the Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968 case, the courts at both the state and federal levels repeatedly ruled that the exclusion of teaching evolution or inclusion of teaching creationism would be a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution which requires that public institutions be religiously neutral. Public schools as public institutions may neither promote nor inhibit religion. The conservative Christian creationists‘ effort to promote biblical literalism in the classroom continued with publication of influential books such as The Genesis

Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications16by Henry Morris and John

Whitcomb in1961, : The Central Question of Biological Origins17by

Davis and Kenyon in 1989, Darwin On Trial by Philip E. Johnson in 1991, and Darwin's Black

Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by in 1996, to name a representative few.

Also, it is noteworthy that the establishment of institutions such as the Institute for

Creation Science, and Answers in Genesis and the Creation , Noah‘s Ark Park 18 to name a few, along with their various public outreach activities contribute to widespread mobilization for anti-evolution movement.

To avoid the legal problem of violating the Establishment clause, the proponents of creation science proposed Intelligent Design theory as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent

Design as a big tent which houses all antievolutionist together (Scott 2009, p. 378; Pennock

2001; Matzke 2010, p. 156) is seemingly different from creation science, in particular, when it comes to the age of the earth or Noah‘s Flood. A leading Intelligent Design proponent, Stephen

16This book is regarded as a first book describes the young-earth creationist reasoning. Until the 1960s, most fundamental Christians including William Jennings Bryan were old-earth creationist. 17This is a foundational book for the Intelligent Design movement. The term, ―design,‖ comes from this book. 18―Alex Knapp, a Forbes Staff, argues that a tax subsidy in support of Noah‘s Ark park violated the separation of Church and State. See the article ―Kentucky Cuts Education; Preserves Tax Breaks For Creationist Theme Park‖ http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/01/23/kentucky-cuts-education-preserves-tax-breaks-for-creationist- theme-park/

34 C. Meyer (2006) argued that the theory of intelligent design is not creationism.19 However,

Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern University, showed in her testimony in the Dover trial in 2005 that Intelligent Design is relabeled creation science (Miller

2009, p. 78; Padian and Matzke 2009, p. 36). Forrest and her colleagues traced the publication of the Of Pandas and People (Davis et al. 1989), a prominent Intelligent Design textbook and found the only difference lies in the substitution of ―design or Designer‖ in place of ―creation or

Creator.‖ The intent of the Intelligent Design movement is well described in the Wedge

Document,20 a deliberate cultivation of public impression of teaching evolution as a matter of the truth of the Bible and the question of God‘s existence.

Evolving Strategies of Creation Science/Intelligent Design

In illustrating the future of the creationism-evolution controversy, Scott and Branch

(2003, p. 282; Scott 2009, p. 385) identify three arguments of the anti-evolutionist position: (1)

Evolution is weak or unsupported science that scientists are abandoning in increasing numbers,

(2) Evolution is inherently antireligious, and (3) It is only fair to ―balance‖ the teaching of evolution with creationism or Intelligent Design. A variant of the ―fairness‖ argument is that it is good pedagogy to ―balance‖ the teaching of evolution with ―weakness‖ or ―evidence against‖ evolution‖ and ―let the children decide.‖

After repeated failures in the courtroom, antievolutionists changed their strategy. Given the decentralized education system and federalism in the US, it is effective to adopt a new

19January 28, 2006, op-ed piece in the British paper, The Telegraph, entitled ―Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism.‖ Prior to this work, his view about creationism and its teaching in public school can be found in his articles written in 1986, 2002 ( See bibliography) 20 ―The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‗the truth‘ of the Bible and then ‗the question of sin‘ and finally ‗introduced to Jesus.‖ - Church & State magazine, April 1999, see also Discovery Institute‘s document regarding the Wedge Document, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349., accessed Aug 1, 2012.

35 strategy; to introduce creationism or Intelligent Design into the state‘s Science Standard and textbooks and pressure to teachers to denigrate evolution as just a theory, not a fact (Berkman and Plutzer 2010). The denigrating evolution strategy produces rhetoric such as ―evidence against evolution,‖ ―strengths and weaknesses of evolution,‖ ―critical analysis of evolution,‖

―balanced and objective‖, ―teach the controversy,‖ and ―teach evolution scientifically.‖ 21

(Padian and Matzke 2009)

―Academic freedom‖ is a long lived creationist slogan (Matzke 2010; Moore 2002).

Academic freedom policy is an inquiry-based permissive approach, giving a protection to K-12 public school teachers who may teach creationism or intelligent design as explanations of the origin of life. The role of 1925‘s John Scopes, the icon of academic freedom argument in the famous trial, is now inverted by the antievolutionists (Berkman and Plutzer 2010, p. 226;

Luskin 2010). The legal ground for the academic freedom argument stems from the Edward vs.

Aguillard (1987) case in which the Supreme Court ruled the Louisiana law requiring teaching evolution with creation science as unconstitutional because it advances religious doctrine.

However, this case also invited the Intelligent Design movement into the classroom. A proponent of the teaching evolution critically approach, Luskin (2010) argues that the U.S.

Supreme Court has already stated it is not impermissible to ―require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught‖ (Edwards v. Aguillard 1987).

In recent years the antievolutionists in state legislatures have considered or introduced numerous antievolution bills 22(for more details, see American Geoscience Institute). During

21Explore Evolution, a book from the Discovery Institute, promotes these ―critical analysis of evolution,‖ or ―strengths and weaknesses of evolution‖ approaches (Meyer, Minnich, Moneymaker, Nelson, and Seelke 2007) 22American Geoscience Institute keeps up-to-date information about political challenges to the teaching of evolution in each state. As of May, 2012, challenges to the teaching of evolution in classroom, school district, or state level occurred in 27 states. For details see the map at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/evolution/

36 2008 the antievolutionist introduced ―Academic Freedom Acts‖ into several state legislatures including Florida, Missouri, Alabama, Michigan, and (Scott 2009, p. 394). In

2011, most of the anti-evolution bills disappeared before being signed into law, except the

Louisiana Science Education Act which became law in late 2008. However, anti-evolution bills presented as academic freedom acts expand coverage from the origin of human life to global warming, human cloning, and stem cell research. For instance, Tennessee‘s House Bill 368, which passed the House of Representatives on April 7, 2011, claims to permit teachers to ―help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught….including evolution, global warming, the chemical origin of life, and human cloning…‖ (Tennessee‘s House Bill 368).

At the time of this writing, teaching evolutionary science and related subjects such as the origin and age of the universe is being challenged across the United States either explicitly or implicitly. For instance, a recent revision of the Missouri state constitution (Missouri House

Joint Resolution No.2) brings out concerns over science education and evolution in particular.

The portion of the revision which states ―that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs,‖ can be a legal excuse for some students who avoid learning about evolution. The burden goes to the biology teachers in

Missouri public schools when they encounter any request or demand from students, parents, or any anti-evolution movement activist.

37 Politicization of evolution/creation controversy and ongoing Culture Wars

Given the history and ongoing battles over science education in public schools and beyond, the creation/evolution controversy will be continued in various arenas: religion, politics, culture, science, and education. This controversy has led to heated debates over science and religion, creationists‘ movements to institutionalize teaching biblical creation in the classroom,23 presidential candidates‘ overt endorsement of teaching alternatives in public schools, pro/antievolutionists‘ decisions to run for school board member (Deckman 2004), and dismissal of public employees due to their positions and acts regarding evolution.

In the past the presidential candidates were asked about their views ranging from government‘s role in economic and social issues, military and foreign policy to personal religious views. Recently, however, major political figures expressed their viewpoint on science-related issues including stem cell research, euthanasia, climate change, and public school policy on teaching about the origin of human beings. Although the general public does not seem to weigh heavily the presidential candidate‘s evolution views when deciding their vote choice, both opponents and proponents of evolution try to link their case. A leading anti- evolution organization, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) published the document,

―Presidential Support for Creationism‖ (Bergman 2006) which briefly summarized five

American presidents‘ statements of their belief in creationism or Intelligent Design.

―During the 1980 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan was asked about evolution and it should be taught in public schools. He responded, ―Well, it‘s a theory, it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and it‘s not yet believed

23 John Freshwater, an Ohio middle school science teacher, was accused of displaying Biblical posters, branding crosses on the arms of his students, and teaching creationism. (http://ncse.com/news/2010/12/settlement- freshwater-case-final-006348)

38 in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed‖ (Science 1980, 1214; Norman A. Johnson 2007a, p. 339; 2007b, p. 27) ―President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity…. Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.‖ (Peter Baker and Peter Slevin, Aug 3, 2005)

Presidents‘ endorsement of teaching creationism or intelligent design in public school was highly welcomed by creation movement organizations while generating fierce debates and critics from scientific communities, educational communities and religious communities.24 With devoutly committed organizations, the anti-evolution movement is now an icon of American politicization and this ongoing battle for America‘s public school policy is surely a culture war issue. Former U.S. Senator and ordained Episcopal minister John Danforth summarized the divide as follows:

―When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. …Take stem cell research. Criminalizing the work of scientists doing such research would give strong support to one religious doctrine, and it would punish people who believe it is their religious duty to use science to heal the sick.‖ (Danforth, 2005)

The Culture War and Human Evolution

This issue of the anti-evolution movement and its relation to public policy has been of less concern in scholarly literature until the 1990s (for exceptions see Eve and Harrold 1991;

Numbers 1992) when the polemic debates over culture wars started. However, some scholars

24In response to President Bush‘s comment on intelligent design in public school, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that "when it comes to evolution, there is only one school of scientific thought, and that is evolution occurred and is still occurring." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html )

39 who describe the controversy over the origin of human beings adopted the culture war thesis

(Sargeant and West 1996; Ruse 2000; Gibson 2004; Deckman 2004; Larson 2006; Hunter 2006;

Kehoe 2009).

What is a culture war? If it is a war, then, who are the combatants and what is at issue?

This returns to review the culture war thesis which starts with sociologist James Davis Hunter‘s publication, Culture Wars in 1991, and later, 1992 presidential candidate Pat Buchanan‘s speech which brought the war metaphor in public sphere. Since the publication of the book,

Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America in 1991, James Davison Hunter‘s argument on the question of irreconcilable cultural divide in America has been an ongoing public and scholarly debates (for review, see Layman and Green 2005). After Buchanan‘s 1992 speech, the term ―culture wars‖ came to public attention.

―… My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is about who we are. It is about what we believe. It is about what we stand for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself. And in that struggle for the soul of America, Clinton & Clinton are on the other side, and George Bush is on our side. And so, we have to come home, and stand beside him….‖ (August 17, 1992, Republican National Convention Speech)

Scholarly debates over culture war issues largely focused on whether American electorates are divided over contentious issues and who leads these divisions. Hunter contends that the two incompatible worldviews, the orthodox and progressive, are divergent on the ultimate moral and social authority. In Hunter‘s theory, the traditionalist or orthodox are committed to ―an external, definable and transcendent authority‖ (1991, p. 44). In contrast, progressives value authority from human reason, rationalism, and subjectivism. The two divergent worldviews are fundamentally different and collide over hot-button battleground issues such as abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, gun control, separation of church and

40 state, creation-evolution controversy, stem cell research, immigration, identity politics, law and order, right to die, and so on. According to Hunter (2006) none of these issues can achieve public consensus because beneath these conflicts lie deeper struggle over ―the very meaning and purpose of the core institutions of American civilization‖ (p. 13).

Numerous scholars responded to this culture war hypotheses either supporting evidence

(White 2003; see The American culture wars: current contests and future prospects 1996, edited by James L. Nolan, Jr) or criticism. Criticism (see, Williams, ed., Cultural Wars in

American Politics 1996, for a collection of culture war critiques) focused on whether American electorates are divided deeply on defining issues such as abortion and homosexuality in line with partisan differences. Upon the analysis of public opinion surveys, DiMaggio and colleagues (1996) contradict the claim that Americans‘ attitudes toward cultural and social issues have become more polarized except in the case of abortion. Consistent with other culture war critics, Davis and Robinson (1996) also argue that American public does not hold deep ideological division whereas elites in media, academics, and politics do. Therefore, they argue, no culture wars exist and the metaphor is false. Contrary to Hunter‘s (1991) and Wuthnow‘s

(1988) argument, Christian Smith and colleagues (1996) conclude that simply the culture war hypothesis is just a myth. Alan Wolfe (1999) and Fiorina and colleagues (2005) also join the critique.

In a later book, Is There a Culture War? A Dialogue on Value and American Public Life,

Hunter and Wolfe continue to define the notion and core hypotheses of culture war debate.

While de-emphasizing public opinion survey results as empirical data supporting each side,

Hunter focuses on the nature and meaning of culture. Hunter views culture as ―the norms and values residing in people‘s heads and hearts but rather as systems of symbols and other cultural

41 artifacts, institutions that produce and promulgate those symbols, discourses that articulate and legitimate particular interests, and competing fields where culture is contested.‖ (2006, p. 20)

Contrary to the arguments from Fiorina, Abrams, and Pope (2005, 2006) and Wolfe (1998,

2006), Hunter focuses on a ―culture of politics‖ not a ―politics of culture‖ (2006, p. 94).

According to Hunter, the evidence of ―no culture war in America‖ is the individual –level data from public opinion surveys or face-to-face interviews that do not tap into deeper and more extensive symbolic level evidence (2006, p. 20). Furthermore, as Fiorina et al. (2004), Wolfe

(1998), and Hunter (1991, 2006) himself acknowledge, political activists and elites play a key role in the polarization of politics. As Wolfe (1998) argues, the public in general holds accommodating, tolerant and ambivalent attitudes on a range of issues with the exception of homosexuality. Therefore, the data on public opinion do not reveal a culture war of polarized attitude (DiMaggio et al. 1996; Yang 1996; Baker 2006).

Critics of the culture war thesis often simplify the culture war thesis as a division of orthodoxy and progressivism and narrowly focus on public opinion polls of the issues such as abortion, gun control, euthanasia, and so forth. In Fiorina, Abrams, and Pope‘s book, The Myth of Culture War (2005), after investigating public opinion data, the authors found that most

Americans are moderate and tolerant on various hot-button issues and that the economic issues rather than social or religious issues remain highly salient for Americans.

In short, the literature on the culture wars thesis has mostly focused on the scope and magnitude of public division over social, religious, and political issues and most empirical research shows a contradictory picture of what the ―culture war‖ thesis imagined. Layman and

Green (2005) contribute to this seemingly dualistic culture wars debate by adding social and psychological constraints to the culture wars hypothesis. The authors found that the impact of

42 religious tradition, religious commitment and doctrinal orthodoxy on political behavior is constrained by several sources including issue salience and awareness of partisan difference on the issue, and mobilization by political or religious leaders. The authors conclude that culture wars exist ―when religious perspectives are logically related to policy issues, communal experiences encourage these connections and electoral actors emphasize and differentiate themselves on such matters.‖ (p. 61). The implication of this study is very important in that not just the number or proportion of public opinion reported in polls, but the intensity of expressed opinion and its link to political mobilization should be considered in culture wars debates.

In review of literature on cultural differences in America, Wald and Leege (2009) point out that ―On the whole, Hunter‘s work (1991), like New Class theory, has not fared well in empirical research‖ (p. 146). This is one of the points Hunter himself suggests. In his response to critics of culture war theory, Hunter (2006, p. 18) lays out three areas for further scrutiny:

―The most obvious concerns the conceptual and methodological differences that may be at play. Are different positions in the debate over the culture war actually referring to and assessing the same thing? The second area is the empirical reality. What are the critics focusing upon and what are they ignoring in order to make their case? The third area concerns the theoretical assumptions brought to bear on the subject of cultural conflict and whether those assumptions are realistic and credible.‖(Hunter 2006, p. 18)

This returns to the central question in culture war debate. Are we talking about the same concept? Moreover, are we measuring the same concept? The heart of culture wars debate is the notion of moral authority (Mockabee 2007; Hetherington and Weiler 2009). Most studies in culture war thesis used either individual-level public opinion data or face-to-face survey as empirical research tools. However, upon closer examination of measurement in the data used in culture war studies, which consists mostly of religious factors, it does not seem to capture the

43 notion of ―authority‖ that is an underlying notion demarcating the two camps—Orthodox and

Progressive.

Most culture war studies examined the impact of religious affiliation, orthodoxy or doctrinal belief on moral issue such as homosexuality, abortion, school prayers, death penalty, among others. Some scholars‘ contributions to the measurement of ―authority‖ are notable

(Mockabee 2007; Hetherington and Weiler 2009; Stenner 2005). For instance, in studying religion and cultural conflict in the 2004 election, Mockabee (2007) used a battery of child- rearing questions in the American National Election Study (ANES) surveys to tap into the individual‘s orientation toward moral authority along with religious and patriotism measures. In this survey, respondents were asked to choose more desirable qualities they think children should have: (1) Independence or Respect for elders, (2) Curiosity or Good manners, (3)

Obedience or Self-reliance, and (4) Being considerate or well behaved. This measure captured well the respondents‘ orientation towards authority. The author found significant effects of both authority and religion measures in predicting respondents‘ attitudes toward cultural issues, social groups, and party affiliation.

The culture wars thesis is too often simplified as ―progressivism‖ versus ―orthodoxy‖ debate based on religious measures. To better understand the culture wars thesis and its underpinning notion of ―authority‖ empirical research using various proxy measures is crucial.

Taken together, the measurement of individuals‘ orientation toward ―authority‖ and the scope of issues should be developed and examined in empirical research (Mockabee 2007).

Conceptualization and operationalization of individual‘s authority orientation is well documented in psychology literature. However, due to practical challenges in public opinion polls using lengthy items, it is rare to conduct surveys with the index of psychological traits. In

44 this dissertation, I employ Altemeyer‘s Right-Wing-Authoritarianism (RWA) index to examine its relations to religious factors and its impact on beliefs about human origins. Critics of the

RWA index argue this index taps into not ―personality‖ but socially learned attitudes (Feldman

2003; Feldman and Stenner 1997; Stenner 2005; Hetherington and Suhay 2011; among others).

Further factor analyses by some scholars indicate a problem of sub-traits of the Right-wing- authoritarianism. The detailed criticism on the RWA index is beyond the focus of this dissertation. Moreover, the overall criticism of this index does not center on elimination of it, rather it aims to improve and enhance the use of authoritarianism measures.

By employing the RWA index, I examine the effect of religious and psychological factors shaping public attitudes toward human evolution. My purpose here is not necessarily evaluating the overall culture wars thesis; rather I try to expand measurement of ―authority‖ and its relation to cultural and political issue. The origin and development of human beings has created heated debates in philosophy, theology, and science. By this very nature of this issue, examining public attitudes towards human evolution is central to the culture wars thesis.

Subsequent chapters 3 and 4 will provide tests of measurement validity and will develop an explanatory model of attitudes about human evolution. The findings and results expect to broaden understanding of culture wars issues theoretically and empirically.

It is natural and reasonable to examine measurement validity of questions used to measure attitudes about human origins prior to introducing a predictive model of public opinion on human evolution. In the next chapter, I proceed with measurement validity by examining three evolution questions in the 2008 Harris Survey.

45 Chapter 3: Validity of Measurement

This chapter is devoted to assessing the validity of measurement concerning attitudes towards human evolution. Recent polls and survey results demonstrate inconsistent or even contradictory results on this issue, prompting a need for an investigation of the measurement of human evolution opinions. In this chapter, I begin by addressing the existing problems related to measurement, focusing on the standard Gallup question. I then employ several statistical analyses to examine the validity of measurement of various survey questions on human evolution. Three sets of measures are the modified Gallup question with five response categories; the GSS evolution question; and the Harris five views about human origins which include Creationism, God-guided evolution, Intelligent Design, God-initiated evolution, and

Natural evolution.

The data used in this research were originally collected by Harris Interactive with 4626 respondents in two waves of data collection from July to October, 2008. Respondents were drawn from Harris Interactive‘s on-line panel and weighted based on age, sex, region of country, income, education, and ethnicity to resemble the overall US based on US Census proportions.

This survey contains multiple dimensions of Americans‘ beliefs and knowledge about evolution along with batteries of questions measuring religiosity, psychological traits and familiarities with evolutionary concepts. Unlike the Gallup standard question for human origins, the 2008 Harris poll question has three different versions: the modified Gallup question with five response categories; the GSS evolution question; and the Harris five views about human origins which include Creationism, God-guided evolution, Intelligent Design, God-initiated evolution, and Natural evolution.

In this research, three types of evolution questions are examined:

46 Modified Gallup Measure

Unlike the standard Gallup question, the modified Harris poll version gave respondents an explicit opportunity to say that none of the existing Gallup categories described what they believed about human origins or that they were basically uncertain about what they thought was true regarding human origins. The exact wording of the modified Gallup question read:

―Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?‖

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had NO PART in this process. 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last10,000 years or so. 4) None of these comes close to my beliefs 5) Not at all sure which is true

General Social Survey “Knowledge” Question

As part of a standard battery of items measuring respondents‘ knowledge of science in general, the Harris survey also included the now controversial NSF/NORC GSS measure of what Americans supposedly ―know‖ (or believe) about human evolution: ―…how much do you believe it to be true or false?... Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.‖ The explicit categories presented to respondents for this item were:

Definitely false, Probably false, Probably true, Definitely true, and Not at all sure.

47 Harris Multiple Indicator of Belief Systems

The Harris survey added five questions designed to measure, separately, respondents‘ beliefs about the relative truth or falsity of the alternative theories or worldviews of human evolution that have become prevalent in modern society. The five-item battery was presented to respondents as follows: ―Next, we present five theories about the origin and development of the universe and life on Earth. How likely is it that each is true or false?‖ The explicit categories presented to respondents with each theory were: Definitely false, Probably false, Probably true,

Definitely true, and Not at all sure. The five worldviews described to respondents read as follows:

1) Creationism – God created the universe, the Earth, and all of life within the past 10,000 years 2) God-guided Evolution – God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago; God started and has guided human evolution over millions of years. 3) Intelligent Design – the universe and Earth came into being billions of years ago, and humans evolved over millions of years according to the design of an Intelligent Force. 4) God-initiated Evolution – God created the universe and the Earth billions of years ago; but all life, including humans, evolved over millions of years from earlier life forms due to environmental pressures to adapt and without any guidance from God or an Intelligent Force. 5) Natural Evolution – the universe and Earth came into being billions of years ago; all life, including humans, evolved over millions of years from earlier life forms due to environmental pressures to adapt; there was no God or Intelligent Force involved in either the creation or evolution of life.

Hypotheses about measurement validity

Knowledge about human evolution is relatively concrete to measure. However, one‘s belief about human evolution is a broad and abstract concept. On one hand, it is a controversial education policy issue involving teaching evolution and alternatives in a public classroom.

48 Therefore, how to frame the issue or question wording or context effects in a survey may influence the results. Both proponents and opponents of human evolution may try to make poll results their case. On the other hand, the human evolution concept is counter-intuitive.

Understanding the theory of evolution requires more abstract and reasoning skills compared to other concepts. Given this, again, interpretation and understanding of the theory of evolution is susceptible to question wording or context effects.

In this study, three different types of questions are employed with the goal of identifying individual‘s attitude toward human origin and its development. The Gallup Poll question, which is the most often-cited poll question by scholars and journalists regarding public beliefs on human origin, is a three-category response question. The NORC GSS question is a quiz-type true or false question. The wording and format of these questions is quite different. Some scholars argue there is not a statistically significant difference across time and polling organizations (Berkman and Plutzer 2008, 2010). Others argue that conflicting or contradictory polling results should be systemically examined (Bishop 2006, 2007; Bishop et al. 2010; Nisbet and Mooney 2007).

Given the salience of the issue in scholarly debates and public policy matters, it is worth investigating the validity of measurement on the origin and development of human beings.

Based on the research question and framework of this study, I specify sub-hypotheses with respect to validity of measurement below.

H1: Similarity and dissimilarity of measurement— in comparing three different

measurement tools, different wording and format will result in different distributions of

49 opinion. Specifically, the standard Gallup and GSS items will not capture the complexity

of attitudes about human origins.

Scott (2009, p. 64) argues that there is a continuum of religious views which dictates how the Bible is likely to be interpreted, with creationism at one end and evolution at the other.

This continuum ranges from Flat Earthism, Geocentrism, Young-Earth Creationism, Gap

Creationism, Day-Age Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Evolutionary Creationism,

Theistic Evolutionism, Agnostic Evolutionism, to Materialist Evolutionism to the very end.

According to Scott, intelligent design lies between Young-Earth creationism and Old Earth creationism ranging from Gap Creationism to Progressive Creationism. Most of survey questions do not reflect these ranges for practical reason. However, to better capture differing views about human evolution, distinct questions should be used.

H2: Ambivalence and uncertainty—the level of ambivalence and uncertainty will vary

across different belief systems regarding human evolution. Given that creationism and

natural evolution are interpreted as opposite views, other views will be more likely to be

interpreted as a neutral option. Therefore, God-guided evolution view will be the most

likely ambivalent response. Also, Intelligent Design and God-initiated evolution will be

a viewed as a middle response alternative. However, the meaning and definition of each

view are relatively unclear to many respondents. Therefore, the respondents will be

more likely to show uncertainty with respect to Intelligent Design and God-initiated

evolution option.

H3: Consistency—the level of consistency of responses will vary across different belief

systems regarding human evolution. Among five views about human origins, natural

50 evolution is distinct when it comes to the link to God. This is the only non-theistic view

among others. Therefore, the natural evolution view will be more likely to have the most

consistent responses.

I investigate measurement error in two ways: consistency of measurement and consistency of respondents‘ beliefs. In light of the total survey error approach (Weisberg 2005) both measurement tools such as question wording, format, or context and respondents‘ ambivalent attitudes toward belief issues contribute to measurement error.

To examine consistency of respondents‘ beliefs, I cross-tabulate the three measures: the modified Gallup question, the GSS question, and the Harris five views question. In doing so, I will investigate consistency of response and the validity of the questions.

