In the past several years, the debate over creation science, now reborn as ‘intelligent design’, versus evolution has gone back and forth, as one side then the other took control of various state or local boards of education (Candinsky 2006; Davey and Blumenthal 2006; Slevin 2005). Attempts by anti-evolutionists to include their ideas in the science curriculum have taken different forms and names in different states. In Louisiana, it has been called ‘The Balanced Treatment Act’; in Alabama, Florida, and Michigan, ‘Supporting academic freedom’; and in Missouri and South Carolina, ‘Promoting teaching of evolution’s strengths and weaknesses’ (Branch and Scott 2009). In Kansas, the Board of Education that had been composed of an ‘intelligent design’ activist majority that voted in 2006 to adopt state science standards that were intended to ‘impugn the scientific status of evolution’ (National Center for Science Education 2006) shifted to a more moderate majority (Tonn 2007).

The influence this great debate has on what is being communicated at the level of the individual classroom may, however, not be significant. As research has shown, long-held beliefs, including misconceptions are difficult to change and there is ample evidence that teacher beliefs influence their classroom practice (Aguillard 1999; Eve and Dunn 1990; Shankar and Skoog 1993; Trani 2004). Therefore, the pertinent question to be asked, when we consider what children are actually being taught, is at the level of the classroom and that question is, ‘what are the teacher’s ideas about evolution?’. It is clear that a large number of individuals in the U.S. hold ideas and beliefs that conflict with the theory of evolution. According to a 2007 Gallup Poll, about two-thirds of Americans surveyed indicated that the ‘idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true’ (Lawrence 2007). On the eve of Darwin’s 200th birthday in 2009, the Poll showed that only 39% of Americans surveyed “believe in the theory of evolution” (Newport 2009). Even at the college level, more than half of students have been found to have naïve conceptions about the theory of evolution (Bishop and Anderson 1990; Lord and Marino 1993). Much less is known about elementary teachers’ ideas on this subject. The goal of this study was to reveal the views of a sampling of preservice teachers about evolution and explore possible correlations of these views with their understanding of science and college level course taking.

Background

The theory of evolution has probably been the most controversial topic in all of science (Nickels et al. 1996). A significantly higher proportion of Americans reject the concept of evolution compared to European countries and Japan (Miller et al. 2006). Miller et al. identified three major reasons for the low acceptance of evolution among Americans: fundamentalist religious beliefs, the politicization of evolution, and a poor understanding of modern genetics among adults. The degree of public backlash surrounding the teaching of evolution in the United States has also been more intense compared to other countries (Hermann 2008). Legal incidents involving the teaching of evolution vs. creationism in science curriculum have become increasingly common in recent years (Bandoli 2008; Hermann 2008). Findings of a recent poll indicated that 54% of Americans support the teaching of creationism in public schools for the explanation of human origins (National Science Board 2008). Moreover, a significant number of college students who completed coursework on evolutionary topics favored teaching ‘a range of theories’ including evolution, creation and intelligent design in science classrooms (McCrory and Murphy 2009; Paz-y-Miño and Espinosa 2009).

According to Dobzhansky (1973), “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (p. 125). This often-quoted statement accurately reflects the central role of evolution in biology. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, it is emphasized that if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need (NSTA 2003). The National Science Education Standards explicitly describe the evolution content that should be addressed at different grade levels. From kindergarten to grade 4, students are to establish a foundation for the later development of various concepts including the theory of evolution. From grades 5 through 8, students should learn about biological evolution and the fossil record (National Academy of Sciences 1998). A recent project by Nadelson and colleagues (2009) showed that students in early elementary grades are capable and eager to learn evolutionary science. Through prior knowledge, modeling, and guided inquiry, students were able to learn fundamental concepts of evolution, such as speciation and adaptation which are required for learning abstract and more complex explanations of evolution.

