Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26877774›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of science in society2015

Evolution Controversy: A Phenomenon Prompted by the Incompatibility between Science and Religious Beliefs.

Guillermo Paz-Y-Miño-C, Avelina Espinosa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of science in society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Guillermo Paz-Y-Miño-CNew England Center for the Public Understanding of Science and New England Science Public, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA.
Avelina EspinosaNew England Center for the Public Understanding of Science and New England Science Public, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA.

Funding

Training CoreP20GM103430 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND · PI Bongsup P Cho · 2012 to 2026
$63.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103430
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incompatibility between science and the belief in supernatural causation helps us understand why people do not accept evolution. Belief disrupts, distorts, delays, or stops (3Ds + S) the acceptance of scientific evidence. Here we examine the evolution controversy under three predictions of the incompatibility hypothesis. First, chronological-conflict-and-accommodation, which explains the historical re-emergence of antagonism between evolution and religion when advances in science continue to threaten the belief in supernatural causation; in such situations, creationists' rejection of and subsequent partial acceptance of the new scientific discoveries are expected. Second, change in evolution's acceptance as function of educational attainment, which explains the positive association between acceptance of evolution and level of education. And third, change in evolution's acceptance as function of religiosity, which explains the negative association between acceptance of evolution and level of religious beliefs. We rely on an ample assessment of the attitudes toward evolution by highly-educated audiences (i.e. research faculty, educators of prospective teachers, and college students in the United States) to characterize the associations among the understanding of science and evolution, personal religious convictions, and conservative ideology. We emphasize that harmonious coexistence between science and religion is illusory. If co-persisting in society, their relationship will fluctuate from moderate to intense antagonism.

Indexed as

CreationismEvolutionary CreationEvolution WarsIncompatibility HypothesisIntelligent DesignTheistic Evolution

Identifiers

PMID26877774
PMCPMC4751890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.