COMPARING ORIGINS BELIEF AND MORAL VIEWS

RICHARD L. OVERMAN, M.S.

Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism
Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998


ABSTRACT:

Does what you believe about origins affect your worldview? Do origin
assumptions provide a foundation upon which important moral
questions are answered? Many creationists have advanced the idea
that what one believes about creation and evolution affects his or
her worldview. Empirical studies in this area are, however, lacking.
By advancing a hypothesis that does not have empirical support,
creationists are seen by some in the "mainstream" scientific
community as extreme and unscientific [10].

This paper reports on a study involving the development and
implementation of a survey of science teachers to ascertain the
relationship between their belief in creation or evolution and their
moral views. The research hypothesis, that there is a relationship
between ones origins belief and his or her moral view, is
supported. The secondary hypothesis, that the more one believes in
creation, the more positive his or her moral views, also is
supported.

On the specific questions of intimacy, there also appears to be a
relationship at the later stages in the expected direction. That is,
the more the subject believes in creation, the less he or she is
willing to morally accept sexual intercourse between two unmarried
consenting people. Recommendations for further study are included
along with the survey instrument.

INTRODUCTION

Does what one believes about creation and evolution affect his or
her worldview? Do origin assumptions provide a foundation upon which
important moral questions are answered? Creationists have advanced
the idea that what one believes about creation and evolution affects
his or her worldview. For example, Morris [24] stated in the "When
Two Worldviews Collide" videotape, "wrong thinking always begets
wrong behavior and evolution is wrong thinking." Ham [14, p. 41]
said, "there is a connection between origins and issues affecting
society such as marriage, clothing, abortion, sexual deviancy,
parental authority, etc." More directly, Barnes [5, p. 21] claims,
"not only have many given away institutions of higher learning to
the evolutionary establishment, but they are also giving away their
own children to be trained in an evolutionary mind set. This is
causing our children to abandon the traditional Judeo-Christian
values upon which our society is founded." Morris and Morris [22, p.
12] state, "a persons philosophy of origins will inevitably
determine sooner or later what he believes concerning his destiny,
and even what he believes about the meaning and purpose of his life
and actions right now in the present world" (emphasis added).
The idea that what one believes about creation and evolution affects
his or her worldview, however, has not been empirically tested. By
advancing an idea that does not have empirical support, creationists
are seen by some in the "mainstream" scientific community as extreme
and unscientific [10]. Creationists, however, are not the only ones
advancing this hypothesis. Corsen [8, p. 8] notes "almost anything
about which people may disagree can ultimately be seen as a moral
question." He continues [p. 14], "because personal morality is, as
we have suggested, a reflection of the individuals world view, even
some aspects of scientific inquiry have moral overtones. This is
particularly true in the teaching of the theory of evolution, where
religious beliefs directly conflict with scientific orthodoxy."
North [25] highlights the importance of this issue:

Christians have not been shown clearly and decisively that
Darwinism is a total worldview and that by accepting any aspect of
this worldview, Christians compromise and weaken the presentation
of the Christian worldview, as well as risk disobeying God. They
have not been shown how evolutionism spreads like cancer from the
geology or biology textbook to every area of personal ethics and
public policy. Worse, they have not been shown why and how six-day
creationism leads to a fundamentally unique worldview that
encompasses things other than academic topics like historical
geology and biology. To win the battle with Darwinism, which is
above all a comprehensive worldview justifying comprehensive
power, six-day creationists must believe that the stakes are far
larger than mere laboratory experiments or one-evening debates.
Creation scientists must demonstrate to Christians that six-day
creationism really makes a difference in every area of life (p.
xiv-xv).