Even though the theory of evolution is expected to be prominent in life science standards, this has not been the case in some states (Cavanagh 2005; Gross et al. 2005). Many states have revised their science standards recently; however, only 20 states received a grade of A or B with regard to the teaching of evolution and 23 states received a D or an F (Gross et al. 2005). Yet, there is, in fact, some evidence that the coverage of evolution in some public schools seems not to be influenced by the apparent quality of the evolution component of state science standards. In a survey study with high school students and teachers from Indiana and Ohio, Bandoli (2008) found that the most common teacher explanation of diversity was one that gave equal emphasis to evolution and creation. According to Lerner’s (2000) evaluation of the science standards in these states, Indiana’s standards were regarded as ‘exemplary’ while Ohio received a grade of F. However, students’ perceptions of the coverage of evolution were similar in these states. In both states, less than a week, much less compared to the other topics, was devoted to evolution and 30% of students reported that evolution was never mentioned in biology classes.

Besides the absence of evolution in science curricula (Alters and Alters 2001; Gross, et al. 2005; Lerner 2000) teachers are ill-prepared to teach topics related to evolution (Asghar et al. 2007; Rutledge and Warden 2000). Moore and Kraemer (2005) found that two thirds of Minnesota biology teachers felt unprepared to teach evolution even though they took undergraduate methods classes that covered evolution. Rutledge and Mitchell (2002) investigated the relationship between 989 public school teachers’ acceptance of evolutionary theory and their academic backgrounds. Results revealed a significant association between teachers’ acceptance of evolution and their exposure to biology, evolution, and nature of science courses. Researchers have found that acceptance or rejection of evolution significantly affects the time teachers spend teaching this topic in their classrooms (Aguillard 1999; Shankar and Skoog 1993; Trani 2004).

Nehm and Schonfeld (2007) found that after taking a 14-week course on evolution secondary teachers made significant gains in their knowledge of evolution and significant decreases were observed in misconceptions about evolution. However, their views about the teaching of evolution in schools had not changed. A majority of the science teachers in the study still preferred that anti-evolutionary ideas be taught in school. Nehm and Schonfeld stated that “... knowledge alone may not be the primary solution to the problem of science teacher antievolutionary beliefs” (p. 720).

The rejection of evolution is common not only among the general public but also among college students (Alters and Nelson 2002; Hodgson and Hodgson 1994) and teachers (Blank and Andersen 1997; Overman and Deckard 1997). Hodgson and Hodgson (1994) surveyed a total of 1,372 students in ten college science classrooms. Approximately 38% of the students did not accept the theory of evolution. Other researchers have found that, in most college student populations, approximately 50% of students accept evolution (Bishop and Anderson 1990; Lord and Marino 1993). More recently, Brumfield (2005) found that the acceptance of the theory of evolution is 20% among high school and 52% among college graduates, and 65% among postgraduates. Data from the 2009 Gallup poll were similar except for the latter group in which 74% believed in evolution (Newport 2009).

A 1994 survey by Overman and Deckard showed that of 313 science teachers randomly selected from the National Association of Science Teachers membership, 39% disagreed with the statement ‘evolution is a scientific fact.’ A total of 79% agreed that the physical universe was supernaturally made by an eternal creator. Others reported that rejection of the theory of evolution was higher among elementary education majors with about 57% than for other education majors (Blank and Andersen 1997). More recently, McCrory and Murphy (2009) found that 21% of preservice science teachers rejected evolution; and only 48% of biology majors in Paz-y-Miño C. and Espinosa’s (2009) study expressed their acceptance of evolution openly.

Hokayem and BouJaoude (2008) stated that the tension between belief, understanding, and acceptance of the theory of evolution is persistent and religious beliefs tend to play an important role in the way an individual perceives the theory of evolution. To accept this theory, one needs to understand it, and understanding sometimes conflicts with an individual's beliefs, in this case, creationism (Southerland et al. 2001). For example, religious beliefs have been shown to be negatively associated with the understanding of evolution (Lombrozo et al. 2008; Nehm and Sheppard 2004; Trani 2004) and understanding of the nature of science (Trani 2004). On the other hand, beliefs were not related to the understanding of photosynthesis (Sinatra et al. 2003) or continental drift (Downie and Barron 2000). Beliefs have also been found to affect the anxiety level when teaching the theory of evolution. Griffith and Brem (2004) found that the level of pressure for teachers who teach evolution is highest among those who experience a conflict between their religious beliefs and the theory of evolution.

