Psychology
Religious Faith’s Effect on Attitudes
Towards Scientifc Learning
Sponsoring Faculty Member: Dr. Charles Kraemer
Ella Weymiller
Educators in America have a duty to students to teach them the most
recent findings and theories about subjects, particularly science. Science is unlike any other topic of research simply because it is constantly changing; there
is new evidence found each day that either discredits a theory or supports it.
One could even say that science is “self-correcting”. However, scientific studies
are also under scrutiny by the religious world, specifically, by those who had
the Christian belief of creationism. In the book of Genesis, it is said that God
created the Earth and all its inhabitants; a belief more commonly known as
intelligent design. This belief is challenged by several scientific theories that
have an abundant amount of supporting evidence. So now we are faced with a
dilemma, do we trust science or trust religious teachings? This issue is pertinent
to the education of science because the bottom line is that if students do not
wish to learn about the subject, they will not. It is exceedingly important to find
out students’ stance on the relationship between science and religion if we are
to make adjustments to the curriculum, or at least understand their position in
depth.
Recently, it was suggested to me at the beginning of this research project that students at LaGrange College may have more conservative views on
religion, which might be causing them to be more resistant to learning certain
topics brought up in science courses. One topic in particular that interested me
was evolution and how well received it was by the college community. For the
purposes of the study, I hypothesized that there would be no signs of negative
or positive attitudes towards evolution and other scientific teachings based on
religious faith. However, I hoped to find some link between strength of religion
or even if a particular political ideology influenced students’ attitudes towards
science. Lisa Michelle Martin-Hansen and Mike Smith (2004) have conducted
similar studies, but offer more substantial explanations for the causes of this
possible conflict between science and religion. Information on the topic itself
was obtained from Eugenie Scott’s literature in Evolution vs. Creationism. Other
resources that brought to light some areas of research that were considered in
this project were Pew Research Forum (2009, 2014) in addition to the F-Scale
and Right-Wing Authoritarianism Test developed by Robert Anthony Alte242
Ella Weymiller
meyer. Barbara A. Shaffer and Brad M. Hastings (2007) examined more heavily
the relationship between religious identification and authoritarianism, which
assisted in clarifying why some students may be so resistant to evolutionary
theory.
Martin-Hansen (2006) designed a study similar to my own. She surveyed first-year students to gage their attitudes towards science to see if those
conflicted with their religious beliefs. Martin-Hansen (2006) divided her respondents into five categories regarding their knowledge of science and/or religion:
naïve realism, blissful empiricism, credulous experimentalism, blind idealism,
and excessive rationalism as previously dissected as described by Nadeau and
Desautels (p. 325). She reported that before the course, students were apprehensive about learning subjects such as evolution; however, towards the conclusion of the course, students reported less apprehension due to sorting out
previous misconceptions about the topic (Martin-Hansen, 2006, p. 329). She
paid particular attention to the ideals of naïve views and informed views when
talking about scientific subjects. Martin-Hansen’s (2006) study showed that
students have a difficult time grasping that “science is conducting differently
from the religious way of knowing”, meaning that science is not 100 percent
true (p. 332). Her study offers insight into both students’ attitudes towards science and also how to properly address the issue of teaching evolution in the
educational setting.
Smith investigated the root causes of acceptance or understanding,
or lack there of, of evolution based on religious principles. According to Smith
(2009), there are several different ways for students to develop a connection
or disconnect between evolution and religious faith, which is why it is crucial
to give notice to the variability when researching this particular topic (p. 528).
Much like Martin-Hansen, he attributes much of the apprehension towards science to the misunderstanding of what exactly are scientific and non-scientific
assertions (Smith, 2009, p. 529). Another reason students may be so defiant on
the theory of evolution and other scientific topics could be that knowledge is
linked to acceptance when the topic is “perceived to be less controversial or
less ambiguous… [or] when it is not linked to firmly entrenched beliefs”, such
as religious beliefs, according to Sinatra et al (qtd. in Smith, 2009). Smith explains the possible flaws that are present in studies such as this one and offers
suggestions for those who wish to conduct further research.
Evolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie Scott (2009) examines the historical timeline of conflict between evolutionary theorists and other sciencebased concentrations and theological teachings. Scott’s (2009) main point is
that the dilemma lies in testing reliability, since creationism cannot be tested,
and therefore it is difficult to provide evidence that this theory is inferior to
evolutionary theory (p. 19-20). However, Scott (2009) also asserts “the relationship between evolution and creationism in Christianity is a continuum, not a
dichotomy between to choices” (p. 64). This statement is truly pertinent to this
study, simply because there is so much focus on determining which side, per
243
say, students are on. Instead, it allows readers to interpret these data more as a
scale to which someone could potentially fall in the gray area of this argument.
This literature offers multiple vantage points of the presented issue, allowing
further interpretation of the relationship between science and religion.
Pew Research is a “fact tank” that includes public opinion polls, research on demographics, and other empirical social science research. Several
of the items used for this survey were adapted from this website because they
were drawn from a much larger population. Pew Research provided ample
amounts of information regarding attitudes towards religion and explicitly
evolution; it allowed for multiple opportunities for comparison of this study’s
data to the national averages or polls.
It was hypothesized that students’ resistance towards evolutionary
theory was a combination of feeling that their religious beliefs were being
challenged and their authoritarian personality. Shaffer and Hastings (2009)
examined this hypothesis more thoroughly in their research study. Their research produced evidence that proposed those with high right-wing authoritarian scores supported religious fundamental ideals, showed less doubt, and
felt more closely identified to their respective religious affiliation more so than
those with lower scores (Shaffer & Hastings, 2009, p. 156). More importantly,
Shaffer and Hastings (2009) discovered that when exposed to threat, these
characteristics were exaggerated than those who were exposed to a nonthreatening situation even if both groups were high in RWA score (p. 157). Their
research opens up the door to a new possibility of why students are resilient
in their rejection of some scientific topics; a new factor in assessing attitudes
towards the relationship between religion and science could be first measuring
their RWA personality traits.
The amalgamation of religious attitude, scientific attitude, and authoritarian personality all come into play when examining the turbulent relationship between science and religion. I hoped to find relationships between all
of these areas of study; unfortunately, I found no significant data that assured
there was a distinct relationship between religious attitude, scientific attitude,
or authoritarian personality. Merely trends were found, but there were enough
that raised a few other questions that would make for excellent follow-up research.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited based on enrollment in 1107 A/B and 1103
A/B religion courses. A total of 60 participants (28 females, 32 males, M age =
19.24, age range: 18 to 39 years) were included in the study. 32 Freshmen, 19
Sophomores, 5 Juniors, and 4 Seniors made up the sample. Most of the participants were affiliated with the Methodist church (20.0%) or Baptist church
(36.7%). 28.3% of the participants identified themselves as Democrats, 48.3%
as Republicans, and 20.0% as Independents (2 participants failed to answer this
question about political demographics).
244
Ella Weymiller
Materials
Several of the items (11, 12, 13, 15, 16, & 17) in the questionnaire were
adapted from the Pew Research Forum (2009, 2013, 2014) to measure students’
levels of agreeability with topics concerning challenges on their religious beliefs and attitudes towards evolutionary theory. Altemeyer’s Right Wing Authoritarianism Test and F-Scale (items 20, 21, & 22) were used to measure the
level of agreeability with statements that pose as dimensions for authoritarian
beliefs. See questionnaire included.
Procedure
Out of the total 84 students to whom the surveys were distributed
to, 60 completed the surveys. The professors distributed questionnaires at the
beginning of class time and when completed, the participants returned questionnaires into an envelope to assure confidentiality.
Results
There were four specific areas of concern that I hoped the questionnaires would bring to light. The first being the level of agreeability of students’
beliefs between science and religion; the second, if there were any significant
differences between courses; third, if political ideology or authoritarian ideals
had any effect on scientific and religious attitudes; and fourth, if religious affiliation affected students’ views on the relationship between science and religion. While there was very little data that presented significant evidence that
the LaGrange College undergraduate students’ scientific attitudes were heavily
influenced by their religious beliefs, there were several trends that opened up
the floor to more opportunity for research.
