High School Students' Attitudes Toward Creation And Evolution Compared To Their Worldview

High school students' beliefs regarding origins are very important. Many high school students claim to believe in a supernatural theistic Creator. Many also report a born-again experience and would thus hold to having a personal relationship with the Creator. Such a relationship should impact all aspects of one's personal life and worldview.

The Scriptures reveal (I Corinthians 2:14-16 and Romans 1:20) that there exists a dichotomy between those that believe the Creation account and those who do not. Only the truly born-again believer is able to take every thought and attitude and compare it to the thoughts and attitudes of the Creator Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 10:5 and Colossians 1:16). Accepting this God-ordained worldview is vital to a correct view of the clash between Biblical theism and naturalism—a clash between two all encompassing worldviews, a "Creationist Worldview" and an "Evolutionary Worldview." This dichotomy of world-views was thoroughly investigated by David Ray; his findings are summarized in this article.

Ray studied four groups of school students from the eastern section of Atlanta, Georgia. The groups consisted of: (1) two Christian school groups— 30 students; (2) two church youth groups—30 students; (3) one public school class—42 students; and (4) one home school group—30 students.

Two survey instruments, the CWT (Creationist Worldview Test, Deckard, 1997) and the PEERS Test (Smithwick, Nehemiah Institute, 1995), were used to gather the data.¹ The CWT test is a 51-item instrument constructed for the purpose of measuring views related to the creation/evolution controversy. The PEERS Test is 70 items constructed for the purpose of measuring Christian views in politics, economics, education, religion, and social issues. Students were categorized into two groups: (1) those holding to a creationist view of life, and (2) those holding to an evolutionist view of life. This evaluation process was based on answers to the CWT. The views of these two groups were compared using three PEERS categories, Education, Religion, and Social Issues. The PEERS test has a scale as follows: Biblical Theism (70-100), Moderate Christian (30-69), Secular Humanism (0-29) and Socialism (<0). For comparison purposes this same scale was adapted to the CWT.

Research questions were formulated to answer the following questions. How do students with creationist or evolutionist attitudes differ on:

Question 1 and 2 The data showed that those students who were identified as creationist registered an average composite score on the PEERS education category of only 18.77.

Even though all of these students claimed to be born-again, 39% scored in the Secular Humanism worldview category and 28% scored in the Socialism category. This provides strong evidence that many Christian students have not been taught to think Biblically or in worldview terms about educational issues.²

Furthermore, despite the low scores by those students with creationist attitudes regarding education there still existed a positive correlation between the creationist attitudes and their view toward education. While the creationists' educational category scores were low, the evolutionists students' attitudes were significantly lower, scoring -18.75, well into the Socialism worldview category. This group of students viewed education as a proper task of the civil government which lies at the heart of socialist thinking regarding education. None of the students with evolutionist views scored in the Biblical Theist or Moderate Christian categories, indicating a strong relationship between their evolution and education views. This relationship was statistically significant (p 0.01). Thus the data showed significant differences in the views of high school students with evolutionists' attitudes toward education when compared with those students with creationist views.

Question 3 and 4 compared the attitudes of students holding creationist views and those with evolutionist views to variable religion. Creationist view holders scored an average of 59.53 on the CWT and 52.59 PEERS (both are mid-range on the Moderate Christian category). This reflects that the creationists have some degree of Biblical knowledge.

On the other hand the evolutionist view holders scored -5.39 on the CWT and -12.68 on the PEERS. The disparity is substantial with a significant chi square value (p 0.001). It may be concluded that the students with evolutionist views differed significantly from those with creationist views when it comes to religion.

Question 5 and 6 compared the attitudes of the students holding creationist views and students with evolutionist views on the PEERS variable social studies. Creationist view holders scored an average of 59.53 on the CWT and 32.99 PEERS (both are in the Moderate Christian category). The creationists have some degree of Biblical knowledge although the PEERS test would indicate a "lukewarm view of social issues" on topics such as homosexuality, capital punishment, pre-marital sex, and the definition of family. In contrast, the evolutionist view holders scored -5.39 on the CWT and -0.71 on the PEERS indicating a socialist view. The disparity is significant chi square value (p 0.001). It may be concluded that the students with evolutionist views differed significantly from those with creationist views when it comes to social issues.