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Dant [9, p. 3691A] studied the "perceptions of post-secondary
science educators regarding the teaching of concepts of both
creation and evolution in science courses at post-secondary
institutions." He found that "(1) Post-secondary educators hold
different perceptions concerning the teaching of ideas of both
creation and evolution in their science courses. (2) These
differences appear to be attributed primarily to the religious
viewpoint and religious affiliation of educators" (italics his).
Similarly, Affannato [1, p. 2528A] concluded from a poll of high
school biology teachers about the teaching of evolutionary theory
and/or the creation model in the United States. He found that "the
religious preferences of the respondents has influenced their
opinions more than their educational preparation." Other researchers
have investigated the relationship between creation/evolution belief
and religion [11; 18]. They report the percentages of answers to the
particular questions but make no attempt to perform any statistical
correlation between origins belief and religious belief. Typically,
the surveys asked the subjects opinion about the teaching of
evolutions impact on society. The general question is similar to
the one used by Lord [18, p. 354] which states, "do you believe that
the teaching of concepts which rely on a purely naturalistic
explanation of the world, such as that used in the modern theory of
evolution, might eventually lead to a decay of American
society?"(emphasis added). Overman [26] performed a preliminary
study in which he found a correlation between the subjects belief
in origins and their moral views. The sample size was too small for
statistically valid conclusions but the relationship was observed.
While many of the other studies may have the data to, at least, test
the relationship between religious beliefs and origins belief
through regression analysis, they have apparently not done so. No
studies, other than Overmans preliminary study, have been found
that attempt to test the correlation between the subjects belief in
origins and his or her moral views.

There is no general agreement on the appropriate methods for
analyzing the ordinal data obtained through a Likert scale survey.
The literature is divided into two groups--those who do not think
parametric analysis of ordinal data is appropriate and those who do.
The debate is summed up by Gregoire & Driver [13].

Two camps are evident in the literature. One view is that only
nonparametric techniques may be applied validly, and any treatment
of ordinal data in a manner not consistent with the level of
measure is unjustified (Champion, 1967; Stevens, 1946; Townsend &
Ashby, 1984; Wetermann, 1983). In supporting this view, proponents
usually appeal to arguments that the level of measurement
determines the class of transformations that are admissible, that
is, that can produce meaningful statistics. Averages are not
considered meaningful when constructed with ordinal data. Opposing
views are held by those who maintain that there is no
inconsistency when parametric procedures are used with ordinal
data or who disagree that using such techniques causes substantial
bias (Anderson, 1961; Borgatta, 1968; Gaito, 1980; Kim, 1975;
Labovitz, 1972; Lord, 1953). The robustness of many parametric
procedures and the results of simulation comparisons are often
cited in support of their arguments (p. 159).

The purpose of this paper is to see if there is a relationship
between the subjects creation/evolution belief and his or her moral
views. This requires the use of the parametric techniques of
regression analysis. This is an initial analysis using standard
linear regression analysis and analysis of variance.

Conclusion From Literature Review

The impact of ones origins beliefs on his or her worldview is
generally believed in the young earth creationist community, but has
not been extensively studied. There is anecdotal and philosophical
evidence that there is an impact, but confirming research is
lacking. Most research asks if the subject believes that there is an
impact, but does not attempt to determine the existence or extent of
the impact. Based on the literature review, parametric analysis of
Likert scale ordinal data is considered valid and will be used.
Dissenting opinions are noted.

METHODOLOGY AND DATA

Survey Instrument

This paper involves development and analysis of a 5 point Likert
scale survey. The survey instrument was constructed to accomplish
three objectives:

1) Evaluate the extent to which the subject believes in
creation or evolution.
2) Evaluate the subjects moral views.
3) Allow a comparison of the subjects belief in creation or
evolution with the subjects moral views.

Sample Population

A random sample of 1,126 names was obtained from the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA). NSTA selected the names by
taking the nth name from the U.S. Registry of Teachers, Grades K-12
Science Teachers.

The registry was the source of the sample population for 3 reasons:
1) It is assumed that they would tend to be the most familiar with
the creation/evolution issues. 2) They are the ones who are teaching
evolution (and in some cases creation). 3) The availability of the
names and addresses from the NSTA.

Survey Instrument Validation

Five experts in the field as listed below validated the survey.