Among the three measures the Harris five views is a distinct format. Both the modified

Gallup and the GSS measure were presented in a forced-option format, whereas the Harris five views are given to the respondents in a format that asks for an evaluation of each view separately. In the latter case, respondents are less likely to feel forced to choose ONLY one option, and instead to indicate varying degrees of acceptance or rejection for each of the five human origin views. Therefore, it is possible to identify ―consistent believers‖ of each view. By sorting out ―consistent believers‖ of each view, I examine intensity and consistency of respondents‘ beliefs.

Cluster analysis is employed to further examine the validity of measurement. This analysis helps to identify similarities or dissimilarities among groups, cases, or variables. Both the modified Gallup and the Harris have five differing response options. If each of these question wordings taps into a distinct notion or view of human evolution, then it will support

51 the validity of these measurements. Cluster analysis will reveal the degree of similarity and dissimilarity of these question options.

In the next section I begin by comparing the results from different surveys about human evolution and reviewing trends on the standard indicators of public opinion on the topic. I then turn to analysis of the Harris Interactive survey data.

Trends in Public Opinion on the Origin and Development of Life: Measurement Error

Survey results show conflicting and even contradictory results when reporting public opinion about human origins (Duncan 2004; Bishop 2007; Mooney and Nisbet 2007; Nisbet and

Mooney 2007). Table 3-1 displays a set of contrasting results from different polling organizations conducted in recent years.

Table 3-1: Trends in Beliefs About Human Evolution

Gallup Harris News Ohio CSS* 25 VCU Belief Systems Poll Interactive Week Poll 2007 2010 2008 2008 2007 2007 God created man pretty much in 44% 35% 29.5% 48% 47% 43% his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

Human beings have developed 36% 26% 23% 30% 37% 24% over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. Human beings have developed 14% 16% 34% 13% 11% 18% over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process None of these NA 10% NA 9% NA NA Not at all sure/Don‘t 5% 14% 14% 5% Know/Refusal

N 1,017 4,626 1,000 1,004 1,101 1,001

25Note: *Coalition for Scientific Society including 17 organizations representing the physical, chemical, biological, and social sciences and science teachers communities. Data in the table compiled by the author from pollingreport.com

52 This varying division of public opinion is due in large part to different wording and response options. For instance, the Gallup poll asked in December 2010; ―which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings.‖ Thirty-eight percent of the respondents accepted that ―Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,‖ 16 percent accepted ―Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,‖ and 40 percent accepted ―God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.‖

In the same year, Virginia Commonwealth University‘s 2010 Life Sciences Survey asked in a slightly different way; ―Which of these statements comes closest to your views on the origin of biological life: biological life developed over time from simple substances, but God guided this process, biological life developed over time from simple substances but God did not guide this process, God directly created biological life in its present form at one point in time?‖

Forty-three percent of the respondent chose ―creationist‖ views, while 24 percent chose ―theistic evolution‖ perspective. Another 18 percent hold naturalistic evolutionary views of the biological life.

A 2009 Pew Research Center Survey also asked the question in a different way.

Respondents were first asked: ―Which comes closer to your view? Humans and other living things have evolved over time OR Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.‖ Then, the next question asked, ―And do you think that…

Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection

OR a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today?‖ In this survey, the results are different from the

53 Gallup poll; compared to 38 percent of respondents in the Gallup poll, only 22 percent reported that evolution occurred with guidance and 32 percent accepted that it occurred through natural selection while 31 percent believed in creationist views of the origin of life. Given that evolution is among the most contentious issues in American society, different results by various polls on public attitudes toward evolution can mislead public policy.

The General Social Survey‘s evolution question ―Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals,‖ has been used in the National Science

Foundation‘s biennial Science and Engineering Indicators survey. These indicators show public understanding and attitudes toward science and technology to weigh public funding for scientific research. The below Figure 3-1 shows the trend of public knowledge about human origins measured by the GSS question since 1993. Compared to the Gallup question, this trend shows a higher portion of ―not sure‖ responses.

Figure 3-1: Trends in Americans' Knowledge about Human Origins

60% 54% 48% 49% 50% 48% 48% 45% 43% 45% 44% 42% 42% 40% 39% 40% 44%

30%

20% 15% 13% 10% 11% 8% 8% 10% 2% 0% 1993 1994 2000 2004 2006 2008 2010

TRUE FALSE Don't Know

Source: The General Social Survey 1993-2010

54 However, in the 2010 edition, the National Science Board announced that they omitted the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the human evolution and the big bang theory since these questions force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious belief. Along with the standard Gallup question this GSS evolution question has been used by various polling groups.

After reevaluation of the conceptual framework for public understanding of scientific knowledge, the National Science Board recommended several things (Toumey et al. 2010). A critical point among the NSB‘s recommendations is the need for a separate measure of knowledge of science from beliefs or attitudes. It is not easy to clarify public understanding of evolution in general with a single ―human evolution‖ item. How to clearly distinguish knowledge from belief or vice versa has been an epistemological matter in history and now it is at issue in contemporary science education (Southerland et al. 2001; for objectivist epistemology, see Popper 1972). The issue of epistemology is beyond the scope of this study, but later should be examined thoroughly for the purpose of developing better indicators of public knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes toward the origin of life.

Despite the National Science Board decision to exclude GSS evolution and Big Bang questions based on their alleged conflation of belief and knowledge, the recent report (NSB

2012) shows no difference between before and after using these two questions along with other scientific knowledge questions in measuring public scientific knowledge.

However, it remains a reasonable question of validity with respect to these two leading questions. The empirical icon of the Gallup poll result on the origin of life question does not clearly mirror the nuanced and complicated public beliefs enough. Another frequently employed

55 question in the National Opinion Research Center‘s General Social Survey data ―In your opinion, how true is this…Human beings developed from earlier species of animals?‖ does not capture complex public beliefs and attitude toward human evolution.

As shown in Figure 3-2, the trend of Gallup‘s human origin poll shows almost no subtantial change since 1982. The 30-year average shows that 37 percent believe in ―God- guided evolution‖ or ―Theistic evolution,‖ 12 percent endorse the natural evolution view, and about 45 percent choose ―creationism.‖

Figure 3-2: Gallup Poll Trends in Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

50% 47% 47% 47% 45% 45% 46% 46% 44% 44% 43% 44% 45% 40% 40% 40% 40% 35% 38% 39% 38% 38% 38% 37% 36% 36% 30% 35% 32% 25% 20% 16% 15% 13% 13% 14% 14% 15% 11% 12% 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 5% 0% 1982 1991 1993 1997 1999 2001 2004 2006 2007 2008 2010 2012 Human beings developed, with God guiding Human beings developed, but God had no part in process God created human beings in present form

Source: The Gallup Poll, 1982-2012

Gallup‘s editor-in-chief, Frank Newport, summarized the trend (or lack thereof) as follows:

―Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and

56 social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question.‖ (Newport 2012)

As Newport indicates, there have been many changes in American society and culture, especially science, technology during the last three decades. Overall, the level of American‘s educational attainment shows an upward trend, specifically at the college and postgraduate level.

According to Census Bureau figures, in 2009, more than 4 out of 5 (85 percent) adults aged 25 and over reported having at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, while over 1 in 4 (28 percent) reported a bachelor‘s degree or higher. This reflects more than a three-fold increase in high school attainment and more than a five-fold increase in college attainment since the Census

Bureau first began collecting educational attainment data in 1940. In addition, the National

Science Foundation statistics demonstrates that the number of biological science graduates increased by 59 percent from 1987 to 2001. In 2011, the percent of the U.S. population aged 25 or over those who hold a bachelor‘s degree or higher is about 30 percent (U.S. Census Bureau

2011).

Most Americans are not graduate degree holders or scientists as Newport argues, and cannot fully understand the evidence and differing explanations on the origin and the development of human beings. However, the universal goal of secondary or post-secondary education is to increase general literacy. Literacy is defined as ‗‗the capacity of students to analyze, reason and communicate effectively as they pose, solve and interpret problems in a variety of subject matter areas‘‘ (The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),

OECD). During the lifelong learning process, one‘s literacy of reading, mathematics, and

57 science26 is expected to increase to help solve more complex problems and make decisions about daily issues. Therefore, this upward trend in U.S. higher education should be reflected in the public‘s knowledge and attitudes toward science-related issues.

Given the rising rates of educational attainment in general, and post-secondary education level, in particular, almost no change in the trend of American‘s beliefs about the theory of human evolution creates a doubt about the validity of measurement, in particular, the question wording (Bishop 2007; Moore 2008; Dawkins 2009; Jelen 2009; Bishop et al. 2010). As previous research suggests, the standard Gallup question on creationism, intelligent design, and evolution is in fact the belief lead-in question.

As Wald and Calhoun-Brown (2007) note, Americans‘ belief in God is very high and has not changed over time. The Gallup poll on belief in God supports this. As shown in Figure

3-3, the trend in Americans‘ belief in God is stable over the decades which is very similar to that of the Gallup human origin question. Combined ―creationist‖ views and ―God-guided evolution‖ views are about 80 percent (78 percent in 2008) which is the same proportion of those who believe in God. This pattern implies a possible link between the two questions; belief in God and views about human origins.

26―...Scientific literacy [is] The capacity to use scientific knowledge, identify scientific questions and draw evidence- based conclusions, in order to understand and help make decisions about the natural world and the changes made to it through human activity.‖

58 Figure 3-3: Trends in Americans' Belief in God

100%

90% 86% 81% 82% 78% 78% 80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30% 14% 15% 20% 13% 12% 8% 10% 5% 7% 6% 5% 5% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1999 2004 2006 2007 2008 Believe in God Believe in universal spirit/higher power Don't believe in either Other/No Opinion Source: The Gallup Poll, 1999-2008

In summary, an examination of the widely used indicators of public opinion on human origins, particularly the standard Gallup question, suggests considerable measurement error is present. I explore this further in the sections below.

Comparisons of the Three Measures: Consistency

Now I turn to examine the consistency of responses across three measures: the modified

Gallup, the GSS, and the Harris measure. As described in the tables below, the results from the cross-tabular analysis suggest respondents‘ beliefs about human origin are largely inconsistent across the three measures.

59 Table 3-2: Cross tabulation Results for the Modified Gallup by the Harris Five Views27

Percent ―TRUE‖

God- God- guided Intelligent initiated Natural Modified Gallup question Creationisma Evolutionb Designc Evolutiond Evolutione

Human beings have developed over 18.8% 39.0% 41.6% 42.6% 22.0% millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

Human beings have developed over 2.0% 2.3% 11.5% 8.1% 42.7% millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had NO PART in this process

God created human beings pretty 63.6% 39.1% 22.8% 24.1% 8.2% much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so

None of these comes close to my 6.2% 8.1% 10.9% 9.2% 10.5% beliefs

Not at all sure which is true 9.4% 11.5% 13.2% 15.9% 16.6%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

For instance, as shown in Table 3-2, among those who answer ―true‖ to creationism in the Harris measure, 64 percent choose creationism in the modified Gallup measure, while 6 percent say ―None of these comes close to my beliefs,‖ and 9 percent report they are not at all sure which is true. Among those who select God-guided evolution as true, 39 percent of them endorse either God-guided evolution or Creationism in the modified Gallup measure. Only 43 percent of those who endorse natural evolution in the Harris measure choose natural evolution

27Note: a; χ2 = 1881.51 with 8 degree of freedom (p =.000), b; χ2 = 1514.465 with 8 degree of freedom (p =.000), c; χ2 = 748.855 with 8 degree of freedom (p =.000). d; χ2 = 816.517 with 8 degree of freedom (p =.000). e; χ2 = 2156.615 with 8 degree of freedom (p =.000).

60 in the modified Gallup measure while 11 percent choose ―None‖ and 17 percent say ―not at all sure.‖

Similarly, in Table 3-3, among those who answer ―true‖ to creationism in the Harris measure, 67 percent report ―false‖ to the GSS human evolution measure, while more than a quarter (28 %) answer that measure as ―true.‖ In contrast, the Harris natural evolution measure presents more consistent answers. Among those who report natural evolution in the Harris measure as ―true,‖ 88 percent answer the GSS human evolution as ―true,‖ while 8 percent answer ―false.‖ Compared to creationism and natural evolution, three views show more dispersed distribution. Among those who say ―true‖ to God-guided evolution in the Harris measure, 49 percent say the GSS human evolution statement is ―false,‖ and another half respondents (46 %) endorse the GSS human evolution statement. Interestingly, among those who answer ―true‖ to either Intelligent Design or God-initiated evolution, a majority endorses the GSS human evolution as true (65%, 67%, respectively).

Table 3-3: Cross tabulation Results for the GSS question by the Harris Five views28

Percent ―TRUE‖ GSS human God-guided Intelligent God- Natural evolution Creationisma Evolutionb Designc initiated Evolutione Evolutiond False 67.4% 49.2% 31.0% 28.1% 7.8% Not at all sure 4.5% 5.2% 3.7% 4.8% 3.8% True 28.1% 45.6% 65.3% 67.1% 88.4% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

28Note: a;χ2 = 1850.394 with 4 degree of freedom (p =.000), b; χ2 = 937.143 with 4 degree of freedom (p =.000). c; χ2 = 1125.065 with 4 degree of freedom (p =.000).d; χ2 = 1177.244 with 4 degree of freedom (p =.000), e; χ2 = 2491.942 with 4 degree of freedom (p =.000).

61 Table 3-4 shows the crosstabulation result for the modified Gallup item by the GSS measure. This table presents further evidence of response inconsistency. Among those who answer the GSS human evolution as ―true,‖ 36 percent endorse God-guided evolution in the modified Gallup measure, while 30 percent select natural evolution in that measure and about

10 percent say creationism in the modified Gallup measure as true. Compared to those who accept the GSS human evolution as ―true,‖ those who say ―false‖ to the GSS human evolution show more consistent responses. Among those who report the GSS human evolution as ―false,‖

66 percent endorse creationism in the modified Gallup measure, while 15 percent choose God- guided evolution and 10 percent say ―None of these comes close to my beliefs.‖ However, these varied response distributions imply response volatility.

Table 3-4: Cross tabulation Results for the Modified Gallup by the GSS question29

GSS human evolution Modified Gallup question False Not at all True sure Human beings have developed over millions of years from less 14.7% 20.7% 35.5% advanced forms of life, but God guided this process

Human beings have developed over millions of years from less 1.1% 2.8% 29.9% advanced forms of life, but God had NO PART in this process

God created human beings pretty much in their present form at 66.0% 22.3% 10.3% one time within the last 10,000 years or so None of these comes close to my beliefs 10.1% 9.9% 9.2%

Not at all sure which is true 8.1% 44.3% 15.1%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

29Note: χ2= 1594.346 (df= 4, p = .000)

62 In short, these cross-tabulation analyses show uncertainty and low response consistency amongst the public. Put another way, in general, respondents hold much less consistent beliefs about human origin than the portrait painted by current polling results.

Similarity and Dissimilarity of each view

Next, I employ cluster analysis to further examine the validity of measurement. This analysis helps to identify similarities or dissimilarities among groups, cases, or variables.

Cluster analysis is useful in classifying complex objects to a smaller number of categories. It can be used when classifying groups of individuals or variables seeking homogeneity in clusters and heterogeneity across clusters. In this study, three measures of human evolution are used. If each of these question wordings taps into a distinct notion or views of human evolution, then it will support the validity of these measurements. Cluster analysis will reveal the degree of similarity and dissimilarity of these question options.

To measure similarity and difference across questions asking views about human evolution, I first identify variables in this analysis. All response categories in three measures— the modified Gallup, the GSS, and the Harris –are the variables to examine. The modified

Gallup question has five response categories. Thus, I create each dummy variable: God-guided evolution, Natural evolution, Creationism, ―None of these,‖ and ―not at all sure.‖ A dummy variable for the GSS item indicates ―true‖ response to human evolution question. The Harris five views have five dummy variables: creationism, God-guided evolution, Intelligent Design,

God-initiated evolution, and Natural evolution. Therefore, all eleven variables are entered in this cluster analysis.

63 I employ hierarchical cluster analysis rather than K-means. Compared to confirmatory

K-means, hierarchical cluster analysis is primarily exploratory. Hierarchical cluster analysis begins with each object –response option in this case— on its own and proceeds to combine them into clusters that maximize homogeneity within clusters and heterogeneity. Cluster analysis results vary depending on what specific metrics are used. Among the most frequently used metrics is Ward‘s method (Ward 1963) which calculates the distance between clusters as the squared Euclidian distance between the mean vectors of the two divided by the total sum of squares.

The result of cluster analysis is shown in Table 3-5 and Figure 3-4. Based on the cluster membership table and dendrogram, I first identify two distinct clusters: creationism (the Gallup creationism and the Harris creationism) and non-creationism (all others included). Further classification presents four different clusters. Based on theoretical assumption as to creationism/evolution continuum (Scott 2009) and cluster membership table, I finally identify five distinct clusters: (1) Cluster 1, Evolution, consists of evolution both in the modified Gallup and the Harris questions, (2) Cluster 2, Creationism, which includes both creationism in the modified Gallup and the Harris, (3) Cluster 3, Theistic Evolution, which includes the modified

Gallup God-guided evolution, the Harris God-guided evolution, the Harris Intelligent Design, and the Harris God-initiated evolution, (4) Cluster 4 is the ―None of these‖ response category in the modified Gallup, and (5) Cluster 5 is the ―Not at all sure‖ response category in the modified

Gallup question. Interestingly, the Gallup ―none of these‖ is the last cluster on its own and can be called an ―outlier.‖ Overall, the results support a continuum of views of evolution, as argued by Scott (2009).

64 Table 3-5: Cluster Membership of variables

Cluster Membership

Case 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Clusters Clusters Clusters Clusters Clusters Cluster Clusters Clusters Clusters s GSS evolution 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gallup: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 creationism Gallup: God- 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 guided Gallup:evolution Natural 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Evolution Gallup: None 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 1 of these Gallup: Not at 6 6 6 5 5 5 1 1 1 all sure which Harris:is true 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Creationism Harris: God 7 7 7 6 3 3 3 1 1 Guided Harris:Evolution 8 8 8 7 6 3 3 1 1 Intelligent Harris:Design God- 9 9 8 7 6 3 3 1 1 initiated Harris:evolution Natural 10 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 evolution

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

65 Figure 3-4: Dendrogram of Cluster Analysis Result30

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

Note 1: Description of each variable in this analysis: Gallupcreationim(creationism in the modified Gallup question), theorya4 (creationism in Harris five views question), theoryc4 (Intelligent Design in Harris five views question), theoryd4 (God-initiated evolution in Harris five views question), Gallupgodguided (God-guided evolution in the modified Gallup question), theoryb4 (God-guided evolution in Harris five views question), Gallupnatevol (Natural evolution in the modified Gallup question), theorye4 (Natural evolution in Harris five views question), q1531#i (GSS evolution question), GallupDK(―Not at all sure‖ in the modified Gallup question), and GallupNone (―None of these comes to close‖ in the modified Gallup question).

30In interpreting the dendrogram, objects that group together earlier tend to be more similar in terms of the proximity. For instance, the Gallup creationism and the Harris creationism—theorya4—is more similar. Also, in terms of the proximity measure, the Gallup natural evolution (Gallupnatevol) and the Harris natural evolution (theorye4) is more similar. The vertical line through the dendrogram sets out which variables cluster together at a given point. The far right vertical line in the dendrogram denotes the fewest clusters we extract.

66 Intensity and Consistency of Beliefs So far the results demonstrate that individuals‘ beliefs on human evolution are inconsistent and uncertain. Therefore, in the following section I further investigate the patterns of consistency of each view of human origins.

As noted above, the five evolution belief items were asked in the Harris Interactive survey in a separate way with rotated order rather than five distinct set positions in a single item.

Instead of choosing just ONE theory among five theories— God-guided evolution, Intelligent

Design, God-initiated evolution, and Natural evolution— respondents were asked to answer how likely is it that each is true or false. Therefore, many respondents express ambivalent views about these evolutionary theories.

To avoid conflated or random answers, I examine those who held beliefs in only one of the five theories. This approach allows finding core believers of each theory and identifying their characteristics. This is similar to the way Converse (1964) identified five different groups based on the level of conceptualization: Ideologues, Near-Ideologues, Group Interest, Nature of the Times, and No Issue Content. The main characteristics of each group may be used in a way as a ―constraint‖ in Converse‘s belief system where attitudes are linked to each other and can be predictors.

However, in this study, I focus on respondents‘ beliefs in human evolution and whether their beliefs are solid and consistent. Again, here the consistent believers of each theory are those who answered either ―probably true‖ or ―definitely true‖ to only one of the five human origin explanations and did not say that any of the other four theories is either ―probably true‖ or ―definitely true.‖ For instance, among all respondents, 12 percent answered as either

67 ―probably true‖ or ―definitely true‖ to only creationism, and did not answer ―true‖ to any other theory.

Below Table 3-6 presents the number and the percentage of each theory‘s core believers in comparison to its total group. The percentage point difference between total group and consistent group is 31 percent for creationism, 44.5 percent for God-guided evolution, 31 percent for intelligent design, 28.7 percent for God-initiated evolution, and 20.7 percent for natural evolution. These differences imply respondents‘ tentative or ambivalent attitude toward views about human evolution. Overall the percentage of ―consistent believers‖ is only about 36 percent of total respondents.

Table 3-6: Distribution Consistent Believers of Each Explanation of Human Origins in the Harris Five Views

Percentage Description Percent differences Creationism 12.3 Subsample (570) 31.1 43.4 Total (2,010) God-guided Evolution 7.3 Subsample (339) 44.5 51.8 Total (2,397) Intelligent Design 1.2 Subsample (54) 31.2 32.4 Total (1,499) God-initiated Evolution 1.7 Subsample (77) 28.7 30.4 Total (1,407) Natural Evolution 14.2 Subsample (658) 20.7 34.9 Total (1,616) Note: numbers in parentheses denote frequencies. Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

68 Next, I turn to further examine the consistency of beliefs each group held by cross- tabulating the respondents‘ ―consistent‖ belief as reflected in the Harris five views question by answers to the GSS evolution question and the modified Gallup question, respectively.

Table 3-7 describes the cross-tabulation result for consistent believers by the GSS question. As expected, consistent believers in creationism and natural evolution hold much more firm opinions compared to the other three views. Of consistent creationism believers, 2.7 percent endorse human evolution in the GSS question and about 3 percent of consistent natural evolution believers reject human evolution in the GSS. Of consistent God-guided evolution believers, 29.5 percent hold human evolution as true in the GSS question. Even more surprisingly, 50% of consistent believers in intelligent design report human evolution as true.

Again, this result suggests that the idea of intelligent design is a murky concept to comprehend.

Table 3-7: Cross tabulation Results for Consistent Believers by the GSS question31

GSS human evolution Harris Five Belief Systems: Definitely Probably Probably Definitely Not at all Consistent Only False False True True sure Creationism a 88.6% 7.6% 2.5% .2% 1.2%

God-guided Evolution b 42.2% 20.6% 20.9% 8.6% 7.7%

Intelligent Design c 25.9% 16.7% 24.1% 25.9% 7.4%

God-initiated Evolution d 5.2% 11.7% 33.8% 36.4% 13.0%

Natural Evolution e 1.1% 2.3% 30.9% 63.7% 2.1%

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

Below Table 3-8 is the crosstabulation result for consistent believers in the Harris five views question by the modified Gallup question. This results show even less clear views of

31Note: a. χ2 (4) = 1099.602, p <.000; b. χ2 (4) = 77.090, p <.000; c. χ2 (4) = 1.456, p >.10; d. χ2 (4) = 27.076, p <.000; e. χ2 (4) = 863.786, p <.000.

69 consistent believers. Firstly, consistent creationism believers are noticeable; 91 percent of them endorse creationism in the modified Gallup question. Consistent God-guided evolution believers are evenly divided between ―creationism‖ and ―God-guided evolution‖ in the modified

Gallup question. Consistent believers of intelligent design are dispersed: 31 percent for

Creationism, 24 percent for ―none of these,‖ and 22 percent for God-guided evolution while remaining portions are evenly divided between natural evolution and ―don‘t know‖ answers.

Consistent God-initiated evolution also shows similar pattern. Seventy-four percent of consistent believers in natural evolution endorse natural evolution in the modified Gallup question.

Table 3-8: Cross tabulation Results for Consistent Believers by the Modified Gallup question32

Percent ―TRUE‖

Harris Five Belief Systems: God-guided Natural None of Not at all Consistent Only evolution evolution Creationism these sure

Creationism a 1.4% .4% 90.7% 5.4% 2.1%

God-guided Evolution b 36.1% .3% 39.9% 12.1% 11.5% Intelligent Design c 21.8% 10.9% 30.9% 23.6% 12.7% God-initiated Evolution d 39.7% 9.0% 7.7% 23.1% 20.5% Natural Evolution e 4.6% 74.3% .2% 9.3% 11.7%

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey In short, with the exception of creationism and natural evolution, all three views about human evolution are less clearly understood by the respondents.

32Note: a. χ2 (4) = 912.004, p <.000; b. χ2 (4) = 78.338, p <.000; c. χ2 (4) = 12.798, p < .05; d. χ2 (4) = 42.289, p <.000; e. χ2 (4) = 2052.252, p <.000.

