Predicting Position on Teaching Creationism (Instead of Evolution) in ...

The Journal of Educational Research, 103:253–261, 2010 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright
ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-067 online DOI:10.1080/00220670903383028

Predicting Position on Teaching Creationism (Instead of Evolution) in Public Schools ANDREW LAC VANESSA HEMOVICH

IGOR HIMELFARB University of California, Santa Barbara

Claremont Graduate University

ABSTRACT. The federal government has repeatedly denied the introduction of creationism into public schools as it is a direct violation of the separation of church and state. Little is known about those who would opt to eliminate evolution in scientific curriculum altogether. The authors examined this more extreme anti-evolution perspective in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 2,000). A binary logistic regression model involving 11 relevant predictors revealed that the most important predictor of support for the teaching of creationism-only education in public schools was low educational attainment, which yielded a stronger magnitude of effect than did belief in God or importance of religion. Results are interpreted and discussed in the context of implications for educational policy and science curriculum in public schools. Keywords: creationism, education policy, evolution, public schools

C

onflicting opinions on the creation of life is a long-standing and often polarizing debate among facets of American society. Conservative religious groups advocating creationism routinely lock horns with scientific proponents for evolutionary theory (Alters & Alters, 2001). Creationism, as typically viewed on by its American advocates, draws on a literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian tradition that the world is no more than 6,000 years old and that all species of life on the planet were created over a period of 6 days by a monotheistic deity (Morris, 1985; Overton, 1982). In stark contrast, evolutionary theory (also referred to as Darwinism) maintains that biological life originated by way of a natural selection process over billions of years (Antolin & Herbers, 2001; Bowler, 2003; Futuyma, 2005; Haught, 2008). Today, evangelical scholars and conservative religious interest groups label evolutionary theory antithetical, often exhibiting hostile opposition toward evolution. Religious factions have gone so far as to impugn evolutionary theory as the cause for a range of problematic social issues from

racism to murder (Bergman, 1999; Marsden, 1991; Morris & Morris, 1996). Although evolution is widely accepted throughout the scientific community, public opinion encompasses a broader spectrum of acknowledgment that ranges from ambivalent to fiercely resolute. Across the United States, the majority of Americans (44%) currently support the view that God created human beings as they are in their present form, 36% believe human beings developed over millions of years but that this process was directed by God, while only 14% believe human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years without any direction from God at all, with 5% having no opinion (Gallup, 2008). As a long-standing political issue, it is not surprising that the creationism–evolution controversy has spilled over into the public education domain as well. Fundamentalist religious groups continue to fervently espouse the removal of evolution in public schools, and Americans remain polarized on the issue. The issue of whether to teach evolution in public schools has raised protest among several conservative Christian groups throughout the United States (Nelkin, 1982; Shupe & Stacey, 1983). Negative attitudes toward public school have been associated with feelings of hostility regarding spirituality and morality among conservative religious groups (Sikkink, 1999). A Gallup poll in 2005 found that although 63% of respondents felt it was acceptable to teach evolution, an even greater majority (76%) of this very same sample responded that they would not be upset if creationism were taught in schools. Background Historically, federal legislature has repeatedly denied the introduction of creationism into the classroom as it is a direct violation of the separation of church and state under Address correspondence to Andrew Lac, School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, 123 E. 8th Street, Claremont, CA 91711, USA. (E-mail: [email protected])