Validation tests whether the survey actually measures the concepts
it was designed to measure. The survey was sent or handed to the
experts with a cover letter or verbal explanation. They were asked
to determine if each question deals with belief in origins or moral
views. Their responses were compared with the design intent of the
question in the survey. If a majority agreed with the design intent,
the question was considered valid. At least three of the five
validators agreed with the design intent of all of the questions.

The questions on the validation instrument were put in random order
so the experts would not recognize and be influenced by the design
pattern of the survey. The experts were:

Dr. Henry Morris: Noted creationist and considered by some to
be a founder of the modern creation era.
Dr. John Whitcomb: Theologian and also considered by some to
be a founder of the modern creation era.
Dr. Duane Gish: Noted creationist and debater of creation and
evolution.
Dr. Gerald Skoog: Evolutionist, College of Education, Texas
Tech University.
Mr. Jim Stambaugh: Theologian and creationist.

Two of the experts questioned the premise of the survey. Dr. Morris
stated, "In one sense, every statement is related to origins in the
sense that if God is indeed the Creator, then His Word is
determinative in every moral issue as well as every scientific
issue. Thus the question is not adequately defined as stated." This
presupposes the hypothesis. If every statement is related to
origins, then there must be a relationship between moral views and
origins belief. The purpose of the study is to test the relationship
and hence, test the statement that "His Word is determinative in
every moral issue as well as every scientific issue."

Dr. Skoog had two general comments: "I dont think it is appropriate
to use the term belief with a scientific statement- science is not a
believe it or not affair." "I dont believe your questionnaire will
provide you with useful information. Evolution is not about origins-
it is about change of organisms through time. Also, science is not a
belief system." Skoog is at odds with his evolutionary colleagues in
a number of ways. First, he states that "science is not a believe it
or not affair". As early as 1929, Watson [29, p. 233] stated that
evolution is "a theory universally accepted not because it can be
proven by logically coherent evidence to be true", hence, it must be
believed. By 1971, nothing had changed. As Matthews [19, p. xi] puts
it, "the fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology
is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an
unproved theory- is it then science or faith?" Finally, in 1992,
Lawson [17, p. 144] states, "We expected to find that students who
initially express a commitment to special creation will be less
likely to change to a belief in evolution during instruction than
those students who are initially uncommitted. This prediction is
based upon the common-sense notion that acquiring a new belief is
easier when you do not have to give up a prior belief to do so"
(emphasis added).

Second, Skoog states that evolution is not about origins, rather, it
is about change of organisms through time. Futyma [12, p. 197]
disagrees, "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the
possible explanations for the origin of living things." The surveys
cited in the literature review treated evolution from an origins
perspective. They also asked questions about aspects of evolution
other than organic evolution. The popular definition of evolution
was expanded years ago.

The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than
biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-history of
stars and the formation of chemical elements on the one hand and
on the other hand, subjects like linguistics, social anthropology,
and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an
evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as
a universal and all pervading process [15, p. 272].

Skoogs definition of evolution apparently has recently changed. He
published the results of a survey with Shanker in 1993 [27]. A copy
of the survey used for their publication was provided by personal
correspondence from Skoog [28]. Many questions on the instrument for
this paper are similar to the questions on his and Dr. Shankers
instrument and transcend the boundaries of organic evolution. For
example, they ask, "The earth has evolved to its present state under
the influence of physical processes during billions of years"
(question 39) [27]. Given the similarity between the instrument
validated for this paper by Skoog and the instrument used for his
study with Shanker, it is difficult to understand why he would say
that the instrument will not provide useful information.
Since the majority agreed with the design intent of all of the
survey questions, the survey is considered valid. Of those that
responded to a question, the experts unanimously agreed with the
design intent on 14 of the 18 questions. The remaining questions
only had one dissenting opinion each. This means that the survey
measures origins belief and moral views. The panel of experts was
also able to differentiate between origins related questions and
moral view questions.

