research paper about evolution theory

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Acceptance and knowledge of evolutionary theory among third-year university students in Spain

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Facultade de Bioloxía, Universidade de Vigo, Campus de Vigo, Vigo, Spain

Roles Methodology, Resources, Software

Affiliation Centro de Investigacións Biomédicas (CINBIO), Universidade de Vigo, Campus de Vigo, Vigo, Spain

Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Departamento de Genética, Universidad de Granada, Avda Fuentenueva, Granada, Spain

Affiliation Real Jardín Botánico, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Pza. de Murillo, Madrid, Spain

Affiliation Departamento de Fisiología, Genética y Microbiología, Universidad de Alicante, Apdo., Alicante, Spain

Affiliation Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain

Roles Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Departamento de Biología (Genética), Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Roles Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Departamento de Medicina Legal, Toxicología y Antropología Física, Universidad de Granada, Parque Tecnológico de la Salud, Av. de la Investigación, Granada, Spain

Affiliation Departamento de Pedagogía y Didáctica, Universidade da Coruña, Campus de Elviña, A Coruña, Spain

Affiliation Unidad Docente de Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia, Departamento de Filosofía, Facultad de Filosofía y Ciencias de la Educación, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain

Affiliation Departamento de Didáctica y Organización Escolar, Universidad de Granada, Campus de Cartuja, Granada, Spain

Roles Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain

Affiliation Departament de Biología, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca, Carretera de Valldemossa, Illes Balears, Spain

Affiliation Departamento de Bioloxía, Facultade de Ciencias, Universidade da Coruña, Campus da Zapateira, A Coruña, Spain

•  [ ... ],

Roles Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

• [ view all ]
• [ view less ]
• Juan Gefaell, 
• Tamara Prieto, 
• Mohamed Abdelaziz, 
• Inés Álvarez, 
• Josefa Antón, 
• Juan Arroyo, 
• Jose L. Bella, 
• Miguel Botella, 
• Anxela Bugallo, 

• Published: September 3, 2020
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

The theory of evolution is one of the greatest scientific achievements in the intellectual history of humankind, yet it is still contentious within certain social groups. Despite being as robust and evidence-based as any other notable scientific theory, some people show a strong reluctance to accept it. In this study, we used the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) and Knowledge of Evolution Exam (KEE) questionnaires with university students from four academic degree programs (Chemistry, English, History, and Biology) of ten universities from Spain to measure, respectively, acceptance and knowledge of evolutionary theory among third-year undergraduate students ( n MATE = 978; n KEE = 981). Results show that acceptance of evolution is relatively high (87.2%), whereas knowledge of the theory is moderate (5.4 out of 10) although there are differences across degrees (Biology>Chemistry>History>English), and even among various universities (ranging from 4.71 to 5.81). Statistical analysis reveals that knowledge of evolutionary theory among Biology students is partially explained by the relative weight of evolutionary themes within the curriculum, suggesting that an increase in the number of hours dedicated to this topic could have a direct influence on students’ knowledge of it. We also found that religion may have a significant—although relatively small—negative influence on evolutionary theory acceptance. The moderate knowledge of evolution in our undergraduate students, together with the potential problem of acceptance in certain groups, suggests the need for a revision of the evolutionary concepts in the teaching curricula of our students since primary school.

Citation: Gefaell J, Prieto T, Abdelaziz M, Álvarez I, Antón J, Arroyo J, et al. (2020) Acceptance and knowledge of evolutionary theory among third-year university students in Spain. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0238345. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345

Editor: Jamie L. Jensen, Brigham Young University, UNITED STATES

Received: February 28, 2020; Accepted: August 4, 2020; Published: September 3, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Gefaell et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Supplementary tables included in this submission. The main Data is available in https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Dataset_of_Acceptance_and_knowledge_of_evolutionary_theory_among_third-year_university_students_in_Spain_/12623747 .

Funding: This work was supported by Xunta de Galicia (ED431C 2016-037), FONDOS FEDER (“unha maneira de facer Europa”), and Spain’s Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Agencia Estatal de Investigación (CGL2016-75904-C2-1-P), Dr. Emilio Rolán-Alvarez.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interest exist.

Introduction

Evolution is a core theory of biology [ 1 , 2 ], although its influence extends to other disciplines such as philosophy [ 3 – 5 ], psychology [ 6 ], and medicine [ 7 , 8 ], as well as, in general, most life and social sciences, including politics and policy [ 9 – 11 ]. Evolution represents a well-established and mature theory that can explain how organisms evolve and differentiate from the last universal common ancestor (usually known as LUCA): a life form that originated on our planet about 3700 billion years ago [ 12 ]. Therefore, both the notion of descent with modifications and the theory of evolution represent key pieces of knowledge in our societies to understand both the world in which we live and, as well, our place in nature [ 13 ]. On the other hand, misconceptions about evolution commonly persist along the whole educational system, an effect that has been attributed to the possibility that evolution theory is counterintuitive [ 14 ], even working against our natural reasoning [ 15 ]. Nevertheless, and perhaps due to this key relevance and difficulty of understanding, the idea of evolution has been debated since its first formal proposal by Darwin [ 16 , 17 ]. A pioneer study led by Miller et al. [ 18 ] has shown that the level of evolutionary acceptance in citizens can vary considerably across countries and social groups. Therefore, research on the causes of such variations, as well as means to improve acceptance and knowledge levels, can be considered one of the main subtopics of evolution education [ 19 ].

There is lack of consensus in the field about the major determinants of evolution acceptance. For some authors, obstacles to accepting evolutionary theory show particularities that differ from those relating to other well-established scientific theories [ 20 ]. Such aspects have been attributed to the fact that certain intransigent religious views clash with evolutionary views, together with the variation in religiosity observed among countries or even social groups within a given country [ 2 , 21 , 22 ]. However, empirical studies [ 23 – 25 ] typically have found three major factors determining evolution acceptance: religiosity, evolution understanding, and nature of science (NOS) understanding [ 26 ]. Therefore, a complex problem like this is most probably multifactorial while, at the same time, the different factors involved may presumably be partially correlated. For example, degree of religiosity is about equally correlated with evolution acceptance and two measures of education level in data from 34 countries [ 27 ]. The difficulty of determining factors leading to evolution acceptance has been suggested to hamper the derivation of optimal education strategies for our citizens [ 19 ]. In fact, it has been claimed that the level of evolution acceptance has remained low for the last 30 years in the USA [ 21 ].

One factor that could contribute to these disparate views is variability in the measures used to assess evolution acceptance: each can capture different evolution acceptance characteristics or even show differential levels of influence with other factors (reviewed in [ 19 ]). A variety of tests have been proposed to measure evolution acceptance, including the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) [ 28 ], the Evolutionary Attitudes and Literacy Survey (EALS) [ 29 ], the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance (I-SEA) [ 30 ], the Generalized Acceptance of EvolutioN Evaluation (GAENE) [ 31 ], the Attitudes toward Evolution (ATEVO) [ 32 ], etc. Although a consensus has not fully been achieved, the MATE seems to incorporate several of the ideal properties for this measurement [ 33 ]. The main advantage is that the MATE has been the most frequently-used test to date [ 19 , 21 , 34 , 35 ]. Moreover, when this instrument has been compared with alternatives, a moderate to high correlation between them has typically been observed [ 19 , 21 , 36 , 37 ].

The same lack of consensus exists when measuring the level of evolution knowledge, given that several alternative assessment tools are available: the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) [ 38 ], Conceptual Assessment of Natural Selection (CANS) [ 39 ], Knowledge About Evolution (KAEVO) [ 32 ], Assessing Contextual Reasoning about Natural Selection (ACORNS) [ 40 ] and Knowledge of Evolution Exam (KEE) [ 41 ], among others. Another potential problem in studies trying to compare results of acceptance and knowledge about evolution across countries or social groups is the high heterogeneity of data available, as different studies focus on primary/secondary school, undergraduate, graduate, teachers or even variant social groups. Moreover, in certain cases, the questionnaires are offered online without any control of the time employed by each respondent. Therefore, any comparative study, in order to properly compare different experimental groups, should ideally use the same design on a homogeneous data set when possible.

Spain is considered an industrialized country (13 th position in the World GDP ranking) [ 42 ] belonging to the European Union. Information about the knowledge and acceptance of evolution in Spain is scarce, although supposedly there is not any special social group reluctant to embrace evolution (showing intermediate to high ranking regarding evolution acceptance in Miller et al. [ 18 ]). Nevertheless, from within the educational field, it has been claimed that the curricula of primary and secondary school is rather poor in introducing evolutionary theory, at least compared to the most (educationally) advanced countries [ 43 ]. This fact could explain the subjective feeling of many university teachers that ideas on evolution are not in the students' backpack when they reach the university. With this potential problem in mind, we tried to check the prevalence of evolution acceptance and the knowledge level regarding this topic in undergraduate students attending the Spanish university system. We presented a three-section online questionnaire (incorporating items on demographics, evolution-acceptance, and evolution-knowledge) to third-year university students from several disciplines and institutions throughout Spain. The main objective was to characterize the level of acceptance and knowledge at different universities and degree programs and identify any group particularly reluctant to accept those ideas. A secondary objective was to check if the level of evolutionary theory in each degree program curriculum could explain the variation in evolutionary knowledge across universities.

Materials and methods

Bibliographic review of undergraduate evolution acceptance.

One advantage of the MATE test is that it has been frequently used to infer the level of evolution acceptance from different countries (52 studies reviewed in Barnes et al. [ 19 ]). However, these studies had a high degree of individual diversity; further, we revised them to exclude all cases that did not represent exclusively undergraduate university students. In addition, in November 2019, we searched references in the WEB of Science database by applying the keywords “questionnaire” and “evolution”; in the list obtained, we used exclusively those conducted with the MATE and on undergraduate university students.

Participants

We scored certain demographic questions and evolution acceptance and knowledge tests administered to 1050 third-year students ( n = 981 after excluding incomplete data) from four degree programs (Chemistry, History, English Philology, and Biology) at ten Spanish universities (Alicante, Autónoma de Madrid, Complutense de Madrid, Granada, Illes Balears, Salamanca, Santiago de Compostela, Sevilla, Valencia, and Vigo; Fig 1 ). Erasmus program students (foreign students funded by the European Union who came to study for one academic year) were identified and excluded from final analyses. We chose two science and two humanity degrees, having replicates within each group and assuming a priori that Biology students should have the highest rank in at least evolutionary knowledge (as it is the only subject where evolutionary concepts appear in the curriculum). We studied 10 of 21 possible public universities (awarding these four degrees) which could be considered as a representative sample for this country. The assessment was run during the 2018–2019 academic year, between September and December; the sample size per degree and university is shown in S1 Table .

