Reframing biblical interpretation helps religious students accept evolution

Many Americans continue to reject the scientific theory of evolution, particularly those who identify as religious. A new study provides evidence that biblical literalism—the belief that the Bible should be interpreted as the direct and factual word of God—is a key factor driving this rejection. But the findings also suggest that when students are exposed to an educational approach that respects religious beliefs while presenting evolution in a compatible framework, their acceptance of evolution tends to increase—without any apparent loss in religiosity.

The research was published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Scientific consensus holds that evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, yet it continues to face widespread skepticism in the United States. National surveys indicate that a sizable portion of the public, particularly those with strong religious identities, does not accept evolution as a valid explanation for the origin and development of species. While researchers have long known that religiosity is linked to lower levels of evolution acceptance, the specific reasons behind that relationship are still being examined.

One possibility is that the issue lies not in religion itself, but in how religious individuals interpret religious texts. In particular, a literal reading of the Bible—such as interpreting the creation story in the book of Genesis as describing a six-day creation of all life forms—may directly conflict with evolutionary science. The researchers behind this study wanted to test that idea more explicitly. They also wanted to see whether changing biblical interpretation in the classroom could alter evolution acceptance.

“Our lab studies science communication surrounding controversial science topics, with much of our work focusing on bridging the divide between evolution and religious ideologies,” said study author Jamie L. Jensen, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University.

Free daily newsletter

“Much of our work has been on developing what we call the ‘Reconciliation Module,’ a method whereby we try to help students build a bridge between their religious faith and the science of evolution. One of the things we have noticed seems to help is to offer alternative ways of interpreting Genesis. Thus, we decided to try this method in the classroom (and first confirm that biblical literalism is indeed a barrier to acceptance – which seems like a foregone conclusion but has not been very systematically studied in the past).”

To explore this, the researchers carried out a two-part study. They began by surveying a national sample of religious Americans to better understand how religiosity, biblical literalism, and evolution acceptance are connected. Then they turned to a classroom setting, examining how a culturally competent educational intervention might influence students’ beliefs about both the Bible and evolution.

The first part of the study involved a nationwide survey of 408 religious adults from various Judeo-Christian backgrounds, including Catholics, Protestants, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and others. Participants were asked about their religiosity, their interpretation of the Bible, and their acceptance of evolution. The researchers used statistical modeling to assess how these variables were related.

The second part of the study was conducted in a university biology classroom at a private religious institution where the vast majority of students were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A total of 186 students enrolled in an introductory biology course completed surveys before and after a specially designed instructional module.

This lesson, referred to as the Culturally Competent Instructional Model, was a one-day module delivered before the biology unit on evolution. It was developed from the Religious Cultural Competence in Evolution Education framework, which encourages instructors to recognize and respect students’ religious worldviews while teaching evolution. In this context, the lesson focused on identifying points of compatibility between evolutionary theory and the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

One key element was a discussion of how the creation story in Genesis could be interpreted in ways that do not contradict the scientific evidence for evolution. Rather than telling students how to reconcile these perspectives, instructors suggested possible interpretations and left room for students to make their own meaning. The aim was to reduce perceived conflict without challenging students’ religious identities.

The nationwide survey revealed a consistent pattern. People who reported higher levels of religiosity were more likely to interpret the Bible literally. In turn, those who interpreted the Bible more literally were less likely to accept evolution, including microevolution (small changes within species), macroevolution (the emergence of new species), and human evolution. This pattern held across different religious traditions and demographics.

In the classroom setting, the same relationship emerged at the start of the semester. Students who reported stronger religious hope and influence were more likely to interpret the Bible literally, and those with a literal interpretation were less likely to accept evolution. But after taking part in the culturally competent instructional module, students’ responses began to shift.

Acceptance of evolution increased across all categories. Acceptance of microevolution rose modestly, while acceptance of macroevolution and human evolution showed larger gains. Students also showed a small but statistically significant decrease in biblical literalism. Students’ overall level of religiosity did not change, suggesting that the educational intervention did not weaken their religious identity.

“The nationwide study confirmed that there is a link between biblical literalism and evolution acceptance,” Jensen told PsyPost. “The classroom study showed that you can overcome this barrier by offering students alternative ways to interpret Genesis that can help them more fully embrace science.”

The researchers also found that students’ post-course levels of biblical literalism predicted their post-course acceptance of evolution. Those who became less literal in their interpretation of the Bible were more likely to report greater acceptance of evolution, especially in the context of human origins.

These findings support the idea that biblical literalism may act as a mediating factor between religiosity and rejection of evolution. In other words, it may not be religion itself that leads to evolution skepticism, but rather how individuals interpret religious texts.

“Most surprising was that of all the things we measured, biblical literalist interpretations amongst our students changed very little, but that small change was predictive enough of changes in acceptance of evolution,” Jensen said. “However, you’ll notice that students still score alarmingly high on biblical literalism even though they score extremely high on evolution acceptance measures. This has prompted a follow-up study that we have just finished the data analysis on where we are attempting to explain this potential mismatch between literalist interpretations and evolution acceptance. The results are really fascinating! We will hopefully have a paper out soon!”

Although the study offers evidence for a link between biblical interpretation and evolution acceptance, the researchers acknowledge some limitations. The classroom intervention took place at a single university with a fairly homogenous student body, both religiously and culturally.

“The transferability of our findings is unknown,” Jensen noted. “That being said, we have run similar ‘Reconciliation modules’ at other institutions with differing faith traditions and found similar increases in evolution acceptance, so we suspect it probably does transfer, at least within a conservative/evangelical Christian context.”

Another limitation involves the measurement of biblical literalism. Although the researchers found a statistically significant drop in literalism after the instructional module, many students continued to agree with literal interpretations of some biblical narratives, particularly those involving Adam and Eve. Yet these same students still increased their acceptance of evolution, raising questions about how they reconciled these views.

“We are right in the middle of a follow-up study on this phenomenon (the high biblical literalism but also high evolutionary acceptance),” Jensen said. “I presented on it recently at a Scopes Centennial Celebration at Vanderbilt (you can watch the recording here if you want a sneak preview of results: https://youtu.be/K7-IuUR7pHg?si=RL8XZ6MDNTk-rslo). We are finding that students are much more likely to be epistemologically secure, but they lack key factual information to build a robust bridge between science and religion. We aim to offer suggestions on teaching strategies to help supply these key pieces of information.”

“I just want to acknowledge the wonderful work of my co-authors who are talented undergraduate students (and a previous doctoral student),” she added. “They are phenomenal researchers.”

The study, “Offering Alternatives to Biblical Literalism May Be the Key to Increasing the Public’s Acceptance of Evolution,” was authored by Grant Rousseau, Dalton Bourne, Kenneth Harrington, Jessica Abele, Daniel Ferguson, and Jamie Jensen.