A large section of the survey included Likert-scale questions that were
used to gage students’ attitudes towards subjects of religion and science, and
specifically how they intertwined. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations on each question; notice the means are all around 3, the neutral position. However, the standard deviations for each question are all one deviation
or more away from the sample mean. This suggests that there is high variability
in the level of agreeability for students, meaning the two extremes of the argument are prevalent in the LaGrange College community. Students who do not
let their religion strongly influence their attitudes towards science as well as
those who do are both present, at least in the sample provided.
245
Table 1
Sample Means on Level of Agreeability with Statements Concerning Relationships and Attitudes Towards Science and Religion
Item on Questionnaire
N
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Faith helps through daily struggles
60
3.73
1.056
Evolution has supporting evidence
60
3.05
1.281
Genesis is factual
Evolution helps see faith in new way
Scientific references in Bible are metaphorical
Conflict between religion and evolution
Evolution explains origin of human life
Humans in present form since beginning of time
Humans evolved over time
Religious beliefs challenged
Scientific knowledge challenged
Everyone should obey a supernatural power
Trust judgement of authority
Best people challenge the normal way things are
done
60
60
59
60
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
3.68
2.82
3.68
2.97
2.51
3.37
3.37
3.30
3.17
3.18
2.65
3.08
1.242
1.172
.880
1.275
1.305
1.248
1.221
1.124
1.122
1.172
1.219
1.139
Valid N (listwise)
58
Note. Means closer to 1 indicate very little agreeability with items. Means closer
to 5 indicate high agreeability with questionnaire items.
Next, I looked into differing attitudes based on course enrollment. An
analysis showed that students in either course, for the most part, shared similar
responses to the Likert-scale questions. Again, there was high variability in answers but there were a few interesting findings. When comparing the variability in responses to the question regarding scientific references in the bible being metaphorical (item 13), the standard deviation for Dr. Ahearn’s 1103 course
was much lower than Dr. Cook’s (sA=0.613, sC=1.034). Also, a test for equality
of variances was conducted resulting in variability for the two courses was significantly different (t = 1.312, p = .013). The data suggests that for the most part,
the students in all courses held the same views with the exception of item 13.
After conducting an independent samples t-test of equality of means,
one item presented significance meaning that the attitude for this particular
question was statistically difference between courses. P value was set to p <
.05. On the item regarding level of agreeability that evolution has supporting
evidence, there was a significant statistical difference between courses in attitudes towards that statement (F= .620, p = .048).
On the topic of politics and authoritarianism in regards to scientific attitude, it was predicted that students with a more conservative stance on politics would be more likely to feel combative with science because it sometimes
conflicts with religious teachings. Again, the means were relatively neutral but
the variance on level of agreeability was significant as seen in Table 2. The results vary over one deviation from the mean, showing significant variance in
246
Ella Weymiller
the students’ answers. In regards to Altemeyer’s Authoritarianism scale, there
is a wide range of right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing authoritarianism
in the sample.
I looked for significant differences between political party standing
and the Likert-scale questions as seen in Table 3. There was a significant difference of means between Democrats and Republicans on the statement that
evolution explains the origin of human life (F= 3.421, p = 0.040) and between
Democrats and Independents for the statement of humans have evolved over
time (F = 3.915, p = 0.026). As seen by the mean differences, students that identified themselves as Democrats showed a higher level of agreeability than Republicans in regards to evolution explaining the origin of human life and also
a higher level compared to Independents about humans evolving over time.
I also examined political views link to authoritarianism; question 22
was found to test near the significance level: regarding the statement that
the best people challenge the way that normal things are done (F = 3.091, p
= 0.053). This does not show statistical significance in difference, just merely a
trend that offers up potential for further investigation.
Table 2
Level of Agreeability on Authoritarian Statements Based on Political Party Classification
Note. 1 indicates Democrat, 2 Republican, and 3 Independent political party
classification.
247
Table 3
(I) Political
party
identification
1
Evolution explains
2
origin of human
life
3
(J) Political
Mean
Signifparty
Differicance
identification ence (I-J)
2
.974
.050
3
.917
.165
1
-.974
.050
3
-.057
.991
1
-.917
.165
2
.057
.991
2
.527
.319
1
3
1.191*
.026
Humans evolved
1
-.527
.319
2
3
.664*
.240
over time
1
-1.191
.026
3
2
-.664
.240
Significant Differences related to Political Party Classification and Attitudes Towards Science and Religion
Note. 1 indicates Democratic, 2 Republican, and 3 Independent political party classification. Significant differences highlighted. The level of significance is p < 0.05.