70 Conclusion and Discussion

The goal of this chapter was to examine the validity of measures on public attitudes towards human evolution. Three human evolution questions were employed in the 2008 Harris

Interactive survey: the modified Gallup question, the GSS question, and the Harris Five questions. I first examined the modified Gallup question and described the difference between the standard Gallup question and Harris‘s modified Gallup questions in terms of response categories and proportion of each response. By further examining demographic profiles of the respondent who were ambivalent or could not identify any of the response options, I argued that the standard Gallup question on human origin may over-represent creationist or theistic views of evolution. I then proceeded in investigating the measurement validity of all three evolution questions. Both cluster analysis and factor analysis support measurement validity. A response consistency check using the Harris five view items revealed that even consistent respondents hold contradictory beliefs to some degree. Overall, these data analyses indicate that no currently adopted measurement is ideal as regards the subject at hand. Furthermore, great caution should be taken into consideration when interpreting polling results concerning the controversial issue of beliefs on human origins.

71

Chapter 4: Social, Religious, and Psychological Roots of Public Opinion on Human Evolution In this chapter I develop and test models of opinion on human origins. Following several leading scholars (Miller et al. 2006; Mazur 2005; Berkman and Plutzer 2008, 2010;

Altemeyer 2006; among many others), I examine the theoretical model which explains beliefs in evolution. Methodological differences from previous research will highlight the predictive power of independent variables in the model.

Literature on Explaining Beliefs about Human Origins

The literature on Americans‘ belief or disbelief in evolution reveals that the causes are diverse and complex. Several leading theories are followed: education and/or scientific literacy

(People for the American Way Foundation 2000; Scott 1997; Alters and Nelson 2002;

Brumfiel 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Newport 2009; Losh and Nzekwe 2010; Eve et al. 2010;

Berkman and Plutzer 2009, 2010); religious fundamentalism or orthodox Christianity (Hunter

1983; Bishop and Anderson 1990; Ellison and Musick 1995; Evans 2001; Deckman 2002,

2004; Scott 2004; Mazur 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Keeter, Smith, and Masci 2012; among others),and its interaction with conservative political views (Forrest and Gross 2004, 2007;

Gibson 2004; Shanks 2004; Mooney 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Berkman and Plutzer 2010;

Miller and Pennock 2008; Hawley et al. 2011); issue framing (Scott 1997, 2004; Dennet 1995;

Nisbet and Goidel 2007; Mooney and Nisbet 2007; Nisbet and Mooney 2007); question wording, format and context effects (Bishop 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007; Bishop et al. 2010); decentralized American public education system (Berkman and Pluzter 2010), ineffective

72 teaching of evolution (Alters and Nelson 2002); cognitive or affective psychological aspects such as dogmatism (Mazur 2005), logical reasoning skills (Woods and Scharmann 2001;

Sinatra et al. 2003), counter-intuitiveness and creationist views (Evans 2000b, Evans 2001;

2008; Poling and Evans 2004; Evans and Lane 2011).

Education and Scientific Literacy, Biology Courses specifically

The previous research has shown that the level of one‘s educational attainment is associated with scientific knowledge and attitudes toward the origin of human beings (Alters and Nelson 2002; Scott 1997; Miller et al. 2006; People for the American Way Foundation 2000;

Brumfiel 2005; Losh and Nzekwe 2010; Eve et al. 2010; Berkman and Plutzer 2009, 2010).

While overall educational attainment is associated with belief and attitudes toward the theory of evolution (Newport 2012), literature shows that not a general literacy from educational attainment, but specifically science knowledge is more important as a predictor for acceptance/rejection of evolution. It is assumed that higher education will generate better understanding of science, however, in reality it is not always the case. According to Hazen and

Trefil (2009), only 22 percent of college students can be regarded as scientifically literate (Pond and Pond 2010, p. 643).

The scientific literacy explanation posits that those who do not believe in evolution lack education or proper scientific literacy (Miller et al. 2006; Miller 2010; Gross 2006; Nisbet and

Goidel 2007; Keeter, Smith, and Masci 2012; Losh 2012). According to this explanation, an individual‘s exposures to science courses or materials affect one‘s knowledge and attitudes toward the theory of evolution.

73 In empirical research the scientific literacy is measured by asking respondents a battery of quiz-type factual knowledge questions. Building on Shen‘s (1975) conceptualization of three kinds of scientific literacy, a leading civic science literacy proponent, Jon D. Miller developed a

―civic scientific literacy‖ index and used it in the General Social Survey for several decades.

This index also has been used for the National Science Foundation‘s biennial Science and

Engineering Indicators (SEI). According to Miller (2006), civic scientific literacy is ―the level of knowledge that we need to understand public policy issues involving science and technology and to make sense of disputes about these issues.‖ The civic science literacy index consists of a set of factual knowledge with respect to atoms, genetics and inheritance, continental drift, solar system, as well as scientific inquiry related questions.

Upon the analysis of the comprehensive data set from the National Science Foundation survey (1979 to 2006), Losh (2012) reports that the level of factual knowledge is a strong predictor of endorsing evolution even controlling for other statistically strong factors such as gender, age and educational attainment. Furthermore, the numbers of high school and college science courses, separately, emerge as strong predictors. This study supports Miller and colleagues‘ claim that educational attainment and college science courses play a critical role in shaping individuals‘ civic scientific literacy and attitudes regarding the theory of evolution, in particular. A sizable literature points out the link between public misunderstanding of the nature of science and rejection of evolution (Gross 2006; Lombrozo et al. 2008; Williams 2008; Pond and Pond 2010), however, empirical research on this is rare.

In a National Science Foundation Survey, three items were designed to measure understanding of scientific inquiry— how science generates knowledge and what method science uses to assess it: probability, experimental design, and the scientific method.

74 Lombrozoand colleagues (2008) conducted a college student survey (n = 96) and concluded that students‘ understanding of science and attitudes towards science affect their acceptance of evolution even controlling other factors such as religiosity, interest and past education in science. Their findings highlight the importance of public understanding of the nature of science.

However, given the small college student sample, the finding is not conclusive. Further study should include an index for public understanding of the process of scientific inquiry to investigate its relationship with acceptance of evolution.

Scientific communities including scientists, educators and organizations such as the

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Center for

Educational Progress (NCEP), the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the National

Academies of Science/National Research Council (NAS/NRC), and the National Science

Foundation (NSF) make efforts to promote science literacy to society. For this science-group, the public‘s lack of scientific skills or knowledge is an impediment to a greater degree of belief in evolution. In this case, the remedy is education, specifically, science courses, communication between scientists and laypersons and education through media.

Religious Factors: Fundamentalism, the Bible, and Church Attendance

Another primary explanation in the extant literature is religiosity, particularly religious fundamentalism which is mostly identified with absolute belief in God and Biblical literalism. A committee of the National Academy of Sciences summarized the relationship between faith traditions and views on evolution as follows:

―Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth‘s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written

75 eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.‖ (Committee on Revising Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2008, p. 12)

This model emphasizing fundamentalism as a causal variable is in line with so-called

―God gap‖ between traditionalist or orthodox and the progressivist on the value-laden issues.

According to this explanation, people who accept or reject the theory of evolution do so based on the authority of either science or transcendent God. As Scott (1997) hypothesized, parents who fear teaching evolution in their children‘s classroom equate belief in evolution with deserting God.

―Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion. Conservative Christians who are strongly literalist in their views fear that if their children learn evolution, they will cease to believe in God. Without God to guide them, children will grow up to be bad people.‖(p. 264)

In this way believing Darwinian evolution equals betrayal of belief in God and this implied or assumed atheism is a culprit of destroying traditional moral values. This is a combination of psychological and religious roots of disbelief in evolution to some segments of the population. Numerous studies report that religious fundamentalism is the strongest predictor of accepting or rejecting evolution (Hunter 1983; Bishop and Anderson 1990; Ellison and

Musick 1995; Osif 1997; Lawson and Worsnop 1992; Sinclair and Pendarvis1997; Aguillard

1999; Downie and Barron 2000; Antolin and Herbers 2001; Evans 2001; Woods and

Scharmann 2001; Deckman 2002, 2004; Brem et al. 2003; Sinatra et al. 2003; Scott 2004; Trani

2004; Mazur 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Nehm et al. 2009; Lombrozo et al. 2008; Jakobi 2010;

76 Hawley et al. 2011; Pazy-Miño and Espinosa 2010; Tracy et al. 2011; Sherkat 2011; Keeter,

Smith, and Masci 2012), and religious fundamentalism‘s interaction with conservative political views in opposition to evolution (Forrest and Gross 2004, 2007; Gibson 2004; Shanks 2004;

Mooney 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Berkman and Plutzer 2010; Miller and Pennock 2008; Hawley et al. 2011).

Considering the history of the evolution/creation controversy in the United States since the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial, it is not surprising that religious fundamentalism and rejection of evolution are strongly associated. The Gallup Poll shows that most religious Americans— defined as those who attend church services nearly every week or more often—are more likely to endorse creationism than those who do not attend frequently. Spilka and colleagues (2003) define fundamentalism as a ―rigid, dogmatic way of being religious‖ (p. 465). Conceptually, religious fundamentalism is not necessarily Orthodox Christianity, however, given the dominant proportion of Christianity in the U.S. with sheer size of other religions (Muslim or Jew), religious fundamentalism in the U.S. mostly refers to Christian Fundamentalism.

Empirical research on religious factors influencing attitudes toward human origins indicate that religious commitment, not religious affiliation, accounts for acceptance or rejection of evolution. Most comprehensive empirical studies such as Miller and colleagues‘ (2006) or

Mazur‘s (2005) are based on analyses of the GSS data where religious fundamentalists are identified with religious tradition. While mainline Protestant and Catholics acknowledge the theory of evolution as valid explanation of human origin and development (Pope John Paul II

77 199633), some religious denominations34 do not accept evolution and promote creationism or creation science.

With the unique national survey of school board candidates Deckman (2002) investigated the relationship between religious factors and attitudes regarding school prayer, creationism, and school vouchers. The findings from this study are consistent with previous research in that religious belief and practices have independent effects on individuals‘ attitudes with respect to controversial issues such as teaching creationism; religious tradition and church attendance is positively related to support for creationism even controlling for other factors.

Following Kellstedt and associates‘ (1996) theoretical framework, Deckman categorized conservative religious group including fundamentalist Christian, Pentecostal/charismatic

Christian, and evangelical Christian which share core beliefs about the divinity of Jesus Christ, authority of the Bible, and a religious commitment. The most commonly used measure for religious factors are certainty of belief in God, frequency of church services attendance, importance of religion in one‘s life, and the views of the Bible. These indicators are shown as strong predictors of acceptance or rejection of human evolution (Miller et al. 2006; Berkman and Plutzer 2010; Mazur 2005, 2010; Keeter, Smith, and Masci 2012).

33―…Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Human Generis treated the doctrine of ―evolutionism‖ as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: …Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory…‖Message delivered to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 22 October 1996. 34Statements on evolution from Religious Organizations can be found at the National Center for Science Education at http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion and also in Voices for Evolution (2008, 3rd edition) which is a collection of supportive statements of evolution from including scientific, religious, educational, and civil liberties organizations. Those denominations that deny evolution are including the Assemblies of God, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Jehovah‘s Witness, Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches, among others (Martin 2010)

78 Psychological Explanations

Most explanations for psychological factors shaping different beliefs about human origin are based on assumptions, and theoretical reflection. However, empirical studies based on these theoretical frameworks are rare. Scholarly efforts to explain rejection of the theory of evolution are found mostly in science education (e.g., Evolution Education Outreach, or Public

Understanding of Science, Journal of Research in Science Education, to name a representative few) in pedagogical manner followed by the study of religion and science (e.g., The Journal of

Scientific Study of Religion), political science, public policy and public opinion.

The common findings in the literature on psychological explanations of beliefs on human evolution suggest the strong relationship between psychological and religious factors.

The nature and strength of psychological factors vary depending on the level of religious commitment or vice versa. The psychological factors examined in the literature, particularly in educational psychology, include cognitive dispositions and personal epistemology. Frequently used constructs among the cognitive dispositions are authoritarianism (Hunsberger and

Altemeyer 2006, Altemeyer and Hunsberger 2005) and dogmatism (Mazur 2005) or closed- mindedness (Garvey 2008), openness to experience (Hawley et al. 2010), the need for cognitive closure (Garvey 2008), reasoning skills (Woods and Scharmann 2001). Other factors considered as predictors for explaining views about human evolution were personal epistemology, which is related to ultimate truth and authority (Pond and Pond 2010). In this section selected empirical research which used psychological factors in explaining individuals‘ acceptance or rejection of the theory of evolution will be discussed.

79 Openness to Experience

With varying degrees depending on how it is operationalized, empirical research on openness to experience has shown that it is strongly related to political conservatism, religiosity, and education (McCrae and Sutin 2009, p. 262). Following previous studies (Sinatra et al. 2003),

Hawley and colleagues (2011) examined the relationship between this personality factor and knowledge and attitudes toward evolution. Their findings show that not only creationist reasoning and political/religious conservatism matters but also the personality factor, openness to experience plays an important role in explaining creationist reasoning measured by the degree of biblical literalism.

Mazur (2005, 2008, and 2010) suggests that religious conservatism and personality are strong predictors of implausible beliefs such as creationism. In the analysis of combined GSS survey items (1993, 1994, and 2000 data), Mazur (2005) used ―closed-minds‖ as a proxy of personality measure to tap into dogmatism among fundamentalists. The following question was given to the respondents: ―Suppose… [someone] wrote a book advocating doing away with elections and letting the military run the country. Somebody in your community suggests that the book be removed from the public library. Would you favor removing it, or not?‖ Those who answered they would have removed it were considered ―dogmatic.‖ Though the multivariate analysis showed this dogmatism variable is not significantly related to respondents‘ view about evolution, Mazur‘s theoretical framework contributes to the literature the need for including psychological factors other than religious fundamentalism.

Following the contribution of Mazur‘s study (2005), Garvey (2008) examined he relationship among cognitive, cultural and affective measures and attitudes on creationism and

80 evolution. In terms of cognitive measures, Garvey employed the Need for Cognitive Closure35 scale (Webster and Kruglanski 1994; Kruglanski and Fishman 2009, chap. 23) to tap into closed mindedness which was hypothesized to account for rejection of evolution. In addition to cognitive factors, two measures for affective factors were used. Drawing on Scott‘s claim (1997,

2009) that ant-evolutionist equates acceptance of evolution with ceasing believing in God,

Garvey hypothesized that higher fear perception and measure of acute disgust sensitivity would predict rejection of evolution. The findings from this exploratory study support all the hypotheses. Despite the limitation of this study (with a small size college student sample, n =62), it is important to note that this study shed light on the need and potential use of both cognitive and affective measures to predict individuals‘ acceptance or rejection of human evolution.

These three studies (Mazur 2005; Garvey 2008; Hawley et al. 2011) employed different measures of cognitive or affective psychological concepts. The underlying concepts among openness to experience, dogmatism, and the need for cognitive closure are very similar in tapping into cognitive flexibility or rigidity. In reviewing the development of conceptualization and measurement of authoritarianism, Duckitt (2009) states that Rokeach‘s dogmatism scale

(1954) was a simplified conceptualization of an authoritarian personality. With serious measurement problems (i.e., vague statements and low internal consistency reliability), this dogmatism-scale was not used by scholars; however, other scholars (Wilson 1973; Altemeyer

1996; Kruglanski and Fishman 2009) later developed better measurement to operationalize cognitive style constructs.

35This term has been defined as ―a desire for definite knowledge on some issue and the eschewal of confusion and ambiguity.‖ (Webster and Kruglanski 1994)

81 Dogmatism According to Altemeyer (1996; Altemeyer and Hunsberger 2005), dogmatism, by definition, refers to ―relatively unchangeable, unjustified certainty‖ and measured by a 20-item scale. This dogmatism measure content does not state any religious terms, but the reported correlation between dogmatism scale and religious fundamentalism is very strong ranging from .57 to .78. Since at the heart of religious fundamentalism is the inerrancy of the sacred text and dogmatism taps into the core value of ―absolute certainty of the sacred text,‖ the strong association between these two scales is not surprising. However, with the exception of small sample exploratory studies, almost no empirical studies employed this dogmatism scale in explaining individuals‘ attitudes toward human evolution.

Authoritarianism and Fundamentalism

After decades of measurement problems with traditional measures of authoritarianism such as the California F-Scale, Altemeyer and his associates (Altemeyer 1981, 1988, 1996, and

2006) have revised the construct to measure what they call right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale36and applied this scale to investigate its relationship to attitudes toward various social, religious, or political issues. The subsequent research by numerous scholars has shown that the

Right-wing-authoritarian scale is valid and effective in predicting individual or collective prejudice toward homosexuals, immigrants, and the death penalty.

Based on a series of empirical studies, Altemeyer and Hunsberger contend that religious fundamentalism in America can best be viewed as a manifestation of the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), a key element of which is a predisposition to defer or submit to the perceived legitimate and established authorities in society: parents, teachers, political and

36Zakrisson (2005) devised a shorter, 15-item version of the RWA scale that performs similarly to the fuller measures and has good predictive validity with attitudes such as racism and sexism.

82 religious leaders, etc., and by extension to the inerrant authority of the Bible insofar as it is emphasized by the trusted authorities in one‘s life.37Accepting the Genesis version of human origins would simply be a consequence of such submission to authority.

Within this theoretical framework, creationist beliefs about human origins and biblical literalism can each be viewed as just alternative indicators of what Altemeyer and Hunsberger

(1992, 2005) conceptualize as the underlying theoretical construct of ―fundamentalism‖, one which they distinguish from more specific varieties, such as Christian fundamentalism, with its typical emphasis on the Bible, the ―born again‖ experience, and the prophesied return of Jesus.

By fundamentalism in many, if not most religions, they mean:

―…the belief that there is one set of religious teachings that clearly contains the fundamental, basic, intrinsic, inerrant truth about humanity and deity; that this essential truth is opposed by forces of evil which must be vigorously fought; that this truth must be vigorously followed today according to the fundamental, unchangeable practices of the past; and that those who believe and follow these teachings have a special relationship with the deity‖ (Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992, p. 118).

With the religious fundamentalism scale, Hunsberger and Altemeyer (2005, 2006) found a strong relationship between fundamentalist beliefs and acceptance of creationism as a valid explanation of human origin. In their study, attitudes regarding support for creationism are measured with a 12-item scale. Consistent with prior studies, Altemeyer (2012) argues that the

Right-Wing-Authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism and dogmatism are strongly related and reinforce each other. In this light, the Right-wing-authoritarianism scale may account for

37As conceptualized originally by Altemeyer (1981), RWA consists of three components: (1) ―a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate‖; (2) ―a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, which is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities‖; and (3) ―a high degree of adherence to the social conventions which are perceived to be endorsed by society‖ (p. 148).

83 attitudes toward the origin and development of human beings. This reasoning is well supported in terms of personal epistemology which deals with beliefs about knowledge and knowing.

In an attempt to investigate the underpinning reason for the strong relationship between religious fundamentalism and the Right-wing-Authoritarianism, Hathcoat and Barnes (2010) conducted empirical research using a sample of college students. Following the definition of religious fundamentalism from both Spilka and colleagues (2003) and Altemeyer and

Hunsberger (2005), Hathcoat and Barnes (2010) note that fundamentalism is denoted by a belief that knowledge is certain and the structure of knowledge is simple and, ultimately, knowledge is from omniscient authority.

The crux of religious fundamentalism in the United States lies in the belief that the sacred text is inerrant. This belief is linked to the right-wing-authoritarian‘s submission to authority tendency. Religious fundamentalist obey their ultimate authority, the sacred text believing that the ultimate truth can be found only in this text. Looked at this way, it is clear why the right-wing-authoritarians and fundamentalists tend to compartmentalize knowledge when they encounter cognitive dissonance. Not all fundamentalists are right-wing-authoritarians.

Nor are all right-wing-authoritarians fundamentalists. However, most fundamentalists fall in the high right-wing-authoritarianism category since their meaning of authority converges on the sacred text.

Recent research on psychology of religion shed lights on the understanding of religious fundamentalism as a meaning system (Hood et al. 2003; Silberman 2005). In this light, religious fundamentalism is a type of worldview which is central to everyday life and decision-making.

Building on this theoretical foundation, political psychologists, Duckitt and Fisher (2003, p.

84 201), have argued that right-wing authoritarianism expresses the motivational goals of social control and security and is activated or made salient by ―a view of the world as dangerous and threatening.‖ Their model also postulates that the underlying personality dimension of

―dispositional social conformity‖ generates a ―greater readiness to perceive threats to the existing social order and to see the world as dangerous and threatening‖ in various social situations (Duckitt and Fisher 2003, p. 202).38 Looked at in this way, the theory of evolution and its teaching in public schools represents a powerful threat to the dominant Christian worldview in America, and ultimately to beliefs about the existence of God himself, a threat that must be vigorously fought and controlled by those who believe in the inerrant teachings of the Bible about God‘s creation of human beings. For many Americans, the theory of evolution and its teaching in the public schools amounts to teaching atheism, a materialist worldview devoid of meaning and purpose to them. It is within this larger conceptual and theoretical context that scholars should examine existing survey data on the beliefs that underlie the enduring culture war over God and the Bible vs. Darwin and the teaching of the theory of evolution in American public schools.39

Framing Effect

Another factor considered in evolution/creation literature is a framing effect. Before the discussion of framing issue, it is necessary to describe linked sources of framing which comes from either the nature of evolution theory or the strategy of proponents of creationism.

38See Duckitt and Fisher (2003, pp. 201-205) for a detailed description and exposition of their causal model of the impact of social situations and personality factors on worldviews and ideological authoritarian attitudes. 39 For an even-handed, informative account of the never-ending, conflict in American society between creationists and evolutionists, including the ―intelligent design‖ development, see Larry Witham‘s book, Where Darwin Meets the Bible (2002). For data on American public opinion regarding the teaching of evolution and creationism in American public schools, see Moore (August 30, 1999).

85 Many scholars point out that due to the complexity and counter-intuitiveness of the theory of evolution, it is not easy to comprehend (Evans 2000, 2001; Poling and Evans 2004;

Evans and Lane 2011). Unlike other theories in science, the theory of evolution is not directly observable or intuitive. Understanding of the mechanism process of evolution requires more reasoning effort and skills40. The proponents of creationism in the society characterize evolution as ―just a theory‖ rather than ―fact,‖ to promote support for equal treatment in public school

(Jelen 2009, chap. 8; Newport 2006; Forrest 2007; Mooney 2005).

The study of framing effect has been documented in numerous articles since Berelson,

Lazarsfeld, and McPhee‗s (1954) study of voter‗s opinion formation in the 1950‗s presidential campaigns. As Schattsneider pinpointed (1960) ―he who determines what politics is about runs the country because the definition of the alternatives is the choice of conflicts and the choice of conflicts allocates power, the power of controlling public debate is critical in gaining public support. The terms frames, framing, and framing effect have been used interchangeably or in a confusing way.

Druckman (2001, also see Chong and Druckman 2007) reviewed the literature on framing and analyzed the meaning and implications of the framing effect with citizen competence. In his analytic review of framing theory, Druckman first distinguished frames in communication which speakers choose from frames in thought which listeners choose. Then within frames in communication, he distinguished between equivalency framing effect and emphasizing framing effect while mentioning most of the classic question wording effect experiments as examples of equivalency framing effect. Specifically, the equivalency framing

40Evans and Lane propose a ―dual-process‖ theory as to how individual process information about biological origins (Evans and Lane 2011, p. 146). According to this theory, two distinct levels of information process can be called system 1 and system 2. System 1 refers ―associate, intuitive, implicit, or autonomous processing‖ while system 2 indicates ―reflective thought, analytic, explicit, or rational.‖ Based on this theory, endorsing the evolution theory requires ―analytic and abstract‖ reasoning compared to creationist views.

86 effect is about logically and objectively posing the same question but presenting in a different order or format. In contrast, the emphasizing framing effect does not necessarily mean logically same question. Rather, this effect focuses on some aspects of an issue. According to Druckman, the emphasizing framing effect is about substantively different consideration or criterion of the issues.

Most poll questions are simplified complex issues with potential for this emphasizing framing effect. In studying framing effects on science, media and public policy, Nisbet and

Mooney (2007) argue that on the issue of teaching intelligent design in public schools, the anti- evolutionist and the scientist community have adopted different frames; while anti-evolutionist promoted teach the controversy frames, scientists focused on a more science intensive response ignoring religious beliefs.

In his recent book titled ―In the beginning, Lienesch (2007) traces how the anti- evolutionists adopted and changed the strategy to promote creationism in public school. In the case of the Cobb County, Georgia, School Board declared evolution to be a disputed view, and then called on teachers to discuss the concept in the interests of ―balanced education,‖ ―critical thinking,‖ and ―tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion.‖ These are examples of an emphasizing framing effect. The presentation of information or arguments is not always neutral.

The more contentious the issue, the more sensitivity to question variations displayed by the respondent. As Olson argues in his film, Flocks of Dodos (Olson 2006), how the scientist communicates with laypersons—i.e., how to deliver basic concepts and crucial aspects of the theory of evolution—should matter.

The issue framing theory explores the effect of questionnaire design on the public‘s attitudes toward evolution. The proponents of creationism in the society characterize evolution

87 as ―just a theory‖ rather than ―fact,‖ to promote support for equal treatment in public school

(Jelen 2009, chap. 8; Newport 2006; Forrest 2007; Mooney 2005). Given that there is a very little empirical research on the effect of question framing on this issue, this explanation can be developed by experimental questionnaire design with alternative frames. Overall, not many empirical studies support these theories due to lack of survey data and sophisticated analytic power.

Hypotheses

Based on literature review and preliminary data analysis, the proposed hypotheses in theoretical part are as follows:

H1: Scientific Literacy—the level of scientific literacy will vary across different belief systems in regarding evolution.

The relationship between Americans‘ beliefs in human evolution and scientific knowledge of it is not linear. In other words, the degree of scientific knowledge influences differently in each belief systems; for instance, scientific literacy will predict better in natural evolution belief, but not in intelligent design.

H2: Religious Fundamentalism—Religious fundamentalism is a significant factor in shaping public acceptance or rejection of evolution. Specifically, Christian fundamentalists are more likely to reject the idea of human evolution than are non- fundamentalists.