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Bars are mean scores for MATE (in blue) and KEE (in red) for the different universities in the Spanish public university system included in the study and their geographic location. UVIGO (Universidade de Vigo), USC (Universidade de Santiago de Compostela), UAM (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), UCM (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), UV (Universidad de Valencia), UIB (Universitat Illes Balears), UA (Universidad de Alicante), UGR (Universidad de Granada), US (Universidad de Sevilla) and USAL (Universidad de Salamanca).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.g001

Data collection

We asked for permission from the dean at each school and university to share our questionnaires with students. Usually, the dean suggested contacting a particular teacher of a third-year course from the school. Typically, one of the authors met with the class and explained the procedure to the students, including its voluntary and anonymous nature. Students were surveyed through a Google Forms quiz accessible through the Internet using their own electronic devices; they were given 15 minutes to finish the task (see S1 Table ). The questionnaire was divided into three sections: personal-demographic questions, MATE-related questions and KEE-based questions (see next section), following the order above. A university-specific alphanumeric code was provided immediately before the start of the test; it was required in order to proceed and submit the form. We checked a posteriori that all questionnaires from a particular university and degree were completed on the exact dates and times, following notification from the coordinator.

The demographic questionnaire (see S1 Table ) asked the sex of the participant ( Sex ; man, woman, I prefer not to choose), the age ( Age ), academic level attained ( Academic level ; secondary, graduated, doctor), secondary school itinerary ( Itinerary ; science, technology, humanities, social sciences, and art), degree that was being pursued ( Degree ; Chemistry, History, English, and Biology), university ( University ; the 10 schools described excluding Erasmus) and the religiosity level ( Religiosity ; usually attends religious services or not). The demographic questions are listed and summarized in various columns of the S1 Table .

Tests for evolution acceptance and knowledge

We used the MATE test [ 28 ] to assess evolution acceptance. This test is a 20-item Likert-type scale instrument with six subscales of measurement (process of evolution, scientific validity, human evolution, evidence, scientific community’s view, and age of the earth). This test has been considered to be internally consistent and having a high test-retest consistence [ 19 ], although certain authors have criticized it (see for example [ 34 , 35 ]). The original description reported only one factor, by factor analysis, which estimates evolution acceptance [ 28 ], but more recent analyses suggested that it could have two-dimensional constructs [ 34 , 36 ]: Facts and Credibility. Therefore, we calculated MATE scores following the original description and also using, separately, Facts and Credibility scores, following Romine et al. [ 34 ], to check whether using one or two dimensions could affect the results observed.

We chose the KEE test [ 41 ] to measure evolutionary knowledge. This is a simple test, a 10-item instrument. A few arguments support this choice. First, we needed a simple test that did not require much time during completion of the questionnaires, as we are asking teachers to use 15 minutes from a routine class. Moreover, we tried to avoid using two consecutive long tests in order to maximize student response. Furthermore, KEE and MATE had been chosen together as a practical combination in several studies [ 21 , 41 , 44 ].

Validation and controls

We estimated the reliability of MATE and KEE data by using Cronbach’s alpha statistics, as has been suggested to be done routinely for this kind of study [ 28 , 33 , 34 ]. In addition, we consider that both our religiosity and evolution knowledge (KEE) measures needed to independently validate whether they show a high correlation with alternative constructed measurements. An 8-item questionnaire with a Likert 1–5 scale on knowledge of the theory of evolution (CTE), built and validated by Cofré et al. [ 45 ], was used for validation. For the measurement of intrinsic religiosity -IR-, the DUREL test [ 46 , 47 ] was used (3 items with a Likert 1–5 scale). This was accomplished in a set of 268 students from 3 degrees of the University of Granada ( n = 264 after eliminating incomplete responses). The sample is thus composed of 220 women (83.3%) and 44 men (16.7%), which is consistent with the sex distribution in the grades. The distribution by study areas was 171 students in Social education (64.8%), 33 in Archeology (12.5%), and 60 in Criminology (22.7%). The baccalaureate (high school) curriculum was mostly that of Social Sciences (53.0%), followed by humanities (22.0%), and sciences (16.0%), while those of technology (7.2%) and arts (2.6%) were in the minority. The academic level of the participants—prior to starting the degree—was Baccalaureate (89.4%) or Bachelor/Other degree (10.2%). Regarding religiosity, 82.8% of the participants said they were not religious, while 17.2% declared themselves religious, although only 2.6% indicated they were practicing (question about religiosity associated with the MATE / KEE questionnaires). The questionnaires were administered using pencil-and-paper and later stored on Excel® sheets.

We used an indirect method to infer the relative importance of NOS understanding on MATE/KEE scores by comparing the relative value of these scores on different degrees. A high level of acceptance associated with both Chemistry and Biology would suggest a NOS (understanding) factor contributing to evolution acceptance because these two degrees share a similar science itinerary in undergraduate and degree curriculum [ 48 ], while a primacy of Biology students over the rest of students would favor an interpretation based on evolutionary knowledge because this degree is the only one to have evolutionary knowledge in the degree curriculum ( S2 Table ).

Additionally, we checked the level of MATE and KEE in Biology teachers from two universities (Autónoma de Madrid and Vigo). This was considered as a positive control, because we expected that the teacher level, on average, would be higher than in corresponding third-year Biology students from their own universities. A few of the professors were instructing in other degrees (Chemistry, Mathematics, etc.).

Finally, we investigated the amount of evolutionary concepts described in the Biology curricula of the same ten Universities included in the study. The evolutionary subjects relative to the number of themes per lecture and University are described in S2 Table . These allowed us to estimate the contribution of evolutionary theory to the credits degree (Evolution Credits) as the sum of the lecture credits (Credits ECTS) weighted by percentage of evolutionary concepts (Probability of Evolution content). Notice that all Spanish public degrees in Biology show 240 ECTS credits.

Data analysis and statistics

The Google Form platform automatically generates a spreadsheet containing each participant answer in a different column from the same row. Using a homemade R script [ 49 ], we accessed each spreadsheet (one per university) and encoded the answers appropriately for downstream statistical analysis in csv files (data available at Figshare Repository; DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12623747 ). We merged all csv files and excluded questionnaires in which any student had not answered all items.

The associations among demographic variables were studied by a nonparametric chi-squared test. The probability was adjusted by the SGoF multitest procedure [ 50 ]. The main interest of the study was, however, to investigate the contribution of factors Religiosity (fixed), Degree (fixed), and University (nested within the interaction) into different dependent variables (MATE; MATE Facts, MATE Credibility and KEE scores) by a three-way ANOVA. This design allowed us to focus on the factors Religiosity and Degree , being tested against their interaction pooled with the nested factor (because the p -value of interaction was ≥ 0.25; [ 51 ]). This latter approach enabled us to detect if differences between levels of factors (Religiosity and Degree) persisted across the University variation [ 52 ]. The homoscedasticity of the data was evaluated by the Levine test. However, we used general linear models (with sum square type III), which are one of the most robust procedures to analyze data showing deviation from the parametric assumptions like normality or heteroscedasticity [ 53 ]. When the heteroscedasticity could not be corrected we checked whether the treatment with the most different mean showed the highest variance, the only dangerous heterocedasticity when interpreting ANOVA results [ 51 ].

The positive control on Biology teachers from two universities was accomplished by a two-way ANOVA on dependent variables (MATE and KEE) and factors University (fixed) and Religiosity (fixed). In this case, the correlation between Religiosity and MATE was accomplished within University. On the other hand, we also measured the correlation between the averaged Evolution themes within Biology curricula and the KEE score among universities. In all former cases, we used Pearson's r coefficient to estimate the degree of association, and the non-parametric Spearman r correlation to test its significance.

In addition, we used stepwise multiple linear regression to explain the evolution acceptance (MATE, MATE Facts, and MATE Credibility) by the potential exploratory variables available ( Degree , Religiosity , Age , Level , and KEE scores). The variables Degree and University were recoded for this analysis following its averaged value for MATE (e.g. for Degree ; English = 1; Chemistry = 2; History = 3; Biology = 4). We understand that such variables can confound many causes that explain their variation, but we wanted to check if they could obscure or not the other exploratory variables. The significance was checked by a regression ANOVA and the contribution of any variable entering into the model, independently of other variables, was estimated by the partial correlation coefficient [ 52 ]. All statistical analyses were done by the SPSS/PC software, version 24.0.0.0 [ 54 ], while the graphics were generated by the R project [ 49 ].

Evolution acceptance review in the literature

We found data on MATE scores for undergraduate students in 6 countries ( Table 1 ). The per-country average ranged from 55.5 in Pre-service education in Biology from Turkey to 84.2 in Germany.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.t001

Validation with different tests

Cronbach's alpha gave a high reliability value for the DUREL (IR) construct (0.797), while it was lower for the CTE evolutionary knowledge one (0.635). This represents a low reliability, although at acceptable levels. Regarding the sociodemographic variables, the test of independence between pairs of variables ( Sex , Religiosity , Academic itinerary , and Degree ) were significant with the chi-square test only in some pairs, e.g. Sex and Degree (2 of 8 tests) and Academic Itinerary and Degree (10 of 15 tests). It should be noted that the proportion of women in the degrees in which the questionnaires were applied was very high. Regarding knowledge of the theory, the application of the CTE test yielded an average score of 26.53 ( n = 264; Min. 18; Max. 40; SD = 3.225) which, adjusted to the range of the KEE scale for comparison, indicates a value of M = 3.16 ± 0.5. This can be considered close to that obtained in English History and Philology degrees, if we take into account the random noise in the case of KEE scores.

The data obtained when applying the DUREL indicated that just over two-thirds of the participants (69.7%) did not consider themselves religious people. The scores of the level of intrinsic religiosity through the DUREL test (with Likert scale 1–5) indicated that the degree of religiosity was low (Mean DUREL ± SD = 2.02 ± 0.935; n = 264). This finding could be important to consider when comparing this test with knowledge data. Disaggregating the three items of the IR test, the religious experience turned out to be at a medium low level (DUREL = 2.34 ± 0.935) and fell still lower when respondents were asked about whether religious beliefs defined their vision of life (DUREL = 1.99 ± 1.052), and even more so when asked about trying to bring religion to other matters of life (DUREL = 1.73 ± 0.990).

We compared the DUREL IR and level of knowledge of the theory of evolution (CTE), applying a nonparametric correlation test. A moderate negative correlation coefficient (rho = -0.124; n = 264; P = 0.045) was obtained.