Statement of the Problem

In light of suggestions that student achievement in science might be related in some way to their views on evolution (McKeachie et al. 2002), and that science achievement influences interest in and access to science-related fields (National Science Board 2006), the role of teachers in the development of students’ ideas about evolution merits consideration. Exploring teachers’ views on evolution is particularly pertinent, given that teachers’ acceptance or rejection of evolution is highly likely to influence their instructional practices related to this topic (Aguillard 1999; Eve and Dunn 1990; Shankar and Skoog 1993; Trani 2004). In the context of such findings, it would seem that knowing and understanding more about the sources and nature of teachers’ views on evolution would be valuable to a number of constituencies, including science teacher educators, K-12 administrators, and state level policy makers. Extensive research has been conducted investigating middle and high school teachers’ views about evolution; however, elementary teachers’ views have remained virtually unexplored. Given that in some states, the teaching of ‘evolution of living organisms’ starts as early as third grade (Florida Department of Education 2008), it would seem important to learn more about elementary teachers’ views about evolution.

The research questions guiding this study were, 1) Do preservice elementary teachers accept the theory of evolution? 2) Is the acceptance of evolution related to preservice elementary teachers’ understanding of basic science concepts? 3) Is the acceptance of evolution related to having taken college level advanced science courses?

Method

This exploratory study grew out of a broader examination of the science content knowledge of over 414 preservice and 67 in-service elementary teachers (Rice 2005). Answers to 13 science concept questions were collected over a 10-year period as part of an introductory activity in science methods classes. Ten of the questions (see Appendix) originated from the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology that is given to a representative sample in the U.S. approximately every two years. The other three questions were designed by the researcher/instructor.

The current study used the data collected from a subset of 240 of the preservice teachers from the original larger study. The scope of this study involved the whole 13-question test, particularly focusing on four of the questions. Those questions were three true/false questions from the NSF survey (#4, 5 & 6 below) and one of the multiple choice questions designed by the researcher (#11) (with correct answers):

  • Question #4: The continents on which we live have been moving their locations for millions of years and will continue to move in the future. TRUE

  • Question #5: Human beings as we know them today developed from earlier species of animals. TRUE

  • Question #6: The earliest human beings lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. FALSE

  • Question #11: Which of the following organisms are animals? Human, dog, worm, spider? ALL

These four questions provided the opportunity to specifically explore the ideas of a sample of preservice elementary teachers about the origins of humans, our relationship to other animals and the age of the Earth, all of which are controversial issues in the creation/evolution debate.

A number of background variables were also available including lists of all of their college level science courses provided by the preservice teachers. Coursework could not be verified because no identifying information about students was collected. These courses were classified by the researcher as ‘introductory’ or ‘advanced’ based upon the course numbers and names and descriptions provided on the lists. This classification was made easier and more reliable because almost every one of the preservice teachers had completed general education requirements, including science courses, in a state with a common course numbering system. An independent variable was created based upon the classification of these science courses. Preservice teachers who reported having taken one or more advanced science courses (i.e. genetics, organic chemistry, physiology, etc.) were identified as ‘advanced science’ and if they had not taken any advanced science courses, they were identified as ‘no advanced science.’ These groups were subsequently used as a basis for analyzing answers to the science concept questions.

A second independent variable in the study was constructed based upon the preservice teachers’ answers to question #5 about humans evolving from other species. This question provided an indication of the teachers’ views on human evolution. Those answering ‘true’ were identified as members of the ‘evolutionist’ group; those answering ‘false’, as members of the ‘non-evolutionist’ group.

This use of the single question about humans evolving from earlier species of animals as the criterion for classifying the participants warrants additional comment. As noted previously, the 13 questions, including the 10 from the NSF survey, have been used as part of a course activity for a period that now spans well over 10 years. In addition to answering the questions, many students wrote comments about some of the questions, particularly the question about human evolution. Those remarks have almost always come from individuals who indicated that the statement is ‘false,’ an answer that we have defined as ‘non-evolutionist,’ and generally have reflected strong viewpoints. Examples of such comments are, “God made us,” or “We don’t come from monkeys!” While these responses are totally anonymous, class discussions related to evolution, such as those about Darwin’s observations and conclusions, confirm this association between question #5 and other ‘anti-evolution’ views. While anecdotal, the consistency of these observations over many years, we feel, validates our use of this question as a basis for classifying the preservice teachers as ‘evolutionists’ or ‘non-evolutionists.’