H3: Authoritarianism—Psychological traits, Right-wing-authoritarian is a significant driving force in acceptance or rejection of human evolution. Those who score highly on authoritarianism are more likely to reject the idea of human evolution than those with less authoritarian views.

88 H4: Socio-demographic factors, party identification and primary demographical indicators will be statistically significant predictors of the attitudes toward human evolution.

H4.1: Party identification—Republicans are more likely to reject human evolution theory while Democrats are more likely to accept it.

H4.2: Female—Women are more likely to reject human evolution theory while men are more likely to support it.

H4.3: Age—the older generation are more likely to reject human evolution theory than their younger counterparts.

H4.4: Education—the higher the levels of educational attainment, the more likely the respondent will be to accept human evolution.

H4.5: Region of residence—the respondents who reside in Southern states will be more likely to reject human evolution than their counterparts in other regions.

Data and Method of Analyses

As in chapter 3 of this dissertation, the analyses in this chapter use survey data collected by Harris Interactive in 2008. The dependent variables are the three evolution measures discussed in detail in chapter 3: the modified Gallup question, the GSS question, and the Harris five worldviews items.

Predictor Variables

This analysis included the following groups of predictor variables: age, race, gender, education, and region; religious affiliation and identities, church attendance, beliefs about the existence of God, and views of the Bible; factual knowledge of general science (10 items) and evolutionary science (5 genetic literacy question such as the age of earth, universe etc.); familiarity with evolutionary biology concepts (adaptation, natural selection, genetic mutation,

89 speciation and genetic drift); a standardized scale measuring the personality construct of Right-

Wing Authoritarianism (20 items); and political party identification.

Socio-Demographic Variables

Age

Age is included in the analysis because it is related to education, religion and scientific knowledge. Given a rapid development of science and technology in society, younger people are expected to be exposed to new findings more and quickly than their counterparts. In addition, older people are generally more religious and conservative on social and political issues. It is hypothesized that younger people are more likely to endorse the theory of evolution than their older counterparts.

Gender

Previous research has shown that women are generally more religious than men and biblical literalism is positively related to race (Blacks), women, and less educated individuals

(Steensland et al. 2000). Given the higher level of religious commitment of females than males, it is hypothesized that women will be more likely to hold theistic views about the origin and development of human beings. In terms of attitudes toward science, previous research shows that women are less supportive of science than are men (Aldrich 1978; Bak 2001; Fox and

Firebaugh 1992; Schlesinger and Heldman 2001) and science knowledge is higher among whites, men, and those with higher educational attainment (Norman et al. 2001; Losh 2006). For logistic analysis, female is included as a dummy variable.

Race

In light of the relationship between race and religion, race is included in this analysis. Given that African-American Protestants are more conservative than their white counterparts on social

90 issues such as abortion and homosexuality (Wald and Calhoun-Brown 2007), and the alleged relationship between the theory of evolution and eugenics (Haisan 1996; Weikart 2004; Ham and Ware 2007), it is hypothesized that blacks are less supportive of the theory of evolution.

Education

It is well known that the level of educational attainment is positively related to scientific literacy and acceptance of evolution (Miller et al. 2006, 2008; Ecklund and Scheitle 2007). Educational attainment was measured with a five-category ordinal variable: 1 ―High school grad or less,‖ 2

―High school grad or less,‖ 3 ―Associate degree,‖ 4 ―College grad - 4 year,‖ and 5 ―Post graduate.‖

Region

In the literature the region of respondent is related to one‘s party identification, ideology and religious traits. Previous research shows respondents‘ attitude toward evolution is related to region (Mazur 2005; Pew Research Center 2007). Urban, suburban or rural dwellers show different attitudes toward political, social, or religious issues. As a Pew study (2007)41 demonstrates, southern states are quite distinguishable from other regions based on religious measures: the importance of religion in people's lives, frequency of attendance at worship services, frequency of prayer and absolute certainty of belief in God. Urban or rural variable is unavailable in the Harris 2008 data. Four regions included in this data are East, West, South, and Midwest. For logistic regression, a dummy variable is coded so that South is ―1‖

41Pew Research Center 2007 ―How religious is your state?‖http://www.pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your- State-.aspx. Four measures were used in this survey: the importance of religion in one‘s life, frequency of church attendance, frequency of prayer, and belief in God. According to these measures, the Magnolia state, Mississippi is the most religious—ranked 1st on all four measures. States ranked lowest on the measures were New Hampshire/Vermont and Alaska among others.

91 Party Identification

Self-reported political affiliation is a strong force shaping public perception and behavior in society. Given the Republican Party‘s alliance with the conservative Christian movement and its role in the opposition to the teaching of evolution in public school, respondent‘s party identification and ideology are expected to be associated with one‘s attitudes toward human evolution (Deckman 2002; Miller et al. 2006; The Gallup Poll 2012; Jost 2006; Mooney 2005;

Nisbet 2005). Partisanship was measured using the standard branching NES instrument in which respondents were initially asked ―Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself? … Republican, Democrat, Independent/no party affiliation, Other party‖

Respondents who chose either the Democratic or Republican Party were then asked ―Would you call yourself a strong [Democrat/Republican] or a not very strong [Democrat/Republican]?‖

All other respondents were then asked ―Do you lean more toward [the Republican Party or toward the Democratic Party]42?‖

By combing responses to these questions, party identification is measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 as ―strong Republican‖ to 7 as ―strong Democrat.‖ Political conservatism is measured by a 7-point variable ranging from ―very conservative‖ to ―very liberal‖.

Religious factors

Religion is a very strong factor in American political behavior. Voluminous literature shows links between partisanship and political ideology, and its influences on American politics

(Kohut et al. 2000; Guth, Kellstedt, Smidt, and Green 2006; Olson 2006; Green 2003, 2007 ;

Layman 2001 ; Carsey and Layman 2006; to name a representative few).

42The order was rotated in the survey.

92 Religious Affiliation

With respect to beliefs about human evolution, conservative Christian denominations are generally less accepting than more liberal denominations (Scott 2004). In particular,

Evangelical Protestants‘ resistance to the theory of evolution has been consistently shown in the literature (Eckberg and Nesterenko 1985; Ellison and Musick 1995; Lerner 2000; Deckman

2004; Mazur 2005, 2007, 2010; Miller et al. 2006; Putzer and Berkman 2008; Scott 2004).

In the 2008 Harris survey analysis, a religious affiliation question was asked as follows:

―These days many people have a religious preference and others are not part of any organized religion…. What is your current religious preference? …With regard to religion, what do you consider yourself?‖ The explicit categories presented online to respondents for this item were:

1= ―Buddhist‖ 2= ―Catholic‖ 3= ―Christian‖ 4 ― Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

(LDS)/ Mormon‖ 5= ―Eastern Orthodox/Greek Orthodox‖ 6= ―Hindu‖ 7 = ―Jehovah‘s Witness‖

8 = ―Jewish‖ 9 = ―Muslim/Islamic‖ 10 = ―Native American‖ 11= ―Protestant‖ 12=

―Pagan/Wiccan‖ 96 = ―Other‖ 14= ―Agnostic‖ 15= ―Atheist‖ 98= ―None‖ 99= ―Decline to answer.‖ Respondents who identified themselves as either ―Christian‖ or ―Protestant‖ and who also report to having ―born-again‖ experience are classified as ―Evangelical Protestant.‖

Some scholars regard views of the Bible as a proxy to measure Evangelical Protestant.

Following Wuthnow (1988), Hunter (1991) and Davis & Robinson (1996), I treat Evangelical

Protestant a distinct dimension from Christian Orthodoxy to measure the unique effect of the interpretation of the Bible on human evolution beliefs. Finally, a religious preference item is transformed into a five-category (not an ordinal variable) religious affiliation variable: 1=

―Mainline Protestant‖ 2 = ―Evangelical Protestant‖ 3 = ―Catholic‖ 4 = ―Unaffiliated‖ and 5 =

―Other religions.‖

93 The proportion of each tradition is: Mainline Protestant (22.4%), Evangelical Protestant

(23.9%), Catholic (20.4%), Unaffiliated (17.2%), and Other religions (16.1%) which include

Eastern Orthodox/Greek Orthodox, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS)/

Mormon, Hindu, Jehovah‘s Witness, Jewish, Buddhists, Muslim/Islam, and Native American.

For logistic regression, a dummy variable is created to measure a predictive power of being

Evangelical Protestants on views about human evolution.

Church Attendance

Church attendance is a well proven indicator of religiosity and previous studies have shown that church attendance is related to most aspects of the evolution/creation controversy

(Deckman 2002; Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2008; Lombrozo et al. 2008).

Church attendance in the 2008 Harris survey was measured by asking respondents how frequently they attend church services. The nine-categories were: 1 = ―Never,‖ 2 = ―Less than once a year,‖ 3 = ―Once or twice a year,‖4 = ―Several times a year,‖ 5 = ―About once a month,‖

6 = ―Two to three times a month,‖ 7 = ―Nearly every week,‖ 8 = ―Once a week,‖ and9 =

―Several times a week.‖ This nine- category variable was transformed to a four-category ordinal variable for brevity: 1 = ―Once a week or more often,‖ 2 = ―Once/Twice/Several times a month,‖

3 = ―Once/Twice/Several times a year,‖ and 4 = ―Never.‖

This four distinct categories have about equal distribution (Mean= 2.81, SD = 1.048).

For multivariate logistic regression analysis, a dummy variable is included (frequent church attendance measured by more than once a week, and coded ―1‖). Frequent church attendance

(more than once a week) is expected to be negatively related to acceptance of natural evolution while positively related to endorsing God-related evolution.

94 Beliefs in God’s Existence

Certainty of belief in God‘s existence is another strong indicator of one‘s attitude toward religion-related issues. A five-category ordinal variable was used in the Harris poll to measure a respondent‘s belief in God‘s existence. Each respondent was asked: ―Which statement best describes your beliefs about the existence of God?‖ 1= ―I believe that God does not exist‖, 2=

―I am not sure as to whether God exists or not‖, 3 = ―I am somewhat sure that God exits‖, 4= ―I am mostly sure that God exists,‖ 5 = ―I am absolutely certain that God exists.‖ The categories for this question were also randomly assigned in two forms; (1) in the described sequence or (2) in reverse order.

For logistic regression analysis, a dummy variable is created (―I am absolutely certain that God exists‖ is coded 1, otherwise 0). Absolute belief in God‘s existence is hypothesized to be positively related to God-related views about human evolution, creationism in particular.

Views of the Bible

Previous studies have shown that biblical literalism is a strong indicator of religious fundamentalism (though religious fundamentalism indicates orthodox Jews and Muslims, the number of these populations is very small, and here, I focus on religious fundamentalism within

Christianity) and its links to political attitudes (Green and Guth 1991;Kellstedt and Smidt 1993;

Mockabee 2007; Mockabee, Monson and Grant 2001; Layman and Green 2005; Welch, Tittle, and Grasmick 2006; Berkman, Pacheco, and Plutzer 2008; Sherkat 2011; Miller 2011).

Each respondent in the Harris poll was asked about their agreement with each of the following statements about the Bible. The response categories were also systematically rotated to minimize response order effects. The response categories were: (1) ―The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word‖, (2) ―The Bible is the inspired word of

95 God but not everything in it should be taken literally‖, (3) ―The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man‖, and (4) ―Not at all sure.‖

For logistic regression modeling, each response was made into a dummy variable. It is hypothesized that a literal interpretation of the Bible is positively related to belief in creationism while a view of the Bible as a book of fables is positively related to belief in natural evolution.

Scientific Literacy Variables

The Harris 2008 survey includes a battery of items measuring scientific knowledge and familiarity with evolutionary concepts. Previous findings have shown a positive relationship between acceptance of human evolution and scientific knowledge (Miller et al. 2006; Coalition of Scientific Societies Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 2008) and biology science in particular. In the present study, it is hypothesized that respondents who perform better on general or evolutionary science knowledge assessment will be more likely to accept human evolution.

General Science knowledge

The Harris survey contained multiple batteries of both items measuring general knowledge of science and as well as genetic science knowledge in particular. General scientific knowledge was measured with 10 items and used five categories: 1 = ―Definitely false,‖ 2 =

―Probably false,‖ 3 = ―Probably true,‖ 4 = ―Definitely true‖ and 8 = ―Not at all sure.‖ To construct an additive index for general scientific knowledge, I first created a dichotomous variable (1= ―correct,‖ and 0 = ―incorrect‖) for each item; I then summed these responses into an overall index. The index of general science knowledge thus ranged from zero to 10. The reliability of this index was quite strong (alpha = .87). (Please see the Appendix for question wording of the items.) The 2008 Harris Survey replicated the GSS science knowledge

96 questions,43 but in this data analysis the human evolution item was separated from general science items.

Evolutionary Science Knowledge

To measure evolutionary science knowledge, five items were used with the same response categories as the general science knowledge items: 1 = ―Less than 10,000 years old‖ 2

= ―10,000 to 100,000 years old‖ 3 = ―Hundreds of thousands of years old‖ 4 = ―Millions of years old‖ 5 = ―Billions of years old‖ 6 = ―Trillions of years old,‖ and 8 = ―Not at all sure.‖ The index of evolutionary science knowledge was based on the following items: ―Approximately how old is the Earth? Even if you are not sure, please give us your best guess,‖ ―Approximately how old is the Universe?‖ ―About how long ago did the last Dinosaur exist on Earth?‖ ―About how long ago did modern humans (homo sapiens) develop?‖ ―About how long ago did modern human beings (homo sapiens) begin to migrate across the world from the continent where they originally developed?‖ The index of evolutionary science knowledge ranges from zero to five.

The reliability of this index was also quite strong (alpha = .87).

Familiarity with Genetic Biology Concepts

In addition to scientific and evolutionary literacy, the survey assessed respondents‘ familiarity with evolutionary biology concepts. The Index of familiarity was based on responses to five items with the same four-categories ranging from 1 = ―Not at all familiar‖ to 4= ―Very familiar.‖ Each respondent was asked the following questions: ―Next, how familiar are you with each of the following concepts in evolutionary biology?—Adaptation, Natural selection,

43In 2008, GSS includes following 10 items: The center of earth is very hot; Father gene decides sex of baby; Electrons are smaller than atoms; Universe began with a huge explosion; The continents have been moving; Human beings developed from animals; Earth goes around the sun; All radioactivity is man-made; Lasers work by focusing sound waves; Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria. In 2010, GSS includes one more question to these 10 items: ―how long the earth goes around the sun.‖

97 Genetic mutation, Speciation, and Genetic drift.‖ Scores on the index of familiarity with genetic biology concepts ranged from 5 to 20. The distribution of responses on these items showed that about 22.8 percent of respondents fell into a ―very low‖ familiarity group (familiarity scale score= 5) whereas about the same percent (20.2 percent) fell into a ―very high‖ familiarity group, which included respondents whose familiarity scale score was 15 or higher. The

Cronbach‘s alpha level for this index was very high (.92).

Psychological Variables

Right-Wing-Authoritarianism

A number of studies in the literature have found that religiosity, particularly Christian fundamentalism, is a key predictor of one‘s beliefs about human evolution. However, few if any studies have analyzed psychological variables that may also mediate and explain attitudes regarding human evolution (Mazur 2005). This is due to in large part to the lack of relevant- empirical measures. For example, in Mazur‘s (2005) investigation, the only psychological variable used to help explain attitudes toward human evolution was dogmatism as measured in the NORC GSS. Over the past several decades Altemeyer and his associates (Altemeyer 1988,

1996) have revitalized the theoretical construct of authoritarianism and its relationship to religion and politics with their careful development of the Right Wing Authoritarianism scale

(RWA).

While some critics argue that the RWA scale uses many items that are conceptually similar to the dependent variables being predicted (Feldman 2003; Feldman and Stenner 1997;

Stenner 2005; Hetherington and Suhay 2011), the RWA scale is nonetheless highly useful for explaining the underlying psychological dimension of one‘s views on human evolution and thus is included in this investigation.

98 The Right-Wing-Authoritarianism Scale in 2008 Harris data is a 22-item and with only

20 items being scored (Altemeyer 2006). Each item is rated according a 9-pointLikert scale ranging from -4 ―Very strongly disagree‖ to +4 ―Very strongly agree.‖ These scores are then converted to 9-point system in which -4 = 1, +4 = 9, and neutral = 5. The scores are then summed to create a composite score ranging from 20 to 180, with higher scores indicating greater authoritarian attitudes. The Cronbach‘s alpha level for the RWA scale in the 2008 Harris survey was very high (.90: see Appendix for question wording and variable construction details.)44

Need for Cognition

The notion of ―need for cognition‖ is conceptualized by Cacioppo and Petty (1982) and refers to ―the tendency for people to vary in the extent to which they engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities‖ (Petty et al. 2009, p. 318). It is measured by several statements with agreement/disagreement type. It actually does not measure the frequencies of cognitive activities; however, research has shown the validity and reliability of this measurement over time (Cacioppo et al. 1996). Since the first measure of the need for cognition (18 items), scholarly efforts have made a shorter version of it. Following Cacioppo and colleagues‘ work

(1982, 1996), Bizer and others developed two items measuring need for cognition and tested them in the 1998 NES pilot study. They found a statistically significant relationship between high need for cognition and political behavior such as more active involvement in elections, more exposure to news media and more emotional reactions to candidates, whereas low need

44I conducted a factor analysis of the Right-wing authoritarianism scale of 20 items. This analysis produced three factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1(9.9502.398, and 1.097, respectively). The total variance explained by these factors is 61 percent. However, the first factor which has Eigenvalue of 9.950 explained most variance (45 %). The factor loadings of the 20 items ranged from 0.79 to 0.85.

99 for cognition is more likely to be related to ‗don‘t know‘ answers during the survey process.

(Bizer et al. 2000)

Previous research on the need for cognition has shown that people who score high in the measurement of this notion tend to think carefully and make an effort to collect extensive information whereas those who are in low need for cognition tend to have little motivation for those activities. Studies in authoritarianism suggest that high authoritarianism is related to low levels of cognitive power (for a review, see Stenner 2005). Previous studies (Hetherington and

Weiler 2009, p. 53) support cognition differences among different levels of authoritarianism.

Based on the analysis of the NES‘s need of cognition measure and authoritarianism scale,

Hetherington and Weiler (2009) contend that those who score high in authoritarianism are more likely to have a low level of cognitive power.

In the 2008 Harris Interactive survey, a battery of items measure individuals‘ preference to thinking a lot or deeply. These items were given to subsamples of the Harris respondents

(n=3,621). The remaining randomly selected respondents were given the Right-Wing-

Authoritarian items (n =1,005). Therefore, it is impossible to analyze the relation between cognitive type and the level of authoritarianism in the present study.

The three questions are measuring whether respondents like/dislike being in situations that require a lot of thinking, which type of problems they prefer, and whether they like/dislike thinking deeply about an issue. The question measuring cognitive type is as follows: ―Some people prefer to solve simple problems instead of complex ones, whereas other people prefer to solve more complex problems. Which type of problem do you prefer to solve… simple, or complex?‖ This question may tap into respondent‘s cognitive-orientation—cognitive rigidity or flexibility. To measure need for cognition, I use an additive scale using these three questions

100 indicating a higher score is high in need for cognition. Put another way, respondents who are in high score on this measure tend more likely to be complex type problem solvers and like thinking a lot or deeply about an issue. Taken together, since the very concept of evolution theory is counterintuitive and therefore needs more cognitive effort to comprehend, it is hypothesized that those who prefer to solve simple type problems will be less likely to endorse natural evolution. Conversely those are complex problem solvers will be more likely to believe in natural evolution.

101 Method of Data Analyses

The goal of this chapter is to seek to model the structure of beliefs about and attitudes toward the origin and the development of human beings. To measure explanatory power of demographic, political, religious, scientific literacy, and psychological factors, three dependent variables—the modified Gallup question, the GSS question, and the Harris Five views question—were examined. Each dependent variable was analyzed separately with the same set of independent variables. Predicted probabilities of each view about human evolution by all independent variables will be shown and selected predictors will be discussed.

Binary Logistic Regression Analysis with SPSS

To further investigate the predictors of each response category, binary logistic regression analysis will be employed. Logistic regression is a statistical method for analyzing a dataset in which there are one or more independent variables that determine an outcome. The dependent variable is measured with a dichotomous variable while independent variables can be either categorical or continuous since unlike other linear regression, logistic regression makes no assumption about the distribution of the independent variables. They do not have to be normally distributed, linearly related or of equal variance within each group (Long 1997).

In binary logistic regression, the dependent variable is binary or dichotomous (i.e., it only contains data coded as 1 or 0 such as success/failure or membership/non-membership).

Therefore, each response was transformed into a dummy variable.

The goal of logistic regression is to find the best fitting model to describe the relationship between the dependent variable and a set of independent (predictor or explanatory) variables (Agresti 1996; Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). It allows determining the effect size of

102 the independent variables on the dependent variable; therefore it is possible to rank the relative importance of independents in terms of odds ratios (Exp(B) in SPSS analysis).

In this study, each logistic regression model will perform correct prediction of group membership (e.g., whether to endorse ―Creationism‖ or not) by calculating the probability or success over the probability of failure. Therefore, the result of the analysis is shown as odds ratio of each predictor. SPSS calculates and generates the odds ratio of each independent variable with the dependent variable and labels this as Exp(B). It is the predicted change in odds for a unit increase in the corresponding independent variable. Odds ratios less than 1 correspond to decreases. Odds ratios close to 1.0 indicate that unit changes in that independent variable do not affect the dependent variable. However, odds ratios are not intuitive to interpret the result

(Pedhazur 1997; Cohen et al. 2003; Osborne 2011, 2012). For this reason, the odd ratios will be converted to predicted probabilities for accuracy and ease of interpretation. The process of this method will be discussed later.

The first step in logistic regression modeling is to assess the overall model fit—that is, how well the model describes the observed data. Unlike OLS (Ordinary Least Squares) regression, logistic regression does not have R2 which indicates the proportion of variance explained with predictor variables in the model. Instead, many different statistics are used to assess the fit of the chosen model. One of the statistics which is similar to R-square in OLS regression, a ―pseudo‖ R2 measures a proportion in terms of the log likelihood. Given that there are several types of pseudo R-square in logistic regression which assess a model‘s fit in different ways, no single pseudo-R2 is universally used. However, usually Nagelkerke R2 is preferred because it achieves a maximum value of 1, unlike the Cox and Snell pseudo R2

(Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino 2006, p. 239).

103 Another commonly used statistic to assess overall model fit is Hosmer-Lemeshow Test

(Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000).The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic is computed as the Pearson chi-square from the contingency table of observed frequencies and expected frequencies. Similar to a test of association of a two-way table, a good fit as measured by

Hosmer and Lemeshow's test will yield a large p-value. The smaller the differences in expected and observed counts, the smaller the overall variance, therefore, a large p-value indicates a good fit. Put another way, a large value of chi-squared (with small p-value < 0.05) indicates a poor fit and small chi-squared values (with larger p-value closer to 1) indicate a good logistic regression model fit. The regression results will be presented with each independent value‘s predicted probabilities (Anderton and Cheney 2009, p. 291)

104 Findings from Data Analyses

I employ two step analysis; cross-tabular analysis and logistic regression analysis. This section consists of three parts and the three measures will be examined and discussed in each part.

Modified Gallup Standard Question

Descriptive Analysis

By adding two explicit response options –―None of these comes close to my beliefs‖ and

―Not at all sure which is true‖—this modified Gallup standard question allows respondents to expand their choices. As shown Table 4-1 below, the distribution of each response is quite different from the standard Gallup question which has been used for almost 30 years. First, a sizable portion of respondents chose two added response categories; ten percent chose ―None of these comes close to my beliefs‖ and 14 percent to ―Not at all sure which is true.‖ Surprisingly, respondents who chose either ―none of these comes close to my beliefs‖ or ―not at all sure‖ take up almost a quarter (24 percent) of the total respondents. In the 2008 Gallup Poll (May 2008),

36 percent of respondents endorsed ―God-guided evolution,‖ 44 percent choose ―creationism‖, and 14 percent choose ―natural evolution.‖ The remaining 5 percent of the public were reported as ―No Opinion‖ group. In this modified Gallup question, the portion of ―Natural Evolution‖ is not very different from that of the 2008 Gallup Poll. However, much fewer respondents endorsed either ―God-guided evolution‖ (25.6% vs. 36%) or ―Creationism‖ (44% vs. 34.7%) indicating those who feel uncertain or ambivalent about the origin and the development of human beings may be engaging in satisficing in the original Gallup survey. In the conventional

105 poll results, respondents who answered any of options that are usually collapsed as ―Don‘t

Know/Not sure/Refusal‖ group tend to be dropped from the results tables.

Table 4-1: Distribution of Modified Gallup Evolution Question

Response Percent N God-guided Evolution 25.6% 1,185 Natural Evolution 15.8% 733 Creationism 34.7% 1,604 None of these 9.6% 446 Not at all sure 14.2% 658 Total 100% 4,626 Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

In this section I cross-tabulate the modified Gallup question to identify each subgroup‘s characteristics. The results of Chi-square tests suggest that there are statistically significant relationships between one‘s views about the origin of human beings and all of the independent variables examined. There is a stark contrast between the group of natural evolution believers and that of creationism in terms of various attributes. For instance, more females tend to be creationism believers while more males are willing to accept natural evolution as true. In the conventional poll results, respondents who answered any of options that are usually collapsed as

―Don‘t Know/Not sure/Refusal‖ group and tend to be disregarded in the reporting of results; however, given the percent of these groups in modified Gallup standard question, it is worth looking closely at their demographic profile and comparing them to other response groups.

Below Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 present the distribution of each response and the profiles of respondents who chose that response category.