Analyses of questionnaires

The descriptive frequencies and scores for the different demographic variables are shown in S1 Table . Pairs of different variables ( Sex , Religiosity , Academic level , Itinerary , and Degree ) per university were usually nonsignificant by the chi-square test (15 significant out of 100 tests; S3 Table ). Most significant cases affected a few pairs of variables: Sex by Degree (4 of 10 tests) and Itinerary by Degree (10 of 10 tests). The frequency of treatments for demographic variables was always heterogeneous among Universities ( S4 Table ). This typically occurred because just one University departed from the general trend (as in Sex , Degree and Itinerary ), but in two variables ( Degree and Religiosity ) no clear general trend was found.

Our data showed a high reliability of the MATE test (Cronbach’s r = 0.87; n = 978; items = 20) but lower reliability for the KEE test (Cronbach’s r = 0.42; n = 981; items = 10), indicating a safe inference at least in the MATE analyses. Results from the multifactorial ANOVAs for different dependent variables are presented in Table 2 . The MATE was heteroscedastic; however, none of the transformations used allowed for correcting this; we therefore present untransformed data analyses. Data derived on this instrument showed significant differences for Religiosity , Degree , and University (nested factor). Heteroscedasticity did not compromise the p -values for Degree , because the treatment that differed from the rest (Biology) showed the smallest variance. However, it could potentially compromise the p -value for Religiosity , as this treatment showed a rather high variance. So our mean differences in MATE between Religiosity treatments could be partially caused by variance differences. Interestingly, the interaction between Religiosity and Degree was not significant, suggesting that these two factors independently contribute to acceptance of evolution. The two-dimensional scores of the MATE (MATE Facts and MATE Credibility) showed the same trend and pattern of significance as the MATE ( Table 2 ). Actually, facts and credibility showed a rather high correlation between them (r Pearson = 0.71; n = 978; P Spearman < 0.001). The results for the MATE are graphically shown in Fig 2 : a high averaged evolution acceptance > 80 was observed for all degrees (mean ± SD = 87.2 ± 8.63). The figure also shows how religious individuals tend to appear in the region of lower MATE values but with a large variance in the responses.

The individual Religiosity score of every individual is presented. MATE scores per individual are represented with dots, coloured based on their correspondent religious scores. Each violin consists of two symmetric vertical smoothed probability densities (left and right curves). Inside each violin plot there is a boxplot conformed by one narrow grey rectangle ranging from the first to the third quartile (Q1 to Q3) of the distribution and two thin lines (upper and lower whiskers) extending from Q3 to Q3 + 1.5 × (Q3—Q1) and from Q1 to Q1–1.5 × (Q3- Q1). Mean values are shown with black diamonds. Dots beyond whiskers are outliers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.t002

The data were homoscedastic for the KEE; we therefore present untransformed analyses. Only the factor Degree was significant for the KEE ( Table 2 ). The differences were in the order of Biology (mean ± SD for KEE = 6.5 ± 1.71) > Chemistry (5.2 ± 1.73) > History (4.8 ± 1.81) and English Philology (4.4 ± 1.66). However, the SNK test showed that only Biology differed significantly from the other treatments. Furthermore, when we studied the KEE scores exclusively within Biology, there were significant differences among Universities (F = 2.74; DF 1 = 9; DF 2 = 344; P = 0.004). Moreover, in that case there was a significant correlation between the Evolution Credits and KEE score among the ten studied Universities (r = 0.567; n = 10; P Spearman = 0.011).

A detailed analysis of evolution knowledge in Biology on the KEE items revealed three different patterns across Faculties ( Fig 3 ). One item (K2) showed a similarly high rate of response among students of any degree, while several items (K5, K7, K8 and K9) showed similar but low scores. Finally, another group (K1, K3, K4, K6 and K10) showed the expected variations among different undergraduate students, with the highest score for those studying Biology.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.g003

A positive control of our analysis was done on the acceptance and knowledge levels of Biology teachers from two universities (Vigo and Autónoma de Madrid). In this case, the two-way ANOVA did not detect any significant factor either for the MATE or the KEE, indicating that teacher evolution acceptance and knowledge may not differ across levels of Degree and Religiosity. These dependent variables showed that teachers had a higher average than students: mean ± SD for MATE (93.6 ± 6.22; n = 50) and KEE (7.6 ± 1.86; n = 53). The correlation between Religiosity and MATE was not significant (PVigo = 0.085; PMadrid = 0.965).

Finally, we used multiple regression analysis to explore which of the available variables ( Age , Religiosity , KEE score , Degree , and University ) could explain evolution acceptance (MATE, MATE Facts, and MATE Credibility; Table 3 ). The results show similar regression models under any of the acceptance scores used; in all cases, the order of variables entered into the model were KEE (evolution knowledge), followed by Religiosity , University , and Degree . Moreover, partial correlation coefficients were rather similar to standardized regression coefficients (not shown), which indicates that these variables do in fact contribute independently to the explanation of evolution acceptance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.t003

Evolutionary theory acceptance may depend on factors such as religiosity, evolution knowledge, and NOS understanding, although their relative contribution is a contentious issue [ 23 – 25 ]. Part of the problem is the existence of confounding factors that do not allow a focus on the actual cause (e.g. use of a range of questionnaires, often with varying structures and/or properties or the fact that different studies have been applied to different social groups). Here we have tried to focus on a well-established evolution-acceptance tool (MATE) and studied exclusively third-year students from the same four degrees at ten public Spanish Universities. This strategy may reduce the intrinsic variability of responses and allow detection of factors with relatively small contributions, compared to other studies. In relation to this, our demographic analysis suggests that only two pairs of variables were dependent: Sex by Degree and Itinerary by Degree . The first pair of variables is beyond the scope of this study, although there may exist several explanations that can influence differential academic interest in males and females (see an extensive review in Halpern [ 65 ]). The second pair of variables is an absolutely expected relationship, because pre-university itineraries are supposed to prepare the students for final degree choices. Therefore, most biology and chemistry students come from a high school itinerary in Science, while the situation is more variable in the other two degrees (although most students come from undergraduate humanities and social science itineraries).

Evolution acceptance has been considered a complex parameter to estimate. Indeed, the MATE questionnaire has been suggested by some authors [ 34 , 36 ] to include two constructs: Facts and Credibility. However, our separate analysis of the two construct estimators rendered similar results as were obtained with the original MATE—a result observed in other studies [ 34 , 36 ] as well. Therefore, irrespective of the true dimensionality of MATE, we can consider it as a valid estimate of evolution acceptance, at least in our data set.

The analysis of Spanish university students reveals that levels of evolution acceptance are relatively high (average range 81.2–92.8 per university), at the same level as most modern industrialized countries ( Table 1 ). Actually, biology teachers from two universities obtained a higher average than their corresponding students. Interestingly, we observed differences in student’s evolution acceptance for Degree and Religiosity but not for their interaction. These observations suggest that these two factors may provide an independent contribution to the level of evolution acceptance. Actually, the same result was observed when searching an explicative model by multiple regression. We can discuss the contribution of these two factors separately.

Religiosity has been suggested to be a major contributor to evolution acceptance in several studies [ 18 , 21 , 35 , 66 ]. Although our religiosity estimate is somehow simpler than other published alternatives, our validation experiment confirms that the more detailed construct of the DUREL instrument rendered similar tendencies as in the general study. However, one clear limitation in our design is that we asked for religiosity irrespective of the type of religion. It could be that specific theistic views may confront evolution beliefs more directly [ 44 ]. This is something that should be corrected in future studies. It also could explain why religiosity had a relatively small influence on evolution acceptance in our data set (6.6% reduction) compared to other studies ( Table 1 ). Moreover, in our investigation, we also detected the highest variation for MATE in the high religiosity subgroup—an association that could be explained if individuals belonging to both theist and non-theist religions could perhaps differentially contribute to it. The association of religiosity and MATE is quite variable across countries. For example, in the USA, people with higher religiosity levels can reduce its acceptance by up to 20–50% [ 18 , 41 ], although such reduction is typically less than 20% in biology undergraduate students ( Table 1 ). Moreover, evolution acceptance itself may depend on education level, as in-service teachers from the USA increase levels of acceptance to 85.0 ± 4.5 [ 67 , 68 ]. Interestingly, the two countries with the lowest acceptance levels belong to countries with a majority of theist religious citizens, suggesting that these kinds of religions present the greatest a priori prejudices toward evolutionary views ( Table 1 ). It is worth noting most controversies about these factors pertain to whether they represent a true causative factor or a correlated effect (as if high religiosity students show either low evolution knowledge or NOS levels; see Rice et al. [ 44 ]). This controversy can be partially data-dependent; thus, in certain social contexts religiosity may be a main component by itself while, in others, it could rather be indirectly mediated by other factors. Notice, however, that among Spanish university students the contribution of religiosity was relatively low but apparently independent of evolution knowledge (KEE test) or NOS level (Degree). Other authors have already shown that the factors affecting evolution acceptance differ from those contributing to the acceptance of other scientific theories [ 20 ]. In summary, a society should be warned that certain religiosities may add some prejudices to any first encounter with evolutionary theory. Perhaps our scientific community should increase efforts to show that such a negative relationship between evolution and religion is neither natural nor justified [ 69 – 71 ] or take an active predisposition to change it (e.g. Truong et al. [ 72 ]).

In our study, evolution acceptance also depended on the degree studied and, under the regression model, evolution knowledge. These considerations point again to the same major forces previously detected (Religiosity, Knowledge, and NOS understanding) [ 23 – 25 ]. Actually, the three are directly compared in the regression model; such an analysis suggests (comparing partial correlation coefficients from Table 3 ) that in our study the ranking of factors may be Knowledge > Religiosity > NOS. Of course, such positions may depend on the particular set of citizens studied. As we used as participants third-year university students with presumably relatively high levels of NOS, this may have influenced the results. Actually, if NOS understanding were very important, we would expect that both Biology and Chemistry students (Science itinerary) would distance themselves from History and Philology (Social Sciences and Humanities Itineraries) while, if evolution knowledge is the main driver, we would expect that Biology would succeed in isolation (as the only one with actual evolution themes). Therefore, our results suggest that, at least in our university students, evolution knowledge may be more relevant than NOS understanding.

