Content uploaded by Darren Sherkat
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Darren Sherkat on Mar 29, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Religion and Scientific Literacy
in the United States∗
Darren E. Sherkat, Southern Illinois University
Objective. This study examines how commitment to sectarian Protestant religious
groups and fundamentalist beliefs in the inerrancy of the Bible influence basic
scientific literacy. Methods. I analyze data from the 2006 General Social Survey
(N=1,780), which included a 13-point examination of scientific facts and reasoning.
Ordinary least squares regression models are estimated to determine the impact of
religious affiliations and beliefs net of other control variables such as race, gender,
education, income, region, and rural residence. Results. Analyses show that sectarian
Protestants, Catholics, and people with fundamentalist beliefs in the inerrancy of the
Bible have significantly lower levels of scientific literacy when compared with secular
Americans. Religious differences are identifiable in multivariate analyses controlling
for other demographic factors. Conclusions. Religion plays a sizeable role in the low
levels of scientific literacy found in the United States, and the negative impact of
religious factors is more substantial than gender, race, or income.
Scientific knowledge is an important resource for individuals, families,
communities, and nations. Educators and researchers interested in scientific
literacy argue that it is essential for citizens to have a basic facility with sci-
ence in order to make proper decisions about health and well-being, and
civil and political processes involving science and technologies (Bybee, 2008;
Cromley, 2009; Eisenhart, Finkel, and Marion 1996; Laugksch, 2000; Miller,
1998; Rutherford and Ahlgren, 2000). Science and technology are increasingly
subject to political pressures seeking to influence pedagogy, regulate technol-
ogy, and finance expensive new developments in science and medicine—as
recent controversies over school curricula, global warming, and stem cell re-
search have shown (Bybee, 2008; Lerner, 2000; Reichhardt, Cyranoski, and
Schiermeier, 2004; Skoog, 2005). Scientific literacy is also a crucial com-
ponent of the human capital available in societies, and science education
has been shown to influence economic growth and development (Drori,
2003; Walberg, 1991). Indeed, cross-national studies showing relatively low
∗Direct correspondence to Darren E. Sherkat, Department of Sociology, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, IL 62901 sherkat@siu.edu. All data files, coding, and programs are
available on request to the author. Data from the NORC General Social Surveys were made
available through the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Comments
from anonymous reviewers, Derek Martin, and Mark Schneider were greatly appreciated. A
version of this article was presented at the 2009 Annual Meetings of the Southern Sociological
Society, New Orleans, LA.
SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 92, Number 5, December 2011
C2011 by the Southwestern Social Science Association
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00811.x
Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States 1135
levels of scientific literacy in the United States have been a source of concern
(Baldi et al., 2008; Bybee, 2008; Bybee, McCrae, and Laurie, 2009; Cromley,
2009).
Studies have long shown that scientists are less religious than the gen-
eral population—and that many scientists maintain religious commitments
(Ecklund and Park, 2009; Ecklund, Park, and Veliz, 2008; Ecklund and
Scheitle, 2007; Faia, 1976; Gross and Simmons, 2007, 2009; Larson and
Witham, 1998; Lehman and Shriver, 1968; Lemert, 1979; Leuba, 1916;
Stark and Finke, 2000). Connections to sectarian religious groups—which
maintain tension with other social institutions—and fundamentalist beliefs
have been singled out as oppositional toward educational attainment, sup-
port for science, and accepting scientific findings about evolution (Berkman,
Pacheco, and Plutzer, 2008; Deckman, 2002, 2004; Eckberg and Nesterenko,
1985; Ellison and Musick, 1995; Mazur, 2004, 2007; Miller, Scott, and
Okamoto, 2006; Plutzer and Berkman, 2008; Scott, 2004). Classical treat-
ments of the connections between religion and science suggest that Catholic
education will be less focused on scientific issues (Merton, 1963; Weber,
[1904–1905] 1998), and the Catholic Church also questions the propri-
ety of scientific endeavors like stem cell research. Recent studies show that
both Catholics and sectarian Protestants are underrepresented among scien-
tists and university professors, and that very few scientists or professors hold
fundamentalist beliefs (Ecklund and Scheitle, 2007; Gross and Simmons,
2009).
I examine the influence of religious factors on scientific literacy using data
from the 2006 General Social Survey (GSS). I focus on the impact of sec-
tarian and Catholic identifications compared to other and no identifications,
and on the importance of fundamentalist versus more secular beliefs about
Christian sacred texts. Using a 13-item scale tapping scientific literacy, levels
of scientific literacy are presented across religious affiliations and beliefs about
the Bible. Multivariate models are used to demonstrate the robustness of reli-
gious distinctions after controls for a variety of potential confounding factors
(including education, income, ethnicity, gender, region, and rural residence).