Question 7 and 8 compared the attitudes of the students holding creationist views and those students with evolutionist views on the PEERS variable God. The chi-square analysis on eight different categories related to God demonstrated significant distribution and a strong correlation in the relationship of high school students with creationist attitudes and their views toward God. The creationist students viewed God as One who supernaturally made the universe for an ultimate purpose and as the one and only Supreme Being. They also viewed the Bible as being inerrant and inspired. In contrast, the majority of those students with evolutionists views expressed they did not believe in the existence of God along with a belief that there are many avenues toward knowing God and most did not view God's word as a revelation.

Question 9 and 10 compared the attitudes of the students holding creationist views and those students with evolutionist views on the PEERS variable Christianity. Seven of the eight chi-square analyses illustrated significant distributions and strong correlations between high school students' attitudes toward creation and their views toward Christianity. These students held to a belief in the Triune God and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as the only hope for man's separation from God. In contrast, those students with evolutionary views believed in the existence of a God yet disagreed with certain key doctrines of orthodox Christianity. For example a majority of these students held the view that sin is a mythical concept.

Question 11 The last question focused on frequencies and magnitudes of public school students with Biblical theist worldviews when contrasted with home school and Christian school students. The results showed that 39 of the 132 participating students scored above 70.00 (the cutoff score for Biblical theist) on the CWT. Twenty of the 39 were home schoolers, while ten were Christian school and nine were public school students. For the PEERS results, five students scored as Biblical theist, four were home schoolers while one was a Christian school student.

Home schoolers demonstrated the highest scores on both instruments (PEERS and CWT) in contrast to the 42 public school students who had the lowest scores on both instruments. Of the 42, only one scored in the Biblical theist range on either instrument, despite the fact that 37 of the 42 claimed to be born-again. This is alarming evidence of the damaging effect that the public/government school system is having on worldview development and the thinking of Christian youth.

The Chi-Square Analysis showed a significant distribution from the home school, Christian school, and public setting. Hence it can be concluded that a positive correlation is present between having a Biblical theist worldview and mode of education.

The Bible commands parents to "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6). Ray's dissertation provides the Christian creationist community with strong objective and scientific evidence that teaching a Biblical view of origins is fundamental to worldview adoption and development. Training up a child in an environment of evolutionary thinking or in an environment where creationism is not firmly taught, is a certain formula for causing the child to depart from the Christian faith. Departure from this faith will lead to the acceptance of the only alternative, evolution. Few issues could be of greater importance to the Christian family and the church than to teach youth (at home, school, or Sunday School) the Biblical doctrine of creationism.

1. Tests and follow-up training materials are available through Nehemiah Institute by calling 800/948-3101. Or visit their web site: nehemiahinstitute.com

2. Students consistently scored higher on the CWT scale when compared to the PEERS. This seems to be due to instrumentation differences. The CWT measures basic doctrine related to Biblical and creation/evolution issues, whereas the PEERS measures more in the realm of application of Biblical principles. This seems to indicate that many students have a grasp of basic tenets of the Christian faith, but are weak in the application of such. It is important to note that the CWT showed a .789 Spearman rho correlation with the PEERS. This high correlation indicates the two instruments are measuring something similar.

* Dr. Deckard is adjunct professor of Science Education at ICR and Academic Dean at Vision University. Daniel Smithwick is President of Nehemiah Institute.

Nehemiah Institute - Christian worldview testing and training ...

MICKEY BOWDON "The PEERS Test is one of the most outstanding resources available to the Christian school movement- it makes it possible for schools to measure progress in the area that is most important to the mission of the school." June, 1994

DR. PAUL JEHLE "We have found the PEERS Test to be helpful in evaluating the progress of our young people and adults in understanding the application of a Biblical world. We recommend it to others." New Testament Christian School, June, 1995

RALPH BULLARD "Having studied this test, and all of the data provided by the results, I'm convinced the PEERS Test is an invaluable tool for the evaluation of the effectiveness of our teaching a Christian world view at Christian Heritage Academy." CHA, 1994

DR. JEFF MYERS "The PEERS Test looks really promising as a discussion tool, a teacher in-service training tool, and most of all, an objective measure for gauging the effectiveness of our programs." Summit Ministries, July, 1994