A different trend was observed when evolution knowledge was evaluated by the KEE questionnaire. The analysis showed homoscedasticity for this variable across treatments; thus, all the statistical inferences were very safe. On the other hand, we found rather low levels of reliability for this test (which suggests low-quality data for KEE). This represents a limitation in our ability to interpret the evolutionary knowledge, as we may not truly understand the relationship between knowledge and acceptance given that knowledge is indeed so low. However, we believe that a relatively high proportion of individuals may answer most questions randomly (as they do not know the answer and we asked the students to answer all items from KEE). This fact may be responsible for the low reliability value observed. Indeed, this is not dependent on the item studied, as we observed the same reliability using the one-item out of the analysis strategy (not shown). For KEE, only the Degree factor was significant (Biology students behave better than the rest; Fig 4 ), suggesting that it is the amount of evolution materials in the curricula that is the most relevant factor. We have another argument that points in the same direction, the differences among universities in evolution knowledge within Biology were partially explained (up to 30%) by degree of evolutionary themes in the Biology curricula. The Evolution Knowledge observed in our students was within the range of those detected in previous studies [ 21 , 41 , 44 ]. However, in those earlier investigations, there was a relatively high variability among different social subgroups. For example, students who received the first instruction on evolution within a religious environment consistently presented a lower evolution knowledge level (3.2) than those who had received such instruction in the high school setting (5.4; scale modified from Moore et al. [ 41 ]). On the other hand, as expected, evolution teachers from the two tested universities showed a higher knowledge level than corresponding students. In summary, in our case, all results suggested that, to improve evolution knowledge, we must introduce more evolution-related materials into the curricula. This is a well-known problem in the Spanish education system, as there is very little content on evolutionary biology in primary and secondary school curricula. Indeed, evolutionary biology contents are only available to students who choose the Science Itinerary [ 43 ]. This is something the education community should try to change in the coming years.

Violin plots and boxplots as explained in Fig 2 . Here, mean values are shown with black squares and the interquartile range in blue.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.g004

The study of responses for separated items for evolutionary knowledge gave different results. Item 2 was correctly answered by most students (regarding reasons for pesticide resistance; S1 Fig ), while items about the level of natural selection (5 and 7), description of macroevolution (8), and the ultimate source of variation (9) were poorly answered. The positive response to Item 2 can be interpreted to mean that most students are aware of some of the practical implications that evolutionary theory has on the living world. The items answered negatively by most students could be considered a potential guide to the kind of evolutionary concepts that are hard for the students to grasp. Other authors have focused on the differential responses item by item [ 40 , 73 ], although the differential tool considered may condition the result. For example, [ 73 ] Nehm and Ha [ 73 ] found that students gave more frequent correct responses under trait gain than loss, a bias that cannot be checked by the KEE.

In summary, we have observed relatively high levels of evolution theory acceptance using the MATE in third-year university students attending ten Spanish Universities. The main factors that seemed to influence levels of acceptance were Degree > Religiosity > KEE, which suggests that both religiosity and evolution knowledge are relevant and partially independent factors to be considered. A similar strategy should be accomplished in different segments of the educational course, for example, just prior to entry into the degree program or immediately after finishing it. Moreover, although the reduction in acceptance of evolution due to religiosity is relatively low, we should consider strategies to diminish the a priori prejudice against the concept, as held by highly religious individuals. Perhaps a general effort to persuade the religious part of the society that religion and evolution are not necessarily antagonistic views could be useful as well. A more serious set of limitations exists regarding evolution knowledge which, in general, has been relatively low in all grades, including biology. This suggests an obvious strategy for improving this situation, i.e. to incorporate more evolutionary theory in both pre-university levels, affecting all students, and in the university, affecting particularly the curricula in Biology and other life sciences study programs.

Supporting information

S1 data. data evolution questionaries..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.s001

S2 Data. University questionaries teache.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.s002

S1 Table. Descriptive parameters of the data questionnaires.

N is number of students, N analysis is the number used in the study (after excluding uncomplete cases). Religiosity represents the percentage of students that claim to be religious practitioner.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.s003

S2 Table. Description of the curricula of the Biology degrees per University.

Course is the year of the given lecture. Total content is the number of themes of the lecture, while subject content is the number of those related with Evolution. Probability is the ratio between the former two, while Evolution credits is the sum of the credits x probability.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.s004

S3 Table. Pairwise chi-square tests for the different variables pairs per university.

Pink shaded for those significant (without multitest correction) and Red shaded for those significant after SGoF multitest adjustment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.s005

S4 Table. Analysis of the homogeneity chi-square test for demographic variables within University.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.s006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238345.s007

Acknowledgments

We thank all participating students as well as the Faculty Deans and teachers who helped during presentation of the online questionnaires to the students from the ten Spanish Universities. We thank the Spanish Society of Evolutionary Biology (SESBE), which allowed us to use its member list to search for participants from various Spanish regions. All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Coyne JA. Why evolution is true. New York: Viking Books; 2009.
• 3. Ruse M. Taking Darwin seriously: A naturalistic approach to philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1985.
• 4. Dennett DC. Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
• 5. Stamos D. N. (2008). Evolution and the Big Questions: Sex, Race, Religion, and Other Matters. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
• 6. Buss DM. Evolutionary Psychology. 5th ed. London: Routledge; 2015.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 8. Perlman RL (2013). Evolution and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
• 9. Singer P. A darwinian left: Politics, evolution and cooperation. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson; 1999.
• 10. Rosenberg A. Darwinism in philosophy, social science and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
• 13. Dupré J. Darwin’s legacy: What evolution means today. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
• 15. Kelemen D. Teleological minds: How natural intuition about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In: Rosengreen KS, Brem SK, Evans EM, Sinatra GM, editors. Evolution challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 66–92.
• 16. Hull DL. Darwin and his critics: The reception of Darwin’s theory of evolution by the scientific community. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1983.
• 17. Bowler PJ. Evolution: The History of an Idea. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2003.
• 22. Gallup [Internet]. In US, belief in creationist view of humans at new low [cited 2020 Jul 3]. Avaliable from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx Accessed 11 november 2019
• 32. Beniermann A. [Evolution–of acceptance and doubts. Empirical studies on attitudes towards evolution and the evolution of the human mind]. Wiesbaden: Springer Spektrum; 2019. Available from: https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783658241049 . German.
• 42. International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook [Internet]. Projected GDP Ranking (2019–2024) [cited 2020 Jul 3]. Available from: http://statisticstimes.com/economy/projected-world-gdp-ranking.php
• 48. Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional [Internet] Madrid: Organización del Bachillerato; c2020 [cited 2020 Jul 3]. Available from: http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dam/jcr:95f179e5-f089-4cc6-a590-283cef703f19/02-tabla-organizaci-n-bachillerato.pdf
• 49. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Viena, Austria; 2016. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/
• 52. Sokal R, Rohlf FJ. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research. 3rd ed. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company; 1995.
• 54. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2017.
• 65. Halpern DF. Sex differences in cognitive abilities. New York: Psychology Press; 2012.
• 69. Ruse M. Can a Darwinian be a christian? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
• 70. National Academy of Sciences. Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008.
• 71. Sober E. Evolution without naturalism. In: Kvanvig JL, editor. Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion: Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. pp. 187–221.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

References cited.

• < Previous

Evolution: Evidence and Acceptance

Ross H. Nehm ( [email protected] ) is an associate professor of science education and evolution, ecology, and organismal biology at The Ohio State University, in Columbus. His research on evolution education was recently highlighted in Thinking Evolutionarily: Evolution Education Across the Life Sciences (National Academies Press, 2012).

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Ross H. Nehm, Evolution: Evidence and Acceptance, BioScience , Volume 62, Issue 9, September 2012, Pages 845–847, https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.13

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The Evidence for Evolution. Alan R. Rogers. University of Chicago Press, 2011. 128 pp., illus. $18.00 (ISBN 9780226723822 paper).

A lthough scientists view evolution as an indisputable feature of the natural world, most Americans simply do not believe that it occurs, or they reject naturalistic explanations for biotic change. Empirical studies have revealed that students and teachers often know quite a bit about evolution but still do not accept it. This somewhat counterintuitive finding has been empirically corroborated and has led science educators to investigate this pattern in order to provide suggestions for effective evolution instruction (e.g., Rosengren et al. 2012 ). Within the lucid, compact, up-to-date, and highly readable pages of The Evidence for Evolution , author Alan R. Rogers takes an approach that most science educators have found inadequate: exclusively using logic, parsimony, and the force of evidence to precipitate conceptual change about evolutionary belief. Reactions from both supportive and dissenting readers to this nicely written text will depend on how much faith they place in the use of logic to challenge the worldviews of intelligent-design creationists.

Two premises appear to frame this short book: Biology courses and textbooks are focused on evolutionary mechanisms at the expense of the evidence for evolution, which most people are not aware of, and once disbelievers of evolution are exposed to the massive amount of evidence that exists, they will change their beliefs. I am not sure whether most biologists would agree with the first premise, given the increasingly elaborate coverage of evolution in textbooks. Indeed, having reviewed some of the best-selling introductory biology books ( Nehm et al. 2009 ), I know that many topics that Rogers discusses are, in fact, covered in these texts. I am also doubtful as to whether science educators would agree with the second premise: Empirical studies have shown that learning more about evolution often fails to precipitate a meaningful belief change.

Within the 10 chapters that form the structure of The Evidence for Evolution , the choice of topics is excellent. Also noteworthy are the use of fresh empirical examples, the integration of phylogenetic trees, and the inclusion of paleontological patterns, radiometric dating, and genomic data. The evidence for evolution is vast, and choosing appropriate examples for a short book is no small task.

Writing about evolution can be quite challenging, given that many students and teachers view teleological factors as sufficient explanations for evolutionary change. It is important, therefore, to clarify what we mean when we use such language ( Rector et al. 2012 ). At times, Rogers uses intentional or teleological language: “Every living thing must solve many engineering problems just to stay alive” (p. 34). Although biologists will understand what Rogers means, the same may not be true of novice readers. Individual organisms cannot willfully change the traits that they have (e.g., they cannot intentionally modify a phenotypic feature).

Language may also invoke ideas that are at odds with current scientific thinking, and although Rogers writes with precision and clarity, some exceptions are worth mentioning. Trait loss, for example, has been shown to be a particularly difficult concept for students and teachers to understand ( Nehm and Ha 2011 ). When describing the loss of whale limbs (“Over the next few million years, whales relied less and less on their legs,” p. 20, or “Hind limbs dwindled,” p. 22), his language may be in greater alignment with common misconceptions about use and disuse than with natural selection. When writing about evolution, scientists need to be more cognizant of readers' potential interpretations of the language that we use.

One literary device employed throughout the text is the contrast of supernatural explanations (e.g., “Perhaps we sprang from the hand of God,” p. 81) with naturalistic, evolutionary explanations. Although this approach makes the text engaging, it makes little sense from my perspective and has the potential to exacerbate readers' existing confusions about core ideas relating to the nature of science (NOS). Most students and teachers remain unaware of the ontological presuppositions that undergird the scientific process (e.g., methodological naturalism). By definition (e.g., from the National Academy of Sciences), science cannot speak to or evaluate the relative merits of supernatural explanations; no amount of evidence will ever be able to tip the scale in favor of a naturalistic explanation relative to a supernatural one or vice versa. It is not clear why Rogers takes this approach.