254

the Establishment Clause. In a unanimous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968, a ban on teaching evolution in public schools in Arkansas was overturned and deemed in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968). In Daniel v. Waters (1975), Tennessee’s law promoting equal emphasis on the teaching of evolution and creationism in schools was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Louisiana’s subsequent attempt to mandate the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools also was overturned by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). More recently, in 2002 a county Education Board in Georgia unanimously approved that new science textbooks affix the following sticker as a disclaimer: “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” (Selman v. Cobb County School District, 2005). Owing to the controversial nature of such a mandate, this decision received national attention and was later overturned in court for imposing the endorsement of alternative religious theories. Prompted by legislative rulings such as Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), creationist advocates have responded with the intelligent-design movement. Intelligent design maintains that the origins of life and resulting complexity of living organisms on the planet can be explained not through the random act of natural selection but as a result of a supernatural intervention by an unnamed intelligent designer (Behe, 1996; Brumfiel, 2005). Although presented as scientific theory, it is erroneous to label intelligent design as a science because it proposes no new hypotheses, cannot be tested empirically, and is not falsifiable (Attie et al., 2006; Bonner, 2006; Greener, 2007). Mainstream scientific proponents also contend that because intelligent design deliberately circumvents any attempt to identify or explain the intelligent designer of the universe, the theory is no more than a cleverly restated theological Trojan horse being pushed by conservative religious groups into public school curriculum (Forrest & Gross, 2004). Despite its controversial and therefore well-publicized arrival, public opinion has not collectively supported the notion of intelligent design. In a recent poll, the majority of participants felt “unsure” (35%) or felt it “should not” (21%) be taught in public schools (Gallup, 2008). For the same reasons that creationism is not permitted to be taught in public schools, state and federal legislation has also been quick to dismiss intelligent design as unscientific and bound too closely to theological underpinnings. Despite these setbacks, continued attempts from fundamentalist groups to thwart the teaching of evolution in public schools continue to make headlines. In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), Pennsylvania’s attempt to push intelligent design into public schools was denied as it was deemed religious doctrine, not science, and directed students to consult a creationist text as though it were a scientific resource.

The Journal of Educational Research

With such increases in high-profile media coverage over recent years, the creationism–evolution debate has reached the eyes and ears of the international community as well (Laidlaw, 2007; Walker, 2006). In the United Kingdom, the British Center for Science Education was recently established to counteract the actions of creationist groups who were disseminating information packets about intelligent design to students in public schools. Although most European countries do not have a constitution formally requiring the separation of church and state, many are consistent with the United States in that creationism and intelligent design are not scientific in nature and should not be taught in public schools. However, in other international communities, such as Turkey, the anti-evolution movement is gathering momentum with more and more science textbooks taking on a sharply creationist tone (Graebsch & Schiermeier, 2006). Present Study Despite the number of public opinion polls examining whether people support the teaching of creationism alongside evolution (Gallup, 2005; Gallup, 2008), much less is known about the more polar view, espoused by many Americans, that public schools should not teach evolution because the subject matter often contradicts their religious ideas and principles. Further, most research on this topic falls short by failing to depart from the use of descriptive data to more advanced statistical applications that would provide greater explanatory power. Thus, in the present study, we estimated a predictive binary logistic regression model to examine how proponents of creationism-only public education differ from opponents who do not espouse this view by focusing on factors that might discriminate these two groups. To our knowledge, this is the first study to estimate a predictive model assessing the various demographic, social, and structural attributes of those who support the teaching of creationism-only education in public schools. Partly because of the generally accepted (but potentially erroneous) perception that supporters of creationism-only education are simply more religious, a more comprehensive picture of this cohort has yet to emerge in the literature. Conventional wisdom suggests that religiosity may play a critical role, but due to the political, educational, and social implications associated with this controversial issue, other factors not previously considered may be equally, or even more, important (Alters & Alters, 2001; Tiffin, 1994). Thus, the present analytic strategy allows us to assess the unique contribution of additional predictors statistically above and beyond religious beliefs. The overarching research question of the present study is the following: Research Question 1: What predictors reliably discriminate people’s position on creationism education in public schools?