Field Test of Survey

A field test was performed on a group randomly selected by taking
the nth name from those provided on the registry. The 1,126 names
were provided on 24 sheets of mailing labels with 4 columns each.
The names were sorted by zip code. The field test sample population
was comprised of the names at the top of each column on the 24
sheets. This provided 96 names. The last 4 names from the last
column on the last sheet rounded out the list of 100 field test
subjects. This method provided a field test sample population that
was representative of the total sample population. The survey was
mailed to the field test sample population with a cover note
explaining that this was a thesis survey. A self-addressed return
envelope was included with the survey. To avoid influencing the
results, there was no indication as to who was conducting the survey
other than the authors name. The results and analysis of the field
test are provided in the appropriate sections. Based on the field
test, no other changes to the survey were deemed necessary. From
consultation with statistics professor, Dr. Marlene Kovaly, the
reliability was sufficient to proceed with surveying the total
population.

Main Survey

Since no changes to the survey were necessary, a first mailing was
made to the total sample population of 1,026 names. To encourage a
better response than the field test, the back of the outside
envelope contained the following in large bold letters: "Graduate
Thesis Survey Enclosed" was at the top with "Please complete survey
and return as soon as possible. It should only take 10 min." at the
bottom. A self-addressed envelope was included with the survey.
Finally, a cover note, similar to the field test cover note was
included. Two methods were employed to identify those that returned
the survey. First, the subjects name and city were written on the
cover note. The subject was asked to return the cover note and was
guaranteed confidentiality. The second method was to place a number
on the lower right hand corner on the back of the return envelope.
This number corresponded to a number for each name on the master
list. The results section provides information about the
effectiveness of these methods. The first mailing yielded 173 usable
surveys, so a second mailing was necessary.

The second mailing was sent to the 834 who did not respond to the
first mailing. To obtain a projected sample size of 380-390,
additional 200+ responses were required. Two changes were made in an
attempt to increase the response rate. First, the cover note was
changed with the following added to the top in bold letters: "SECOND
MAILING, SELF-ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE ENCLOSED.

PLEASE RETURN SO

MY STAMP IS NOT WASTED, THANK YOU." The second change was that a
stamp was added to the return envelope. Some of those responding to
the first mailing complained that the return envelope was not
stamped. The second mailing yielded 140 usable surveys for a total
of 313 usable surveys.

FINDINGS

This section presents the results of the field test and survey along
with the analysis. The first part contains the data and analysis
from the field test. The data and analysis from the main survey is
provided after the field test.

Field Test

One hundred surveys were mailed with a 20% return rate. All surveys
were used for the reliability calculations. The purpose of the field
test is to determine the reliability of the survey before mailing
the main survey.

Analysis of Variance (AdecA) techniques, as described by Kerlinger
[16], are used to determine the overall reliability of the field
test survey. The overall reliability coefficient is 0.26. This is
not significant for 19 degrees of freedom [3, p. 155]. This lack of
significance was cause for concern, so Dr. Kovaly (statistics
professor at Florida Community College at Jacksonville) was
consulted. She advised continuing, as the reliability numbers
achieved would be significant for the larger population expected
from the main survey. As it was deemed that the survey was reliable
and valid, the main survey was mailed for the first time.

Main Survey

The response rate of the first mailing was slightly lower than for
the field test. The field test response rate was 20% while the first
mailing was 18.7%. After taking out the surveys that were returned
blank or not completely filled out, the usable response rate dropped
to 16.9% of the surveys mailed. The improvements apparently did not
work.

The second mailing was used to increase the number of surveys for
analysis. The methodology section details the changes made to garner
a greater response. The enhancements increased the overall response
rate to 23.7% but did not improve the usable response rate that was
16.7%.

The overall reliability coefficient is 0.17. Since the F statistic
for the individuals is significant (1.19, p<0.01), the reliability
coefficient is significant [16]. Blalock [6] provides another means
of determining the significance of a correlation coefficient. By
this method, an F statistic is calculated for the r-value with the
following equation:

F1,n-2 =r2 (N-2)
1-r2 Therefore, F1,313 =(0.17)2
1-(0.17)2(311) = 9.3

From Ary et al. [4], FD1,313=6.73. Since F>FD the r-value is
significant and the survey is reliable. With the reliability being
significant, the survey results are meaningful for this population
and any relationships identified are indicative of the views of the
population and cannot be the result of random chance.
TREND ANALYSIS

This section addresses the purpose of the study. That is, is there a
relationship between the extent to which a person believes in
creation or evolution and his or her moral views?