The profiles of these two groups—―None of these comes to close to my belief‖ and

―Not at all sure which is true‖—are different. Respondents who reported ―none of these comes

106 close to my beliefs‖ tend to be either Democrats or Independents and have no religious affiliation or other religion, are less certain about God‘s existence, or do not hold specific views about the Bible; however, they tend to have high levels of both general and evolutionary scientific knowledge and to be highly familiar with evolutionary biology concepts. These respondents tend to be in the low RWA category.

107 Table 4-2: Demographic Summary: Gallup “None of these comes close to my beliefs”

Total Respondents None of these % Demographic Summary (N=4,626) comes close to my Difference belief (N=446) Percent N Percent N Female 51.5 2,383 55.4 247 3.9 Age_Under 30 21.2 1,021 18.6 83 -2.6 Over 60 20.6 955 23.5 105 2.9 White 69.7 3,224 64.9 289 -4.8 Southern 33.2 1,536 34.8 155 1.6 Education: Less Than High School 4.7 218 4.7 21 0 College graduate /above 26.3 1,217 29.7 132 3.4 Democrats 36.2 1,674 38.0 169 1.8 Republican 30.1 1,393 24.5 109 -5.6 Independent 33.7 1,561 37.5 167 3.8 Evangelical Protestant 23.0 1,105 23.1 103 0.1 Roman Catholic 20.4 944 16.0 71 -4.4 Unaffiliated 17.2 794 21.3 95 4.1 Other religions 16.1 747 22.6 101 6.5 Church attendance(More than once a week) 24.7 1,141 25.1 112 .4 Belief in God(Almost or absolutely sure about 73.1 3,381 66.3 295 -6.8 God‘s existence) Bible taken literally 23.4 1,084 20.4 91 -3.0 Bible book of fables 25.5 1,177 31.0 138 5.5 General science knowledge (60% or More Correct) 61.0 2,823 68.4 305 7.4

Evolutionary science knowledge (60% or More 11.9 548 17.3 77 5.4 Correct) Familiarity with evolution concepts(High or Very 37.2 1,720 42.2 188 5.0 High) Authoritarianism45 (High or Very High) 9.5 437 29.7 20 20.2

Less educated people are more likely to be in the ―Not at all sure‖ group. They tend to

be non-evangelical Christians who rarely or never go to church. Similar to the ―None of these‖

response group, they are not sure about God‘s existence or views about the Bible; however,

these groups have very low level of general and evolutionary scientific knowledge. Also, they

are more likely to be very unfamiliar with evolutionary biology concepts. Interestingly, those

who are not certain about the origins of human beings tend to be in the high RWA category

45Subsample size of this item is 1005.

108 (about 44 percent of these respondents fall in either ―high‖ or ―very high‖ RWA category). As

summarized above, the characteristics of the respondent group of ―none of these‖ and that of

―not at all sure‖ are clearly different. This may contribute to Gallup‘s overestimation of the

Creationism group.

Table 4-3: Demographic Summary: Gallup “Not at all sure”

Total Respondents Not at all sure which Demographic Summary (N=4,626) is true (N=658) % Difference Percen N Percent N Female 51.5t 2,383 54.9 361 3.4 Age_Under 30 21.2 1,021 21.9 144 0.7 Over 60 20.6 955 23.3 153 2.7 White 69.7 3,224 70.4 463 0.7 Southern 33.2 1,536 30.2 199 -3.0 Education: Less Than High School 4.7 218 6.3 41 1.6 College graduate or above 26.3 1,217 18.2 119 -8.1 Democrats 36.2 1,674 39.2 258 3.0 Republican 30.1 1,393 20.1 132 -10.0 Independent 33.7 1,561 40.7 268 7.0 Evangelical Protestant 23.0 1,105 7.8 51 -15.2 Roman Catholic 20.4 944 23.6 155 3.2 Unaffiliated 17.2 794 25.1 165 7.9 Other religions 16.1 747 21.1 139 5.0 Church attendance(More than once a week) 24.7 1,141 8.7 57 -16.0 Belief in God(Almost or absolutely sure about 73.1 3,381 56.3 370 -16.8 God‘s existence) Bible taken literally 23.4 1,084 10.3 68 -13.1 Bible book of fables 25.5 1,177 27.7 182 2.2 General science knowledge (60% or More 61.0 2,823 46.0 303 -15.0 Correct) Evolutionary science knowledge (60% or 11.9 548 7.9 52 -4.0 More Correct) Familiarity with evolution concepts(High or 37.2 1,720 23.5 154 -13.7 Very High) Authoritarianism46 (High or Very High) 9.5 437 41.9 62 32.4

46Subsample size of this item is 1005.

109 Multi-nominal Logistic Regression for the Modified Gallup question

Due to the nature of the dependent variable, I employ multinomial logistic regression to examine the predictive power of independent variables on each response category. Multi- nominal logistic regression is the extension for the binary logistic regression in the sense that the only difference is the number of categories of the dependent variable (Hosmer and

Lemeshow 2000).The modified Gallup question has five response categories. Compared to binary logistic regression, a multinomial logistic model requires a reference group to compare other categories on dependent variable (Long 1997, 2000). It makes most sense to use the

―natural evolution‖ response category as the reference group because the focus of this study is acceptance or rejection of evolution. By ―evolution‖ here I refer strictly to ―natural evolution‖ or ―non-theistic evolution.‖

The modified Gallup question has five response categories: (1) God-guided evolution, (2)

Natural evolution, (3) Creationism, (4) None of these, and (5) Not at all sure. The reference group in this case is the second category, ―Natural Evolution.‖ The independent variables are the same for all prediction models in this study, as described above: Demographics, Political factors, Scientific Literacy, Religious factors, and psychological factor (the Right-wing- authoritarianism index).

Unlike linear regression, multinomial logistic regression does not make any assumptions of normality, linearity, and homogeneity of variance for the independent variables.

However, it requires an effective sample size. The minimum sample size is 10 to 20 cases per independent variable (Hosmer and Lemshow 2000). The data set has 1,005 cases and 12 independent variables for a ratio of 84 to 1. This well exceeds this criterion. The SPSS program does not automatically identify multicollinearity problem. However, the standard error of each

110 independent‘s coefficient (B) shows no sign of multicollinearity. No independent variable exceeds standard error of 2 or higher.

The model fitting information table suggests there is a statistically significant improvement in the model associated with the all independent variables compared to intercept- only model (χ2 = 1868.590, df = 136, p <.000). In other words, there is a significant relationship between the dependent variable and the set of independent variables. The value of

NagelkerkeR2 indicates the strong relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables. Analogous to R-square, overall 72 percent of the variance can be explained by this model.

In determining the statistically significant variables in the model, two test results show either overall relationship between independent variables and dependent variable, or the role of each independent variable in differentiating between the groups specified by the dependent variable. The former is the likelihood ratio test. This test shows the significant contributors among independent variables in reduction of error in the model. According to this test, age over

60, White, Evangelical Protestant, religiously unaffiliated, belief in God, views of the Bible

(literal interpretation or the Bible as a book of fables), general and evolutionary scientific literacy, and the Right-wing-authoritarian index are all statistically significant contributors to explaining differences in choosing beliefs about human origins. The latter is the Parameter

Estimates table (See Table.4-4). Below I describe overall model fit of each model and statistically significant contributors to each model—God-guided evolution, Creationism, ―None of these,‖ and ―Not at all sure‖ category— compared to the reference category (―Natural

Evolution‖ group).

111 Table 4-4: Multinominal Logistic Regression Results for the Modified Gallup question47

95% Confidence B S.E. Sig. Exp (B) Interval for Exp(B) Lower Upper “God-guided” vs. “Natural Evolution” Intercept -2.990 1.91 .119 General Science .243 .1016 .016 1.275 1.047 1.553 Belief in God (Not sure about) -4.922 .756 .000 .007 .002 .032 Bible_Not taking literally 1.941 .913 .033 6.968 1.164 41.717 Bible_Not a book of fables 1.697 .432 .000 5.457 2.341 12.719 “Creationism” vs. “Natural Evolution” Intercept -4.635 1.99 .020 Evolution Science -.560 .1465 .000 .571 .429 .760 The RWA .043 .008 .000 1.044 1.028 1.060 Male -.838 .368 .023 .433 .210 .889 White 2.263 .659 .001 9.613 2.641 34.985 Hispanic 1.640 .779 .035 5.154 1.120 23.727 Democrat-leaning Independents 2.039 .615 .001 7.680 2.302 25.629 Religion_Unaffiliated -1.332 .650 .040 .264 .074 .943 Church attendance_Several times a year .879 .442 .046 2.409 1.014 5.724 God does not exist -4.123 1.07 .000 .016 .002 .133 Not sure as to God‘s existence -5.307 .9956 .000 .005 .001 .035 Somewhat sure God exists -2.736 .905 .002 .065 .011 .382 Mostly sure God exists -3.112 .743 .000 .045 .010 .191 Bible_Not a book of fables 2.017 .505 .000 7.514 2.791 20.232 “None of these” vs. “Natural Evolution” Intercept .255 1.89 .893 Male -.824 .3495 .018 .439 .221 .870 Education_Less than High School -2.840 1.24 .023 .058 .005 .672 God does not exist -3.851 .9116 .000 .021 .004 .127 Not sure as to God‘s existence -2.717 .706 .000 .066 .017 .263 Bible_Not a book of fables 1.186 .440 .007 3.275 1.382 7.764

47Note47: R2=.72 (Nagelkerke). Model χ2 (132) = 1165.326, p <.001.

112 Table 4-4: continued. Multinominal Logistic Regression Results for the Modified Gallup question48 95% Confidence B S.E. Sig. Exp (B) Interval for LowerExp(B) Upper “Not At All Sure” vs. “Natural Evolution” Intercept -.663 1.93 .732 Evolution Science -.311 .1377 .024 .733 .560 .959 The RWA .018 .007 .016 1.018 1.003 1.033 Male -.684 .349 .050 .505 .255 .999 Age < 60 -1.317 .481 .006 .268 .104 .688 White 1.384 .625 .027 3.989 1.172 13.584 Democrat-leaning Independents 1.139 .567 .045 3.125 1.028 9.498 God does not exist -4.605 1.12 .000 .010 .001 .091 Not sure as to God‘s existence -2.391 .7027 .001 .092 .023 .362 Bible_Not taking literally 1.845 .939 .050 6.328 1.004 39.901 Bible_Not a book of fables 1.153 .419 .006 3.166 1.392 7.200 Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

The God-guided evolution model:

The variables that have a statistically significant relationship to distinguishing

respondents for God-guided evolution from the ―Natural Evolution‖ group are the general

science knowledge scale, belief in God's existence, and views of the Bible. An increase on the

general science knowledge scale from 5th percentile to 95th percentile makes a respondent

about 28 percent more likely to choose the ―God-guided evolution‖ over the ―Natural Evolution‖

response. A person who is not sure about God's existence is about 93 percent less likely to favor

the ―God-guided evolution‖ over the ―Natural Evolution‖ option.

The Creationism model:

48Note: R2=.72 (Nagelkerke). Model χ2 (132) = 1165.326, p <.001.

113 The statistically significant contributors to this model are evolutionary science knowledge, the Right-wing-authoritarianism scale, being male, religious tradition, frequency of church attendance, belief in God's existence, views of the Bible. The level of evolutionary scientific knowledge influences the likelihood of a person being in the creationism group over the ―Natural Evolution‖ group. An increase on the evolutionary science knowledge scale from

5th percentile to 95th percentile makes a person about 43 percent less likely to be in the creationism group over the ―Natural Evolution‖ group. An increase on the Right-wing- authoritarianism scale from 5th percentile to 95th percentile makes a person about 4.4 percent more likely to be in the creationism group over the reference group. Compared to other races, a

White person is almost 9 times more likely to being in the creationism category over the reference category. Compared to female, male is less likely to be in the creationism group over the ―Natural Evolution‖ group.

Religious affiliation is also a strong contributor to this model. A person who is unaffiliated with any religious tradition is almost 74 percent less likely to being in the creationism category over the reference category.

Attending a church more than once a week or more increased the likelihood that a person would endorse the creationism over the ―natural evolution‖ opinion by approximately 3 times.

Beliefs in God‘s existence also contribute the likelihood of endorsing the creationism over the natural evolution answer. People who do not have a definite belief in God—absolutely certain about God's existence or non-existence—are less likely to choose the creationism over

114 the ―natural evolution‖ belief. Not taking the Bible as a book of fables makes one approximately

7.5 times more likely to be in the creationism group over the natural evolution group.

The ―None of these‖ model:

Compared to other models, only four independent variables turned out to be as statistically significant contributors to this model: male, education (less than High School), belief in God‘s existence, and views of the Bible. The odds ratios for these variables indicate the direction and strength of each variable. Male respondents are less likely to choose ―none of these‖ response over the reference response by about 56 percent. Holding less than high school degree decreases the likelihood that a person would be in the ―none of these‖ group over the

―natural evolution‖ group by about 94 percent. Respondents who do not hold absolute belief in

God‘s existence are less likely to be in the ―none of these‖ response over the reference response.

Those who do not interpret the Bible as a book of fables are more likely to be endorsing ―none of these‖ response over the ―natural evolution‖ response, by about 93 percent.

The ―Not at all sure‖ model:

The statistically significant contributors in this model are the evolutionary science knowledge, the RWA scale, male, age over 60, race, party identification, belief in God‘s existence, and views of the Bible. As the score of the evolutionary science scale increases from the 5th percentile to the 95th percentile, the likelihood of being in the ―Not at all sure‖ group over the ―Natural evolution‖ group decreases by about 27 percent. Increases in the RWA scale make a respondent more likely to be in the ―not at all sure‖ group over the ―natural evolution.‖

White respondents have almost 4 times greater odds to be in the ―not at all sure‖ group over the

―natural evolution‖ group. Those who identify with Independents leaning toward Democrat are about three times more likely to choose the ―not at all sure‖ group over the ―natural evolution‖

115 group. The respondents who believe that God‘s does not exist are less likely to be in the ―not at all sure‖ group over the reference group by about 99 percent. Those who do not take the Bible literally nor regard the Bible as a book of fables are more likely to be in the ―not at all sure‖ group over the ―natural evolution‖ group (6 times and 3 times greater odds, respectively).

GSS Evolution Item Descriptive Analysis Next, I turn to examine the question used in the General Social Survey for almost four decades to measure the public‘s scientific knowledge. The question asked, ―Now, I would like to ask you a few short questions like those you might see on a television game show. For each statement that I read, please tell me if it is true or false. If you don't know or aren't sure, just tell me so, and I will skip to the next question. Remember true, false, or don't know. Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. (Is that true or false?)‖

Table 4-5A presents the distribution of responses to this question. About 42 percent said the statement was definitely or probably false, while just over 50 percent said it was definitely or probably true and 7 percent were not at all sure.

Table 4-5A: Distribution of the GSS Evolution Question

Response Percent N Definitely False 29.6% 1,371 Probably false 12.7% 586 Probably true 27.8% 1,286 Definitely true 22.9% 1,059 Not at all sure 7.0% 323 Total 100% 4,626

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

116 As presented below in Tables 4-5B, 4-6, and 4-7, the profiles of the groups who hold strong opinions on this question are quite different from each other. The respondents who strongly reject the view that human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals are almost opposite of the respondents who strongly accept this statement as true. These two groups are very different in terms of gender, age, race, education, region, religious affiliation, church attendance, knowledge and familiarity with evolutionary biology concepts, level of the RWA index, influence of God in life and even type of problem solver.

Chi-square tests indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between one‘s views about human evolution and all independent variables examined. Demographic, social, religious, and psychological factors are all related to answers on the GSS item. In addition, the respondents who hold strong opinions are very different from those who are more ambivalent or uncertain about the origin of human life. To understand better who accepts or rejects certain explanations of human evolution, the question item should be presented to the respondent with varying degrees of intensity (Schuman and Presser 1981, 1996).

117 Table 4-5B: Findings from the GSS Evolution Question Cross-tabulation Results49

Percent N Potential predictors Definitely 29.6% 1,371 Female, older age group, Black, High School graduate, False South/Midwest resident, Republican, Christian/Protestant, Born-again, weekly church attender, Absolutely certain about God‘s existence, the Bible as an actual word of God, Having children, low general and evolutionary scientific knowledge, low level of familiarity with evolutionary concepts, very high RWA, A great deal of influence of God or another spiritual force in life, simple problem solver Definitely 22.9% 1,059 Male, younger age group, not Black, college graduate or True higher, East/West resident, Democrat/Independent, Unaffiliated religion, Not born-again, never go to church, God does not exist, Bible as an ancient book, not having children, high level of both general and evolutionary scientific knowledge, high level of familiarity with evolutionary concepts, very low RWA, no influence of God or another spiritual force in life, complex problem solver Not at all sure 7.0% 323 Female, less educated, Not Republican, Not born-again, never go to church, not sure about God‘s existence, not sure about the Bible, lowest level of both general and evolutionary scientific knowledge, very low familiarity with evolutionary concepts, high RWA

49Note: The margin of error at the 95% level of confidence for each subgroup are; plus or minus 2.7(Definitely false), 4.1(Probably false), 2.7 (Probably true), 3.0 (Definitely true).

118 Table 4-6: Demographic Summary: Natural Evolution believer in the GSS evolution question

Total Respondents Natural Evolution % Demographic Summary (N=4,626) Believer (N=2,345) Difference Percent N Percent N Female 51.5 2,383 45.3 1,062 -6.2 Age_Under 30 21.2 1,021 25.3 594 4.1 Over 60 20.6 955 18.4 432 -2.2 White 69.7 3,224 70.4 1,651 0.7 Southern 33.2 1,536 30.7 720 -2.5 Education: Less Than High School 4.7 218 3.9 91 -0.8 College graduate or above 26.3 1,217 33.0 775 6.7 Democrats 36.2 1,674 41.4 971 5.2 Republican 30.1 1,393 23.0 540 -7.1 Independent 33.7 1,561 35.6 834 1.9 Evangelical Protestant 23.0 1,105 7.7 180 -15.3 Roman Catholic 20.4 944 22.6 530 2.2 Unaffiliated 17.2 794 27.5 644 10.3 Other religions 16.1 747 18.3 430 2.2 Church attendance(More than once a week) 24.7 1,141 12.0 281 -12.7

Belief in God(Almost or absolutely sure about 73.1 3,381 55.1 1,291 -18.0 God‘s existence) Bible taken literally 23.4 1,084 7.9 186 -15.5 Bible book of fables 25.5 1,177 44.1 1,034 18.6 General science knowledge (60% or More 61.0 2,823 74.2 1,741 13.2 Correct) Evolutionary science knowledge (60% or More Correct) 11.9 548 17.5 411 5.6 Familiarity with evolution concepts(High or 37.2 1,720 48.1 1,128 10.9 Very High) Authoritarianism50 (High or Very High) 9.5 437 23.4 111 13.9

50Subsample size of this item is 1005.

119 Table 4-7: Demographic Summary: Natural Evolution Denier51 in the GSS evolution question

Total Respondents Natural Evolution % Demographic Summary (N=4,626) Denier (N=1,957 ) Difference Percent N Percent N Female 51.5 2,383 57.4 1,124 5.9 Age_Under 30 21.2 1,021 18.6 364 -2.6 Over 60 20.6 955 22.8 446 2.2 White 69.7 3,224 69.4 1,359 -0.3 Southern 33.2 1,536 36.0 704 2.8 Education: Less Than High School 4.7 218 5.2 101 0.5 College graduate or above 26.3 1,217 20.3 397 -6 Democrats 36.2 1,674 29.8 584 -6.4 Republican 30.1 1,393 40.4 791 10.3 Independent 33.7 1,561 29.8 583 -3.9 Evangelical Protestant 23.0 1,105 45.1 884 22.1 Roman Catholic 20.4 944 17.3 339 -3.1 Unaffiliated 17.2 794 4.8 93 -12.4 Other religions 16.1 747 12.7 249 -3.4 Church attendance(More than once a week) 24.7 1,141 41.8 818 17.1 Belief in God(Almost or absolutely sure about 73.1 3,381 94.9 1,858 21.8 God‘s existence) Bible taken literally 23.4 1,084 43.0 842 19.6 Bible book of fables 25.5 1,177 5.1 99 -20.4 General science knowledge (60% or More 61.0 2,823 51.1 1,000 -9.9 Correct) Evolutionary science knowledge (60% or More 11.9 548 6.5 128 -5.4 Correct) Familiarity with evolution concepts(High or 37.2 1,720 27.6 540 -9.6 Very High) Authoritarianism52 (High or Very High) 9.5 437 65.1 275 55.6

Binary Logistic Regression Analysis

To further investigate predictors of this GSS human evolution item, I perform binary

logistic regression analysis. The dependent variable here is a dichotomized variable. Those who

51Human evolution deniers refer to those who chose ―Definitely false‖ or ―Probably false‖ to the question. 52Subsample size of this item is 1005.

120 answer ―true‖ to this question are coded ―1‖, otherwise persons are coded as ―0‖. All

independent variables are the same as in the previous section. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test

results for this model (χ2 = 5.594, p =.693) indicate that the goodness of fit is satisfactory. The

Nagelkerke R2 value was .513, suggesting that the model is very useful in predicting being in

―natural evolution‖ believer.

Table 4-8A: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for the GSS evolution and the Modified Gallup evolution

GSS Human The Modified Gallup Natural Evolution Evolution coeff. s. e. sig. Exp(B) coeff. s. e. sig. Exp(B) Female -.045 .177 .799 .956 -.682 .285 .017 .506 Under 30 -.117 .219 .594 .890 .005 .341 .989 1.005 Over 60 -.484 .226 .032 .617 -.838 .413 .043 .433 White -.320 .200 .110 .726 -.351 .338 .299 .704 Southern -.139 .182 .444 .870 -.010 .321 .975 .990 Education -.133 .096 .164 .875 -.195 .153 .204 .823 Party ID .045 .057 .432 1.046 .026 .084 .754 1.027 Evangelical Protestant -1.069 .264 .000 .343 -1.742 1.449 .229 .175 Roman Catholic .152 .238 .523 1.164 -.166 .496 .738 .847 Unaffiliated .011 .304 .972 1.011 .278 .447 .535 1.320 Other religions -.040 .261 .878 .961 .375 .455 .410 1.455 Church attendance -.061 .038 .112 .941 -.090 .074 .228 .914 Belief in God -.141 .095 .140 .869 -.962 .140 .000 .382 Bible taken literally -.185 .232 .424 .831 .874 .796 .272 2.396 Bible book of fables 1.184 .257 .000 3.269 1.358 .343 .000 3.887 General science knowledge .183 .043 .000 1.200 .003 .081 .966 1.004 Evolutionary science .182 .067 .007 1.200 .184 .114 .106 1.201 knowledge Familiarity with evolution .060 .023 .010 1.061 .054 .039 .167 1.056 concepts Authoritarianism -.018 .004 .000 .982 -.014 .006 .017 .986 Constant .876 .736 .233 2.402 1.964 1.143 .086 7.124

Number of cases: 2,345 733 Correctly predicted: 77.5% 92.7% Naglekerke R-square: .513 .667 Dependent variable is coded 1 if R believes a view is true, 0 otherwise Data source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

121 As presented in Table 4-8 A, the significant variables in the model are age (over 60),

Evangelical Protestant, views of the Bible, all scientific literacy varaibles, and the Right-wing- authoritarianism scale. Age over 60 and being Evengelical Protestant, and the Right-wing- authoritarianism scale are negatively related to endorsing natural evolution in GSS.

Interestingly, certainty of belief in God‘s existence or literal interpreation of the Bible are not statistically significant predictors in the GSS model.

Table 4-8 B: Changes in Predicted Probability of Endorsing Selected View by Demographics, Religious, Science, and Psychological Factors

GSS Gallup Human Evolution Natural Evolution Female 0.51 0.49 Under 30 0.49 0.48 Over 60 0.42 0.41 White 0.49 0.48 Southern 0.49 0.48 Education 0.44 0.43 Party ID 0.54 0.55 Evangelical Protestant 0.32 0.31 Roman Catholic 0.54 0.53 Unaffiliated 0.52 0.50 Other religions 0.50 0.49 Church attendance 0.44 0.42 Belief in God 0.48 0.46 Bible taken literally 0.48 0.46 Bible book of fables 0.72 0.71 General science knowledge 0.65 0.64 Evolutionary science knowledge 0.62 0.60 Familiarity with evolution concepts 0.64 0.63 Authoritarianism 0.28 0.27 Number of cases 2,345 733 Correctly predicted 78% 93% Naglekerke R-square 0.51 0.67 The entries are changes in predicted probabilities of believing in evolution that result from moving each predictor from the 5th percentile to the 95th percentile controlling for all other independent variables in the analysis. Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

122 The GSS model shows an almost identical result to Natural evolution in the modified

Gallup qeustion. For compariability among three measures in terms of natural evolution, I conduct binary logistic regression analysis for natural evolution in the modified Gallup question.

Table 4-8 B shows the predicted probability of endorsing human evolution in GSS by all independent variables. In terms of the direction and the strength of statistically significant predictors on the dependent variable, natural evolution in the modified Gallup and that in the

GSS questions are almost identical despite wording and format differences.

In both models, age over 60, Evangelical Protestant and the Right-Wing-

Authoritarianism are negatively related to acceptance of natural evolution whereas views of the

Bible as a book of fables, and all general, evolution science knowledge and familiarity with evolutionrary concept are positively related to endorsement of natural evolution. The probability of a Evangelical Protestant person endorsing natural evolution in both the modified Gallup and the GSS model is just about .30 which is very low in probability. Those who score high in the

Right-Wing-Authoritarianism scale are far less likely than those who score low on RWA to accept natural evolution as true in both models (probability is about .28). In contrast, those who regard the Bible as a book of fables are highly likely to accept natural evolution. To a lesser degree but still statistically significant, respondents who have high scores on measures of general science, evolution science, and familiarity with evolutionary concepts, are more likely to endorse natural evolution.