DR. RONALD NASH "I have examined the testing program of Nehemiah Institute and find that the PEERS Test serves a very important purpose. I strongly recommend it to Christian organizations. I believe they will find the test useful in finding better ways to communicate and evaluate important information concerning the Biblical worldview to their employees and their students." Sept, 1994

DR. DAVID BALSIGER "The PEERS Test is the best benchmark gauge for establishing where you stand on the political spectrum. The results are helpful in making course corrections in one's belief patterns." 1994

KEN HAM "We appreciate your work with the Nehemiah Institute and the PEERS Testing Group. Please continue to keep us up-to-date; we find your information extremely interesting. Your service is a valuable tool and we believe the Lord will continue to bless your endeavors." Answers in Genesis, March 1998

DR. CHARLES WOLFE "Dan Smithwick and the Nehemiah Institute have made a major contribution in the restoration of American education through the PEERS Test." Restore the Republic, June, 1994

Dr. TOM ASKEW "Let me say how much I appreciate the thought and work which went into developing the PEERS Test. It is definitely an idea whose time has come, and represents the kind of information Christian schools need in order to demonstrate that what one is taught does influence how one makes decisions in every area of life." Cornerstone Christian Academy, May, 1998

Why Do Our Youth Depart?

One study of over 3,500 incoming freshman at various state and private universities who identified themselves as 'born again' Christians found that by their senior year, between one-third and one-half said they no longer considered themselves as such. If a person is willing to change his or her position on being a born-again Christian, how much more are they willing to give up regarding their views and practices relating to church attendance?

I believe the answer to this is largely due to the lack of relevance of the church and the Christian faith, as seen by young people. While the church was the dominant force in building our nation (founding universities and hospitals, producing scholarly statesmen who drafted state constitutions and later the federal constitution, creating charitable organizations to care for the poor and widows, etc.), today the church has been pushed (or voluntarily retreated) into a non-defining role for how society should live. The agenda for today's public square is clearly shaped by secular and anti-Christian forces, not the church.

In essence, the church has left the world. Contrary to the first century church and the Reformation-era church, the 20th century church has abandoned a Biblical world and life view. The church offers only a personalized and pietistic religion. The message received by young people is one of how to get to heaven when they die (something which none of them are thinking about!) but not how to live while on earth. With no comprehensive philosophy of life being offered by church leaders (at least in the majority of our churches), it's little wonder that young people find the church irrelevant.

The results of PEERS testing from 1988-2002 show a consistent and alarming decline in Biblical worldview thinking among students. Over 75% of students graduating from Christian schools score in the Secular Humanism category on the PEERS Test. Only in a small number of Christian schools (less than 5%), where a distinct program exists focusing on teaching subjects from a Biblical worldview were there found good scores. These schools also showed a slight increase over the twelve-year period.

What kind of views causes low scores among students? Listed below are some of the more troubling views (all of which are anti-biblical) found by PEERS testing among students in Christian schools,

Agree

· The ideal government guarantees the citizens a minimum income, social security, unemployment compensation, health insurance and housing. 77.2%
· Moral values are subjective and personal. They are the right of each individual. Individuals should be allowed to conduct life as they choose as long as it does not interfere with the lives of others. 75.4%
· In social, economic, cultural and political affairs, people should have equal rights. Social reform should, therefore, be designed to correct existing inequalities and to equalize the conditions of nurture, schooling, residence, employment, recreation and income that produce them. 84.2%
· One of the most effective ways of curbing inflation, if not eliminating it all together, is imposing wage and price controls. 80.7%
· Day-care schools for infants and toddlers, under the supervision of professional educators, will enhance the educational process of children and will produce more well-developed and productive citizens. 73.7%

Note: These results are based on responses of students with composite test scores of 25.0 or less (scale of -100 to +100). Average scores of students from traditional Christian high schools from 1988-2002 was 28.2.

I believe PEERS results gives evidence of why Christian youth are departing from the church. Rather than the church, the state is viewed as the official body for deciding 'how then shall we live.'

If the church and the Christian school continue with programs where the output is increasingly secular, our nation will soon be a very different nation from what is was for its first 200 years. The loss of the ability to think critically and biblically will lead to chaos and darkness, as history bears evidence.