Lastly, I wanted to see if there was a significant result found when
comparing students’ religious affiliation to attitudes towards science. Due to
a low number of responses for certain affiliations, all of the affiliations were
divided into two groups: religious and non-religious. Religious groups included
Protestant, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, and Jewish while non-religious groups
included Agnostic, Atheist, Non-affiliated, or Other. A significant difference in
means was found between these two groups on the items stating that faith
helps through daily struggles (F = 4.875, p = .031) and scientific knowledge is
challenged (F = 10.725, p = .002).
248
Ella Weymiller
Table 4
Significant Differences related to Religious Affiliation and Attitudes Towards Science and Religion
N
1
2
Faith helps through
daily struggles
Total
1
2
Scientific knowledge
challenged
Total
Mean
44
16
3.91
3.25
Std.
Deviation
.709
1.612
60
3.73
1.056
44
16
3.43
2.44
.873
1.413
60
3.17
1.122
Significance
0.031
0.002
Note. 1 indicates those affiliations that are religious, while 2 indicates affiliations that are non-religious. Religious and non-religious groups seem to have
the most significant level of difference in attitudes regarding how faith helps
through daily struggles and if scientific knowledge is challenged.
Aside from the main topics I wished to explore through this questionnaire, I also compared my findings to those on Pew Research Forum since many
of my survey questions were adapted from previous studies conducted by the
organization. Items 15, 16, and 17 on my questionnaire were adapted from Pew
and were exceptionally interesting because they were obtained from the national population. I analyzed this data in regards to certain religious affiliation’s
attitudes towards the statements: “Evolution is the best explanation of origins
of human life”, “Humans have existed in their present form since the beginning
of time”, and “Humans have evolved over time”. I found that all the items were
statistically significant in difference between religious affiliation and the level
of agreeability for the Pew questions. Refer to the following data set:
Evolution is the best explanation of origins of human life
Humans have existed in their present form
since the beginning of time
Humans evolved over time
F = 4.448, p = 0.001
F = 2.852, p = 0.014
F = 2.210, p = 0.048
While I was unable to distinguish which affiliations held which views, I
suspect that the data obtained from this study’s sample is close to the variability in the national average. When referring to Table 5 below, look at the distribu249
tion of percentages amongst different religious affiliations in regard to humans
evolving or staying the same; we can see that the percentages vary. For the
most part, this matches with the data of significant difference in my study.
Table 5
The other item obtained from Pew considered evolution’s supporting
evidence. Again, not all of the same religions used in my questionnaire were
included, but as we can see there is variance in percentages that agree with
the statement (see Table 6 below). This further supports the prediction that
sample statistics would be similar to national averages.
250
Ella Weymiller
Table 6
Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution
Source: Pew Forum U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007, released in 2008
A male vs. female analysis was also done, but only one difference was
found. There was a statistically significant difference in males vs. females for
the item concerning if students felt that their scientific knowledge was being
challenged (F (1,59) = 8.106, p = .006). Males reported a mean of 3.53, showing
higher agreeability; women reported a mean of 2.75, showing lower agreeability compared to males yet still relatively neutral.
Discussion
Overall, I was unable to find support for the hypothesis that acceptance of science was related to religious affiliation, political ideology, or authoritarian traits. Responses to the items on my questionnaire all fell in the neutral
position, but one promising find was the level of variability for each item. This
lends support to the observation that LaGrange College undergraduates may
be a more diverse population than we previously thought. There were also several trends found along with pieces of significant data, opening up the floor to
further research possibilities in the future.