Harris Interactive Five Worldviews

Descriptive Analysis

Next I turn to analysis of the five separate items asked by Harris Interactive to gauge respondents‘ views about human origins. As discussed above, each of the items presented a

123 perspective on human origins and asked respondents to indicate whether they think it is definitely true, probably true, probably false, definitely false, or are not at all sure. The degree of belief varies across the items, as shown in Table 4-9 below.

Table 4-9.: Distributions of Five Human Origins Views in Harris Interactive 2008 survey

God- God-guided Intelligent initiated Natural Creationism Evolution Design Evolution Evolution Definitely true 27% 24% 8% 9% 12% Probably true 16% 28% 25% 22% 23% Probably false 18% 19% 25% 26% 17% Definitely false 30% 20% 32% 34% 39% Not at all sure 9% 9% 11% 10% 9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

Creationism and God-guided evolution have more firm positive responses while God-initiated evolution and Natural evolution have more strong negative responses. Table 4-9also shows that intelligent design is less familiar to the respondents than other beliefs. On average, people have more negative attitudes than positive attitudes toward each belief. Given the average response percent, respondents seem more willing to hold a theory definitely false than to accept it as definitely true. Interestingly, God-guided evolution is the only theory which is viewed as more true than false (52 percent vs. 39 percent).

Logistic Regression Analysis

The analysis thus far has examined only bivariate relationships, so the numerous potential predictors of attitudes about human origins need to be subjected to a multivariate analysis in order to determine which stand out as the most important determinants. For each of the five human origins views discussed above, I estimated logistic regression models where the

124 dependent variables are coded 1 if the respondent said the view was true, and 0 otherwise. The independent variables include the demographic, political, religious, personality, and science knowledge variables discussed above.

The results of the models are presented below in Table 4-10. Several findings are noteworthy. First, the importance of religious variables comes through clearly in all of the models, albeit with slightly different combinations of variables emerging as the most potent.

Extent of belief in the existence of God is the single most consistently powerful predictor in the models, reaching statistical significance in all five models. Strong belief in God’s existence is positively associated with all four models except the Natural evolution model. Interestingly, the strength of this variable stands out in the God-guided evolution model where the predicted probability is .70 with all other independent variables held at their mean values. This probability score is the highest point across all models. Views of the Bible are also important, emerging as statistically significant in all but one of the models (God-initiated evolution). Biblical literalism is statistically significant in the models for Creationism and Intelligent Design, while view of the Bible as a book of fables is statistically significant in the models for God-guided evolution and Natural Evolution.

Religious affiliation is significant in most of the models, with born-again Protestants more likely than non-born-again Protestants to hold anti-evolution and pro-creationist views.

Church attendance does reach significance in two of the five models: intelligent design and

God-initiated evolution. All in all, religion is a powerful force in shaping views about human origins, as I would expect theoretically.

125 Table 4-10: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for Harris Five World Views

Creationism God-guided Evolution Intelligent Design coeff. s. e. Exp(B) coeff. s. e. Exp(B) coeff. s. e. Exp(B) Female .313 .171 1.367 .290 .159 1.336 -.394* .152 .674 Under 30 .203 .214 1.225 -.123 .202 .884 -.003 .186 .997 Over 60 -.686** .217 .504 -.035 .201 .965 -.261 .195 .770 White -.332 .196 .718 -.520** .191 .594 -.097 .175 .908 Southern -.239 .176 .787 -.128 .164 .880 .037 .157 1.038 Education .021 .094 1.021 -.059 .088 .943 .102 .082 1.107 Party ID .020 .043 1.020 .091* .041 1.095 -.016 .039 .984 Evangelical Protestant .087 .233 1.091 -.482* .228 .618 -.409 .225 .664 Roman Catholic .159 .241 1.172 .129 .242 1.138 .414 .219 1.513 Unaffiliated -.499 .355 .607 -.821** .298 .440 -.125 .268 .883 Other religions .159 .265 1.172 -.730** .251 .482 .151 .235 1.162 Church attendance .050 .036 1.051 -.036 .034 .964 -.071* .032 .931 Belief in God .581*** .114 1.787 1.006*** .102 2.734 .570*** .088 1.768 Bible taken literally .611** .203 1.842 -.318 .197 .728 -.584** .200 .558 Bible book of fables -.711* .286 .491 -.517* .244 .596 .019 .225 1.019 General science knowledge .067 .040 1.070 .087* .039 1.091 .122** .039 1.130 Evolutionary science knowledge -.341*** .069 .711 .263*** .066 1.300 .071 .059 1.073 Familiarity with evolution concepts -.050* .023 .951 -.046* .022 .955 .018 .020 1.018 Authoritarianism .018*** .004 1.018 .001 .003 1.001 .001 .003 1.001 Constant -4.27 .758 .014 -4.07 .698 .017 -3.74 .657 .024

Number of cases: 2,010 2,397 1,499 Correctly predicted: 77% 75% 69% Naglekerke R-square: .457 .390 .164 *<.05, **<.01, ***<.001 Dependent variable is coded 1 if R believes a view is true, 0 otherwise Data source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

126 Table 4-10: continued. Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for the Harris Five Views

God-initiated Evolution Naturalistic Evolution coeff. s. e. Exp(B) coeff. s. e. Exp(B) Female -.137 .158 .872 -.340 .192 .712 D Under 30 .651** .188 1.918 .576* .229 1.778 e Over 60 -.244 .209 .783 -.378 .264 .685 p Whitee -.181 .182 .835 -.326 .217 .722 Southn ern -.181 .165 .834 .029 .201 1.029 Educationd .068 .085 1.071 .045 .105 1.046 Partye ID -.010 .041 .990 .089 .049 1.094 n Evangelical Protestant -.545* .232 .580 -.740* .320 .477 t Roman Catholic .149 .222 1.161 -.298 .271 .742

Unaffiliv ated -.753 .280 .471 -.242 .307 .785 Othera religions -.455 .246 .634 -.058 .280 .944 Churchr attendance -.113* .034 .893 -.042 .043 .959 Beliefi in God .556 .091 1.743 -.672*** .094 .511 a Bible taken literally -.158 .210 .854 .466 .279 1.594 b Bible book of fables .228 .231 1.256 1.366*** .239 3.920 l Generale science knowledge .132* .041 1.142 .016 .047 1.016 Evolutionary science knowledge .037 .061 1.038 .076 .075 1.079 Familiarityi with evolution concepts -.005* .021 .995 .030 .025 1.031 Authoritarianisms -.007** .003 .993 -.012** .004 .988

Constant -2.87 .676 .057 2.183 .768 8.871 c o Numberd of cases: 1,407 1,616 Correctlye predicted: 74% 83% Naglekerked R-square: .155 .538

*<.05, **<.01, ***<.001 Dependent variable is coded 1 if R believes a view is true, 0 otherwise Data source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

127 In addition to religious variables, the right-wing authoritarianism variable is also a strong predictor, emerging as statistically significant in the models of creationism, God-initiated evolution, and naturalistic evolution. The direction and magnitude of this variable varies across these three models. High scores on the Right-Wing-Authoritarianism index are significantly related to views of creationism in a positive direction. Based on the regression coefficient and predicted probability of this variable, the result shows that those who have higher RWA scores tend to hold views supporting creationism, while those with lower RWA scores are more likely to endorse either ―God-initiated evolution‖ or ―Natural evolution.‖ Again, this finding suggests that there is a personality component shaping views about human origins that is distinct from religious fundamentalism.

The measures of scientific knowledge serve as significant predictors across multiple models, although their effects are not uniform across the different views of human origins. For example, evolution-specific knowledge is significant in the models of creationism and God- guided evolution, but not in the others. It is interesting to note that educational attainment does not reach statistical significance in any of the models. On face value, this might seem an odd result, but it is likely that the numerous detailed measures of knowledge in specific domains work to suck up most of the explanatory power from education. In other words, there seems to be no effect of having a degree in and of itself apart from the scientific knowledge and familiarity that education imparts53. This finding supports previous research which emphasizes

53I performed Chi-square analysis for the relationship between education and scientific knowledge and familiarity with evolutionary concepts. The variables used for this test are four category-education, general scientific knowledge (five-category), evolutionary scientific knowledge (five-category), and familiarity with evolutionary concepts (five-category). The results show that all three relationships are significant. The relationship between education and general scientific knowledge, education and evolutionary scientific knowledge, χ2 = 417.82 with 9 degree of freedom (p =.000); χ2 = 148.9 with 12 degree of freedom (p =.000); education and familiarity with evolutionary concepts, χ2 = 568.8 with 12 degree of freedom (p =.000).

128 separate effects of biology, genetics, and other life science literacy from education (Miller et al.

2006).

Overall, the set of predictors performs with varying success across the five domains. The models for creationism, God-guided evolution, and naturalistic evolution show higher levels of predictive success than the models for intelligent design and God-initiated evolution, as evidenced by the pseudo-R-squared values54. This pattern is similar to what I found in the bivariate cross-tabulations in the sense that the intelligent design and God-initiated evolution viewpoints had loose associations with independent variables. It may be the case that these two views of human origins are more difficult for survey respondents to interpret than the other three. In any case, the results again underscore a theme running through this dissertation: public opinion about human origins is filled with nuance, complexity, and uncertainty.

54Nagelkerke R2 = .457 for creationism; Nagelkerke R2 = .390 for God-guided evolution; Nagelkerke R2 = .538 for natural evolution; Nagelkerke R2 = .164 for intelligent design; Nagelkerke R2 = .133 for God-initiated evolution

129 Chapter 5: Conclusions

The goal of this study was twofold: to propose a theoretical framework for explaining public beliefs about the origin and development of human beings and to seek better measurement to gauge public attitudes toward it. To achieve these goals, the present study examined the three measures of beliefs about human evolution in 2008 Harris Interactive survey: the modified Gallup standard question, the General Social Survey human evolution item, and the Harris five views about human origins. In this final chapter I briefly review this study‘s major findings and discuss its implications. Then I discuss the contribution of this project to the discipline of political science and survey research in particular. Finally, the direction for future research will be discussed.

Major findings On measurement validity in chapter 3, consistency of measurement and responses were examined. Three human evolution questions were employed in the 2008 Harris Interactive survey: the modified Gallup question, the GSS question, and the Harris five views questions. I first examined the modified Gallup question and described the difference between the standard

Gallup question and the Harris‘s modified Gallup questions in terms of response categories and proportion of each response. By further examining demographic profiles of the respondent who were ambivalent or could not identify any of response options, I argued that the standard Gallup question on human origin may over-represent creationist or theistic views of evolution. I then proceeded investigating the measurement validity of all three evolution questions. Both cluster analysis and factor analysis support to confirm measurement validity. Response consistency check by the Harris five view items reveals that even consistent respondents hold contradictory beliefs to some degree.

130 Detailed cross-tabulation analyses allowed determining the level of intensity and consistency of each theory‘s believers and their main characteristics. The findings of this study suggest that relatively small proportions of the public have rigid views about human origins and the attributes of respondents are clearly different from those who favor biblical explanation of human origin to those who endorse natural evolution. Furthermore, the respondents who express strong opinions on the GSS human evolution question have different characteristics between who hold moderate views about it. When it comes to the independent variables, important predictors are the measures of religious and psychological factors. Most of the religious factors and the RWA index have statistically significant relationship with each dependent variable; the

GSS, the Modified Gallup, and the Harris five evolution questions.

The cross-tabulation analyses of consistent believers of Harris five views about human evolution show that RWA index and four of religious measures play significant roles in identifying particularly core creationism believers and natural evolution believers. Based on the findings, I argue that the Gallup poll‘s trend of public beliefs about human origin overestimates biblical creation believer group while ignoring the subpopulation who do not accept any of creationism, God-guided, or natural evolution.

The results from data analyses reveal the effect of question wording form and context is at play. Descriptive data analyses show that the public holds a great deal of confusion, ambivalence, uncertainty, and even contradictory views about humanity‘s origin and its development. At the same time, as culture war scholars argue, distinct subpopulations hold very consistent and strong opinions on human evolution in each end of the spectrum.

Overall, these data analyses indicate that great caution should be taken into consideration when interpreting polling results as to controversial issues such as human

131 evolution. As scholars of public opinion warn, we should avoid the referendum view of polls on controversial issues (Schuman 2008; Moore 2008; Bishop 2005). For better understanding of public opinion on this issue, I argue that a modified Gallup standard question should replace current standard question which has a forced three options—Creationism, God-guided evolution, and natural evolution. Given the complexity, nuance, and ambiguity involved with attitudes about human origins, respondents need to be given the opportunity to express their uncertainty or to indicate that none of the fixed-choice options fits their own views.

In chapter 4, I reviewed literature on explanation of beliefs about human evolution.

Previous studies have shown that education, scientific knowledge, religious factors, and several demographic variables were statistically significant predictors. Some scholars argue psychological factors are at play. There is some empirical research which used psychological variables—both cognitive and affective dimensions—to explain individuals‘ beliefs and attitudes toward human evolution; however, most of these studies have employed college student-samples, therefore the results are indicative but not conclusive.

The 2008 Harris Interactive Survey has rich sets of predictive variables including the

Right-Wing-Authoritarianism index and a variety of religion indicators. Among three dependent variables—the modified Gallup question, the GSS question, and the Harris five views question— I focus on the Harris five views item. Although the Harris five views item is not a perfect measure in explaining complex beliefs and attitudes toward human evolution, it is an improvement over previous items. The logistic regression analysis includes five models:

Creationism, God-guided evolution, Intelligent Design, God-initiated evolution, and Natural evolution models. As hypothesized, across all models in the analysis, both religious and psychological factors emerge statistically strong variables.

132 Particularly, the extent of belief in the existence of God is the single most consistently powerful predictor in the models, reaching statistical significance in all five models. Strong belief in God‘s existence is positively associated with a ―true‖ response in all four models except the Natural evolution model. Views of the Bible are also important, emerging as statistically significant in all but one of the models (God-initiated evolution). Biblical literalism is statistically significant in creationism and Intelligent Design, while view of the Bible as a book of fables is statistically significant in God-guided evolution and Natural Evolution.

Religious affiliation is significant in most of the models, with born-again Protestants more likely than non-born-again Protestants to hold anti-evolution and pro-creationist views. The results indicate the utility of examining a variety of indicators that measure the dimensions of religious belief, belonging, and behavior.

In addition to religious variables, the right-wing authoritarianism variable is also a strong predictor, emerging as statistically significant in the models of creationism, God-initiated evolution, and naturalistic evolution. The direction and magnitude of this variable varies across these three models. High scores on the Right-Wing-Authoritarianism index are significantly related to views of creationism in a positive direction. Based on the regression coefficient and predicted probability of this variable, the result shows that those who hold creationism views have higher RWA scores than those who endorse either ―God-initiated evolution‖ or ―Natural evolution.‖ Again, this finding suggests that there is a personality component shaping views about human origins that is distinct from religious fundamentalism.

Based on these results, I re-emphasize that both religious and psychological factors should be included in understanding culture wars issues including the origin and development of human beings.

133 Implications of this research On measurement validity this study indicates the variation among measurements.

Comparison of a standard Gallup question on the origin of life and a modified Gallup question in Harris 2008 survey shows that different question formats—wording or response options, — may over-estimate theistic evolution views. Given the various views about human evolution as a continuum (Scott 2009) on one hand and discrete groups within religiously unaffiliated population in the United States (Jones 201255) on the other hand, it is necessary to develop better measurement than the current Gallup standard question. As Jones‘s study implies, it is necessary not to lump discrete subpopulations into one ―anti-evolution‖ or ―pro-evolution‖ group.

On explanation of public acceptance or rejection of human evolution, the data analyses results indicate that the Right-wing-authoritarianism and religious factors including beliefs in

God‘s existence, views of the Bible, frequency of church attendance, and Evangelical Protestant are significant predictors across all measures. Scientific literacy which includes general and evolutionary science knowledge and familiarity with evolutionary concepts are other contributors to prediction of public attitudes toward human origin and its development. Though the level of educational attainment is related to the degree of scientific literacy, not education per se, but scientific literacy, genetic science knowledge, in particular, matters in determining individuals‘ acceptance or rejection of the theory of evolution. This finding supports scholars who argue for promotion of evolutionary course at or above secondary education level (Miller and Pennock 2008; Berkman and Plutzer 2009, 2010, 2011; among others).

55According to the 2012 American Values Survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, religiously unaffiliated Americans can be categorized into three distinct groups—Atheist/Agnostics, Seculars, and Unattached believer—, based on their demographic, educational, and beliefs about God. For details see, ―What the campaigns should know about the religiously unaffiliated,‖ in the Washington Post.

134 Finally, this study has important implications for the public policy debate about the teaching of evolution in public schools. To the extent that public policy should be shaped by the will of the people, it becomes important to measure accurately the opinions of the public.

Berkman and Plutzer (2010) have argued that what the public wants is to ―teach both‖ evolution and alternatives. But the evidence in this dissertation suggests that sizable proportions of

Americans are unfamiliar with and uncertain about the so-called ―alternatives‖ to the theory of human evolution (creationism, intelligent design, God-guided evolution, and God-initiated evolution), and that their acquaintance with evolution is limited. Therefore, responses to questions about teaching evolution and ―its alternatives,‖ which appear to support ―teaching both‖ are not likely to reflect informed, substantive policy preferences. Treating the results of public opinion polls on human origins at face value may unwittingly give support to those who continue to pose challenges to the theory of evolution and the teaching of it in public schools by making it appear that the public is on their side, thereby perpetuating the political controversy.

Improving measurement of public opinion about human origins may thus be an important step in tempering the ongoing culture war over teaching evolution.

Directions for Further Research

To better understand public knowledge and beliefs about human origin and its development, several areas needs to be examined. First, cognitive interviewing technique could be used as a complementary method to current public opinion polling. Cognitive interviewing is an emerging method which can reveal respondents‘ feelings and thoughts while they process information. This method allows respondents to verbalize—think aloud—their interpretation of questions and emotional reactions to the question. For instance, researchers could ask respondents about a standard Gallup human origin question and rephrase the question. As some

135 scholars argue (Bishop, Thomas, and Wood 2010; Moore 2008; Jelen 2009), this Gallup question might not tap respondents‘ views about the theory of evolution, rather it might tap into their beliefs about God. Some respondents who feel uneasiness with this question may describe their feelings and how they interpret the question. In addition, for those who are ambivalent about human evolution theory and biblical interpretation of human origin, the estimated response time will be longer than those who hold firm opinion about human evolution. In future work researchers should develop a battery of questions to tap discrete dimensions of attitudes about human origins: knowledge about the theory of evolution, compatibility of holding creationist views and evolution theory, feelings of internal conflict dissonance experienced by respondents attempting to answer the standard survey questions, and so forth. In this way, cognitive interviewing techniques can identify and correct problems with question wording and formats.

Secondly, to further examine the question wording effect, further research could employ the technique developed by Lockerbie and Borrelli (1990; also see Borrelli et al, 1987). They conducted the study which employed a question wording as a unit of analysis and examined the effect of question wording on the issue of public support for Contra aid. Specifically, they found that three of the five-question wording cues –mention of Reagan, mention of the Contras, and the balanced question format- were significant in accounting for much of the support for Contra aid. Given the importance of the issue and contradictory results on public opinion towards human evolution, a systematic examination of question wording will enhance the measurement validity.

136 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agresti, Alan. 1996. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Aguillard D. 1999. ―Evolution education in Louisiana public schools: A decade following Edwards v Aguillard.‖ The American Biology Teacher, 61 (3): 182–8.

Aldrich, Michele L. 1978. ―Women in Science.‖ Signs, Vol. 4, No. 1, Autumn.

Alters, Brian J., and Craig E. Nelson. 2002. ―Teaching Evolution in Higher Education.‖ Evolution 56: 1891-1901.

Altemeyer, Bob. 1981. Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. ———. 1988. Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ———. 1996. The Authoritarian Specter, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press ———. 2004. ―Highly Dominating, Highly Authoritarian Personalities.‖ Journal of Social Psychology, 144:421–47. ———. 2006. The authoritarians, published online at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ ———. 2012 ―Dogmatism and authoritarianism.‖ in How dogmatic beliefs harm creativity and higher-level thinking, Don Ambrose and Robert J. Sternberg, editors. Routledge.

Altemeyer, Bob, and Bruce Hunsberger.1992 .―Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest, and Prejudice‖.International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2:113-133. ———. 2005. ―Fundamentalism and authoritarianism.‖ In R.F. Paloutzian& C. L. Park (Eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (pp. 378-393).

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1922. AAAS Resolution: Scientific Status of the Theory of Evolution. Available at: http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Project 2061. 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS Resolution: Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. [Online] Feb. 16, 2006. Available at: http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443.

Anderton, Douglas T. and Eric Cheney. 2009. ―Log-Linear Analysis.‖ Pp. 285-306 in The Handbook of Data Analysis, edited by M. A. Hardy and A. Bryman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Antolin, Michael F. and Joan M. Herbers. 2001. ―Perspective: Evolution‘s Struggle for Existence in America‘s Public Schools.‖ Evolution, 55(12):2379-2388.

137 Asher, Herbert B. 2004. Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know. Washington, D.C., CQ Press.

Bak, H. 2001. ―Education and Public Attitudes toward Science: Implications for the ‗Deficit Model‘ of Education and Support for Science and Technology.‖ Social Science Quarterly 82(4): 779-95

Baker, Peter and Peter Slevin. 2005. ―Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate‖ The Washington Post, Aug 3, 2005, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html

Baker, Wayne. 2006. America's Crisis of Values: Reality and Perception. Princeton University Press

Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin’s Black Box: the biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: Touchstone.

Bellah, Robert. 1967. ―Civil Religion in America.‖ Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Bergman, Jerry. 2006. ―Presidential Support for Creationism.‖ Institute for Creation Research, available at www.icr.org/article/2942.

Berkman, Michael B., Julianna Sandell Pacheco, and Eric Plutzer. 2008. ―Evolution and Creationism in America‘s Classrooms: A National Portrait.‖ PLoS Biology 6:920–24.

Berkman, Michael and Eric Plutzer. 2009. ―Scientific expertise and the culture war: public opinion and the teaching of evolution in the American states‖. Perspectives on Politics.2009; 7:485–99. ———. 2010. Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010. ———. 2011. ―Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in the classroom.‖ Science. v. 331 no. 6016 p. 404–405.

Berelson, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee. 1954. Voting. Chicago: Press.

Bishop BA., and Anderson CW. 1990. ―Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution.‖Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 27:89–91.

Bishop, George F. 1998. ―The religious worldview and American beliefs about human origins.‖ Public Perspective 9 (5): 39-44. ———. 1999. ―Trends: Americans‘ belief in God.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 63:421-34. ———.2005.The Illusion of Public Opinion, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ———. 2006. ―Polls Apart on Human Origins.‖ www.publicopinionpros.com August 2006 ———. 2007. ―Polls Apart on Human Origins.‖ Reports of the National Center for Science Education 2007, Vol. 27, Sep-Dec (Nos. 5-6)

138 Bishop, G. F., Thomas, R. K., Wood, J., and Gwon, M. 2010. ―Americans‘ Scientific Knowledge and Beliefs about Human Evolution in the Year of Darwin‖, Reports of National Center for Science Education, Vol. 30, Issue 3;16-18.

Bishop, G. F., Thomas, R. K., & Wood, J. A. 2010. ―Measurement error, anomalies, and complexities in Americans' beliefs about human evolution.‖ Survey Practice.

Bizer, George, Jon A. Krosnick, Richard E. Petty, Derek D. Rucker, and S. Christian Wheeler. 2000. ―Need for Cognition and Need to Evaluate in the 1998 National Election Survey Pilot Study.‖ NES Pilot Study Report, No. nes008997, available at http://www.electionstudies.org/resources/papers/documents/nes008997.pdf

Blackford, Linda B.2012. ―GOP lawmakers question standards for teaching evolution in Kentucky.‖ Published: August 14, 2012, retrieved from http://www.kentucky.com/2012/08/14/2298914/gop-lawmakers-question- standards.html#storylink=cpy

Borrelli, Stephen A, Lockerbie, Brad and G. Niemi, Richard. 1987. ―Why the Democrat- Republican Partisanship Gap Varies From Poll to Poll.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol.51. pp. 115-119.

Branch, Glenn. 2008. ―Creationism as a global phenomenon‖. In: Robbins R, Cohen M, editors. Darwin and the Bible: the cultural confrontation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; p. 137–51.

Branch, Glenn, and Eugenie C. Scott. 2009. The latest face of creationism. Scientific American 300 (1): 92–99.

Brem, S.K., Ranney, M., and Schindel, J. 2003. ―Perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory.‖ Science Education, 87, 181-206.

Bryan, William Jennings. 1922. The Menace of Darwinism. New York, Fleming H. Revell

Brumfiel, G. 2005. ―Intelligent design: Who has designs on your student‘s minds?‖ Nature 434: 1062-1065.

Buchanan, Patrick J. 1992. ―1992 Republican National Convention Speech.‖ Retrieved from http://buchanan.org/blog/1992-republican-national-convention-speech-148

Burnstein, Paul. 2003. ―The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda‖. Political Research Quarterly. March 2003 56: 29-40.

Cacioppo, John T. and Petty, R. E. 1982.―The need for cognition.‖ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.

139 Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, Jeffrey A. Feinstein, and W. Blair G. Jarvis. 1996. ―Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition.‖ Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119, No. 2, 197-253.

Carsey, Thomas M., and Geoffrey C. Layman. 2006. ―Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.‖ American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 464-77.

Chong, Dennis and Druckman, James N. 2007.―Framing Theory.‖ Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 10. Pp.103-126

Converse, Phillip. 1964. ―The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.‖ In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: NY: Free Press. ______1970. ―Attitudes and Nonattitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue.‖ In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, ed. Edward R. Tufte, pp. 168-89. Reading, Mass: Addison- Wesley.