For the sake of the Lord's name and for the sake of our children, we must return to a solid Biblical-worldview philosophy of instruction in the home, schools and churches.

America Fifty/Fifty

Our classification also incorporates the culture wars divisions, based on religious beliefs, behaviors, and ties to religious movements. For purposes of analysis and illustration, we have used this information to divide evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and white Catholics into "traditionalists," "centrists," and "modernists." Although the precise allocation procedure is too complex to present here, we can easily summarize the results. Within each community, "traditionalists" profess orthodox beliefs, exhibit high levels of public and private religious behavior, and identify with "sectarian" movements (e.g., for Protestants, "fundamentalist," "Pentecostal," or "charismatic"). "Modernists" hold more heterodox beliefs, exhibit modest levels of religious practice, and identify with church-like movements (ecumenism, liberalism). Naturally, "centrists" fall between the other two camps on all these measures.

Sharp cultural issue divisions certainly underlie the voting patterns. Not surprisingly, Latter-day Saints hold the most conservative moral values, but evangelical traditionalists finish a close second, followed at some distance by Catholic, and then mainline, traditionalists. In each major tradition, centrists hug the national averages, while modernists fall on the liberal (and Democratic) side, by only a small margin among evangelicals, but more decisively among Catholics and, especially, mainline Protestants. Indeed, modernist mainliners’ strong moral liberalism matches that of secular voters, and is exceeded only by Jewish voters. Black Protestants, Hispanic Christians, and non-Christian religious minorities fall solidly on the liberal side, close to Catholic modernists, but falling well short of mainline modernists. On the whole, though, the position of religious groups on moral and cultural issues closely mimics their voting pattern.

Although religious groups have distinctive views on social welfare issues as well, the pattern is a little different from that on moral questions. Once again, Latter-day Saints are most conservative, followed closely by evangelical traditionalists, and more distantly by mainline traditionalists. But at this point the story gets more complicated. First, both centrist and modernist evangelicals tilt to the conservative side, as do mainline centrists, perhaps reflecting classic Protestant economic individualism. Second, there is little difference among the three Catholic subgroups, as both traditionalists and modernists fall barely on the conservative side, while centrists sit right on top of the national mean. We can only speculate whether Catholic traditionalists’ relative liberalism (compared to their Protestant counterparts) reflects loyalty to the Church’s historic social teachings or simply a collective memory of the day when Catholics benefited from the New Deal’s social welfare policies. Finally, the liberal side on social welfare issues consists, in order of increasing liberalism, of secular voters, mainline modernists, Hispanic Christians, black Protestants, and Jews.

Secular voters favored Gore over Bush by an almost two-to-one margin.

Thank you for the link to the mini-peers. But it does bear out my point. I will give some examples:

Question #4: Government should rest as directly as possible on the will of the people.

Well, if you strongly agree then you are in favor of democracy, right? And this concept in some form is a basis for our government. But it is also true that without restrictions on the will of the majority (which our Consititution applies) then great abuses may occur. And for example -- we use an Electoral College to elect the President of the USA. 2nd example -- the Bill of Rights. So how do they interpret the answer to this question? If you strongly agree -- are you a Socialist? Heck, pure Communism is supposed to have the government resting on the will of the people (ideally). So wouldn't an idealistic Socialist strongly agree with this statement? But then a hard core conservative, being against totalitarian governments, might also strongly agree.

The problem with test questions like this is that there is no context.

Question #5: Absolute truth exists in all areas of life and can be known.

The obvious answer to this is no -- since even if you believe in an absolute truth it may not be possible to know it in all areas. But -- some deconstructive modernist who believes that all things are relative will also say no. So a logically thinking theistic believer and a secular humanist deconstructionist are equally likely to say no to this one.

Question #8: Society, not the individual, is chiefly responsible for social evils.

Except that society is composed of individuals. Therefore the question is actually meaningless. So how do you answer? Without context for the question, two people who hold the same political views might interpret it differently and thus one might answer "strongly agree" (because it takes a whole bunch of individuals, thus constituting a society, to create a social ill) and the other might answer "strongly disagree" (because of course "society" is only a concept and all evils are caused by individuals.)

See? That's my point. The problem is with the questions, and we don't know how they will be interpreted or why. But from what I can see of the mini test it is of little value.

