Biblical literalists are often described as scientific illiterates, but little if any empirical research has tested this claim. Analysis of a sixteen-item battery from the 2008 US General Social Survey revealed that literalists possess less science knowledge than those with other views of Scripture, but that much of this deficit can be attributed to demographic factors and unequal educational attainment. The marginal direct effect of biblical belief suggests that literalism is not incompatible with knowledge of science and, therefore, the best avenue for increasing science knowledge among literalists may be to foster interest in science and design science courses to attenuate any perceived conflict between science and religion.
BarnesAAbd-El-FattahSChandlerMYatesGCR (2008) New age beliefs among teacher education students. Critical and Creative Thinking16(2): 23–37.
3.
BeheMJDembskiWAMeyerSC (2000) Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. San Francisco: Ignatius.
4.
CummingGFinchC (2005) Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist60(2): 170–180.
5.
DarnellASherkatDE (1997) The impact of Protestant fundamentalism on educational attainment. American Sociological Review62(2): 306–315.
6.
DavisJASmithTWMarsdenPV (2009) General Social Surveys, 1972–2008[Cumulative File] [Computer file]. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center [producer], 2009. Storrs, CT: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut / Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research / Berkeley, CA: Computer-assisted Survey Methods Program (http://sda.berkeley.edu), University of California [distributors], 2009.
EveRALoshSCNzekweB (2010) Lessons from the social psychology of evolution warfare: Good science alone is not enough. Evolution: Education and Outreach3(2): 183–192.
9.
GrangerMDPriceGN (2007) The tree of science and original sin: Do Christian religious beliefs constrain the supply of scientists?Journal of Socio-Economics36(1): 144–160.
10.
JelenTG (1989) Biblical literalism and inerrancy: Does the difference make a difference?Sociological Analysis49(4): 421–429.
11.
JelenTGWilcoxCSmidtCE (1990) Biblical literalism and inerrancy: A methodological investigation. Sociological Analysis51(3): 307–313.
12.
JohnsonG (2006) A free-for-all on science and religion. The New York Times21November.
13.
JohnsonPE (1991) Darwin on Trial. Washington DC: Regnery Gateway.
14.
LombrozoTThanukosAWeisbergM (2008) The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach1(3): 290–298.
15.
LoshSC (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: The Refereed Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST-9), 836–845.
16.
LoshSCNzekweB (2010) Creatures in the classroom: Preservice teacher beliefs about fantastic beasts, magic, extraterrestrials, evolution and creationism. Science & EducationOnline First, 10June.
17.
LurquinPFStoneL (2007) Evolution and Religious Creation Myths: How Scientists Respond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
McKeachieWJLinYGStrayerJ (2002) Creationist vs. evolutionary beliefs: Effects on learning biology. American Biology Teacher64(3): 189–192.
MeadowsLDosterEJacksonDF (2000) Managing the conflict between evolution and religion. The American Biology Teacher62(2): 102–107.
21.
MillerJD (2007) The impact of college science courses for non-science majors on adult scientific literacy. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 18 February, San Francisco, CA.
22.
MondakJJAndersonMR (2004) The knowledge gap: A reexamination of gender-based differences in political knowledge. Journal of Politics66(2): 492–512.
23.
MooneyCKirshenbaumS (2009) Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. New York: Basic Books.
24.
National Science Foundation (2006) Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. National Science Board. URL (consulted April 2009): http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/
NelsonCE (2008) Teaching evolution (and all of biology) more effectively: Strategies for engagement, critical reasoning, and confronting misconceptions. Integrative and Comparative Biology48(2): 213–225.
27.
NormanOAultCRJrBentzBMeskimenL (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 Teaching38(10): 1101–1114.
28.
PaolinoP (2001) Maximum likelihood estimation of models with beta-distributed dependent variables. Political Analysis9(4): 325–346.
29.
PapkeLEWooldridgeJM (1996) Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401(K) plan participation rates. Journal of Applied Econometrics11(6): 619–632.
SchroederG (2001) The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth. New York: The Free Press.
33.
ShipmanHLBrickhouseNWDagherZLettsWJIV (2002) Changes in student views of religion and science in a college astronomy course. Science Education86(4): 526–547.
34.
SinatraGMSoutherlandSAMcConaughyFDemastesJW (2003) Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching40(5): 510–528.
SteenslandBParkJZRegnerusMDRobinsonLDWilcoxWBWoodberryRD (2000) The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces79(1): 291–318.
37.
VerheySD (2005) The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes towards creationism and evolution. BioScience55(11): 996–1003.
38.
VerheySD (2006) Correction. BioScience56(4): 285.
39.
WalkerWRHoekstraSJVoglRJ (2002) Science education is no guarantee of skepticism. Skeptic9(3): 24–27.
YeXPendyalaR (2005) A model of daily time use allocation using fractional logit methodology. In: MahmassaniHS (ed.) Transportation and Traffic Theory: Flow, Dynamics and Human Interaction. Oxford: Elsevier, 507–524.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
