The article discusses acceptance of evolution and its relevance for measuring scientific literacy. The author analyzes the National Science Foundation knowledge quiz in relation to theoretical, methodological, and moral arguments, proposing a distinction between quiet and animated scientific constructs. When a public learns of evolution as an animated construct, its acceptance is a poor indicator in a reflective model of scientific literacy. Acceptance of evolution may constitute a valuable indicator in reflective models of science knowledge for publics that engage with it disinterestedly, as well as in formative models of scientifically shaped worldviews, and it may also be studied in itself.
AllumN.SturgisP.TabouraziD.Brunton-SmithI. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.
2.
BannC. M.SchwerinM. J. (2004). Public knowledge and attitudes scale construction: development of short forms (RTI Project No. 8796). Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Retrieved from http://www.rti.org/pubs/PKAS_Short_Form_Report.pdf
3.
BanyJ. (2008, July). Reconstructing identity: The conversion process in the ex-gay movement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Boston, MA.
4.
BauerM. (1996). Socio-demographic correlates of DK-responses in knowledge surveys: Self-attributed ignorance of science. Social Science Information, 35, 39-68.
5.
BauerM. (2009). The evolution of public understanding of science discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society, 14, 221-240.
BillietJ. (2010, August). Controlling for measurement error and construct equivalence concepts in cross-nation research: Used methodologies and examples from ESS. Presentation for the 9th European Social Survey Train, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
8.
BollenK.LennoxR. (1991). Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305-314.
9.
BorsboomD.MellenberghG. J.van HeerdenJ. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203-219.
10.
CaldwellJ. C. (2000). Rethinking the African AIDS epidemic. Population and Development Review, 26, 117-135.
ComşaM. (2010). How to compare means of latent variables across countries and waves: Testing for invariance measurement. An application using Eastern European societies. Sociológia/Slovak Sociological Review, 42, 639-669.
13.
DenizH.DonnellyL.YilmazI. (2008). Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: Toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 420-443.
14.
DesantisA. D. (2003). A couple of white guys sitting around talking: The collective rationalization of cigar smoking. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32, 432-466.
15.
DiamantopoulosA.WinklhoferH. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 269-277.
16.
DurantJ.EvansG.ThomasG. (1992). Public Understanding of Science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 161-182.
European Commission. (2005a). Eurobarometer 63.1: Science and technology, social values, and services of general interest. Basic English questionnaire(ZA4233) [Data file]. Cologne, Germany: GESIS.
21.
European Commission. (2005b). Eurobarometer 63.1: Science and technology, social values, and services of general interest, January-February 2005(ZA4233) [Data file]. Cologne, Germany: GESIS.
EvansG.DurantJ. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4(1), 57-74.
24.
EvansE. M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In VosniadouS. (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 263-294). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
EveR. E.DunnD. (1990). Psychic powers, astrology & creationism in the classroom? Evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology and life science teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 52, 10-21.
26.
FrancisL. J.GreerJ. E. (1999). Attitudes towards creationism and evolutionary theory: The debate among secondary pupils attending Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern Ireland. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 93-103.
27.
FreemanP. K.HoustonD. J. (2009). The biology battle: Public opinion and the origins of life. Politics and Religion, 2, 54-75.
28.
FullerS. (2006). A step toward the legalization of Science Studies. Social Studies of Science, 36, 827-834.
GrimmJ. (2009). “Teach the controversy.” The relationship between sources and frames in reporting the intelligent design debate. Science Communication, 31, 167-186.
33.
HameedS. (2008). Bracing for Islamic creationism. Science, 322, 1637-1638.
34.
IrwinA.WynneB. (1996). Introduction. In IrwinA.WynneB. (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 1-17). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35.
JohnPaulII (Pope). (1997). Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Quarterly Review of Biology, 72, 381-383.
36.
JørgensenK. J.HróbjartssonA.GøtzscheP. C. (2009). Divine intervention? A Cochrane review on intercessory prayer gone beyond science and reason. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 8(7). Retrieved September from http://www.jnrbm.com/content/8/1/7
37.