Students' and teachers' evolutionary acceptance levels are known to be related to their understanding of the NOS. Because many Americans are deeply confused about NOS concepts such as observation , inference , testability , theory , law , model , proof , experiment , and hypothesis ( Lederman 2007 ), addressing NOS misconceptions has become de rigueur in evolution education. I was surprised, therefore, to find that The Evidence for Evolution does not discuss what evidence is or how the term is used in evolutionary science. More problematic is the somewhat careless use of NOS terms (e.g., “this experiment proved that,” p. 12, emphasis added, and “we can also see new species forming ,” p. 16, emphasis added). In order to prevent the reinforcement of such NOS misconceptions (e.g., that scientific knowledge is certain because it is proven ; or the conflation of observation and inference ), the meanings of everyday and scientific terms must be carefully distinguished for readers.

To make the most of Rogers's important contribution, pairing The Evidence for Evolution with a textbook about the NOS (e.g., Espinoza 2012 ) is much more likely to achieve what the author admirably aspires to: an understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of evolutionary science. Facts, logic, and parsimony are unlikely, on their own, to affect most people's perceptions of the plausibility of evolution.

Espinoza F . 2012 . The Nature of Science: Integrating Historical, Philosophical, and Sociological Perspectives . Rowman and Littlefield .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Lederman NG . 2007 . Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future . Pages 831 – 880 in Abell SK Lederman NG , eds. Handbook of Research on Science Education . Erlbaum .

Nehm RH Ha M . 2011 . Item feature effects in evolution assessment . Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 : 237 – 256 .

Nehm RH Poole TM Lyford ME Hoskins SG Carruth L Ewers BE Colberg PJS . 2009 . Does the segregation of evolution in biology textbooks and introductory courses reinforce students' faulty mental models of biology and evolution? Evolution: Education and Outreach 2 : 527 – 532 .

Rector MA Nehm RH Pearl D . 2012 . Learning the language of evolution: Lexical ambiguity and word meaning in student explanations . Research in Science Education . Forthcoming. (3 July 2012; www.springerlink.com/content/4117121q46082l30 ) doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9296-z

Rosengren KS Brem SK Evans EM Sinatra GM eds. 2012 . Evolution Challenges: Integrating Research and Practice in Teaching and Learning about Evolution . Oxford University Press .

Author notes

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Evolution articles within Scientific Reports

Article 08 May 2024 | Open Access

The impact of mobility costs on cooperation and welfare in spatial social dilemmas

• Jacques Bara
• , Fernando P. Santos
•  &  Paolo Turrini

High intragenomic, intergenomic, and phenotypic diversity in pulcherrimin-producing Metschnikowia yeasts indicates a special mode of genome evolution

• Matthias Sipiczki
• , Kinga Czentye
•  &  Zoltán Kállai

Matters Arising 07 May 2024 | Open Access

Problems with two recent Petri net analyses of Neanderthal adhesive technology

• Patrick Schmidt
•  &  Claudio Tennie

Reply to: Problems with two recent Petri net analyses of Neanderthal adhesive technology

• Sebastian Fajardo
• , Paul R. B. Kozowyk
•  &  Geeske H. J. Langejans

Article 07 May 2024 | Open Access

Committing to the wrong artificial delegate in a collective-risk dilemma is better than directly committing mistakes

• Inês Terrucha
• , Elias Fernández Domingos
•  &  Tom Lenaerts

Polyandry and sperm competition in two traumatically inseminating species of Strepsiptera (Insecta)

• Kenny Jandausch
• , Nico Wanjura
•  &  Oliver Niehuis

Article 06 May 2024 | Open Access

Wild capuchin monkeys use stones and sticks to access underground food

• Tatiane Valença
• , Gabriela Oliveira Affonço
•  &  Tiago Falótico

Matters Arising 03 May 2024 | Open Access

Lateral palatal foramina are not widespread in Artiodactyla and imply baleen in extinct mysticetes

• Eric G. Ekdale
• , Joseph J. El Adli
•  &  John Gatesy

Article 02 May 2024 | Open Access

Active self-treatment of a facial wound with a biologically active plant by a male Sumatran orangutan

• Isabelle B. Laumer
• , Arif Rahman
•  &  Caroline Schuppli

Copper-based grape pest management has impacted wine aroma

• Irene De Guidi
• , Virginie Galeote
•  &  Jean-Luc Legras

Paedomorphosis and retention of juvenile diet lead speciation in a group of Neotropical snakes (Colubroides-Philodryadini)

• Mariana Chuliver
•  &  Agustín Scanferla

Article 01 May 2024 | Open Access

Age- and sex-related changes in vertebral trabecular bone architecture in Neolithic and Mediaeval populations from Poland

• Francesco Maria Galassi
• , Wiesław Lorkiewicz
•  &  Elżbieta Żądzińska

Understanding the genomic heterogeneity of North African Imazighen: from broad to microgeographical perspectives

• Laura Vilà-Valls
• , Amine Abdeli
•  &  David Comas

Article 30 April 2024 | Open Access

Identification of gene isoforms and their switching events between male and female embryos of the parthenogenetic crustacean Daphnia magna

• Yasuhiko Kato
• , Joel H. Nitta
•  &  Hajime Watanabe

Article 29 April 2024 | Open Access

Influence of sipunculan (peanut worm) activity on orifice formation in scleractinian Heterocyathus for adaptation to soft substrates

• Yuki Tokuda
• , Shuya Kawakita
•  &  Susumu Ohtsuka

Global population: from Super-Malthus behavior to Doomsday criticality

• Agata Angelika Sojecka
•  &  Aleksandra Drozd-Rzoska

Article 26 April 2024 | Open Access

Evolutionarily conserved ovarian fluid proteins are responsible for extending egg viability in salmonid fish

• Aurélie Gueho
• , Daniel Żarski
•  &  Julien Bobe

Palaeogenomic insights into the origins of early settlers on the island of Cyprus

• Alexandros Heraclides
• , Aris Aristodemou
•  &  Leonidas-Romanos Davranoglou

Article 25 April 2024 | Open Access

Phylogenomics of Psammodynastes and Buhoma (Elapoidea: Serpentes), with the description of a new Asian snake family

• Sunandan Das
• , Eli Greenbaum
•  &  Juha Merilä

Article 24 April 2024 | Open Access

Coordinated response of endemic gastropods to Late Glacial and Holocene climate-driven paleohydrological changes in a small thermal pond of Central Europe

• Sándor Gulyás
•  &  Pál Sümegi

Comprehensive genome assembly reveals genetic diversity and carcass consumption insights in critically endangered Asian king vultures

• Wannapol Buthasane
• , Vorasuk Shotelersuk
•  &  Gunnaporn Suriyaphol

Article 23 April 2024 | Open Access

Circumtropical distribution and cryptic species of the meiofaunal enteropneust Meioglossus (Harrimaniidae, Hemichordata)

• Éloïse Defourneaux
• , Maria Herranz
•  &  Katrine Worsaae

Fossilized anuran soft tissues reveal a new taphonomic model for the Eocene Geiseltal Konservat-Lagerstätte, Germany

• Daniel Falk
• , Oliver Wings
•  &  Maria E. McNamara

Concordance of multigene genealogy along with morphological evidence unveils five novel species and two new records of boletoid mushrooms (fungi) from India

• , Aniket Ghosh
•  &  Alfredo Vizzini

Comparative genomics of sirenians reveals evolution of filaggrin and caspase-14 upon adaptation of the epidermis to aquatic life

• Julia Steinbinder
• , Attila Placido Sachslehner
•  &  Leopold Eckhart

Article 22 April 2024 | Open Access

Eocene amber provides the first fossil record and bridges distributional gap in the rare genus Robsonomyia  (Diptera: Keroplatidae)

• Alicja Pełczyńska
• , Wiesław Krzemiński
•  &  Agnieszka Soszyńska

Urban rooftops near sports pitches provide a safe haven for a declining shorebird

• Franz Löffler
• , Jonas Brüggeshemke
•  &  Thomas Fartmann

Article 21 April 2024 | Open Access

The complete chloroplast genome of Mussaenda pubescens and phylogenetic analysis

•  &  Teerayoot Girdthai

Article 18 April 2024 | Open Access

Largest known madtsoiid snake from warm Eocene period of India suggests intercontinental Gondwana dispersal

• Debajit Datta
•  &  Sunil Bajpai

Article 17 April 2024 | Open Access

Shark genome size evolution and its relationship with cellular, life-history, ecological, and diversity traits

• Mario Torralba Sáez
• , Michael Hofreiter
•  &  Nicolas Straube

Article 16 April 2024 | Open Access

Divergence in regulatory mechanisms of GR-RBP genes in different plants under abiotic stress

• Yingjie Zhang
• , Yujian Mo
•  &  Yu Ling

Article 15 April 2024 | Open Access

Signatures of adaptation at key insecticide resistance loci in Anopheles gambiae in Southern Ghana revealed by reduced-coverage WGS

• Tristan P. W. Dennis
• , John Essandoh
•  &  David. Weetman

Exploring the origin of a unique mutant allele in twin-tail goldfish using CRISPR/Cas9 mutants

• Shu-Hua Lee
• , Chen-Yi Wang
•  &  Kinya G. Ota

Article 13 April 2024 | Open Access

Putative climate adaptation in American pikas ( Ochotona princeps ) is associated with copy number variation across environmental gradients

• Bryson M. F. Sjodin
• , Danielle A. Schmidt
•  &  Michael A. Russello

Article 12 April 2024 | Open Access

AI-driven translations for kidney transplant equity in Hispanic populations

• Oscar A. Garcia Valencia
• , Charat Thongprayoon
•  &  Wisit Cheungpasitporn

Genome-wide analysis to uncover how Pocillopora acuta survives the challenging intertidal environment

• Rosa Celia Poquita-Du
• , Danwei Huang
•  &  Peter A. Todd

Endosymbiont diversity across native and invasive brown widow spider populations

• Monica A. Mowery
• , Laura C. Rosenwald
•  &  Jennifer A. White

Article 09 April 2024 | Open Access

Virtual reconstruction of the Canis arnensis type (Canidae, Mammalia) from the Upper Valdarno Basin (Italy, Early Pleistocene)

• S. Bartolini-Lucenti
• , O. Cirilli
•  &  L. Rook

Dietary restriction reveals sex-specific expression of the mTOR pathway genes in Japanese quails

• Gebrehaweria K. Reda
• , Sawadi F. Ndunguru
•  &  Ádám Z. Lendvai

Enzymatic phosphatization of fish scales—a pathway for fish fossilization

• , Gabriele Bierbaum
•  &  Sabina Karačić

Article 03 April 2024 | Open Access

The invasive land flatworm Arthurdendyus triangulatus has repeated sequences in the mitogenome, extra-long cox2 gene and paralogous nuclear rRNA clusters