The Journal of Educational Research

Hypothesis 1 (H1 ): We expected that variables commonly associated with religiosity (belief in God and importance of religion) would predict creationism-only support. H2 : We proposed that politically conservative ideology would also explain an individual’s stance, as put forth by research linking conservative ideology and support for educational policies that are proreligion (Deckman, 2002). Extending on these hypotheses, we used a logistic regression model to investigate a host of other relevant predictors that may yield important insights into the public’s position on creationism in public education. Two additional research questions were addressed in this study. Research Question 2: To what extent are creationism-only proponents and opponents different in their perceptions of whether scientists and science teachers, parents, and school boards should be responsible deciding how evolution is taught in public schools? Research Question 3: To what extent are parents who prefer creationism-only education more likely to report that their children encountered problems concerning the topics of religion, sex, and homosexuality in public schools? Method Design and Procedure Data from the Religion and Public Life Survey (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2005) were used for the present study. In the data collection methodology for the survey project, telephone interviews were conducted with a nationally representative sample of United States participants 18 years of age and older. Participants were selected via list-assisted random-digit telephone dialing This procedure ensured comprehensive coverage of all phone numbers, regardless of whether numbers were directory-listed or not. Businesses were excluded. To minimize response bias, sampled participants were contacted up to 10 times, and calls were spread throughout various times and days of the week. The final sample comprised 2,000 participants. Application of sampling weights available in the data set ensured that results could be generalized to the adult population in the United States. Weights were adjusted for bias due to differential response rates through balancing the data to be nationally representative of sex, age, education, race, census region, and population density. These weights were adjusted based on national parameters obtained from the Census Bureau. When weighted, the margin of sampling error was ± 2.4%. The weights were scaled to reflect the total sample size of 2,000. Although 3.5% of the data from the variables included in the present study had missing values, we sought to ensure that this would not compromise the effect of the sampling

255

weights as most statistical techniques list-wise delete incomplete cases. As such, Multiple Imputation (Rubin, 1996) was performed on missing responses using the IVEware program (Raghunathan, Lepkowski, Van Hoewyk, Solenberger, 2001). Advantages of Multiple Imputation include the fact that it is based on the Monte Carlo estimation method, and that the technique allows for the imputation of missing values for categorical variables. The Multiple Imputation procedure has been shown to outperform other methods for handling missing values and is recommended for the analysis of national data (Penn, 2007; Vriens & Melton, 2002). Measures Dependent variable. Support for the teaching of only creationism was defined with the following item: “Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism INSTEAD OF evolution in public schools?” The words in uppercase were emphasized by the interviewer. Respondents indicated they were either proponents (favor) or opponents (oppose) of this policy. Predictors. The following predictors included demographic, social, and structural variables assessed in the present study: gender (noted by the interviewer), age (“What is your age?”), race (“What is your race?”), education (“What is the last grade or class that you completed in school?”), marital status (“Are you married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married?”), children attending K–12 schools (“Did you have any children living in your household who were enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade this past year?”), census region (derived from respondent’s zip code), voter registration status (“These days, many people are so busy they can’t find time to register to vote, or move around so often they don’t get a chance to re-register. Are you now registered to vote in your precinct or election district or haven’t you been able to register so far?”), political ideology (“In general, would you describe your political views as. . .”), importance of religion (“How important would you say religion is in your own life?”), and belief in God (“Which of the following statements comes closest to your belief about God?”). Responses for these predictors were coded and analyzed as dummy coded categorical variables for the purpose of interpretation. Who should have a voice in deciding how evolution is taught?. Three items assessed participants’ beliefs about which of three pivotal groups should be responsible for settling the issue of whether evolution should be taught in public schools. Respondents heard the stem, “I’d like to get your views on who should and who should not have a say on how evolution is taught in public schools.” This statement was then followed by, “In your opinion, should [group name] have a say in how evolution is addressed, or should they not have a say.” In place of “[group name],” the interviewer read one of the following three groups: scientists and science teachers,

256

parents, or school boards. Each respondent received all three item combinations, which were randomly counterbalanced to take presentation order into account. Respondents were allowed to offer a should have a say or should not have a say response to each item. Whether their children experienced discomfort with topics in public schools. To assess whether respondents’ children have ever experienced discomfort with topics that may have arisen at school, respondents with any children attending K–12 public schools answered the following three questions: (a) “Has your child ever mentioned feeling uncomfortable when the subject of religion came up at school, or not?”; (b) “Has your child ever mentioned feeling uncomfortable when the subject of evolution came up at school, or not?”; and (c) “Has your child ever mentioned feeling uncomfortable when the subject of homosexuality came up at school, or not?” Respondents offered a yes or no response to each of the three items. Results Bivariate Statistics Respondents either in favor of or opposed to creationismonly public school education were systematically dissimilar on a number of demographic, social, and structural characteristics. Pearson chi-square tests revealed these two groups statistically differed on nearly every variable including gender, race, education, marital status, census region, registered voter status, political ideology, importance of religion, and belief in God (Table 1). Factors such as age and whether respondents had children attending kindergarten through 12th grade appeared unrelated to an individual’s position on the issue. An additional noteworthy finding was that although 95.4% of creationism-only supporters reported believing in God, the vast majority of participants opposing this position also believe in God (77.8%).