Data Analysis

The primary set of analyses was based upon the ‘evolutionist/non-evolutionist’ variable created from answers to question #5. The two groups’ total scores on the rest of the items in the science concept test were compared. The differences between ‘advanced science’ and ‘no advanced science’ groups in terms of their science scores and their responses to question #5 were also examined. A t-test was used to compare groups on the science test. Additionally, correlational analyses were conducted to examine if responses given to question #5 were related to responses for other questions. More specifically, we examined the correlation between accepting evolution and correctly answering questions related to age of Earth (i.e., evolution) as well as those that are unrelated to age of Earth.

As described previously, participants were also divided into two groups based upon college level advanced science courses, advanced courses having been defined as those above a freshman or introductory level, although the latter in some cases were sophomore level courses. Forty four percent of the participants indicated that they had taken one or more advanced science courses whereas, 56% had not taken any advanced courses.

Results

Descriptive statistics of the data showed that 42% of the preservice teachers in the study answered ‘false’ to question #5, suggesting that they did not ascribe to the theory of human evolution. These respondents were defined as the ‘non evolutionist’ group. The remaining 58% who answered ‘true’ to question #5 were defined as the ‘evolutionist’ group.

First, the two student groups based on their response to question #5 were compared on their science concept test scores. T-test results indicated that students in the ‘evolutionist’ group scored significantly higher on the remaining items of the basic science concept test than the ‘non-evolutionists’ (t = 6.99, p < 0.001) (see Table 1).

Table 1 T-test of mean scores on the science test (12 Questions) for evolutionists vs. non-evolutionists
Full size table

Students’ science concept test scores were also compared in terms of having taken college level advanced science courses. The scores of the ‘advanced science’ group on the total concept questions were not significantly different from the scores of the ‘no advanced science’ group (see Table 2). With respect to college level course taking, 57.5% of the preservice teachers who had taken college level advanced science courses accepted evolution. The percentage was 58.2 for those who had not taken any advanced science courses. Chi square test of the cross tabulation between advanced course taking and accepting evolution was not significant (p > 0.05) indicating that these two variables were not related.

Table 2 T-test of mean scores on the science test for advanced vs. no advanced science groups
Full size table

An examination of answers to the three other questions related to ideas about evolution revealed discrepant results (see Fig. 1). A near-unanimous majority (98%) of the total sample of preservice teachers answered #4 correctly (true) about the continents moving for millions of years. However, this rate was quite different from the response rate (58%) for correct answers (true) to questions #5 about evolution of humans and #6 about co-existence of dinosaurs and humans (false) (75%). These contradictions were particularly striking when the number of participants incorrectly answering #5, i.e., ‘false’, putting them in the ‘non-evolutionist’ group (42%) was contrasted with the number answering #4 about the movement of continents, ‘false’, also indicating a non-evolutionist view (2.5%). These numbers clearly indicated that many of those in the ‘non-evolutionist’ group were ‘defaulting’ to a point of view on the motion of continents that was inconsistent with their apparent ideas about the evolution of humans.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Percentages for responses to questions #4, #5, #6, and #11. *For q4 and q5 the correct answer is “True”, for q6 the correct answer is “False”, for q11 correct answer is defined as classifying humans as animals

Full size image

Although more subtle, a similar contradiction was found when we examined the answers of the total sample to #6 about the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans. We would expect that individuals not agreeing with the idea of evolution of humans would respond that all living things, including humans and dinosaurs, existed at the same time. However, we found that the percentage of those indicating that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time to be much smaller (25%) than the percentage who indicated that humans did not evolve from other animals (42%), an apparent defection among the ‘non-evolutionists’ when answering question #6 about the co-existence of these two groups of animals.