The extent of belief in creation or evolution is measured by taking
the average response to the even questions on the survey (except
question 18). However, the average cannot be calculated directly
from the data. In order to observe the full range of beliefs, it is
necessary to reverse the answers to half of the questions. By way of
explanation, those with a pure creationist belief would answer with
a "1" (strongly agree) to the creation oriented questions and with a
"5" (strongly disagree) to the evolution oriented questions. Since
there are 4 of each type of question (creation oriented or evolution
oriented), the average would be a "3". Similarly, those with a pure
evolution belief would score an average of "3" by answering with a
"5" to the creation oriented questions and a "1" to the evolution
oriented questions. Therefore, differentiation between the two is
made by reversing the answers to the creation oriented questions
(#4,8,12,16). In so doing, those with a pure creation orientation
will have an average score of "5" and those with a pure evolution
orientation will have an average score of "1". Table 1 illustrates
this process.

Question Evolution Creation

Pre-ReversePost ReversePre-ReversePost Reverse
21155
45115
61155
85115
101155
125115
141155
165115

Table 1- Reversing of Origins Questions

Moral views are measured by calculating the average score of the odd
questions and question 18. There are 5 questions that are oriented
toward a negative moral view and 5 questions oriented toward a
positive moral view. Calculating a direct average will not
differentiate between those with more negative or positive moral
views. As with the creation and evolution questions above,
differentiation is achieved by reversing the questions oriented
toward a positive moral view (#3,7,11,15,18). Hence, those who
strongly agree with a negative moral view will have an average of 1
and those who strongly disagree will have a positive moral view with
an average of 5. Table 2 illustrates this process.

Question+ Moral- Moral

Pre-ReversePost ReversePre-ReversePost Reverse

15511
31551
55511
71551
95511
111551
135511
151551
175511
181551

Table 2- Reversing of Moral Views Questions

Observation of the scatterplot of Graph 1 shows that there appears
to be a relationship between the variables. Regression analysis was
performed by the regression analysis feature of the Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet software and verified by hand calculations. The
coefficient of determination, (R2=0.51) is strong. The Pearson
correlation coefficient which is the square root of R (r=0.71) is
used for comparison with Arkin & Colton [3]. From Arkin & Colton
[3], the r value for 300 degrees of freedom and 2 variables that is
significant (p<.01) is 0.113. This compares with 0.71 for graph 1.
Hence, there appears to be a strong relationship between the
subjects origins belief and their moral views.

Graph 1

Questions 19 - 23 of the survey are not included in the average
calculations above. These questions ask if the subjects believe
whether increasing stages of intimacy are morally acceptable for two
people who love each other but are not married. They are each
individually compared with the subjects origins belief average.
Graphs 2 - 6 provide the results of the comparisons for questions 19
through 23.

As expected, graph 2 shows that virtually all of the subjects
strongly agree or agree that holding hands is morally acceptable. Of
the few that did not, it appears that two with an evolutionist view
disagree the strongest. Graph 3 shows that more object to embracing
with some kissing, but there is no clear trend. This was also not
surprising. Graph 4 begins to show more diversity of views with a
relatively equal distribution from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. A trend line could be drawn with a statistically
significant Pearsons r value of 0.399 (p<.01). Graph 5 continues to
show the development of a relationship, Pearsons r=0.500 (p<. 01).
It appears that those with a creationist view tend to disagree that
heavy petting is morally acceptable more so than those with an
evolution belief. Graph 6 more strongly shows the trend that began
to appear in graph 4 and 5, Pearson r=0.576 (p<. 01). Again, those
with a creationist view tend to find this activity morally
unacceptable.