Cobern, William W. 1994. ―Point: Belief, understanding, and the teaching of evolution.‖ Journal of Research in Science Teaching. v. 31 no. 5 p. 583–590. 1994. [Find It]

Cobern, William W. 2000.―The nature of science and the role of knowledge and belief.‖ Science and Education 9, 219-246.

Cobern, William W. 2007.―Comments and criticism. point: belief, understanding and the teaching of evolution.‖ Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2007;31:583–90. Cobern, William W., and Loving, C. C. 2005.―Thinking about Science and Christian Orthodox Beliefs: a survey study of preservice elementary teachers.‖ In M. Nott (editor), Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on the History and Philosophy of Science Teaching . Leeds: International History, Philosophy, Sociology & Science Teaching Conference. Coalition of Scientific Societies.2007. ―You Say You Want an Evolution? A Role for Scientists in Science Education.‖ Retrieved from http://evolution.faseb.org/sciencecoalition. Cohen, J. et.al. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mehwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colburn, Alan and Laura Henriques. 2006. ―Clergy Views on Evolution, Creationism, Science, and Religion.‖ Journal of Research in Science Teaching, VOL. 43, NO. 4; 419–442.

Danforth, John C. 2005. ―In the Name of Politics.‖The New York Times. March 30, available at http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30B17F6395B0C738FDDAA0894DD 404482

Davis, Nancy and Robert Robinson. 1996. ―Are the Rumors of War Exaggerated? Religious Orthodoxy and Moral Progressivism in America.‖ American Journal of Sociology 102:756-87.

140 Dawkins, Richard. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press; Reprint edition (August 24, 2010) Davis, Percival, and Dean H. Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Haughton Pub Co; 2nd edition (September 1993) Deckman, Melissa M. 2002. ―Holy ABCs! The Impact of Religion on Attitudes About Education Policies.‖ Social Science Quarterly 83:472–87. ———. 2004. School Board Battles: The Christian Right in Local Politics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Dennet, Daniel C. 1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster. DiMaggio, Paul, John Evans and Bethany Bryson. 1996. ‗Have Americans‘ Social Attitudes Become More Polarized?‖ American Journal of Sociology, 102 (1996), 690–755. Discovery Institute, 2003, ―The Wedge document‖: so what? www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349. Dobzhansky T. 1973. ―Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.‖ The American Biology Teacher. 35:125–129 Downie, J.R. and Barron, N.J. 2000.―Evolution and religion: attitudes of Scottish first year biology and medical students to the teaching of evolutionary biology.‖ Journal of Biological Education, 34, 139-146. Druckman JN. 2001a. ―Evaluating framing effects.‖ J. Econ. Psychol. 22:91–101 ———. 2001b. ―On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?‖ Journal of Politics. 63:1041– 66 ———. 2001c. ―The implications of framing effects for citizen competence.‖ Political Behavior. 23:225–56

Duckitt, John. 2009. ―Authoritarianism and dogmatism.‖ In M.Leary&R.Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 298–317). New York: Guilford Press. Duckitt, John, and Kirstin Fisher. 2003. ―The Impact of Social Threat on Worldview and Ideological Attitudes.‖ Political Psychology 24: 199-222.

Duncan, OD. 2003. ―Facile reporting: The supposed decline in biblical literalism.‖ Public Perspective.14 (3): 40–3. Duncan, OD. 2004. ―The Creationists: How Many, Who, and Where?‖ Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Vol. 24. (5); 26–33. Eckberg, Douglas Lee, and Alexander Nesterenko 1985. ―For and Against Evolution: Religion, Social Class, and the Symbolic Universe.‖ Social Studies Journal 22:1: 1-17.

141 Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Christopher Scheitle. 2007. ―Religion Among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.‖ Social Problems 54:289–307.

Edwards v. Aguillard. 482 US 578, 107. Supreme Court of the US. 1987.Supreme Court Cases. Westlaw Campus Research.

Ellison, Christopher G., and Marc A. Musick. 1995. ―Conservative Protestantism and Public Opinion toward Science.‖ Review of Religious Research 36: 245-262.

Erikson, Robert S., Michael B. MacKuen, and James A. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press

Erikson, Robert S., and Kent L. Tedin. 2010. American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content, and Impact. Pearson; 8 edition

Epperson v. Arkansas. 393 US 97, 89. Supreme Court of the US. 1968.Supreme Court Cases. Westlaw Campus Research.

Evans, E. M. 2000a. ―Beyond Scopes: Why creationism is here to stay.‖ In K. Rosengren, C. Johnson, & P. Harris (Eds.)Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific and religious thinking in children. (pp. 305-331) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———.2000b. ―The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children.‖ Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: A Journal of Developmental Psychology,46, 221-254. ———. 2001. ―Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: creation versus evolution.‖ Cognitive Psychology42: 217–266. ———. 2008. ―Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis.‖ In International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, S. Vosniadou, editor, Pp. 263-294. New York: Routledge

Evans, E. M. and Lane, J. D. 2011. ―Contradictory or complementary? Creationist and evolutionist explanations of origins.‖ Human Development, 54, 144-159

Eve, Raymond A., and Francis B. Harrold. 1991. The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Boston: Twayne Publishers.

Eve, Raymond A., Losh Susan C., and Nzekwe Brandon. 2010. ―Lessons from the social psychology of evolution warfare: good science alone is not enough.‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2010; 3:183–92.

Feldman, Stanley.2003. ―Enforcing Social Conformity: A Theory of Authoritarianism.‖ Political Psychology, Volume 24, Issue 1; 41–74.

Feldman, Stanley and Karen Stenner. 1997. ―Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism.‖ Political Psychology 18:741-70.

142 Fiorina, Morris P., Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy Pope. 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman

Forrest, Barbara. 2007. ―Understanding the intelligent design creationist movement: its true nature and goals.‖ A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy; 2007.http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf.

Forrest, Barbara and Gross PR. 2004.Creationism’s Trojan horse. The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2007. Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

Foster, John B., Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2008. Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism from Antiquity to the Present. Monthly Review Press.

Fox, M.F. and Firebaugh, G. 1992. ―Confidence in Science: The Gender Gap.‖ Social Science Quarterly 73(1): 101-13.

Freeman, Patricia K. and David J. Houston. 2009. ―The Biology Battle: Public Opinion and the Origins of Life.‖ Religion & Politics 2(1): 54-75.

Freeman, Patricia K. and David J. Houston. 2011. ―Rejecting Darwin and Support for Science Funding.‖ Social Science Quarterly. Volume 92, Issue 5, pages 1151–1168.

Futuyma, DJ. 2005. Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. ———. 2009. Evolution. 2nd ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

Garvey, K. 2008. ―Denial of Evolution: An exploration of cognition, culture and affect. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Evolutionary Psychology Society.‖ Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 209-216.

Gibson, MT. 2004. ―Culture wars in state education policy: a look at the relative treatment of evolutionary theory in state science standards.‖ Social Science Quarterly.85:1129–49.

Green, John C. 2003.The Christian Right in American Politics: Marching to the Millennium. Georgetown University Press.

Green, John C. 2007. The Faith Factor: How Religion Influences American Elections. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Green, John C., and James L. Guth. 1991. ―Religion, Representatives, and Roll Calls.‖ Legislative Studies Quarterly 16: 571-584.

143 Green, John C. and James L. Guth. 1993. ―From Lambs to Sheep: Denominational Change and Political Behavior.‖ In Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics, ed. David Leege and Lyman Kellstedt. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Green, John C., James L. Guth, Corwin Smidt, and Lyman Kellstedt. 1996. Religion and the Culture Wars. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

Gregory, T. Ryan. 2008. ―Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach 1:46–52 Gross, Paul R. 2006. ―Scientists Take on Intelligent Design.‖ New York Sun, June 19, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.nysun.com/arts/scientists-take-on-intelligent-design/34637/ Guth, James L., Lyman A. Kellstedt, Corwin E. Smidt, and John C. Green. 2006. ―Religious Influences in the 2004 Presidential Election.‖ Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36: 223-42.

Haider-Markel, Donald and Mark Joslyn. 2008. ―Understanding Beliefs about the Origins of Homosexuality and Subsequent Support for Gay Rights: An Empirical Test of Attribution Theory‖ Public Opinion Quarterly 72(2):291-310.

Haider-Markel, Donald P. and Mark Joslyn. 2008. ―Pulpits versus Ivory Towers: Socializing Agents and Evolution Attitudes‖ Social Science Quarterly 89(3):665-83.

Haisan, M.A. 1996. The Rhetoric of Eugenics in Anglo-American Thought. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Ham, Ken. 1987. The Lie: Evolution. Green Forest: Master Books. ———. 2000. Dinosaurs of Eden. Green Forest: Master Books. ———. 2009. Ken Ham – speaker information. Answers Genesis, at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp

Ham, Ken and A. Charles Ware. 2007. Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots. Master Books.

Harris Interactive. 2009. ―Firefighters, scientists, and doctors seen as most prestigious occupations: Real estate brokers, accountants, and stockbrokers are at the bottom of the list.‖ Harris Poll, #86 Harris Interactive (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris- Interactive-Poll-Research-Pres-Occupations-2009-08.pdf.

Hathcoat, John D and Barnes, Laura L.B. 2010. ―Explaining the relationship among fundamentalism and authoritarianism: An epistemic connection.‖ International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. v. 20 no. 2 p. 73–84.

Haught, John F. 1995. Science & Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press.

144 Hazen, Robert M. and Trefil, James. 2009. Science Matters: Achieving Scientific Literacy. Random House Digital, Inc. Hawley, Patricia H, Stephen D. Short, Luke A. McCune, Mark R. Osman, and Todd D. Little 2011.―What‘s the Matter with ?:The Development and Confirmation of the Evolutionary Attitudes and Literacy Survey (EALS).‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach (2011) 4:117–132 Hetherington, Marc J. and Jonathan D. Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Hetherington, Marc J. and Elizabeth Suhay..2011. ―Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans‘ Support for the War on Terror.‖ American Journal of Political Science, Volume 55, Issue 3; 546–560.

Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley, NewYork.

Hunter, James Davison. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books. Hunter, James Davison, and Wolfe, Alan. 2006. Is There A Culture War?: A Dialogue on Values and American Public Life. Washington, D.C. Pew Research Center: Brookings Institution Press. Jelen, Ted G. 2009 ―Religion and American Public Opinion: Social issues‖ in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics, Guth, James L.Kellstedt, Lyman A., Smidt, Corwin E., ed., Oxford University Press. Johnson, Norman A. 2007a. ―Is evolution ―only a theory‖?: scientific methodologies and evolutionary biology.‖ In Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism. Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey, editors. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. ______. 2007b.Darwinian detectives: revealing the natural history of genes and genomes. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, Philip E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway. ______. 2000. The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism. InterVasity Press.

Jost, John T. 2006. ―The end of the end of ideology.‖ American Psychologist, Vol. 61(7), Oct 2006, 651-670.

Keeter, Scott, Gregory Smith and David Masci. 2012. ―Religious Belief and Public Attitudes about Science in the U.S.‖ In The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. Martin W. Bauer, Rajesh Shukla and Nick Allum, editors. London: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.

Kehoe, Alice Beck. 2007. ―Why Target Evolution?‖ in Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism, Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey, ed. New York : W.W. Norton & Company

145 Kellstedt, Lyman A., and Corwin Smidt. 1993. ―Doctrinal Beliefs and Political Behavior: Views of the Bible.‖ In Rediscovering the Religious Factor in American Politics, ed. David C. Leege and Lyman A. Kellstedt, 177-198. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe

Kellstedt, L. A., Green, J. C., Guth, J. L., &Smidt, C. E. 1996. ―Grasping the essentials: The social embodiment of religion and political behavior.‖ In Religion and the culture wars: Dispatches from the front, J. C. Green, J. L. Guth, C. E. Smidt& L. A. Kellstedt, ed. (pp. 174-192). New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Keysar, ArielaandKosmin, Barry A. 2008.Secularism & Science in the 21st Century. Hartford (CT): Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture. Available at http://prog.trincoll.edu/ISSSC/Science/Chapters.asp (Accessed Jan-10-2011) Kitzmiller v. Dover.400 F.Supp.2d 707. United States District Court, MD. . 2005. All Federal Cases. Westlaw Campus Research.

Koenig R. 2007. ―Creationism takes root where Europe, Asia meet.‖ Science 315: 579a.

Kohut, Andrew, John C. Green, Scott Keeter, and Robert C. Toth.2000.The Diminishing Divide: Religion’s Changing Role in American Politics. Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution Press.

Kosmin, Barry A. and Keysar, Ariela. 2006. Religion in a Free Market: Religious and Non- religious Americans, Who, What, Why, where. Paramount Market Publishing Kruglanski, Arie W. and Shira Fishman. 2009. ―The need for cognitive closure.‖ In Handbook of individual differences in social behavior, edited by Mark R. Leary and Rick H. Hoyle, 343–353. New York: Guilford.

Labov, Jay B., and Kline P. Barbara. 2007. ―Understanding Our Audiences: The Design and Evolution of Science, Evolution, and Creationism.‖ Cell Biology Education_ Life Science Education 7(1): 20-24. Lambright, W. Henry. 2008. ―Government and Science: A Troubled, Critical Relationship and What Can Be Done about It.‖ Public Administration Review, Volume 68, Issue 1, pages 5–18. Larson, Edward J. 1998. ―Leading scientists still reject God.‖ Nature 394(6691):313. ———. 1985, 1989, 2003.Trial and Error: The American Controversy Over Creation and Evolution. Oxford University Press, USA ———. 2006. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books.

Larson, Edward J. and Larry Witham. 1997. ―Scientists are still keeping the faith.‖ Nature 386(6624):435–36.

Lawes C. 2009. Faith and Darwin: Harmony, Conflict or Confusion. London: Theos.

146 Lawson, A. E., and Worsnop, W. W. 1992. ―Learning about evolution and rejecting belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment.‖ Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143-166. Layman, Geoffrey C. 2001.The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Layman, Geoffrey C., and John C. Green. 2005. ―Wars and Rumours of Wars: The Contexts of Cultural Conflict in American Political Behaviour.‖ British Journal of Political Science 36: 61-89. Lerner, Lawrence S. 2000. ―Good and Bad Science in US Schools.‖ Nature 407:287–90.

Leshner A. 2009. ―Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public: Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago.‖ Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science/The Pew Research Center for The People and The Press.

Lienesch, Michael. 2007. In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, The Scopes Trial, and the Making of the Antievolution Movement. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. Lindberg, David C.; Numbers, Ronald L. 1986.God and nature: historical essays on the encounter between Christianity and science. University of California Press, Berkeley. Lockerbie, Brad and Borrelli, Stephen A. 1990. ―Analyzing effects of question wording on public support for Contra Aid, 1983-1986‖ Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol.54. Pp 195- 208

Lombrozo, T.; Thanukos , A.; Weisberg , M. 2008. ―The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution.‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach. v. 1 no. 3; 290–298. Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. SAGE. ______. 2000.Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. SAGE.

Losh, Susan C. 2006. ―Generational and Educational Effects on Basic U.S. Adult Civic Science Literacy.‖ In The Korean Science Foundation and the Korean Academy of Science and Technology: pp. 836-845 .the refereed Proceedings of The Ninth International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST-9), 2006 ______. 2010. ―Generation, education, gender and ethnicity in American digital divides.‖ In: Ferro E, Dwivedi YK, Gil-Garcia JR, Williams MD, editors. IGI Handbook: Overcoming Digital Divides: Constructing an Equitable and Competitive Information Society. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. ______. 2012. ―Age, generational, and educational effects on American public understanding of science: 1979–2006.‖ In The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. MW Bauer, R Shukla, and N Allum, editors. New York: Routledge.

147 Luskin, Casey. 2010. ―LeVake v. Independent School District: Administrators May Control the Evolution Curriculum.‖ Available at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/levake_v_independent_school_di031411.html#f n138

Luskin, Casey. 2010. ―Religion doesn't belong in public schools, but debate over Darwinian evolution does.‖ Christian Science Monitor(December 16, 2010). Available at http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1216/Religion-doesn-t-belong- in-public-schools-but-debate-over-Darwinian-evolution-does

Marsden, George. 1984. ―Introduction: The Evangelical Denomination.‖ and Modern America., George Marsden, editor. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Marsden, George M. 1982. ―Everyone One's Own Interpreter: The Bible, Science and Authority in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America.‖ in The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural Martin, Joel W.2010. ―Compatibility of Major U.S. Christian Denominations with Evolution.‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach. 3:420–431.

Masci, David. 2007a. ―An Evolving Debate about Evolution.‖ Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, May 16 www.pewresearch.org

Masci, David. 2007b. ―The Darwin Debate: 20 Years after a Landmark Supreme Court Decision, Americans Are Still Fighting About Evolution.‖ Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, June 13 www.pewresearch.org

Matzke, Nicholas J. 2010. ―The Evolution of Creationist Movements.‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach.3:145–162.

Mazur, Allan. 2005. ―Believers and Disbelievers in Evolution.‖ Politics and the Life Sciences 23, No. 2 (2005): 55. 27 ———. 2007. ―Disbelievers in Evolution.‖ Science 315:187. ———. 2008. Implausible Beliefs: In the Bible, Astrology, and UFO. Transaction Publishers. ———. 2010. ―Do Americans Believe Modern Earth Science?‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach, Volume 3, Number 4 (2010), 629-632

McCarter, James. 2005. ―Evolution is a Winner — for Breakthroughs and Prizes.‖ Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Volume: 25, Issue: 3–4, May–August, Page(s): 38–39

McCrae, R. R., and Sutin, A. R. 2009.―Openness to Experience.‖ In M. R. Leary and R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 257-273). New York: Guilford.

Meyer, Stephen, Scott Minnich, Jonathan Moneymaker, Paul A. Nelson, and Ralph Seelkee. 2007. Explore Evolution. Hill House Publishers Pty.Ltd.

148 Meyers, Lawrence S., Glenn Gamst, and A.J. Guarino. 2006. Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, Stephen C. 1986. ―Scientific Tenets of Faith.‖ Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 38: 40-42. [Online] Available at: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Meyer.html. ———. 2002. ―Teach the Controversy.‖ Cincinnati Enquirer (Mar. 30, 2002). [Online] Available at: http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_teachthecontroversy.htm. ———. 2006. ―Intelligent Design is not Creationism.‖ The Daily Telegraph (of London), January 28th.

Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., and Guarino, A. 2006.Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Missouri House Joint Resolution No.2, 96th General Assembly, available at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012ballot/fulltext_1.pdf

Miller, John D. 1998. ―The Measurement of Scientific Literacy.‖ Public Understanding of Science7:203–223.

Miller, John D. 2012. ―The Conceptualization and Measurement of Civic Science Literacy for the Twenty-first Century.‖ In: J Meinwald, JG Hildebrand, editors, Science and the Educated American: A Core Component of Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Miller, John D and Robert Pennock. 2008.‖Science Education and Religion in America in the 21st Century: Holding the Center.‖ in Secularism & Science in the 21st Century, ArielaKeysar and Barry A. Kosmin, editors. Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture; 9-32.

Miller John D, Scott EC, Okamoto S. 2006. ―Public Acceptance of Evolution.‖ Science 313(11):765–66. Miller, Kenneth R. 2008. Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. Viking / Penguin Press, New York. Miller, Kenneth R. 2009. ―Darwin, God, & Dover: What the Collapse of ―Intelligent Design‖ Means for Science and Faith in America.‖ in The Religion and Science Debate – Why Does it Continue? pp. 55-92. H. W. Attridge, ed. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Mockabee, Stephen T. 2007. ―A Question of Authority: Religion and Cultural Conflict in the 2004 Election.‖ Political Behavior 29:221-48. Mockabee, Stephen T., Joseph Quin Monson, and J. Tobin Grant. 2001. ―Measuring Religious Commitment Among Catholics and Protestants: A New Approach.‖ Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 40: 675-690.

149 Monroe, A. D. 1979. ―Consistency Between Policy Preferences and National Policy.‖ American Politics Quarterly, 7(1), 3-18. ______. 1998. ―Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980-1993.‖ The Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(1), 6-28.

Mooney, Chris. 2005. Republican War on Science, Basic Books Mooney, Chris, and Matthew C. Nisbet. 2007. ―Framing science: to engage diverse publics, scientists must focus on ways to make complex topics personally relevant.‖ Science 316.5821 (2007): 56

Mooney, Chris and Sheril Kirshenbaum. 2009. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. Basic Books. Moore, David. 2008. The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Moore, John A. 2002. From Genesis to Genetics: The Case of Evolution and Creationism. University of California Press. Moore, Randy.1997. ―The Persuasive Mr. Darwin.‖BioScience 4, 7, 107-114. ______. 1998. ―Creationism in the United States: I. Banning Evolution from the Classroom.‖ The American Biology Teacher. Vol. 60, No. 7, Sep. ______. 1999. ―Creationism in the United States. VIII. The lingering threat.‖ The American Biology Teacher 1999a; 61: 330–40. ______. 1999. ―Science at Scopes' school today.‖ Journal of College Science Teaching 1999b; 28: 229–30. ______. 1999. ―The courage and convictions of Don Aguillard.‖The American Biology Teacher 1999c; 61 (3): 166–74. ______. 2000. In the Light of Evolution: Science Education on Trial. Reston (VA): National Association of Biology Teachers, 2000. ______. 2001. ―The Lingering Impact of the Scopes Trial on High School Biology Textbooks.‖BioScience51:790–96. ______. 2002. Evolution in the courtroom: a reference guide. Santa Barbara, Calif. :

National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 1998. Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Academy of Sciences. 1998. Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 1998). Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5787.html.

National Academy of Sciences. 1999. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1999. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html. National Association of Biology Teachers. 2004. Statement on Teaching Evolution. May 2004. Available at: http://www.nabt.org/sub/position_statements/evolution.asp.

150 National Research Council. 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Board (NSB). 2002. Science and Engineering Indicators 2002. NSB-02-01A. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Board (NSB). 2006. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006.NSB 06-01; NSB 06-01A. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Board (NSB). 2008. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. NSB 08-01; NSB 08-01A. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Board (NSB). 2010. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. NSB 08-01; NSB 10-01A. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Board.(NSB) 2012.Science and Engineering Indicators 2012. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 12-01). National Science Teachers Association. 2012. ―NSTA position statement on teaching of evolution http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx (accessed Aug 10, 2012) National Science Teachers Association. ―The Nature of Science.‖ [Online] July, 2000. Available at: http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22.

National Science Teachers Association. ―The Teaching of Evolution.‖ [Online] July, 2003. Available at: http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/PositionStatement_Evolution.pdf. Nehm RH, Poole TM, Lyford ME, Hoskins SG, Carruth L, Ewers BE. 2009. ―Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students‘ faulty mental models of biology and evolution?‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2009;2:527–32. Newport, Frank .2004 .Polling Matters: Why Leaders Must Listen to the Wisdom of the People. New York: Warner Books. Newport, Frank. 2007, June 11. ―Majority of republicans doubt theory of evolution: More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution.‖ Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theoryevolution. aspx.

Newport, Frank. 2008, June 20. ―Republicans, democrats differ on creationism: Republicans much more likely than democrats to believe humans created as-is 10,000 years ago.‖ Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democratsdiffer- creationism.aspx.

Newport, Frank. 2009, February 11. ―On Darwin‘s birthday, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution: Belief drops to 24% among frequent church attenders.‖ Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

151 Newport, Frank. 2012, June 1. ―In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins: Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism.‖ Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

Newport, Frank. 2011, June 27. ―In U.S., Very Religious Americans Still Align More With GOP: Nonreligious Americans are much more likely to identify as Democrats.‖ Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/148274/Religious-Americans-Align- GOP.aspx

Nisbet, Matthew C. and Mooney, Chris. 2007.―Science and Society: Framing Science.‖ Science 6.vol. 316. no. 5821, p. 56 Nisbet, Matthew C. and Goidel, Robert K. 2007. ―Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: bridging the ethnographic—survey research divide.‖ Public Understanding of Science, vol. 16 issue 4 October 2007. p. 421-440 Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1974. ―The Spiral of Silence: A Theory of Public Opinion.‖ Journal of Communication, Volume 24, Issue 2, pages 43–51, June 1974. Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1993. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion--Our Social Skin. University of Chicago Press. Nichols, Ryan. 2003. ―Scientific Content, Testability, and the Vacuity of Intelligent Design Theory.‖ American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (2003): 591-611.

Norman, Obed, Charles R. Ault Jr., Bonnie Bentz, and Lloyd Meskimen. 2001. ―The black– white ―achievement gap‖ as a perennial challenge of urban science education: A sociocultural and historical overview with implications for research and practice.‖ Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Volume 38, Issue 10;1101–1114.

Numbers, Ronald, and David C. Lindberg, edited. 1986. God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science. Berkeley: University of California Press. Numbers, Ronald L. 1982. ―Creationism in 20th-Century America.‖ Science 218 (5 November 1982): 538-544 ______. 1992. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. ______. 1998. Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ______. 2006. The Creationists. Expanded ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Numbers, Ronald, ed. 2009. Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Harvard University Press.

O‘Brien DT, Wilson DS, Hawley PH. ―Evolution for Everyone‖: a course that expands evolutionary theory beyond the biological sciences. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2:445–57.

152 OECD . 2010. PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095298-en

Olson, R. and Documentary Educational Resources. 2006. Flock of Dodos: the Evolution and Intelligent Design Circus, Documentary Educational Resources, Watertown, MA

Osborne, Jason. W. 2011. ―Best Practices in using large, complex samples: The importance of using appropriate weights and design effect compensation.‖ Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 16(12), 1-7. ———. 2012. ―Logits and tigers and bears, oh my! A brief look at the simple math of logistic regression and how it can improve dissemination of results.‖ Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Volume 17, Number 11, June 2012

Osif, BA. 1997. ―Evolution and religious beliefs: a survey of Pennsylvania high school teachers.‖ The American Biology Teacher. 59:552–6.