In order to examine the relations between answering question #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, and #11 and answering question #5, we conducted bivariate correlation analysis. Among these questions, #1, #2, and #3 were related to miscellaneous science topics such as atomic structure or photosynthesis. On the other hand, questions #4, #5, #6, and #11 were directly related to age of the Earth or other evolutionary topics as described previously. The results showed that answering question #5 about human evolution correctly was significantly and positively correlated with answering questions that were related to the evolutionary constructs (#4, #6, #11) correctly (see Table 3). However, there were no correlations between answering question #5 correctly and therefore, answering question #1, #2, and #3 correctly.

Table 3 Bivariate correlation test of the answering questions #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #11
Full size table

Summary of Findings

An examination of the ideas of the sample in this study (n = 240) provided answers to the three research questions. As noted, study results revealed that almost 60% indicated agreement with the assertion that humans evolved from other animals (‘evolution’ group). When scores on a 13-item science concept test, that included questions on topics in evolution, were examined, those in the sample who expressed the contrary ideas (‘non-evolution’ group) scored significantly lower on the rest of the test items. Similarly, when asked about the classification of humans as ‘animals,’ significantly fewer in the ‘non-evolutionist’ group correctly identified humans as ‘animals.’

Although a majority of the 240 respondents gave correct answers to each of the four evolution-related questions, there were significantly different ratios getting each question correct when any two questions were compared. Even for the two questions answered correctly by the largest margins, questions #4 about continental drift/plate tectonics and question #11 involving identification of humans as animals, the percentages were quite different. As noted previously, while 42% of participants indicated that humans did not evolve from animals (#5), 25% said that humans and animals lived at the same time (#6). Viewed broadly, comparisons of answers on these questions suggested that many of those in the study who held views inconsistent with evolution had conflicting beliefs about other aspects of evolutionary theory. Furthermore, pre-service teachers’ answers to the ‘evolution’ question were significantly related to their answers on other questions that implied an old Earth.

Finally, scores on the 13-item test were examined relative to college level science courses. When participants were classified based upon having completed advanced science courses, there was no difference in scores on the 13-items for those who had taken and those who had not taken advanced courses.

Discussion and Conclusions

It is clear that the views on the subject of evolution of the preservice teachers in the sample, as indicated by their answers to the three NSF Survey questions, were more valid with respect to scientific description of evolution than those expressed by the recent national random sample of US citizens (see Fig. 2) (National Science Board 2008). This finding is encouraging; although anything different would have been somewhat perplexing and disturbing, given the higher level of education of the preservice teachers in this study, as compared to the general population. Yet, we understand that it is not necessarily a ‘given’ that more education would be related to accurate ideas about or acceptance of evolution, as evidenced by previous studies (Lombrozo et al. 2008; McCrory and Murphy 2009; Paz-y-Miño. & Espinosa 2009).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Percentages of correct answers for study participants and typical national sample on three questions from NSF 2006 survey

Full size image

The results of this study showed that the majority of our sample accepted the theory of plate tectonics/continental drift. However, the level of acceptance of human evolution from other species of animals was significantly lower. These findings were consistent with those of Downie and Barron (2000) who compared college students’ ideas about evolution with other scientific ideas in a study spanning a 12-year period. Among their findings was that compared to ‘evolution acceptors’, ‘evolution rejectors’ were “more skeptical on tectonic plates and massively skeptical about evolution” (p. 8). Our finding was similar which is not surprising, in light of the fact that the two theories have a close relationship and they are both related to a very old Earth. There were inconsistencies in the thinking of students in our study (see Table 3). While a substantially large percentage (see Fig. 1) of the sample correctly rejected the statement about the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs (a statement at odds with the theory of evolution), about half that number rejected the idea of human evolution.