KutscheraU. (2008). Creationism in Germany and its possible cause. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 84-86.
MastersK. S.SpielmansG. I.GoodsonJ. T. (2006). Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 32, 21-26.
40.
MazurA. (2005). Believers and disbelievers in evolution. Politics and the Life Sciences,23(2), 55-61.
41.
MeadowsL.DosterE.JacksonD. F. (2000). Managing the conflict between evolution and religion. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 102-107.
42.
MillerJ. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.
43.
MillerJ. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223.
44.
MillerJ. D. (2006, May). Civic scientific literacy in Europe and the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the World Association for Public Opinion Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Retrieved from www.arcsfoundation.org/Pittsburgh/JMiller.pdf
MillerJ. D. (2007b, February). The public understanding of science in Europe and the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://ucll.msu.edu/files_ucll.msu.edu/docs/miller-science-europe.doc
47.
MillerJ. D.ScottE. C.OkamotoS. (2006). Public acceptance of evolution. Science, 313, 765-766.
48.
MitroffI. I.EmshoffJ. R. (1979). On strategic assumption-making: A dialectical approach to policy and planning. Academy of Management Review, 4, 1-12
49.
MitroffI. I.EmshoffJ. R.KilmannR. H. (1979). Assumptional analysis: A methodology for strategic problem solving. Management Science, 25, 583-593.
50.
MorleyD. (1990). Papal policy, poverty, and AIDS. British Medical Journal, 300, 1705.
51.
NadelsonL. S.SoutherlandS. A. (2010). Examining the interaction of acceptance and understanding: How does the relationship change with a focus on macroevolution?Evolution: Education & Outreach, 3, 82-88.
52.
National Science Board. (2008). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In Science and engineering indicators 2008. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/pdf/c07.pdf
53.
PardoR.CalvoF. (2004). The cognitive dimension of public perceptions of science: Methodological issues. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 203-227.
54.
PardoR.MiddenC.MillerJ. D. (2002). Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology, 98, 9-24.
55.
ParkH.-J. (2001). The creation-evolution debate: Carving creationism in the public mind. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 173-186.
56.
PlutzerE.BerkmanM. (2008). Evolution, creationism, and the teaching of human origins in schools. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 540-553.
57.
PolingD. A.EvansE. M. (2004). Religious belief, scientific expertise, and folk ecology. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 485-524.
58.
PritchardD. (2005). Epistemic luck. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
SarisW. E.GallhoferI. N. (2007). Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Interscience.
61.
ScaliseD. M.BognoloG. (2005). The new Pope and medical ethics: Can Benedict XVI strike a balance between Catholic doctrines and health?British Medical Journal, 330, 1281-1282.
62.
SchützA. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5, 533-576.
63.
SchützA. (1953). Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14(1), 1-38.
64.
ScottE. C. (1997). Antievolution and creationism in the United States. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 263-289.
65.
ShidloA.SchroederM. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 249-259.
66.
SuperfineB. M. (2009). The evolving role of the courts in educational policy: The tension between judicial, scientific, and democratic decision making in Kitzmiller v. Dover. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 898-923
67.
ThagardP.FindlayS. (2009). Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to accepting evolution by natural selection. Science & Education, 19, 625-636.
68.
ThrockmortonW. (2002). Initial empirical and clinical findings concerning the change process for ex-gays. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 242-248.
69.
VlăsceanuL. (2011). Cunoaştere şi cunoaştere ştiinţifică (Knowledge and scientific knowledge). In VlăsceanuL. (Ed.), Sociologie (Sociology), Iaşi: Polirom (pp. 536-565).
70.
VlăsceanuL.DuşaA.RughinişC. (2010). Publicul şi ştiinţa. Ştiinţă şi societate. Interese şi percepţii ale publicului privind cercetarea ştiinţifică şi rezultatele cercetării (Science and the public. Science and society. Public interests and perceptions concerning scientific research and research results). Retrieved from http://stisoc.ro/psip.html
71.
WagnerW. (2007). Vernacular science knowledge: Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 7-22.
72.
WynneB. (1996). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In IrwinA.WynneB. (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 19-46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