The Journal of Educational Research

and less than high school). The parameter of interest in a logistic regression is the odds ratio (OR), which also serves as an indicator of effect size magnitude (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). An odds ratio of 1.0 reflects the statistical null hypothesis of no difference in proportion of the comparison group relative to the reference group between those who favor or oppose this policy. Results show that all predictors, taken together, produced a logistic regression model that was highly statistically significant, Nagelkerke R2 = .24, χ 2(24, N = 2,000) = 385.09, p < .001. Classification of cases also was successful as the model correctly categorized 62.5% and 72.0% of individuals for and against creationism-only education, respectively. As presented in Table 2, after adjusting for all other predictors in the model, several statistically significant results emerged. Hispanic respondents were 1.54 (p < .05) times more likely than White respondents to favor (than to oppose) this policy issue. Lower levels of educational attainment increasingly predicted support. In contrast to respondents possessing a college degree or higher, respondents with some college education were 1.94 (p < .001) times more likely to be creationism-only supporters; high school graduates were 2.50 (p < .001) times more likely to be creationism-only supporters; and those with less than a high school education were 2.97 (p < .001) times more likely to be creationism-only supporters. In contrast to single people, respondents who were divorced or separated had 2.01 (p < .001) times the odds ratio of being creationism-only supporters. Geography appeared to play a role as well. Compared to respondents living in the Northeast, proponents were more likely reside in the South than the Northeast (OR = 1.74, p < .001). Furthermore, supporters were more likely to be very conservative than very liberal (OR = 2.54, p < .01), more likely to feel religion is very important than not very important (OR = 2.75, p < .001), and more likely to believe in God than not believe in God (OR = 2.88, p < .001).

Logistic Regression Model

Who Should Have a Voice in Deciding How Evolution Is Taught?

In the aforementioned findings, it was revealed that creationism-only supporters differed from the remaining sample on a number of relevant variables. To determine which of these variables remain predictive of support after statistically accounting for the variance associated with all other predictors, a more comprehensive model was conducted. For this purpose, a binary logistic regression model (Peng, Lee, & Ingersoll, 2002) was estimated with position on teaching creationism instead of evolution (0 = oppose, 1 = favor) serving as the outcome. The 11 predictor variables each consisted of categorical levels, and thus were dummy coded prior to entry into the model (Norusis, 2003). Within each predictor (e.g., education), one level served as the reference level (e.g., college+) with respect to the other comparison levels (e.g., some college, high school graduate,

Considering the various special interest groups contending how evolution and creationism should be addressed in public schools, additional analyses assessed respondents’ beliefs about who should have a voice in this decision making responsibility. As such, 2 × 2 Pearson chi-square tests were conducted to determine any statistically significant relationships between creationism-only support and beliefs concerning which group(s) should have a say in this decision process. These groups consisted of scientists and science teachers, parents, and school boards. Significant differences in these responses emerged between creationism-only proponents and opponents on all three items concerning which group should be allowed to have a voice on this issue. As displayed in Table 3, results indicate that supporters for the teaching of only creationism

The Journal of Educational Research

257

TABLE 1. Percentage of Respondents Who Oppose and Favor Creationism-Only Education Oppose Predictor Gender Male Female Age 65+ 50–64 30–49 18–29 Race White Black Hispanic Other Education College+ Some college High school graduate Less than high school Marital status Single Married Divorced or separated Children attending K–12 school No Yes Census region Northeast Midwest South West Registered voter No Yes Political ideology Very liberal Liberal Moderate Conservative Very conservative Importance of religion Not very important Fairly important Very important Belief in God No Yes