Downie and Barron (2000) found that ‘evolution rejectors’ were less skeptical of ideas ‘unrelated’ to evolution such as CFC’s, acid rain and lung cancer. Our study appears to have confirmed this suggestion. Clearly, botanical/plant-related processes such as photosynthesis and evolutionary geological/physical processes such as plate tectonics were more easily accepted than ideas like human evolution. This trend is quite evident if we look at the numbers of correct responses to questions #4, #5 and #6 in Fig. 1. To question #4 about plate tectonics, 98% responded correctly; to question #6 about coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, 75% responded correctly; to question #5 about human evolution from earlier species, the percentage of correct responses dropped down to 58. While this result may have been in part a result of the wide-spread attention paid to ‘plate tectonics’ in the general media, another interpretation is that the idea of ‘rock plates sliding around’ is less threatening than an idea that hints at human evolution, even if the idea, i.e., plate tectonics, is quite consistent with the geologic record, an ‘old Earth,’ and other basic evolution concepts.

An examination of answers to questions #1 (center of Earth is hot), #2 (oxygen comes from plants), and #3 (electrons are smaller than atoms), provides additional confirmation of this supposition. The percentages of students getting these questions correct were 92, 98, and 30% respectively. Clearly, these three questions show less substantive link to evolution. The percentage of students getting the first two questions correct was on target with the numbers getting question number 4 about plate tectonics correct. The low percentage of correct responses to question number 3 about the size of electrons is not surprising. In fact, several studies pointed out that because of the abstract nature of atomic structure, students have difficulty understanding these concepts (see Griffiths and Preston 1992; Harrison and Treagust 1996; Taber 1998). In the current study, understanding of atomic structure was unrelated to an acceptance or rejection of evolution.

Further, the results of this study showed that preservice elementary teachers’ understanding of the several basic biological, physical, and earth science concepts tested was strongly associated with their acceptance of the idea of evolution reflected in question #5, i.e., those who were identified as ‘evolutionists’ tended to score higher on the science test or vice versa. These results were similar to those of Trani (2004) who found that teachers’ acceptance of evolution was directly correlated with their understanding of the theory of evolution and the nature of science.

The results of this study suggest that simply requiring more science, at least without some attention to the identity of the courses, is not a quick fix. Despite having completed teacher education requirements in science, often at advanced levels, many of the students did not have the coherent view that scientists have about plate tectonics, the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs and evolution. One speculation about why students held these inconsistent ideas related to the age of Earth would be that they may not understand how science attempts to fit new observations with extant knowledge in the process of creating new knowledge. Even in upper level undergraduate courses, students learn a vast body of facts and do not understand how these facts relate to one another (Kennedy 1998; Lord 1997). As researchers have pointed out, college-level science courses generally focus on specific scientific content and not on the nature of science (Lombrozo et al. 2008) that is the key to teaching evolution (Lombrozo et al. 2008; McCrory & Murphy 2009).

Identifying misconceptions can be the first step in understanding the nature of science. When students cannot understand some scientific key terms such as ‘fact’, ‘theory’, ‘law’, and ‘hypothesis’, it is hard for them to digest evolution (McCrory & Murphy 2009). One of the common misconceptions is the everyday notion of a theory as a ‘hunch’ or ‘guess’ (Lombrozo et al. 2008; McCrory & Murphy 2009) that is not supported by evidence (Branch and Mead 2008). Therefore, evolution has “been misleadingly labeled as ‘just a theory’ by opponents for decades” (Gregory 2008, p.46). Students need to learn that theories are explanations of natural phenomena with incorporation of observations, facts, hypotheses, and laws; and are testable and open to scrutiny (McCrory & Murphy 2009). It is also important for students to understand that testing of modern theories like quantum mechanics, atomic theory, and evolutionary theory has not been done directly; rather, inferences have been made through slow accumulation of evidence (Lombrozo et al. 2008). As Gregory (2008) indicates, evolutionary theory might not yet be complete but it has an extremely solid foundation.

As stated earlier, students who do not accept evolution often find it in conflict with their religious beliefs (Hokayem and BouJaoude 2008; Lombrozo et al. 2008; Nehm and Sheppard 2004; Trani 2004). Rather than posing a threat to their beliefs or avoiding the issue, we might help students take steps toward understanding evolution. Scharmann (2005) in discussing how to help students understand evolution, suggested that one way this might be accomplished is by introducing benefits and products of evolutionary theory such as antibiotics, herbicides, development of new varieties of grains, vaccines and identification of new diseases. Thus, the instructional focus as we prepare preservice teachers for the elementary classroom where concepts related to evolution will be presented is on understanding not on believing (Scharmann 2005). Through a more realistic description of scientific process students might not only understand evolution but accept it as well (Lombrozo et al. 2008).