Graph 2

Graph 3

Graph 4

Graph 5

Graph 6

The paragraphs above reports the Pearson r values which are the
square root calculations of the R2 correlation of determination
coefficients calculated by the Excel spreadsheet software. Table 3
provides the corresponding Pearson and Spearman ranking correlation
coefficients and whether or not they are significant to the
indicated p value when compared with Arkin and Colton [3]. "NS"
means not significant. The Spearman ranking correlation is the more
appropriate correlation coefficient for ordinal data.

GraphPearsonSignificanceSpearmanSignificance

10.714<.010.705<.01
20.00447NS0.0415NS
30.129<.050.142<.05
40.399<.010.374<.01
50.500<.010.482<.01
60.576<.010.581<.01

Table 3- Correlation Coefficients

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUMMARY

Conclusions

The results of this research begin to provide empirical support to
the claim that what one believes about origins affects his or her
worldview. The word begin is emphasized as much more research is
required to lay a solid foundation for this claim. It is noted that
the mere existence of a strong correlation with an observed
relationship is not sufficient to show cause and effect. However,
the observations are sufficient to indicate the merits of further
study.

Additional studies with other populations should show results
consistent with this research. Integration of this study with other
studies on origins and worldviews will continue to build upon the
body of knowledge.

The study achieved all of its stated objectives. The survey allowed
for the measurement of the subjects belief in creation or
evolution. It also allowed for the measurement of the subjects
moral views. Finally, the subjects creation/evolution beliefs and
moral views relationship could be determined. The research
hypothesis that there is a relationship between ones origins belief
and his or her moral view is supported. The secondary hypothesis
that the more one believes in creation, the more positive his or her
moral views also is supported. On the specific questions of
intimacy, there also appears to be a relationship at the later
stages from heavy French kissing to intercourse in the expected
direction. That is, the more the subject believes in creation, the
less likely they are to accept these actions between two unmarried
people as morally acceptable. Therefore, there is a relationship
between the extent to which a person believes in creation or
evolution and his or her moral views. While a relationship is shown,
cause and effect is not established.

Recommendations

There are many opportunities for further study generated from this
paper.

This paper only analyzes the relationship between the average
scores of origins belief and moral views. There are many other
analyses that can be performed on the data. For example, none of
the demographic data have been analyzed. An item analysis should
also be performed on the data to determine the correlation of the
individual item scores with the total-scale score [4]. Split-half
reliability analyses should also be performed to provide
additional confirmation of the internal consistency of the survey
[4].

The survey should be updated and improved based on the comments
from the validators, the subjects, and the item analysis suggested
in the first recommendation.

The survey should be given to other groups to see if the observed
relationship holds. Additional validation of the survey can be
achieved by giving it to a group with known creationist beliefs to
see if it scores them as creationists. A group of known
evolutionists can also be tested.

Additional studies should be performed to test the assumption that
moral views are a reflection of worldview.

More research is required to determine if the observed relationship
is a cause and effect relationship. Before and after studies or
double blind studies may be used for this purpose.

Summary

Much research has been performed on worldviews and on creation and
evolution belief, but very little research has been published on a
combination of the two. Typically, surveys asked the subjects
opinion about the teaching of evolutions impact on society. While
many of the other studies may have the data to, at least, test the
relationship between religious beliefs and origins belief through
regression analysis, they have apparently not done so. No studies,
other than Overmans preliminary study, have been found that attempt
to test the correlation between the subjects belief in origins and
his or her moral views.

A survey to measure the extent to which a person believes in
creation or evolution and to measure a persons moral views was
developed. A sample population of 1,126 names was obtained from the
NSTA U.S. Registry of Teachers. One hundred were used for a field
test of the survey with the remaining 1,026 used for the main
survey. After the field test, it was determined that no additional
changes were needed to the survey. The surveys were mailed and 313
were returned that could be used for analysis.

