Grant Rousseau, Dalton Bourne, Kenneth Harrington, Jessica Abele, Daniel Ferguson, Jamie Jensen
{"title":"提供圣经字面主义的替代方案可能是增加公众接受进化论的关键","authors":"Grant Rousseau, Dalton Bourne, Kenneth Harrington, Jessica Abele, Daniel Ferguson, Jamie Jensen","doi":"10.1111/jssr.70004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evolution acceptance is lower among religious than nonreligious individuals. One potential factor involves how Judeo-Christian individuals interpret the Bible. We administered a nationwide survey to investigate the relationship between religiosity, biblical interpretation, and evolution acceptance. We also surveyed undergraduate students in a biology course before and after they underwent a culturally competent module on evolution. We found that religiosity predicted a more literal interpretation of the Bible, and these factors negatively predicted evolution acceptance in both samples. After the module, biblical literalism in the classroom decreased, predicting an increase in evolution acceptance without any decrease in religiosity. While the nationwide relationship between religiosity and evolution acceptance is generally understood, this study more directly reaffirms that biblical literalism is linked to evolution rejection and takes an important step into investigating interventions. Offering alternatives to biblical literalism may help educators increase evolution acceptance without threatening student religiosity.</p>","PeriodicalId":51390,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion","volume":"64 3","pages":"328-340"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jssr.70004","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Offering Alternatives to Biblical Literalism May Be the Key to Increasing the Public's Acceptance of Evolution\",\"authors\":\"Grant Rousseau, Dalton Bourne, Kenneth Harrington, Jessica Abele, Daniel Ferguson, Jamie Jensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jssr.70004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Evolution acceptance is lower among religious than nonreligious individuals. One potential factor involves how Judeo-Christian individuals interpret the Bible. We administered a nationwide survey to investigate the relationship between religiosity, biblical interpretation, and evolution acceptance. We also surveyed undergraduate students in a biology course before and after they underwent a culturally competent module on evolution. We found that religiosity predicted a more literal interpretation of the Bible, and these factors negatively predicted evolution acceptance in both samples. After the module, biblical literalism in the classroom decreased, predicting an increase in evolution acceptance without any decrease in religiosity. While the nationwide relationship between religiosity and evolution acceptance is generally understood, this study more directly reaffirms that biblical literalism is linked to evolution rejection and takes an important step into investigating interventions. Offering alternatives to biblical literalism may help educators increase evolution acceptance without threatening student religiosity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\"64 3\",\"pages\":\"328-340\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jssr.70004\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jssr.70004\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jssr.70004","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Offering Alternatives to Biblical Literalism May Be the Key to Increasing the Public's Acceptance of Evolution
Evolution acceptance is lower among religious than nonreligious individuals. One potential factor involves how Judeo-Christian individuals interpret the Bible. We administered a nationwide survey to investigate the relationship between religiosity, biblical interpretation, and evolution acceptance. We also surveyed undergraduate students in a biology course before and after they underwent a culturally competent module on evolution. We found that religiosity predicted a more literal interpretation of the Bible, and these factors negatively predicted evolution acceptance in both samples. After the module, biblical literalism in the classroom decreased, predicting an increase in evolution acceptance without any decrease in religiosity. While the nationwide relationship between religiosity and evolution acceptance is generally understood, this study more directly reaffirms that biblical literalism is linked to evolution rejection and takes an important step into investigating interventions. Offering alternatives to biblical literalism may help educators increase evolution acceptance without threatening student religiosity.
期刊介绍:
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion is a multi-disciplinary journal that publishes articles, research notes, and book reviews on the social scientific study of religion. Published articles are representative of the best current theoretical and methodological treatments of religion. Substantive areas include both micro-level analysis of religious organizations, institutions, and social change. While many articles published in the journal are sociological, the journal also publishes the work of psychologists, political scientists, anthropologists, and economists.