While generalizations are not possible due to the correlational and exploratory nature of the study, the results suggested that further study of elementary teachers’ ideas about evolution is warranted. This recommendation is particularly pertinent in light of ongoing vacillations in state educational policies and court decisions related to the teaching of evolution and creation science/intelligent design in the public schools. The approval in early 2008 of new science standards in the State of Florida reflected the continuing instability of the political environment surrounding this issue and places the need for continued study in this area in context. Previous versions of the state science standards had omitted any reference to evolution, a characteristic that had resulted in much criticism in scientific circles. A last minute compromise substitution of the phrase, ‘scientific theory of evolution’ for ‘theory of evolution’ (Bhattacharjee 2008) saved the new standards. Still, science educators had feared that this phrase would open the door to other ‘creation theories’ so the term ‘scientific theory’ was added to other scientific principles such as photosynthesis, resulting in the ‘scientific theory of photosynthesis’, and so forth. However, many heralded this compromise as a victory as it meant that evolution would not be taught as a ‘fact’ and that “the standards are now inclusive of a variety of viewpoints” (p. 1168). Those who still maintain that the standards are not open to alternative theories are committed to finding ways to “allow teachers to teach criticisms of evolution” (p. 1168). As late as spring, 2009, legislation requiring “that the instructional staff of a public school teach a thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution and certain governmental, legal, and civic-related principles” was introduced but died in the Florida State Senate (2009).

Such events make it clear that the science education of the next generation of US citizens is still at risk when it comes to the theory of evolution and reveals some of the challenges that teachers face in teaching evolution in grades K-12. As NSTA described in its position paper (2003), a number of reasons account for the fact that evolution has received relatively little attention despite its importance to all of science. In addition to official policies such as those reviewed previously, others include the intimidation faced by teachers and pressure they experience to introduce creationism and other non-scientific ideas.

Since our data were collected, a few sets of new data have been collected by two different instructors. The review of the new data continue to show fairly consistent results which demonstrates that elementary teachers’ ideas have not changed over the years. Not including preservice science teachers and graduate science students in the study might be considered a limitation of our study, because even they have inconsistent views about evolution. However, as stated earlier, extensive research has been conducted investigating their ideas and understanding of evolution. What is clear is that steps must be taken to learn more about elementary teachers’ ideas about evolution, how these ideas are related to other teacher characteristics and experiences, and how these ideas impact what goes on at the classroom level. Without this information, teacher education programs are not likely to prepare elementary teachers who have a comprehensive understanding of evolution and its relation to all of science and who have the teaching skills to pass on this knowledge to their students.

While the topic of evolution per se does not figure as prominently in the elementary curriculum, many concepts, such as adaptation, classification, genetics, geologic change and time, and extinction that are basic ideas in the theory of evolution are addressed in the elementary grades. As we have noted, teaching even these topics may present special challenges to science teachers in many jurisdictions, particularly for elementary teachers whose ideas about evolution are not well thought out or consistent, as indicated by this study. It has been shown that even preservice biology students can be swayed by persuasive resources on alternatives of evolutionary theory aimed at school children (McCrory and Murphy 2009). As Scharmann (2005) pointed out, helping students, and in our case, these are preservice elementary teachers, understand evolution is not easy: “It requires overcoming apprehension, misunderstanding and incorrect assertions” (p. 15).

With recent surveys revealing that only 39% of US citizens ‘believe in evolution,’ and while except for one, those numbers for all other G 12 countries exceed 70% (Miller et al. 2006), helping our students learn correct science is imperative. At a time when the race for world economic and technological supremacy is growing tighter, it is clear that the quality of science education of US children must be a highest priority and that science educators in the US must take this challenge head on. As noted by NSTA (2003), “. . . if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need” (p. 1).