Favor

%

n

%

n

51.7 48.3

585 547

43.5 56.5

378 491

14.2 24.2 40.1 21.5

161 274 453 243

18.0 23.2 37.4 21.4

156 202 325 186

76.1 8.8 9.2 5.8

862 100 104 66

69.8 13.7 11.6 4.8

607 119 101 42

35.4 24.1 31.7 8.8

400 273 358 100

16.6 23.5 43.5 16.4

144 204 378 142

34.8 54.6 10.5

394 618 119

31.4 52.7 15.9

273 458 138

70.0 30.0

792 339

71.3 28.7

620 249

22.3 23.3 29.6 24.8

252 263 335 280

15.4 23.1 44.0 17.5

134 201 382 152

17.5 82.5

198 933

21.1 78.9

183 686

5.0 17.0 43.7 30.9 3.5

56 192 494 349 40

4.7 10.8 35.8 36.1 12.6

41 94 311 313 109

20.2 31.6 48.3

228 357 546

5.9 18.1 76.1

51 157 661

22.2 77.8

251 881

4.6 95.4

40 829

χ2 13.18∗∗ 5.37

17.02∗∗∗

105.51∗∗∗

13.05∗∗

0.41 52.18∗∗∗

4.02∗ 78.16∗∗∗

169.66∗∗∗

122.12∗∗∗

Note. Due to rounding errors from sampling weights, total percentages range from 99.9% to 100.1%. ∗ p < .05.∗∗ p < .01.∗∗∗ p < .001.

tended to believe that parents should have the most say (90.8%), followed by scientists and science teachers (64.4%), and then school boards (60.3%). Those in opposition, however, viewed scientists and science teachers as the group who should have the most say (82.0%), followed by parents (76.4%), and then school boards (66.0%).

Whether Their Children Experienced Discomfort with Topics in Public Schools Previous analyses revealed that having children presently attending public school did not impinge on an individual’s position on the creationism–evolution issue (see Tables 1

258

The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 2. Binary Logistic Regression Model Predicting Support for Creationism-Only Education Predictor Gender Male Female Age 65+ 50–64 30–49 18–29 Race White Black Hispanic Other Education College+ Some college High school graduate Less than high school Marital status Single Married Divorced or separated Children attending K–12 school No Yes Census region Northeast Midwest South West Registered voter No Yes Political ideology Very liberal Liberal Moderate Conservative Very conservative Importance of religion Not very important Fairly important Very important Belief in God No Yes

B

SE

Wald

Odds ratio

0.19

0.10

3.28

1.00 1.20

–0.06 0.06 0.11

0.16 0.17 0.18

0.14 0.12 0.39

1.00 0.94 1.06 1.12

0.07 0.43 0.09

0.17 0.17 0.23

0.18 6.31 0.14

1.00 1.07 1.54∗ 1.09

0.66 0.92 1.09

0.15 0.13 0.18

20.34 46.99 35.06

1.00 1.94∗∗∗ 2.50∗∗∗ 2.97∗∗∗

0.23 0.70

0.13 0.17

3.24 16.13

1.00 1.25 2.01∗∗∗

–0.15

0.13

1.42

0.27 0.55 0.01

0.16 0.14 0.16

3.07 14.54 0.00

–0.10

0.14

0.58

1.00 0.90

–0.34 –0.27 –0.19 0.93

0.28 0.25 0.25 0.31

1.53 1.16 0.56 9.12

1.00 0.71 0.76 0.83 2.54∗∗

0.26 1.01

0.21 0.20

1.59 25.43

1.00 1.30 2.75∗∗∗

1.06

0.21

26.32

1.00 2.88∗∗∗

1.00 0.86 1.00 1.31 1.74∗∗∗ 1.01

Note. The odds ratio data listed were adjusted, after controlling for all other predictors in the model. ∗ p < .05.∗∗ p < .01.∗∗∗ p < .001.