• Romain Gastineau
• , Claude Lemieux
•  &  Jean-Lou Justine

Article 02 April 2024 | Open Access

Characterization of a putative orexin receptor in Ciona intestinalis sheds light on the evolution of the orexin/hypocretin system in chordates

• Maiju K. Rinne
• , Lauri Urvas
•  &  Henri Xhaard

Multiple factors influence claw characteristics in oribatid mites (Acari)

• Michaela Kerschbaumer
•  &  Tobias Pfingstl

Article 01 April 2024 | Open Access

Prestalk-like positioning of de-differentiated cells in the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum

• Yuka Shirokawa
• , Masakazu Shimada
•  &  Satoshi Sawai

Complete organelle genomes of Korean fir, Abies koreana and phylogenomics of the gymnosperm genus Abies using nuclear and cytoplasmic DNA sequence data

• Seongjun Park
• , Myounghai Kwak
•  &  SeonJoo Park

Article 31 March 2024 | Open Access

Prevalence of bifidity of the seventh cervical vertebral spinous process in southwestern Nigeria: a computed tomography based study

• Babatunde Oluwaseun Ibitoye
• , Olatunde Wasiu Oladipupo
•  &  Olajumoke Fatima Bello

Genome-wide identification and evolutionary analysis of the AP2/EREBP , COX and LTP genes in Zea mays L. under drought stress

• Amaal Maghraby
•  &  Mohamed Alzalaty

Article 30 March 2024 | Open Access

Gorilla optimization algorithm combining sine cosine and cauchy variations and its engineering applications

• Shuxin Wang
•  &  Wenwei Zhu

Article 29 March 2024 | Open Access

Wolbachia supergroup A in Enoplognatha latimana (Araneae: Theridiidae) in Poland as an example of possible horizontal transfer of bacteria

• Edyta Konecka
•  &  Paweł Szymkowiak

Cell-in-cell phenomena across the tree of life

• Stefania E. Kapsetaki
• , Luis H. Cisneros
•  &  Carlo C. Maley

Browse broader subjects

• Biological sciences

Browse narrower subjects

• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Coevolution
• Cultural evolution
• Evolutionary developmental biology
• Evolutionary genetics
• Evolutionary theory
• Experimental evolution
• Molecular evolution
• Chemical origin of life
• Palaeontology
• Phylogenetics
• Population genetics
• Sexual selection
• Social evolution

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution: A review of our present understanding

• Published: June 1986
• Volume 1 , pages 133–168, ( 1986 )

Cite this article

• David R. Oldroyd 1  

1555 Accesses

10 Citations

Explore all metrics

The paper characterizes Darwin's theory, providing a synthesis of recent historical investigations in this area. Darwin's reading of Malthus led him to appreciate the importance of population pressures, and subsequently of natural selection, with the help of the “wedge” metaphor. But, in itself, natural selection did not furnish an adequate account of the origin of species, for which a principle of divergence was needed. Initially, Darwin attributed this to geographical isolation, but later, following his work on barnacles which underscored the significance of variation, and arising from his work on “botanical arithmetic,” he supposed that diversity allowed more “places” to be occupied in a given region. So isolation was not regarded as essential. Large regions with intense competition, and with ample variation spread by blending, would facilitate speciation. The notion of “place” was different from “niche,” and it is questioned whether Darwin's views on ecology were as modern as is commonly supposed. Two notions of “struggle” are found in Darwin's theory; and three notions of “variation.” Criticisms of his theory led him to emphasize the importance of “variation” over a range of forms. Hence the theory was “populational” rather than “typological.” The theory required a “Lamarckian” notion of inheritable changes initiated by the environment as a source of variation. Also, Darwin deployed a “use/habit” theory; and the notion of sexual selection. Selection normally acted at the level of the individual, though “kin selection” was possible. “Group selection” was hinted at for man. Darwin's thinking (and also the exposition of his theory) was generally guided by the domestic-organism analogy, which satisfied his methodological requirement of a vera causa principle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Can a Muslim be an Evolutionist?

The Ethics of De-Extinction

Is there still evolution in the human population.

Acot, P.: 1983, ‘Darwin et l'écologie’, Revue d'Histoire des Sciences 36 , 33–48.

Google Scholar  

Bajema, C. J.: 1985, ‘Charles Darwin and Selection as a Cause of Adaptive Evolution 1837–1859’, The American Biology Teacher 47 , 226–232.

Bartholomew, M.: 1975, ‘Huxley's Defence of Darwin’, Annals of Science 32 , 525–535.

Beer, G.: 1983, Darwin's Plots: Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Fiction , Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Belt, T.: 1877, ‘The Glacial Period in the Southern Hemisphere’, Quarterly Journal of Science (n.s.) 7 , 326–353.

Biberg, I. J.: 1774, ‘The Economy of Nature’, in Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Natural History, Husbandry, and Physick , 3rd edn., Dodsley, Baker & Leigh, and Payne, London.

Boakes, R.: 1984, From Darwinism to Behaviourism: Psychology and the Minds of Animals , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bowler, P. J.: 1976, ‘Darwin, Malthus and the Concept of Struggle’, Journal of the History of Ideas 37 , 631–650.

Bowler, P. J.: 1983, The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900 , Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Bowler, P. J.: 1984, Evolution: The History of an Idea , University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.

Brandon, R. & Burian, R. (eds.): 1984, Genes, Organisms, Populations , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Brooks, J. L.: 1984, Just Before the Origin: Alfred Russell Wallace's Theory of Evolution , Columbia University Press, New York.

Browne, J.: 1980, ‘Darwin's Botanical Arithmetic and the “Principle of Divergence”, 1854–1858’, Journal of the History of Biology 13 , 53–89.

Browne, J.: 1983, The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography , Yale University Press, New Haven and London.

Burchfield, J. D.: 1974, ‘Darwin and the Dilemma of Geological Time’, Isis 65 , 301–321.

Burchfield, J. D.: 1975, Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth , Science History Publications, New York.

Candolle, A. P. de: 1820, ‘Géographie Botanique’, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles , 1820, Vol. 18, pp. 359–436.

Cannon, H. G.: 1958, The Evolution of Living Things , Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Cassidy, J.: 1978, ‘Philosophical Aspects of the Group Selection Controversy’, Philosophy of Science 45 , 575–594.

Colp, R.: 1977, ‘Charles Darwin and the Galapagos’, New York State Journal of Medicine 77 , 262–267.

Colp, R.: 1979, ‘Charles Darwin's Vision of Organic Nature: “A Force Like a Hundred Thousand Wedges”’, New York State Journal of Medicine 79 , 622–629.

Cornell, J. F.: 1984, ‘Analogy and Technology in Darwin's Vision of Nature’, Journal of the History of Biology 17 , 303–344.

Darlington, P. J.: 1959, ‘Darwin and Biogeography’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103 , 94–158.

Darlington, P. J.: 1980, Evolution for Naturalists: The Simple Principles and Complex Reality , John Wiley, New York.

Darwin, C. R.: 1842, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs: Being the First Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, Under the Command of Capt. Fitzroy, R. N. During the Years 1832 to 1836 , Smith Elder & Co., London.

Darwin, C. R.: 1858, ‘Abstract of a Letter from C. Darwin, Esq., to Prof. Asa Gray, Boston, U.S., dated Down, September 5th, 1875’, Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society 2 , 50–53.

Darwin, C. R.: 1868, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication , 2 vols., John Murray, London.

Darwin, C. R.: 1871, The Descent of Man: and Selection in Relation to Sex , 2 vols., John Murray, London.

Darwin, C. R.: 1872, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals , John Murray, London.

Darwin, C. R.: 1968, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Existence , ed. J. W. Burrow (reprint of 1st edn., 1859), Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

Darwin, F. (ed.): 1909, The Foundations of the Origin of Species: Two Essays Written in 1842 and 1844 by Charles Darwin , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

De Beer, G.: 1958, ‘Darwin's Views on the Relations Between Embryology and Evolution’, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 44 , 15–23.

De Beer, G.: 1961–62, ‘The Origin of Darwin's Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 155 , 321–338.

De Beer, G.: 1960a, ‘Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species Part I. First Notebook [= B] (July 1837–February 1838)’, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series 2 , 23–73.

De Beer, G.: 1960b, ‘Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species Part II. Second Notebook [= C] (February–July 1838)’, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series 2 , 77–177.

De Beer, G.: 1960c, ‘Darwin's Notebooks on the Transmutation of Species Part III [= D] (15 July 1838–2 October 1838)’, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series 2 , 121–150.

De Beer, G.: 1960d, ‘Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species Part IV: Fourth Notebook [= E] (October 1838–10 July 1839)’, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series 2 , 151–183.

De Beer, G.: 1971, Homology, An Unsolved Problem , Oxford University Press, London.

De Beer, G., Rowlands, M. J. and Skramovsky, B. M. (eds.): 1967, ‘Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species Part IV: Pages Excised by Darwin’, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series 3 , 131–176.

Del Pinto, E. M. & Elinson, R. P.: 1983, ‘A Novel Developmental Pattern for Frogs: Gastrulation Produces an Embryonic Disc’, Nature 306 , 589–591.

Denton, M.: 1985, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis , Burnett Books, London.

Dillon, L. S.: 1973, Evolution: Concepts and Consequences , Mosby, St. Louis.

Egerton, F. N.: 1973, ‘Changing Concepts of the Balance of Nature’, Quarterly Review of Biology 48 , 322–350.

Egerton, F. N.: 1974, ‘Darwin's Analysis of Biological Competition’, Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of History of Science Moscow August 18–24 9 , 71–77.

Egerton, F. N. III: 1976, ‘Darwin's Early Reading of Lamarck’, Isis 67 , 452–456.

Elton, D.: 1927, Animal Ecology , Sidgwick & Jackson, London.

Evans, L. T.: 1984, ‘Darwin's Use of the Analogy Between Artificial and Natural Selection’, Journal of the History of Biology 17 , 113–140.

Flew, A. G. N.: 1959, ‘The Structure of Darwinism’, New Biology 28 , 18–34.

Foucault, M.: 1970, ‘La Situation de Cuvier dans l'Histoire de la Biologie’, Revue d'Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications 23 , 62–69.

Foucault, M. (trans. F. Edholm): 1979, ‘Cuvier's Position in the History of Biology’, Critique of Anthropology 4 , 125–130.

Freeman, D.: 1974, ‘The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer’, Current Anthropology 15 , 211–237.

Geison, G. L.: 1969, ‘Darwin and Heredity: The Evolution of his Hypothesis of Pangenesis’, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 24 , 375–411.