Otto, Shawn L. 2011.Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. Rodale Books

Padian, Kevin. 2010. ―How to win the evolution war: teach macroevolution‖. Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2010; 3: 206–14.

Padian, Kevin and . 2009. ―Darwin, Dover, ‗Intelligent Design‘ and textbooks.‖ Biochemical Journal, 209(417), 29-42.

Page, Benjamin I. and Robert Y. Shapiro.1983. ―Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.‖ The American Political Science Review, 77(1), 175-190. ______. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Paz-y-Miño C., Guillermo and Avelina Espinosa. 2010. ―On the Theory of Evolution Versus the Concept of Evolution: Three Observations.‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach. (2011) 4:308–312.

Pedhazur, E. J. 1997. Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Pennock, Robert T. 1999. Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge: MIT. ______. 2001.―Naturalism, Evidence, and Creationism.‖ in Robert T. Pennock, editor. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. ______. 2009. ―Can‘t Philosophers Tell The Difference Between Science and Religion?: Demarcation Revisited.‖ SYNTHESE, Volume 178, Number 2 (2011), 177-206 ______. 2010. ―The Postmodern Sin of Intelligent Design Creationism.‖ Science & Education, Volume 19, Numbers 6-8 (2010), 757-778

153 People for the American Way Foundation. 2000. Evolution and creationism in public education: an in-depth reading of public opinion. Danbury: DYG, Inc.; 2000.

Plutzer E, M Berkman. 2008. ―The Polls—Trends: Evolution, creationism, and the teaching of human origins in schools.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly; 72(3):540–553.

Poling, D. A. and Evans, E. M. 2004.―Religious belief, scientific expertise, and folk ecology. Journal of Cognition and Culture: Studies.‖ in the Cognitive Anthropology of Science, 4, 485-524

Pond, Finn R. Pond and Jean L. Pond. 2010. ―Scientific Authority in the Creation-Evolution Debates.‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach, Volume 3, Number 4 (2010), 641-660

Popper, Karl.1972. Objective Knowledge, Clarendon Press, revised edition 1989, Oxford.

Provine, William B. 2006. ―Evolution, Religion, and Science.‖ Clayton P, Simpson Z, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 667–80.

Robbins, Richard H. 2009. ―William Jennings Bryan and the Trial of John T. Scopes.‖ in Darwin and the Bible: The Cultural Confrontation, Richard H. Robbins and Mark Nathan Cohen, editors. Allyn & Bacon Publishers

Robbins Richard H., and Cohen Mark N. 2009. Darwin and the Bible. The Cultural Confrontation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Publishers.

Rokeach, M. 1954. ―The nature and meaning of dogmatism.‖ Psychological Review, 61, 194– 204.

Ruse, Michael. 1999. Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction? Harvard University Press. ______. 2000. The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the debates. A B C-CLIO. June 2000. ______. 2005. The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Harvard University Press. ______. 2008.The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the debates.2nd edition. Grey House Publishing.

Sargeant, K. and E. West. 1996. ―Teachers and Preachers: The Battle over Public School Reform in Gaston County, North Carolina.‖ Pp. 35-60 in The American Culture Wars, edited by J.L. Nolan, Jr. VA: University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Schattschneider, Elmer E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. Wadsworth Publishing.

Schlesingera, Mark and Caroline Heldmana. 2001. ―Gender Gap or Gender Gaps? New Perspectives on Support for Government Action and Policies.‖ The Journal of Politics, Volume 63 / Issue 01 /59-92

154 Shanks, Niall. 2004. God, the Devil and Darwin. New York. Oxford University Press.

Shapiro, Adam R. 2008. ―Civic Biology and the Origins of the School Antievolution Movement.‖ Journal of the History of Biology 41, no. 3;409-33.

Shapiro, Robert Y. 2011.―Public Opinion and American Democracy.‖ Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5): 982-1017

Shen, BSP. 1975. ―Science literacy and the public understanding of science.‖ Communication of Scientific Information, Day S, editor. Basel: Karger.

Sherkat, Darren E. 2011. ―Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States.‖ Social Science Quarterly, Volume 92, Issue 5, pages 1134–1150, December 2011

Schuman, Howard .2008. Method and Meaning in Polls and Surveys. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schuman, Howard and Presser, Stanley 1977. ―Question Wording As an Independent Variable in Survey Analysis.‖ Sociological Methods and Research, pp.151-170 Schuman, Howard and Presser, Stanley 1981.1996.Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press. Scott, Eugenie C.1997. ―Antievolution and Creationism in the United States.‖ Annual Review of Anthropology. 26: 263-89. ———. 1994. ―The evolution of creationism: The struggle for the schools.‖ Natural History 103.7:10-13. ———. 2004. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. ———. 2006. ―Creationism and Evolution: It‘s the American Way.‖ Cell 124: 449-51. ———. 2009. Evolution vs. Creationism. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Scott, Eugenie C and Branch, G. 2003. ―Evolution: what's wrong with teaching the controversy.‖ Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 499-502. ———.2006. Not in our classrooms: why intelligent design is wrong for our schools .Boston : Beacon Press. ———.2009. ―Don‘t Call it ―Darwinism.‖‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach.;2:90–4.

Silberman, Israela. 2005. ―Religion as a Meaning System: Implications for the New Millennium.‖ Journal of Social Issues, Volume 61, Issue 4, pages 641–663.

Singham, Mano. 2009. God vs. Darwin: The War Between Evolution and Creationism in the Classroom. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.

Sinatra GM, Brem SK, Evans EM. ―Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution.‖ Evolution: Education Outreach. 2008;1:189–95.

155 Sinatra , G. M.; Southerland , S. A.; McConaughy , F.; Demastes , J. W. 2003.―Intentions and beliefs in students' understanding and acceptance of biological evolution.‖ Journal of Research in Science Teaching.v.40 no.5 p.510–528.

Sinclair A., and Pendarvis MP. ―The relationship between college zoology students‘ beliefs about evolutionary theory and religion.‖ Journal of Research & Development in Education. 1997; 30:118–25.

Smith, Christian, Michael Emerson, Sally Gallagher, and Paul Kennedy. 1996. ―The Myth of Culture Wars.‖ Newsletter of the Sociology of Culture Section of the ASA. 11(1) (Fall).

Southerland SA, Sinatra GM, and Matthews M. ―Belief, knowledge, and science education.‖ Educational Psychology Review. 2001; 13:325–51.

Spilka, B., Hood, R.W., Hunsberger, B., and Gorsuch, R.L. 2003.The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (3rd ed.) New York: Guilford Press

Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. ―The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art.‖ Social Forces 79(1): 291-318. Stenner, K. 2005. The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. Stimson, James. 2004. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tennessee‘s House Bill 368, available at http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf, accessed on Aug 10, 2012

The Institute for Creation Research. ―Presidential Support for Creationism,‖ available athttp://www.icr.org/article/presidential-support-for-creationism/

Toumey, C.P. 1994. God’s own scientists: Creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Toumey C, Besley J, Blanchard M, Brekke M, Cobb M, Ecklund EH, Glass M, Guterbock TM, Kelly AE, Lewenstein B. 2010. Science in the service of citizens and consumers: The NSF workshop on public knowledge of science, 22–23 October 2010. National Science Foundation.

Tracy JL, Hart J, Martens JP. 2011. ―Death and science: the existential underpinnings of belief in intelligent design and discomfort with evolution.‖ PLoS ONE. 6(3): e17349.

Trani R. 2004. ―I won‘t teach evolution; it‘s against my religion. And now for the rest of the story…‖ The American Biology Teacher 66: 419–27.

156 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. ―Educational Attainment in the United States: 2011-Detailed Tables,‖ available athttp://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2011/tables.html

Wald, Kenneth D. 2003. Religion and Politics in the United States. Lanham, Md. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Fourth Edition

Wald, Kenneth D. and David C. Leege. 2009. ―Culture, Religion, and American Political Life.‖ In The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics, Guth, James L.Kellstedt, Lyman A., Smidt, Corwin E., ed., Oxford University Press.

Ward, J. 1963. ―Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function.‖ Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58; 236-44.

Webster, D. M., and Kruglanski, A. W. 1994. ―Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.‖ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.

Weikart, Richard. 2004. From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan.

Weisberg, Herbert F. 2005. The Total Survey Error Approach: A Guide to the New Science of Survey Research, University of Chicago Press.

Welch, Michael R., Charles Tittle and Harold Grasmick. ―Christian Religiosity, Self-Control, and Social Conformity.‖ Social Forces, 2006, 84: 1605-1623

White, J. K. 2003. The Values Divide. New York: Chatham House.

Wiles, Jason R. 2010. ―Overwhelming scientific confidence in evolution and its centrality in science education—and the public disconnect.‖ Science Education Review. 2010;9:18– 27. ______. 2011. ―Challenges to teaching evolution: What's a head?‖ Futures vol. 43 issue 8. p. 787-796

Wiles, Jason R. and Alters B. 2011. ―Effects of an educational experience incorporating an inventory of factors potentially influencing student acceptance of biological evolution.‖ International Journal of Science Education.

Williams, James D. 2008. ―Creationist Teaching in School Science: A UK Perspective.‖ Evolution: Education and Outreach (2008) 1:87–95. _____. 2009. ―Belief versus Acceptance: why do people not believe in evolution?‖ BioEssays. 3:1255–62.

Williams, Rhys, ed. 1997. Cultural Wars in American Politics: Critical Reviews of a Popular Myth. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

157 Wilson, DS. 2005. ―Evolution for Everyone: how to increase acceptance of, interest in, and knowledge about evolution.‖ PLoS Biology. 2005;3. ______. 2007. Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin’s Theory can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives. New York: Delacorte.

Wilson, G. (Ed.). 1973. The Psychology of Conservatism. London: Academic.

Witham, Larry A. 2002. Where Darwin meets the Bible: Creationists and evolutionists in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wolfe, Alan. 1998. One Nation, After All: What Middle-Class Americans Really Think About: God, country, family, racism, welfare, immigration, homosexuality, work, the right, the left, and each other. New York: Viking.

Woodberry, Robert and Christian Smith. 1998. ―Fundamentalism et al: Conservative Protestants in America.‖ Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24; 25-56.

Woods, C. S. and Scharmann, L. C. 2001.―High school students' perceptions of evolutionary theory.‖ Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 1-9. Wuthnow, Robert. 1988. The Restructuring of American Religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wuthnow, Robert. 1993. Christianity in the 21st Century: Reflections on the Challenges Ahead. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zakrisson, I. 2005. ―Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale.‖Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 863–872

158 Appendix A: Demographic Summary of Subsample Table 1: Demographic Summary: Consistent Creationism Believer in the Harris Five views

Total Respondents Consistent % Difference (N=4,626) Creationism Believer Demographic Summary (N=570) Percent N Percent N Female 51.5 2,383 58.2 383 6.7 Age_Under 30 21.2 1,021 23.6 155 2.4 Over 60 20.6 955 14.9 98 -5.7 White 69.7 3,224 69.3 455 -0.4 Southern 33.2 1,536 40.7 268 7.5 Education: Less Than High School 4.7 218 4.6 30 -0.1 College graduate or above 26.3 1,217 18.0 119 -8.3 Democrats 36.2 1,674 24.0 158 -12.2 Republican 30.1 1,393 47.0 309 16.9 Independent 33.7 1,561 29.0 191 -12.2 Evangelical Protestant 23.0 1,105 59.1 389 36.1 Roman Catholic 20.4 944 9.9 65 -10.5 Unaffiliated 17.2 794 .9 6 -16.3 Other religions 16.1 747 13.8 91 -2.3 Church attendance(More than once a 24.7 1,141 52.6 346 27.9 Beliefweek) in God(Almost or absolutely sure 73.1 3,381 99.6 654 26.5 about God‘s existence) Bible taken literally 23.4 1,084 53.3 350 27.9 Bible book of fables 25.5 1,177 2.3 15 -23.2 General science knowledge (60% or More 61.0 2,823 43.8 288 -26.5 Correct) Evolutionary science knowledge (60% or 11.9 548 3.8 25 -23.2 More Correct) Familiarity with evolution concepts(High 37.2 1,720 30.6 201 -6.6 or Very High) Authoritarianism56 (High or Very High) 9.5 437 78.5 95 66.0

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

56Subsample size of this item is 1005.

159 Table 2: Demographic Summary: Consistent Natural Evolution Believer in the Harris Five views

Total Respondents Consistent Natural % (N=4,626) Evolution Believer Difference Demographic Summary (N=658) Percent N Percent N Female 51.5 2,383 37.7 156 -13.8 Age_Under 30 21.2 1,021 27.3 113 6.1 Over 60 20.6 955 17.6 73 -3.0 White 69.7 3,224 74.5 309 4.8 Southern 33.2 1,536 23.6 98 -9.6 Education: Less Than High School 4.7 218 3.6 15 -1.1 College graduate or above 26.3 1,217 42.5 176 16.2 Democrats 36.2 1,674 46.5 193 10.3 Republican 30.1 1,393 14.9 62 -15.2 Independent 33.7 1,561 38.6 160 4.9 Evangelical Protestant 23.0 1,105 .2 1 -22.8 Roman Catholic 20.4 944 11.8 49 -8.6 Unaffiliated 17.2 794 56.0 232 38.8 Other religions 16.1 747 20.0 83 3.9 Church attendance(More than once a week) 24.7 1,141 3.9 16 -20.8 Belief in God(Almost or absolutely sure about 73.1 3,381 16.4 68 -56.7 God‘s existence) Bible taken literally 23.4 1,084 .5 2 -22.9 Bible book of fables 25.5 1,177 82.4 342 56.9 General science knowledge (60% or More 61.0 2,823 91.5 379 30.5 Correct) Evolutionary science knowledge (60% or 11.9 548 30.4 126 18.5 More Correct) Familiarity with evolution concepts(High or 37.2 1,720 69.7 277 32.5 Very High) Authoritarianism57 (High or Very High) 9.5 437 5.5 4 -4.0 Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

57Subsample size of this item is 1005.

160 Appendix B. Level of Consistency or Randomness in Harris five human origin views

Table1: Distribution of Responses in Harris Five Human Origin Views

Among five human origin views Percent N Only ONE view is TRUE 36.7 1,698 13.8 639 TWO views are TRUE 13.3 616 THREE views are TRUE 2.7 124 FOUR views are TRUE ALL FIVE views are TRUE 5.7 265 ALL FIVE views are FALSE 1.7 78 ALL FIVE views are uncertain 4.8 222 All else combined58 21.3 984 Total 100 4,626

Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

Table 2: Consistent Believer in Harris: Consistent Respondent Who answered TRUE to ONLY ONE theory out of five with either False or Not Sure to four theories.

Percent N

Creationism 12.3 570

God-guided Evolution 7.3 339

Intelligent Design 1.2 54

God-initiated Evolution 1.7 77

Natural Evolution 14.2 658

Total 36.7 1,698 Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

58This category contains those who answered to five views as either ―false‖ or ―not at all sure.‖ For example, the respondent who choose ―false‖ to one view while answering ―not at all sure‖ to four views.

161 Appendix C. Question Wording of Primary Variables

General Scientific Knowledge (10 items)

 Next, we have a few short questions like those you might see on a television game show. For each statement below, how much do you believe it to be true or false? Please do not spend too much time for any given statement.  The center of the Earth is very hot.  All radioactivity is man-made.  It is the father's genes that decide whether the baby is a boy or a girl.  Lasers work by focusing sound waves.  Electrons are smaller than atoms.  Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria.  The universe began with a huge explosion.  The continents on which we live have been moving their locations for millions of years and will continue to move in the future.  The Sun goes around the Earth.  Crude oil, coal, and natural gas are formed from the fossilized remains of dead plants and animals by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionary Scientific Knowledge (4 items)

―Approximately how old is the Earth? Even if you are not sure, please give us your best guess.  Approximately how old is the Universe?

 About how long ago did the last Dinosaur exist on Earth?

 About how long ago did modern humans (homo sapiens) develop?

 About how long ago did modern human beings (homo sapiens) begin to migrate across the world from the continent where they originally developed?

 Less than 10,000 years ago  10,000 to 100,000 years ago  Hundreds of thousands of years ago  Millions of years ago  Billions of years ago  Trillions of years ago  Not at all sure

162 Familiarity with Evolutionary Concepts (5 items)

 Next, how familiar are you with each of the following concepts in evolutionary biology?  Adaptation  Natural selection  Genetic mutation  Speciation  Genetic drift

Belief in God‘s Existence

 Which statement best describes your beliefs about the existence of God?

 I believe that God does not exist.  I am not sure as to whether God exists or not.  I am somewhat sure that God exits.  I am mostly sure that God exists.  I am absolutely certain that God exists.

Views of the Bible

 Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible?  The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.  The Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally.  The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man.  Not at all sure

Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale (20 items)59

1. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us. 2. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else.* 3. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people‘s minds.

59Based on factor analyses, Altemeyer (2005) conclude that the 20 items measure one thing which is the co- variation of three sub-components of the RWA: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism.

163 4. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.* 5. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas. 6. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps.* 7. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people.* 8. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs. 9. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else.* 10. The ―old-fashioned ways‖ and the ―old-fashioned values‖ still show the best way to live. 11. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority‘s view by protesting for women‘s abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer.* 12. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path. 13. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the ―normal way things are supposed to be done.‖* 14. God‘s laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished. 15. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes and whom the authorities should put out of action. 16. A ―woman‘s place‖ should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past.* 17. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the ―rotten apples‖ who are ruining everything. 18. There is no ―ONE right way‖ to live life; everybody has to create their own way.* 19. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy ―traditional family values.‖* 20. This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group‘s traditional place in society.

Note:*indicates the item is worded in the con-trait direction, for which the scoring key is reversed. Social-Emotional Orientation: Influence of God or spiritual force in Life  How much influence do you feel that each of the following has had on determining the course of your life? …God or another spiritual force  No influence at all  A little influence  A fair amount of influence  A lot of influence

164  A great deal of influence Cognitive Orientation: Type of Problem Solver  ―Some people prefer to solve simple problems instead of complex ones, whereas other people prefer to solve more complex problems. Which type of problem do you prefer to solve?‖  Simple  Complex

165 Appendix D. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Three Dependent Variables

Dependent Variables Variable name and label N Mean SD Value label and valid percent

GSS Q1531#i: True/False 4626 2.86 1.81 1 Definitely false, 29.6%

2 Probably false, 12.7%

3 Probably true, 27.8%

4 Definitely true, 22.9%

8 Not at all sure, 7%

Modified Gallup Q1860#: Origins of Human 4626 2.71 1.33 1 Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 25.6%

2 Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had NO PART in this process, 15.8%

3 God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so, 34.7%

4 None of these comes close to my beliefs, 9.6%

5 Not at all sure which is true, 14.2%

Harris Five Worldviews Theory#a (Creationism) 4626 2.94 1.97 1 Definitely false (30%), 4 Definitely true (27.2%), 8 Not at all sure (8.9%)

Theory#b (God-guided evolution) 4626 3.09 1.86 1 Definitely false (20.1%), 4 Definitely true (23.9%), 8 Not at all sure (8.9%)

Theory#c (Intelligent Design) 4626 2.74 2.07 1 Definitely false (32.1%), 4 Definitely true (7.7%), 8 Not at all sure (11%)

Theory#d (God-initiated evolution) 4626 2.64 2.011 1 Definitely false (34.2%), 4 Definitely true (8.7%), 8 Not at all sure (9.8%)

Theory#e (Natural evolution) 4626 2.61 1.983 1 Definitely false (39.4%), 4 Definitely true (12%), 8 Not at all sure (8.9%)

166 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Predictor Variables in Logistic Analysis

Low Mid Hi Variables Means 5th 50th 95th Female 0.52 0 1 1 agelt30 0.22 0 0 1 ageover60 0.21 0 0 1 White 0.7 0 1 1 South 0.33 0 0 1 Education 2.81 2 3 5 Party ID 4.2 1 4 7 Evangprot 0.24 0 0 1 Catholic 0.2 0 0 1 Unaffiliated 0.17 0 0 1 Otherrelig 0.16 0 0 1 Religious Attendance 3.94 1 4 9 Belief in God 4.06 1 5 5 Bibliteral 0.23 0 0 1 Bibfable 0.25 0 0 1 gensci_scale 6.94 3 7 10 evolsci_scale 1.64 0 1 4 Familiarity Scale 10.29 5 10 19 RWA Scores 89.77 30.99 95 144 Constant 1 Source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

167 Table 3: Pearson Correlation Coefficients among Independent Variables

Sex Age Race Educ South PID Affili Attend Bible Evang GenSci EvolSci Famili RWA Simple

Sex 1 .029* .015 -.226** .037* .112** -.073** -.021 -.078** -.018 -.271** -.148** -.218** .022 .205**

Age 1 -.222** .098** -.013 -.069** -.122** -.066** -.065** .017 .020 -.002 -.224** .203** .083**

Race 1 .078** .043** .161** .093** -.055** -.007 .000 -.071** .018 .064** -.112** -.036*

Educ 1 .027 -.001 .076** -.129** .063** .059** .339** .174** .341** -.204** -.222**

South 1 -.030* -.075** -.082** -.106** -.147** -.047** -.042** -.003 .121** .013

PID 1 .196** .153** .128** .162** -.074** .059** -.013 -.354** .015

Affiliation 1 .255** .378** .352** .185** .197** .195** -.436** -.072**

Attendance 1 .398** .364** .071** .154** -.010 -.361** -.016

the Bible 1 .447** .132** .169** .094** -.450** -.057**

Evang 1 .145** .212** .069** -.409** -.072**

GenSci 1 .381** .447** -.317** -.270**

EvolSci 1 .277** -.301** -.141**

Familiarity 1 -.276** -.308**

RWA 1 .c

Simple 1

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). c. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.

168 Table 4: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins (Consistent Believer) Creationism God-guided Evolution Intelligent Design coeff. s. e. Exp(B) coeff. s. e. Exp(B) coeff. s. e. Exp(B) Female .105 .262 1.111 .635* .274 1.887 -.272 .561 .762 Under 30 .403 .321 1.497 -.452 .398 .636 -1.383 1.018 .251 Over 60 -.043 .335 .958 .533 .284 1.704 .065 .637 1.067 White .362 .334 1.437 -.239 .308 .788 -.735 .625 .479 Southern .194 .261 1.215 -.092 .266 .912 -.234 .571 .792 Education -.068 .153 .934 -.019 .145 .981 .022 .283 1.022 Party ID -.098 .070 .907 -.068 .064 .934 -.078 .141 .925 Evangelical Protestant -.113 .355 .893 .031 .335 1.032 .320 .781 1.377 Roman Catholic -2.10** .700 .122 -.393. 356.356356356 .675 .003 .86 1.003 Unaffiliated .180 .659 1.198 -.859 .573 .424 -17.037 2871 .000 Other religions .441 .421 1.554 -.892 .481 .410 1.203 .736 3.331 Church attendance .079 .054 1.082 -.023 .054 .977 -.191 .108 .826 Belief in God .820* .399 2.271 .353 .182 1.423 .039 .306 1.040 Bible taken literally .367 .286 1.444 -.715* .326 .489 .516 .698 1.675 Bible book of fables -2.545 1.638 .078 -.133 .417 .876 .459 .800 1.582 General science .062 .065 1.064 -.088 .062 .916 .400* .177 1.492 knowledge Evolutionary science -.909*** .160 .403 .307** .098 1.359 -.111 .197 .895 knowledge Familiarity with .059 .036 1.061 -.031 .037 .970 .025 .066 1.025 evolution concepts Authoritarianism .023*** .006 1.023 .007 .006 1.007 .015 .011 1.016 Constant -8.680 2.062 1.198 -3.709 1.174 .025 -7.327 2.493 .001

Number of cases: 570 339 Correctly predicted: 91.9 % 92.2% 98.3% Naglekerke R-square: .458 .137 .178 *<.05, **<.01, ***<.001 Dependent variable is coded 1 if R believes ONLY this view is true, 0 otherwise Data source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

169 Table 4, continued: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins (Consistent Believer) God-initiated Evolution Naturalistic Evolution coeff. s. e. Exp(B) coeff. s. e. Exp(B) Female -.267 .501 .765 -.684* .301 .504 Under 30 .688 .567 1.989 -.120 .359 .887 Over 60 .576 .610 1.778 .031 .411 1.031 White -.189 .560 .828 -.556 .358 .573 Southern -.456 .549 .634 -.110 .335 .896 Education -.010 .286 .990 -.090 .158 .914 Party ID -.143 .132 .867 .109 .087 1.115 Evangelical Protestant .409 .634 1.505 .320 .905 1.377 Roman Catholic -1.421 .962 .241 -.062 .488 .940 Unaffiliated .376 .763 1.456 -.146 .470 .864 Other religions -1.935 1.280 .144 -.162 .480 .851 Church attendance .051 .107 1.052 .024 .077 1.024 Belief in God .627* .285 1.871 -1.146*** .152 .318 Bible taken literally .527 .602 1.694 -15.96 2460 .000 Bible book of fables .648 .747 1.912 1.094** .341 2.986 General science knowledge -.189 .125 .827 .155 .087 1.168 Evolutionary science knowledge .437* .188 1.547 .178 .118 1.194

Familiarity with evolution -.043 .071 .958 .008 .040 1.008 concepts Authoritarianism -.027* .011 .973 -.025*** .006 .975 Constant -3.028 2.224 .048 2.144 1.172 8.530

Number of cases: 77 658 Correctly predicted: 98.0% 93.3% Naglekerke R-square: .146 .708 *<.05, **<.01, ***<.001 Dependent variable is coded 1 if R believes ONLY this view is true, 0 otherwise Data source: 2008 Harris Interactive Survey

170