and 2). Additional analyses investigated whether such results might instead vary as a function of children’s experiences in the classroom. In other words, a possible explanation for why some parents maintain support for teaching only creationism in public schools is because their children

indicated they felt uncomfortable with certain topics taught or discussed in K–12 schools. To address this research question, the following groups were excluded from the next set of analyses: respondents without children presently attending K–12 (70.6%),

The Journal of Educational Research

259

TABLE 3. Who Should Have a Say as a Function of Support for Creationism-Only Education Oppose Group

Favor

%

n

%

n

18.0 82.0

204 927

35.6 64.4

309 560

23.7 76.4

268 864

9.1 90.8

79 789

34.0 66.0

385 746

39.7 60.3

345 524

χ2 79.10∗∗∗

Scientists and science teachers No Yes Parents No Yes School boards No Yes

72.77∗∗∗ 6.79∗∗

Note. Due to rounding errors from sampling weights, total percentages range from 99.9% to 100.1%. ∗∗ p < .01.∗∗∗ p < .001.

respondents with children attending private K–12 schools (3.5%), and respondents with home-schooled children (0.2%). This yielded a remaining subsample consisting of 514 (25.7%) parents who had at least one child enrolled in a K–12 public school. Several 2 × 2 chi-square tests were undertaken to assess the relationship between creationismonly support and whether respondents’ children had ever reported experiencing discomfort when topics such as religion, evolution, and homosexuality arose in public school settings. As presented in Table 4, results found that parents for teaching only creationism in public schools were significantly more likely to indicate that their children were uncomfortable when the issue of evolution and homosexuality arose in school. Although such systematic differences emerged as a function of position, on closer inspection such topics were infrequently perceived to be problematic.

Among creationism-only parents with children attending public schools, only 5.8%, 9.9%, and 12.6% reported that their children felt uncomfortable when the topics of religion, evolution, and homosexuality, respectively, arose in public school settings. Discussion Creationism embraces a wide spectrum of beliefs ranging from a literal biblical interpretation to the modernized theory of intelligent design. Many people in the United States have proclaimed they would choose to eliminate the teaching of evolution in public schools as it interferes with their at-home religious principles and worldviews. Proponents for teaching creationism in public schools maintain that evolution is only a theory and not a fact (State

TABLE 4. Parents Whose Children Reported Feeling Uncomfortable with the Following Topics in Public Schools as a Function of Support for Creationism-Only Education Oppose Topic Religion No Yes Evolution No Yes Homosexuality No Yes

Favor

%

n

%

n

93.5 6.5

272 19

94.2 5.8

210 13

95.9 4.1

279 12

90.1 9.9

201 22

93.5 6.5

272 19

87.4 12.6

194 28

χ2 0.11

Note. Due to rounding errors from sampling weights, total percentages range from 99.9% to 100.1%. ∗ p < .05.∗∗ p < .01.

6.74∗∗ 5.60∗

260

of Oklahoma, 2003). Scientists have countered that creationism is not science as it does not follow the tenets of the scientific method (Alters & Alters, 2001; Tiffin, 1994). For many reasons, this issue generates a great deal of debate that draws frequent media attention on a global scale (Nelkin, 2000). Despite the highly polarized nature of this debate, some studies have found that the majority of respondents may be willing to reach a compromise allowing for the joint teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools (Bergman, 1999). Results from the present study underscore intriguing differences between those who support creationism-only education in public school settings and those who do not. Though the vast majority of creationism-only education supporters believed in God, many participants who reported opposition to this issue also were believers. Furthermore, belief in God and perceived importance of religion were found to be predictive factors in the regression model, supporting our first hypothesis. Religiosity—whether defined as belief in God or importance of religion—may not sufficiently account for an individual’s view on creationism being taught in classrooms and, as demonstrated in this article, other pertinent factors should be considered to better understand this perspective. For instance, conservative ideology is consistently posited as a key factor underlying the movement for creationism to be taught in public schools (Deckman, 2002; Gibson, 2004). In the present study, political ideology was found to be associated with respondents’ creationism position, confirming our second hypothesis. Very conservative respondents were more supportive of this policy compared to those who identified themselves as very liberal. The reason for such differences between these polarized ideological views may stem from the fact the emphasis in the present study was on support for creationism-only teaching in schools; however, some conservatives are willing to settle for a combined approach to teaching the origin and development of life (Bliss, 1978). Other notable results emerged from the present study as well. Lack of educational attainment, especially attaining less than a high school degree, served as the strongest predictor for supporting creationism-only education. This variable was found to be more predictive than belief in God, which was the second most important predictor, followed by importance of religion. A possible reason accounting for why participants with a high level of education were found to be less supportive of creationism may stem from their better understanding of evolutionary processes, whereas their less educated counterparts fail to appreciate how empirical evidence bears on evolutionary claims (Lombrozo, Shtulman, & Weisberg, 2006). Moreover, previous research has shown that students who accepted an evolutionary paradigm were exposed to more pro-evolution information messages than were students who supported creationism (Brem, Ranney, & Schiendel, 2003). Additional findings also offer important insights. In previous studies, Hispanic respondents have been found to