Ghiselin, M. T.: 1969, The Triumph of the Darwinian Method , University of California Press, Berkeley.

Gohau, G.: 1984, ‘Karl Popper et la Naissance de la Géologie’, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 89 , 505–514.

Greene, J. C.: 1971, ‘The Kuhnian Paradigm and the Darwinian Revolution in Natural History’, in D. H. D. Roller (ed.), Perspectives in the History of Science and Technology , University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 3–25.

Gruber, H. E.: 1980, ‘The Evolving Systems Approach to Creative Scientific Work: Charles Darwin's Early Thought’, in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Histories , D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 113–130.

Greene, J. C.: 1981, Science, Ideology and World View: Essays in the History of Evolutionary Ideas , University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London.

Grinnell, G. J.: 1974, ‘The Rise and Fall of Darwin's First Theory of Transmutation’, Journal of the History of Biology 7 , 259–273.

Grinnell, G. J.: 1985, ‘The Rise and Fall of Darwin's Second Theory’, Journal of the History of Biology 18 , 51–70.

Hamilton, W. D.: 1964, ‘The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior’, Journal of Theoretical Behaviour 7 , 1–16, 17–52, reprinted in Williams (1971), 23–43, 44–89.

Herbert, S.: 1980, ‘The Red Notebook of Charles Darwin’, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series 7 , 1–164.

Hodge, M. J. S.: 1982, ‘Darwin and the Laws of the Animate Part of the Terrestrial System (1835–1837): On the Lyellian Origins of his Zoonomical Explanatory Programme’, Studies in History of Biology 6 , 1–106.

Hodge, M. J. S.: 1983, ‘The Development of Darwin's General Biological Theorizing’, in D. S. Bendall (ed.), Evolution from Molecules to Men , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 43–62.

Hodge, M. J. S.: 1986, ‘Darwin as a Lifelong Generation Theorist’, in D. Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage , Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 207–243.

Hodge, M. J. S. and Kohn, D.: 1986, ‘The Immediate Origins of Natural Selection’, in D. Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage , Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 185–206.

Hooker, J. D.: 1860, Flora Tasmaniae. Published under the Authority of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty , 2 vols. and atlas, L. Reeve, London.

Hubbard, R.: 1979, ‘Have only Men Evolved?’, in R. Hubbard et al. (eds.), Women Look at Biology Looking at Men: A Collection of Feminist Critiques , G. K. Hall, Boston, and Schenkmann, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 7–36.

Huxley, J.: 1963, Evolution in Action , Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

Jenkin, F.: 1867, ‘The Origin of Species’, North British Review 46 , 277–318.

Johansson, I.: 1975, A Critique of Karl Popper's Methodology , Scandinavian University Books, Stockholm.

Kenyon, C.: 1983, ‘Pattern, Symmetry and Surprises in the Development of Caenorhabdites elegans ’, Trends in Biochemical Science 8 , 349–351.

Kirby, W.: 1835, On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Creation of Animals and in their History, Habits and Instincts , William Pickering, London.

Kohn, D.: 1980, ‘Theories to Work By: Rejected Theories, Reproduction, and Darwin's Path to Natural Selection’, Studies in History of Biology 4 , 67–170.

Kottler, M. J.: 1974, ‘Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism’, Isis 65 , 144–192.

Kottler, M. J.: 1978, ‘Charles Darwin's Biological Species Concept and Theory of Geographical Speciation: The Transmutation Notebooks’, Annals of Science 35 , 275–298.

Kropotkin, P.: 1939, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution , Penguin Books, Harmondsworth (first English edition, 1902).

Lakatos, I.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 91–195.

Laurent, J.: 1984, ‘Science, Society and Politics in Late Nineteenth-Century England’, Social Studies of Science 14 , 585–619.

Linnaeus, C.: 1751, Philosophia Botanica in qua Explicantur Fundamenta Botanica cum Definitionibus Partium, Exemplis Terminorum, Observationibus Rariorum, Adjectis Figuris Aenis , G. Kiesewetter, Stockholm.

Linné, C.: 1972, L'équilibre de la Nature , trans. B. Jasmin, introduction and notes by C. Limoges, J. Vrin, Paris.

Lyell, C.: 1831–1833, Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes now in Operation , 3 vols., John Murray, London.

Mayr, E.: 1959 ‘Darwin and the Evolutionary Theory in Biology\rs, in B. J. Meggers (ed.), Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal , The Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C., pp. 3–12.

Mayr, E.: 1972, ‘The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution’, Science 176 , 981–989.

Mayr, E.: 1977, ‘Darwin and Natural Selection: How Darwin May Have Discovered his Highly Unconventional Theory’, American Scientist 65 , 321–328.

Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Maynard Smith, J.: 1966, The Theory of Evolution , Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

Milne-Edwards, H.: 1844, ‘Considérations sur Quelques Principes Relatifs à la Classification Naturelle des Animaux, et Plus Particulièrement sur la Distribution Méthodique des Mammifères’, Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie) , Series 31, 65–99.

Moody, P. A.: 1962, Introduction to Evolution , Harper & Row, New York, Evanston and London.

Nordenskiold, E.: 1927, The History of Biology: A Survey , Tudor Publishing Co., New York.

Olby, R. C.: 1963, ‘Charles Darwin's Manuscript of Pangenesis’, British Journal for the History of Science 1 , 251–261.

Oldroyd, D. R.: 1980, Darwinian Impacts: An Introduction to the Darwinian Revolution , Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Oldroyd, D. R.: 1984, ‘How Did Darwin Arrive at his Theory? The Secondary Literature to 1982’, History of Science 22 , 325–374.

Ospovat, D.: 1981, The Development of Darwin's Theory: Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838–1859 , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Parshall, K. H.: 1982, ‘Varieties as Incipient Species: Darwin's Numerical Analysis’, Journal of the History of Biology 15 , 191–214.

Provine, W. B.: 1971, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics , Chicago University Press, Chicago.

Rheinberger, H.-J. & McLaughlin, P.: 1984, ‘Darwin's Experimental Natural History’, Journal of the History of Biology 17 , 345–368.

Richards, E.: 1983, ‘Darwin and the Descent of Woman’, in D. R. Oldroyd and I. G. Langham (eds.), The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought , D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 57–111.

Richardson, R. A.: 1981, ‘Biogeography and the Genesis of Darwin's Ideas of Transmutation’, Journal of the History of Biology 14 , 1–14.

Ruse, M.: 1970, ‘The Revolution in Biology’, Theoria 1 , 1–22.

Ruse, M.: 1971, ‘Natural Selection in The Origin of Species ’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 1 , 311–351.

Ruse, M.: 1975a, ‘Darwin's Debt to Philosophy: An Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell on the Development of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 6 , 159–181.

Ruse, M.: 1975b, ‘Charles Darwin and Artificial Selection’, Journal of the History of Ideas 36 , 339–350.

Ruse, M.: 1975c, ‘Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution: An Analysis’, Journal of the History of Biology 8 , 219–241.

Ruse, M.: 1979, The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw , Chicago University Press, Chicago and London.

Ruse, M.: 1980, ‘Charles Darwin and Group Selection’, Annals of Science 37 , 615–630.

Ruse, M.: 1982, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies , Addison-Wesley, London.

Ruse, M.: 1984, ‘Is there a Limit to our Knowledge of Evolution?’, Bioscience 34 , 1984, 100–104.

Schweber, S. S.: 1977, ‘The Origin of the Origin Revisited’, Journal of the History of Biology 10 , 229–316.

Secord, J. A.: 1981, ‘Nature's Fancy: Charles Darwin and the Breeding of Pigeons, Isis 72 , 163–186.

Sheets-Johnstone, M.: 1982, ‘Why Lamarck Did not Discover Natural Selection’, Journal of the History of Biology 15 , 443–465.

Sibatani, A.: 1983, ‘Kinji Imanishi and Species Identity’, Revista di biologia 76 , 24–42.

Sober, E.: 1984, The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus , MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Stauffer, R. C.: 1960, ‘Ecology in the Long Manuscript Version of Darwin's Origin of Species and Linnaeus's Oeconomy of Nature ’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104 , 235–241.

Stauffer, R. C. (ed.): 1975, Charles Darwin's Natural Selection: Being the Second Part of his Big Species Book Written from 1856 to 1858 , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sulloway, F. J.: 1979, ‘Geographical Isolation in Darwin's Thinking: The Vicissitudes of an Idea’, Studies in History of Biology 3 , 23–65.

Sulloway, F. J.: 1984, ‘Darwin's Conversion: The Beale Voyage and its Aftermath’, Journal of the History of Biology 15 , 325–396.

Sulloway, F. J.: 1984, ‘Darwin and the Galapagos’, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 21 , 29–59.

Turrill, W. B.: 1963, Joseph Dalton Hooker: Botanist, Explorer, and Administrator , Scientific Book Club, London.

Van Valen, L.: 1976, ‘Domains, Deduction, The Predictive Method, and Darwin’, Evolution Theory 1 , 231–245.

Vorzimmer, P. J.: 1963, ‘Charles Darwin and Blending Inheritance’, Isis 54 , 371–390.

Vorzimmer, P. J.: 1965, ‘Darwin's Ecology and its Influence upon his Theory’, Isis 56 , 148–155.

Vorzimmer, P. J.: 1972, Charles Darwin: The Years of Controversy — The Origin of Species and its Critics 1859–82 , University of London Press, London.

Wallace, A. R.: 1855, ‘On the Law which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species’, Annals and Magazine of Natural History 16 (n.s.), 184–196.

Wallace, A. R.: 1858, ‘On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type’, Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society 2 , 53–62.

Wallace, A. R.: 1876, The Geographical Distribution of Animals with a Study of the Relations of Living and Extinct Faunas as Elucidating the Past Changes of the Earth's Surface 2 vols., Macmillan, London.

Williams, G. C.: 1966, Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought , Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Williams, G. C. (ed.): 1971, Group Selection , Aldine-Atherton, Chicago and New York.

Williams, M. B.: 1970, ‘Deducing the Consequences of Evolution: A Mathematical Model’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 29 , 343–385.

Wood, S. V.: 1865, ‘Letter’, The Reader , 9 September, p. 297.

Wynne-Edwards, V. C.: 1962, Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour , Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh and London.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of History and Philosophy of Science, University of New South Wales, 2033, Kensington, N.S.W., Australia

David R. Oldroyd

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Oldroyd, D.R. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution: A review of our present understanding. Biol Philos 1 , 133–168 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142899

Download citation

Issue Date : June 1986

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142899

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• transmutation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Biotechnology Research Viewed With Caution Globally, but Most Support Gene Editing for Babies To Treat Disease

Majorities say scientific research on gene editing is a misuse – rather than an appropriate use – of technology. But public acceptance of gene editing for babies depends on how it will be used, and views often differ by age and religion.