Finally, I estimate a set of OLS regression models to show the simultane-
ous impact of both religious identifications and religious beliefs on scientific
literacy.
Religion and Science in the United States
The conflict between religion and science in the United States came into
stark relief during the Scopes v. Tennessee trial over the teaching of evolution
in the early 20th century, which pitted fundamentalist religious movements
against more modern U.S. religious sentiments and secular scientists and ed-
ucators (Berkman, Pacheco, and Plutzer, 2008; Lienesch, 2007; Scott, 2004;
Singham, 2009). Christian fundamentalist beliefs are rooted in the position
1136 Social Science Quarterly
that Christian sacred texts are inerrant, and should be taken as true represen-
tations of earth and human history (Berkman, Pacheco, and Plutzer, 2008;
Darnell and Sherkat, 1997; Ellison and Musick, 1995; Lienesch, 2007). Re-
ligious denominations and movements within denominations holding exclu-
sivist orientations like fundamentalism generate tension with broader society,
and these movements are defined by sociologists as sectarian religious move-
ments (Finke and Stark, 1992; Iannaccone, 1988; Johnson, 1963; Stark and
Bainbridge, 10985, 1987; Stark and Finke, 2000).
Sectarian religious groups sustain oppositional religious schemata like fun-
damentalism, and these schemata are transposed into other social realms such
as education, politics, family, and science (Sherkat, 1998; Sherkat and Ellison,
1997, 2007). Science is a field of culture consisting of mutually sustaining
resources and schemas (DiMaggio, 1997; Sewell, 1992). Given this, cultural
institutions such as religion will have a potential impact on the development of
schemata regarding science, and on cognitive resources pertaining to scientific
processes, methods, and knowledge. Indeed, scientific institutions frequently
confront challenges from religiously inspired movements like “creationism”
and “intelligent design” that seek recognition from and influence over sci-
entific resources (Gieryn, 1983; Gieryn, Bevins, and Zehr, 1985). Catholic
aversion to science is less strident when compared to sectarian and funda-
mentalist Protestants, and Catholics tend to focus more on the propriety of
scientific endeavors that clash with church dogma, as in the case of opposition
to stem cell research (Reichhardt, Cyranoski, and Schiermeier, 2004). Indeed,
the Catholic Church is agnostic regarding Darwinian evolution, and many
devout Catholics find no incompatibility between evolutionary biology and
their faith commitments (Deckman, 2002).
Recent studies of the connections between science and religion have shown
that substantial pluralities of scientists and intellectuals maintain religious
commitments (Ecklund and Scheitle, 2007; Ecklund and Park, 2009; Eck-
lund, Park, and Veliz, 2008; Gross and Simmons, 2007, 2009). These findings
echo earlier investigations showing that while scientists were more likely than
others to reject religion, large pluralities believe in God and embrace con-
nections with religious organizations (Faia, 1976; Larson and Witham, 1998;
Lehman and Shriver, 1968; Leuba, 1916). Yet, Lemert (1979:446) cautions
that “[t]he fact that Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg and Bohr were by no means
indifferent to religion will not comfort traditional believers. Their religious
views were, of course, anything but orthodox.” Academics and scientists are
much more likely to be atheists and agnostics compared to the general popu-
lation, and very few embrace fundamentalist beliefs (Ecklund, Park, and Veliz,
2008; Gross and Simmons, 2009), Studies show that about half of scientists
do not identify with a religious group, and an equal number attend religious
services less than once a year (Ecklund, Park, and Veliz, 2008), and both sectar-
ian Protestants and Catholics are underrepresented among academic scientists
and university professors (Ecklund and Scheitle, 2007; Gross and Simmons,
2009).
Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States 1137
In the contemporary United States, sectarian Protestant denominations
(such as the Southern Baptist Convention, Churches of Christ, and Assembly
of God) have been at the forefront of opposition to teaching about evolution in
public schools (Berkman, Pacheco, and Plutzer, 2008; Deckman, 2004; Eck-
berg and Nesterenko, 1985; Ellison and Musick, 1995; Lerner, 2000; Mazur,
2004, 2007; Miller, Scott, and Okamoto, 2006; Plutzer and Berkman, 2008;
Scott, 2004). Indeed, sectarian Christian opposition to teaching evolution
has even resulted in violence, including shootings and the firebombing of two
schools (Page and Clelland, 1978:269). Sectarian movements have successfully
influenced the content of school textbooks to remove or soft-pedal the teaching
of evolution (Berkman, Pacheco, and Plutzer, 2008; Lerner, 2000; Lienesch,
2007; Moore, 2001; Skoog, 2005). Nearly a third of Americans identify with
sectarian Protestant denominations (Sherkat, 2001), and resources from these
organizations and their sympathizers have been instrumental for establishing
religious alternatives to the teaching of evolution—fostering a vibrant industry
promoting “intelligent design” and “creation science” (Lerner, 2000; Lienesch,
2007; Pennock, 2001; Scott, 2004; Singham, 2009).