The Journal of Educational Research

be more religious than White respondents (Cadge & Ecklund, 2006) and lower in educational attainment (Basurto, Slesinger, & Cautley, 1985). This may help explain why in the present study Hispanic respondents were more likely than White respondents to prefer teaching only creationism. Other findings bear important consideration as well. In terms of who should have a say in deciding how evolution is taught in public schools, creationism-only supporters were most likely to indicate parents, but people in opposition were most likely to indicate scientists and science teachers (Table 3). Although being personally impacted by having at least one child attend a K–12 public school was unrelated to their creationism viewpoint (see Tables 1 and 2), parents supporting creationism-only education were more likely than parents with the opposite view to report that their children experienced problems at school regarding the topics of evolution and homosexuality, but not religion (Table 4). However, upon closer examination of the data, their children seldom reported such problems, with rates of feeling uncomfortable with each topic no higher than 13%. Such results counterintuitively imply that parents who support creationism-only education hold views that are largely independent of their children’s classroom experiences in these three domains. Findings from the present study are novel and informative. Using data from a nationally representative sample, numerous factors were investigated to explore how supporters of creationism-only education in American public schools systematically differed from those in opposition. In total, 11 demographic, social, and structural predictors were used to forecast support for creationism-only education in public schools. Weighted analyses made it possible to generalize results to the adult U.S. population at large. These findings have potentially important implications for educational policy and science curriculum in public schools. In terms of policy, results from the present study allow school administration officials, educational researchers, and policy experts to more precisely identify and delineate the characteristics of those who are in favor or against the creationism–evolution controversy as it applies to public schools. This information may be used in educational campaigns in an effort to explain the scientific merits of understanding evolution. As low educational attainment was found to be strongly associated with creationism-only support, an earlier and more in-depth curriculum of evolution may prove worthwhile in benefiting the public’s understanding of science in the long term.

REFERENCES Adams, W. L. (2005, November 28). The classroom: Other schools of thought; the teaching of evolution continues to polarize communities. Newsweek, 57. Alters, B. J., & Alters, S. M. (2001). Defending evolution in the classroom: A guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Antolin, A., & Herbers, J. (2001). Evolution’s struggle for existence in America’s public schools. Evolution, 55, 2379–2388.