The results of the survey supports the research hypothesis that
there is a relationship between the extent to which one believes in
creation and evolution and his or her moral views. They also support
the hypothesis that the more one believes in creation, the more
positive his or her moral views. Regarding the single issue of
intimacy, the results showed that the more one believes in creation
the more he or she views sexual intercourse between two people who
love each other but are not married as morally unacceptable
Recommendations include the need for changes to the survey to clear
up ambiguity in some of the questions. Additional data analysis can
also be performed since none of the demographic data was analyzed.
Additional studies to verify the observed relationship and attempt
to determine cause and affect are needed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Completion of this paper would not have been possible without help
from many sources. I would like to thank the National Science
Teachers Association for providing the names and addresses for the
survey. Dr. Marlene Kovaly provided invaluable statistical
assistance for which I am very grateful. I would also like to thank
my mother-in-law, Maxine Shankle, for her proofreading help and
encouragement. Special appreciation goes to my wife, Ginger, for her
patience and wonderful editorial work. Her help with the
bibliography and referencing was tremendous. Finally, many thanks go
to the Institute for Creation Research for assistance in funding the
printing and mailing of the surveys.

REFERENCES

[1] Affannato, F.E., A Survey of Biology Teachers Opinions about
the Teaching of Evolutionary Theory and/or the Creation Model in
the United States in Public and Private Schools. Dissertation
Abstracts International 47(1987), p. 2528A.
[2] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, W.
Morris., Editor, 1975 American Heritage Publishing,, New York, NY.
[3] Arkin, H. & Colton, R.R., Tables for Statisticians, 1963,
Barnes & Noble, New York, NY.
[4] Ary, D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. Introduction to Research
in Education, 1990, Holt, Fort Worth, TX.
[5] Barnes, C., Training Children In Creation Science, Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Creationism, R.E. Walsh,
et al, Editors, 1990, Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.,
Pittsburgh, PA, Volume 1, pp. 21-26.
[6] Blalock, H. Jr., Social Statistics, 1960, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
[7] Board of Directors, National Association of Biology Teachers
Official Policy of Statement on Teaching Evolution (March 15,
1995), News and Views, (1995, June).
[8] Corsen, D., Conflicting Moralities in Education, 1977,
National Institute of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 137 893), Washington, DC.
[9] Dant, R.E., Perceptions of Postsecondary Science Educators
Concerning the Teaching of Ideas On Both Creation and Evolution in
Postsecondary Science Courses, Dissertation Abstracts
International 51(1991), p. 3691A.
[10] Dickerson, R.E., Letter to a Creationist; Seeking the Middle
Ground, The Science Teacher, (1990, September), pp.49-53.
[11] Edlin, G.J., New Understanding Through a Genetics Course. The
American Biology Teacher, 49:3(1987), pp. 171-174.
[12] Futyma, D., Science on Trial, 1983, Pantheon Books, New York,
NY.
[13] Gregoire, T. G., & Driver, B. L. (1987). Analysis of ordinal
data to detect population differences. Psychological Bulletin,
101(1), 159-165.
[14] Ham, K., The Lie: Evolution, 1987, Master Books, El Cajon.
[15] Huxley, J., Evolution and Genetics, What is Science, 1955,
Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
[16] Kerlinger, F.N., Foundations of Behavioral Research, 2nd
edition, 1973, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, NY.
[17] Lawson A.E. & Worsnot W., Learning about Evolution and
Rejecting a Belief in Special Creation, Journal Of Research In
Science Teaching, 29:2(1992), pp. 143-166.
[18] Lord T. & Marino S., How University Students View the Theory
of Evolution, Journal of College Science Teaching, (1993, May),
pp. 353-357.
[19] Matthews, H., Introduction to Darwins the Origin of Species,
1971, J. M. Dent and Sons, London.
[20] McDowell, J., & Hostetler, B., Right from wrong, 1994, Word
Publishing, Dallas.
[21] Morris, H. M., The Tenets Of Creationism, Impact #85,.
Institute for Creation Research, (1980, July).
[22] Morris, H.M., & Morris, J., The Modern Creation Trilogy:
Society & Creation, 1996, Master Books, Green Forrest, AR.
[23] Morris, J., The Young Earth, 1994, Master Books, Colorado
Springs.
[24] Morris, J., Executive Producer, When Two Worldviews Collide
[Video], 1995, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA.
[25] North, G. (1988). Is the world running down? crisis in the
christian worldview. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.
[26] Overman, R., A Comparative Survey in Origins Belief and
Morality Field Test, 1996, Unpublished manuscript, Institute for
Creation Research, Santee, CA.
[27] Shanker, G & Skoog, G.D., Emphasis Given Evolution and
Creationism by Texas High School Biology Teachers. Science
Education, 77:2(1993), pp. 221-233.
[28] Skoog, G., Personal correspondence, 1995, August 14.
[29] Watson, D. M., Adaptation, Nature, 123, (1929), p. 233.