Question #4: Government should rest as directly as possible on the will of the people.

FEDERALIST #78

recognizes the power, will & intent of the citizens is superior to the court & the legislature

Question #5: Absolute truth exists in all areas of life and can be known.

At a mimimum - Tend to Agree would be conservative, while Tend to Disagree, Strongly Disagree is post modern socialism.

Question #8: Society, not the individual, is chiefly responsible for social evils.

Liberals/socialists/social engineers assert that the environment/society needs modification to cure all evils. The individual is excused for his crime while society is blamed.

What is Wrong with Society Today?

To get to the bottom one must acknowledge the basic reason for the cause is the self centeredness of mankind. When, in the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve turned from being God centered to being self centered, it set the pattern for all the sins and problems of the world to this day (Romans 5:12). In Jeremiah 17:9, God said, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can fathom it?" The sins in the heart of every person have produced the problems we face today.

When our country was founded, our founding Fathers were not all Christians, nor has our country ever been a Christian nation; it has been a pluralistic one. However, those men all accepted the basic principles of the Bible, and they accepted absolute truth as found in the Bible. Thus, upon these foundational elements they constituted our nation. This has been the fabric of strength upon which our country has become great. The Constitution is a document based upon the principles of the Bible.

See? That's my point. The problem is with the questions, and we don't know how they will be interpreted or why. But from what I can see of the mini test it is of little value.

20 Questions will produce a rough estimate while 70 Questions would be more accurate.

all areas of life"

ABSOLUTE
- Set of theological beliefs on a question of morality - absolutely, objectively and universally true, and is sufficiently complete to resolve a moral question that is under discussion, and is capable of generating an single unambiguous answer.
RELATIVE
- Set of theological beliefs on a question of morality - deconstructed psychobabble which is situationaly true and is sufficiently framed to resolve a moral question that is under discussion, and is capable of generating multiple ambiguous answers to rationalize a course of action or inaction.

"can be known" is clearly false

RTQ = Read The Question. The question didn't ask if you knew all the truths!

ABSOLUTE TRUTH - QuestioningFaith.com :: What is Truth? When Pontius Pilate interrogated Jesus before his crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed that "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37). To this, Pilate replied "What is truth?" and immediately left Jesus to address the Jews who wanted him crucified (v. 38). As Francis Bacon wrote in his essay "On Truth," "'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer." Although we have no record of any reply Jesus gave to Pilate, Christians affirm that Pilate was staring Truth in the face, for Jesus had earlier said to Thomas, "I am the way and the truth and the life" (John 14:6).

Stand to Reason Commentary - Religious Pluralism Either God exists, or He doesn't exist. It is the law of excluded middle. Either God or no God. One of two categories. One or the other has to be true. They both cannot be true because of the Law of Non-contradiction. Not at the same time. And they both can't be false because of the Law of Excluded Middle. Simple. Either God exists or He doesn't exist.

Did you notice, by the way, that both statements are religious statements? Now, maybe I don't know which one is true, but I'll tell you one thing, one of them is, which means there is such a thing, at least to some degree, as absolute religious truth. It is either an absolute that God does not exist, or it is an absolute that He does. One or the other. Therefore, it is a false claim that all religious statements are merely relative. Do you see that? This is not that hard. Here is a scholar, though, making a comment that is just absolutely foolish. Why should I believe what he has to say when it is so easy to refute it?

Is it reasonable to believe that there simply is no spiritual truth about the whole world, no true God to discover, and we're stuck with merely relativistic inventions of our own minds? If there is not such truth to discover, then why search? Why engage any religion whatsoever--Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Animism? Any "ism." There is nothing to discover, just all kinds of things that we invent. That is, by the way, what it means when one says that religious truth is relative and it is not absolute. It means that there is nothing out there to discover. We make it up.

POST-MODERN fiction -Nietzsche's Truth In the months before his final descent into madness, Friedrich Nietzsche made the following declaration and prediction: "I know my destiny. Someday my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous, a crisis like no other on earth [The Holocaust and evolution] , the profoundest collision of conscience, a decision conjured up against everything that had been believed, required, and held sacred up to that time.[ The New State Religion: Atheism] I am not a man; I am dynamite." [The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.