The Journal of Educational Research Attie, A. D., Sober, E., Numbers, R. L., Amasino, R. M., Cox, B., Berceau, T., et al. (2006). Defending science education against intelligent design: A call to action. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 116, 1134–1138. Basurto, E. D., Slesinger, P., & Cautley, E. (1985). Hispanics in Wisconsin, 1980: A chartbook (Population Series 80-5). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Applied Population Laboratory. Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s black box. New York: Touchstone. Bergman, J. (1999). The attitude of various populations toward teaching evolution in public schools. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 13, 118–123. Bliss, R. B. (1978). A comparison of students studying the origin of life from a two-model approach vs. those studying from a single-model approach. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research. Bonner, J. T. (2006). Design flaws: Destroying the argument that intelligent design has a scientific basis. Nature, 442, 355–356. Bowler, P. (2003). Evolution: The history of an idea. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. F. (2003). The perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Scientific Education, 87, 181–206. Brumfiel, G. (2005). Intelligent design: Who has designs on your students’ minds? Nature, 434, 1062–1065. Cadge, W., & Ecklund, E. H. (2006). Religious service attendance among immigrants: Evidence from the New Immigrant Survey—Pilot. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1574–1595. Deckman, M. (2002). Holy ABCs! The impact of religion on attitudes about education policies. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 472–487. Daniel v. Waters, 515 F.2d 485 6th Cir. (1975). Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 91 (1968). Forrest, B., & Gross, P. R. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan horse. New York: Oxford University Press. Futuyma, D. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Gallup. (2005). Americans weigh in on evolution vs. creationism in schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www. gallup.com/poll/16462/Americans-Weigh-Evolution-vs-CreationismSchools.aspx Gallup. (2008). Evolution, creationism, intelligent design. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.gallup.com/ poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx Gibson, M. T. (2004). Culture wars in state education policy: A look at the relative treatment of evolutionary theory in state science standards. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 1129–1149. Graebsch, A., & Schiermeier, Q. (2006). Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe. Nature, 444, 406–407. Greener, M. (2007). Taking on creationism: Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience? EMBO Reports, 8, 1107– 1109. Haught, J. (2008). God after Darwin: A theology of evolution (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727 M.D. Pa. (2005). Laidlaw, S. (2007, April, 3). Creationism debate continues to evolve: Intelligent design creeping into Canadian schools, academics warn. Toronto Star, B07. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lombrozo, T., Shtulman, A., & Weisberg, M. (2006). The intelligent design controversy: Lessons from psychology and education. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 56–57.

261 Morris, H. (1985). Scientific creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. Nelkin, D. (1982). The creation controversy: Science or scripture in the schools? New York: Norton. Norusis, M. J. (2003). SPSS 12.0 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Overton, W. R. (1982). Creationism in schools: The decision in McLean versus the Arkansas Board of Education. Science, 215, 934–943. Peng, C.-Y. J, Lee, K. L., & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 3–14. Penn, D. A. (2007). Estimating missing values from the General Social Survey: An application of multiple imputation. Social Science Quarterly, 88, 573–584. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. (2005). July 2005 religion and public life survey. Washington, DC: Author. Raghunathan, T. E., Lepkowski, J. M., Van Hoewyk, J., & Solenberger, P. (2001). A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Survey Methodology, 27, 85–95. Rubin, D. B. (1996). Multiple imputation after 18+ years. Journal of American Statistical Association, 91, 473–489. Selman v. Cobb County School District, Sch. Dist., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N. D. Ga. (2005). Shupe, A., & Stacey, W. (1983). The moral majority constituency. In R. C. Liebman and R. Wuthnow (Eds.), The new Christian right: Mobilization and legitimization (pp. 104–117). New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Sikkink, D. (1999). The social forces of alienation from public schools. Social Forces, 78, 51–86. State of Oklahoma. (2003). H. B. 1504, An act relating to schools. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://www2.lsb.state.ok.us/200304hb/hb1504 int.rtf Tiffin, L. (1994). Creationism’s upside-down pyramid: How science refutes fundamentalism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Vriens, M., & Melton, E. (2002). Managing missing data. Marketing Research, 14, 12–17. Walker, T. (2006, May 18). Schools: Trouble in paradise. The debate over creationism in schools was an American problem but now the controversy is taking root in Britain. The Independent, 4.

AUTHORS NOTE Andrew Lac is a doctoral student and research associate at Claremont Graduate University, and a statistical consultant at Loyola Marymount University. His research applies diverse quantitative methods to examine family dynamics, especially parental monitoring, and adolescent substance use and delinquency. Vanesssa Hemovich is a doctoral student in Social Psychology at Claremont Graduate University currently investigating the role of family dynamics as a factor for adolescent drug use. She is also pursuing research on harm reduction, relapse prevention, and recidivism in older adolescent populations. Igor Himelfarb is a graduate student in Education and in Statistics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research interests include standardized testing, religiosity, and educational policy.