NOMENCLATURE

Creation

"Gods primal act of bringing the world into existence" [2]. The
general tenets of creation have been developed by H. Morris [21].

Evolution

What we see today is the product of time, chance, and natural forces
with no outside or divine intervention. The general theory of
evolution begins with a primordial matter, includes the big bang and
stellar evolution, then leads to biological evolution. From a
biological perspective, evolution is "the idea that all of life has
come from a common ancestor through a process of modification over
time. Thus man and the apes are thought to have descended from an
ape-like common ancestor. All vertebrates come from fish, which in
turn come from a single-celled organism which arose spontaneously
through natural processes, including mutation, natural selection,
and genetic recombination" [23, p. 10]. The general tenets of
evolution have been developed by the National Association of Biology
Teachers [7].

Moral View

"A persons view of what is right and wrong" [2]. Moral views may
exist on a continuum from positive (one that corresponds to the
character of God as revealed in the Bible) to negative (one that is
opposite to the character of God) [20].


APPENDIX

ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS SURVEY

Circle the appropriate number to indicate whether you agree with,
disagree with, or are not sure about the following statements:

PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS

1=Strongly agree2=Agree3=Undecided4=Disagree5=Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 51. Lying is sometimes necessary.
1 2 3 4 52. Evolution is scientific fact.
1 2 3 4 53. The Bible provides todays people with practical
standards for living.
1 2 3 4 54. Each of the major kinds of plants and animals were
made essentially as they appear today with only changes within
species.
1 2 3 4 55. People may define "truth" in different ways and
still be correct.
1 2 3 4 5 6. Space, time, matter, and energy have always
existed.
1 2 3 4 5 7. Social drinking of alcohol is always wrong.
1 2 3 4 5 8. The stories in Genesis like Adam, Noah, and the
Tower of Babel are historically true.
1 2 3 4 5 9. What is right for one person in a given situation
may not be right for another person who encounters that same
situation.
1 2 3 4 5 10. Biological life developed by a series of natural
processes.
1 2 3 4 5 11. Euthanasia is wrong even if it ends suffering.
1 2 3 4 512. Evolution is neither a scientific theory or fact.
1 2 3 4 513. In real life, there is no absolute authority.
1 2 3 4 514. Life evolved from a simple cell to more complex
organisms.
1 2 3 4 515. Jesus Christ is the standard by which all truth
is measured.
1 2 3 4 516. An eternal Creator supernaturally made the
physical universe.
1 2 3 4 517. The best philosophy of life is: do whatever feels
or seems right, as long as doesnt harm anybody.
1 2 3 4 518. Absolute truth is that which is right for all
people, in all places, at all times.
For two people who are not married but are both in love with
each other and are willing, please indicate whether the
actions described below are morally acceptable.
1 2 3 4 519. Hold hands
1 2 3 4 520. Embracing and some kissing
1 2 3 4 521. Heavy "French" kissing
1 2 3 4 522. Heavy petting
1 2 3 4 523. Sexual Intercourse
Circle the appropriate item (not the number) to indicate which
apply to you:
24. Male Female
25. Education Level Completed: High School College Graduate
Post-Graduate
26. Age: 19-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65
66-70 Above 70
27. I attended high school at:
a. Christian School
b. Public School
c. Private School
d. Home School