It is possible that a few limitations during research affected the results
of the study; these included sample size and an underrepresentation of the
population of interest. Only 60 participants were involved in the study due to
some non-respondents. The small sample size certainly affects the reliability
because it does not properly reflect the population mean, as it may be the case
251
for this study. Also, since participants were recruited only if they were in the
four courses specified this subjects the study to underrepresentation. It is unlikely that this sample accurately reflects the population of undergraduates at
LaGrange College. For this reason, I consider this research project as more of a
pilot study used to build interest and make some more informed decisions on
what exactly needs to be researched further. One area of interest I would like
to investigate further is a cross-sectional analysis of class year and attitudes towards science and religion. Most of the respondents in this study were 1st year
students, or freshmen, so there was little room for comparing means to other
class years. It would also be interesting to compare attitudes of religion majors
to non-religion majors. Generally, a larger sample size would likely yield more
significant results since a more representative sample would be obtained.
One of the primary findings of statistical significance in the study
was the relationship between religious affiliations and attitudes towards science and religion. Two items submitted significance in difference of responses
based on religious grouping (refer to Table 4). This data shows that religious
affiliation has quite an effect on attitudes for these particular areas of debate.
Due to the high rate of significance, these questions may be elaborated on for
future research and may serve as a starting point from which we can more effectively look for differences in attitudes in the population.
When looking at the means of this data set, we can see that while all
are more neutral, the items concerning faith helping through struggle and the
Genesis account being factual are favoring the “Agree” end of the spectrum.
In addition, the item about evolution being the best explanation for origin of
human life is more towards the “Disagree” side, showing that students who are
religiously affiliated have a more negative view on that statement. These responses support the idea that more conservatively religious students will be
more resistant to evolutionary theory. From this data we can also suspect that
more conservative students also may be right-wing authoritarians, when looking back on Shaffer and Hastings’ (2007) study. If students felt that their religion
was being threatened by scientific topics, they will be more resistant to accepting them.
Significant evidence was also found when analyzing scientific attitudes in regards to political party classification. Two items on the survey produced statistically significant differences in responses amongst the three political parties. The two questions were based on the principle that evolution
has supporting evidence and that humans have evolved over time (see Table
3). Among the 3 political affiliations, Democrats showed higher level of agreeability for both statements compared to Independent and Republican Party
identifiers. I predict that since Republicans and Independents are usually more
conservative, students identifying with this political party would have a lower
level of agreeability with these two statements.
When comparing means of the courses, only one item showed statistical significance in differences. Courses were different in agreeability when
252
Ella Weymiller
given the statement that evolution has supporting evidence. This could be due
to the course work itself. The 1107 A and B courses discuss faith in the scientific
age while the 1103 A and B courses analyze the New Testament. Since students
in Ahearn’s class are actively discussing the topic more frequently, they may
have formed more developed views on the issue than those in Cook’s class;
whether that be agreeing with the statement or disapproving it.
The results of this study have served more so as a stepping-stone for
further research. I believe that with a larger sample size and by employing a
design of random sampling distribution, more significant data can be found
and thus, more opportunity for analysis of factors can occur. One of the most
promising areas of this study that I feel deserves further investigation is how
authoritarian personality traits affect religious and scientific attitudes. This
research may answer more so the question as to why college students have
certain views about the link between science and religion, instead of what it
actually is. By understanding how the population of interest interprets this relationship, educators may adapt their curriculum or teaching style to create
an environment in which the student feels less resistant in discussing these
theories.
References
Martin-Hansen, L. M. (2008). First-Year College Students’ Conflict with Religion
and Science. Science & Education, 17(4), 317-357.
Pew Research Forum (2014). Religious Group’s Views on Evolution.
PewResearch: Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.
pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/
Pew Research Forum (2009). Religious Differences on the Question of
Evolution. PewResearch: Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-differences-on-thequestion-of-evolution/
Pew Research Forum (2013). Public’s Views on Human Evolution.
PewResearch: Religion & Public Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.
pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/
Scott, Eugenie C. (2009). Evolution vs. Creationism. University of California
Press. Los Angeles CA.
Shaffer, B. M. & Hastings, Brad (2007). Authoritarianism and religious
identification: Response to threats on religious beliefs. Mental Health,
Religion & Culture, 10(2), 151-158.
Smith, M. U. (2010). Current Status of Research in Teaching and Learning
Evolution: I. Philosophical/Epistemological Issues. Science & Education,
19(6-8), 523-538.
253