How Many Creationists Are There in America?

A new survey shows the number can vary considerably depending how you ask questions about evolution

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

Tuesday is the 210th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults say humans have evolved over time.

How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they’re asked about it

Evolution remains a contentious issue. When asked about it, highly religious Americans’ responses can vary depending on how the question is asked.

The Evolution of Pew Research Center’s Survey Questions About the Origins and Development of Life on Earth

Measuring public opinion on evolution has never been an easy task for survey researchers.

Darwin in America

Almost 160 years after Charles Darwin publicized his groundbreaking theory on the development of life, Americans are still arguing about evolution. In spite of the fact that evolutionary theory is accepted by all but a small number of scientists, it continues to be rejected by many Americans.

Facts on Foreign Students in the U.S.

The U.S. has more foreign students enrolled in its colleges and universities than any other country in the world. Explore data about foreign students in the U.S. higher education system.

The Scientific and Ethical Elements of Human Enhancement

Human enhancement may be just around the corner. How do Americans view these emerging technologies that may one day enhance our human capabilities?

U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to ‘Enhance’ Human Abilities

Americans are more worried than enthusiastic about using gene editing, brain chip implants and synthetic blood to change human capabilities

Video: Are science and religion in conflict with each other?

A majority of the public says science and religion often conflict, but fewer say science conflicts with their own beliefs. And highly religious Americans are less likely than others to see conflict between faith and science.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• Book Review
• Open access
• Published: 18 March 2010

Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates

Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson (eds): Reading Genesis after Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. pp. xiv + 254. S/b $24.95

• Kim Paffenroth 1  

Evolution: Education and Outreach volume  3 ,  pages 297–299 ( 2010 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

This anthology consists of 13 essays written by professors trained in biblical studies or theology, writing on the interpretation of Genesis (by which they almost exclusively mean the first chapter of Genesis) since Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). After a brief Introduction by the editors, the book is then divided into three parts: “Engaging again with the Scriptures,” “Understanding the History,” and “Exploring the Contemporary Relevance.” It includes an index of modern authors and a subject index. References of works cited are included in the notes for each chapter, though a bibliography at the end would’ve been a welcome addition.

Section 1, “Engaging again with the Scriptures,” includes four essays. In “How Should One Read the Early Chapters of Genesis?” Walter Moberly discusses the implications of taking Genesis as “a literary phenomenon.” His conclusion is probably unremarkable to anyone trained in modern, liberal biblical criticism, and it will recur in similar terms in several of the other essays: Moberly challenges us to see in Genesis biblical ideas such as “wonder and delight of the world, creaturely contingency, creaturely responsibility, the gift of relationship between creature and Creator, and the difficulty that humans have in genuinely trusting God as a wise Creator and living accordingly”. I think he is quite correct that this view maintains the text’s meaning and relevance, without insisting on a literal reading of it.

Francis Watson takes the history of controversy much further back, in his essay, “Genesis before Darwin: Why Scripture Needed Liberating from Science.” He traces what he calls the “annexation” of the Bible by astronomy and geology in the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries: harmonization of the biblical account with scientific findings (e.g. the “days as eons” solution) was done to the detriment or obfuscation of both. Darwin put forth his theory with no reference to Genesis, and according to Watson, this shows a more fruitful and beneficial relationship between Genesis and science—separation or liberation from one another.

In “The Six Days of Creation according to the Greek Fathers,” Andrew Louth discusses the interpretation of Genesis by Theophilos of Antioch and Basil. Louth’s conclusions echo Moberly’s, in that he counsels some of the same attitudes toward creation, showing how ancient theologians regarded the created world with “wonder” and “humility” and were convinced of its “interconnectedness”.

In “The Hermeneutics of Reading Genesis after Darwin,” Richard S. Briggs examines the comparison of Genesis with other ancient Near Eastern texts (a method of biblical study that was coming into vogue contemporaneously with Darwin), concluding that the process and implications of such “triangulating” are similar, whether one is comparing Genesis to the Enuma Elish or to Darwin.

Section 2, “Understanding the History,” includes three essays. It starts with John Rogerson’s “What Difference Did Darwin Make?: The Interpretation of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century,” which examines some biblical commentaries published shortly before and shortly after Darwin’s work, to see what effect (if any) it had on their interpretation of the Genesis text. The examination does a good job of showing there was no unanimity among interpreters as to the meaning of Genesis, and a range of interpretations were advocated, both before and after Darwin. Perhaps even more interestingly, even within the group that rejected his theory, interpretations of Genesis often differed.

John Headley Brooke, in “Genesis and the Scientists: Dissonance among the Harmonizers,” returns to some of the scientific controversies already examined in Watson’s essay, concluding similarly that Darwin’s theory may be more amenable to Christianity than attempts at harmonizing Genesis with current scientific theories, since Darwin “purged it [Christianity] of a semi-deistic position”. This is an important distinction for those who would “defend” the Bible, who too often seem to be defending a deistic position that God created the universe and let it go on its own subsequently, rather than defending the idea of a God who wishes to be in communion with humans (the more narrowly biblical concept of God, in either Jewish or Christian interpretation). He also speaks in terms similar to Moberly and Louth, counseling a “nonliteral reading of the text”, and focusing on the text’s primary relevance to “our human existential condition”. David Brown concludes the section with a discussion of some paintings in his essay, “Science and Religion in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Landscape Art.” The most familiar of these to readers is probably Dali’s “The Sacrament of the Last Supper.”

Section 3, “Exploring the Contemporary Relevance,” includes six essays. David Wilkinson’s “Reading Genesis 1-3 in the Light of Modern Science” gives perhaps the fullest summary of the interpretive issues, compared to the other essays in this collection. He puts Darwin in the context of other, sometimes more fundamental and intractable controversies with the Bible; he briefly describes the creationist alternative (pp. 132-135); he traces the various attempts at harmonization, with their pros and cons; and he lays out possible points where Genesis may still speak to the human condition and understanding. Echoing previous essays in the volume, his conclusion is that a primarily literary approach is needed to understand or appreciate the text, and this will yield an interpretation that does not address cosmogonic or biological data, but rather our “unique conscious intimacy with God”.

In “All God’s Creatures: Reading Genesis on Human and Nonhuman Animals,” David Clough argues that in light of evolution (and other observations of animal consciousness and rationality), Christians should abandon anthropocentric readings of Genesis (what he calls “human-separatist” readings throughout). Jeff Astley argues in “Evolution and Evil: The Difference Darwinism Makes in Theology and Spirituality” that evolution exacerbates the problems of theodicy by making suffering (and large amounts of it) intrinsic to creation.

In “’Male and Female He Created Them’ (Genesis 1:27): Interpreting Gender after Darwin,” Stephen C. Barton examines constructions of gender in the classical world, in the Bible, and in subsequent biblical interpretation, contrasting these with modern and postmodern analyses. Ellen F. Davis looks at how organisms fit into their environment in her essay, “Propriety and Trespass: The Drama of Eating,” drawing some conclusions for our current environmental situation and its (un)sustainability. Finally, Mathew Guest’s essay, “The Plausibility of Creationism: A Sociological Comment,” examines the current popularity of creationism in the USA (and to a much lesser degree in the UK), suggesting some sociological forces that may contribute to its acceptance, despite its logical or factual shortcomings.

Although I was excited when I first began reading this volume, this wore off in the course of study. I would single out three essays for praise. Moberly’s is a very helpful look at how believers could still maintain the importance and sacredness of the biblical text, without interpreting it literally. Rogerson’s is a wonderful and suggestive illustration of how Christian belief and interpretation are never monolithic, and never a matter of “good guys” versus “bad guys.” Wilkinson’s is a thorough and accessible discussion of the issues at stake. But overall, I was struck by how little the book deals with Darwin: it could be entitled “Reading Genesis in the Modern World” with little loss of focus. Several of the essays make only the barest nod toward Darwin before moving on to some topic only tangential to his work. The suggestions for the future interpretation of Genesis (literary criticism, a reading that encourages a sense of wonder and humility, the acknowledgment of human incompleteness and contingency, etc.), while sober and encouraging, are repeated by several contributors without much expansion or specificity (Moberly, Louth, Brooke, Wilkinson); such heuristic suggestions are also commonplace in biblical studies, so I found little new here that couldn’t be found in many introductory classes or texts on Genesis.

Several essays were much more deficient, in my estimation. Briggs’s idea that comparing Genesis to other, contemporaneous myths, and comparing it to a scientific treatise written 2,500 years later, are somehow similar comparisons, and the two interpretive acts can shed light on one another, struck me as odd, if not misleading. It overlooks the more fundamental difference in genre: comparing Genesis to other myths (contemporary with it or not) is probably more helpful to understanding it, than comparing it to scientific writings (from whatever time period, though especially a work that eschews teleological questions, and therefore has a completely different outlook than Genesis). Brown’s essay has little to do with the topic of this collection and barely mentions Darwin or Genesis: its observations would make a fine beginning to a chat about “art and spirituality,” but it has no place here. Clough’s essay doesn’t deal with “stewardship,” which many interpreters today would see as the crucial way to understand the biblical teaching on how humans differ from, and yet are immersed in, the created order. Neither Clough’s nor Barton’s essay deals with the differences between Genesis 1 and 2, again a crucial interpretive issue for understanding the text’s ambiguities (and discrepancies) on anthropocentrism and gender.

I say all this from the perspective of a biblical scholar of a decidedly liberal Protestant bent, for whom these issues are well-worn. Perhaps if I try to step outside of this context (and many of the essays in this collection properly remind us of how much context determines meaning), I might better see where some of these essays could fit into a useful discussion. I’d say that for someone who thinks (as many of my atheist and agnostic friends do) that all Christians are creationists, that all Christians immediately opposed Darwin’s ideas and continue to do so today, or that there is only one way to interpret Genesis—for a reader with such impressions, the better written, more thorough of these essays would prove enlightening, and might promote a dialogue that goes beyond secularists versus Biblicists, those who would discard the text versus those who cling to a literal interpretation of it. Such a dialogue might even become a mutual search for truth, conducted with real exchange, understanding, and respect.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Iona College, 715 North Ave., New Rochelle, NY, 10801, USA

Kim Paffenroth

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Paffenroth .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Paffenroth, K. Thirteen Essays on Evolution and Creationism in Modern Debates. Evo Edu Outreach 3 , 297–299 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0215-3

Download citation

Published : 18 March 2010

Issue Date : June 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0215-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Evolution: Education and Outreach

ISSN: 1936-6434

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]