Religious opposition to evolution, stem cell research, climate change re-
search, and even the implication of plate tectonics raises questions about the
impact of religious movements on civic scientific literacy in the United States.
Sectarian Protestant and Catholic opposition to embryonic stem cell research
has led to both federal prohibitions for funding and research, and to additional
state-level prohibitions (National Council of State Legislatures, 2008; Reich-
hardt, Cyranoski, and Schiermeier, 2004). Climate sciences have also been
attacked by sectarian and fundamentalist Christians, and a push to amplify
the importance of addressing global warming led to the ouster of a senior staff
member of the National Association of Evangelicals (Banks, 2007; Pulliam,
2008). Indeed, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell sermonized about the “Myth
of Global Warming,” opining, “I am today raising a flag of opposition to this
alarmism about global warming, and urging all believers to refuse to be duped
by these ‘earth worshippers’” (Banks, 2007:2). Conservative Christians are
also notable for undervaluing knowledge about geological processes and pre-
senting unscientific views of seismic events. Conservative Catholic Louisiana
Governor Bobby Jindal lobbied against funding for volcano monitoring in
his rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union address in 2009 (Lite,
2009), and sectarian Protestant televangelist Pat Robertson argued that the
2010 Haitian earthquake was caused by a pact with Satan.
Overall, there is considerable reason to implicate religious factors as po-
tentially important sources of scientific illiteracy in the United States. Both
sectarian Protestants and Catholics have negative views of the findings from or
propriety of scientific research, and religiously motivated actors often publicly
contest the authority of scientific and educational institutions. Yet, public and
political opposition to specific scientific pedagogy or research programs does
not necessarily imply that religious devotees will be ignorant of basic scientific
facts or methods.
1138 Social Science Quarterly
Theorizing Religious Effects on Scientific Literacy
Religious influences on scientific literacy must work through social mecha-
nisms informing the acquisition and retention of scientific knowledge. Formal
education plays a strong role in the development of knowledge about science,
and in the United States religious resources and schemata influence educa-
tional attainment—sectarian Protestant ties and fundamentalist beliefs are
associated with negative educational outcomes, while Catholicism is often
found to have a positive effect (Darnell and Sherkat, 1997; Fitzgerald and
Glass, 2008; Glass and Jacobs, 2005; Keister, 2007; Lehrer, 1999, 2004a,
2004b; Massengill, 2008; Morgan and Sorensen, 1999; Sherkat and Darnell,
1999). Beyond educational attainment, the structure of social ties may play a
role in both the development and retention of scientific knowledge (Carley,
1986, 1991; Smith-Lovin and McPherson, 1993), and theories of network
ties and knowledge may help explain deficits among both sectarian Protestants
and Catholics (Sherkat, 2010).
Sectarian Christians in the United States have adopted a general posture of
distrust toward education, and their aversion goes beyond specific issues like
evolution (Darnell and Sherkat, 1997; Deckman, 2002, 2004; Peshkin, 1986;
Rose, 1988; Sherkat and Darnell, 1999; Sikkink, 1999). Sectarian Protestants
and biblical literalists are significantly less likely to take college preparatory
coursework in high school; avoiding not only basic science courses, but also
courses in social studies and literature that may question conservative Chris-
tian values about tolerance, social relations, sexuality and gender roles, and
cultural diversity (Darnell and Sherkat, 1997). Predictably, limited preparation
in science and other advanced fields leaves sectarian Protestants ill-prepared
for completing degrees in higher education, and research shows that sectarian
and fundamentalist Christians have significantly lower levels of educational
attainment even after controlling for their social backgrounds and in longitu-
dinal studies (Darnell and Sherkat, 1997; Fitzgerald and Glass, 2008; Glass
and Jacobs, 2005; Lehrer, 1999, 2004a, 2004b; Massengill, 2008). Given these
findings, educational attainment can be expected to explain much of the dif-
ference in scientific literacy between sectarian and fundamentalist Protestants
and other Americans.
In contrast, Catholic educational attainment matches that of most mainline
Protestant groups, particularly for nonimmigrant white Catholics (Glenn and
Hyland, 1967; Keister, 2007; Lehrer, 1999). Further, Catholic schools are
noted for having strong achievement outcomes on standardized tests and
admirable postsecondary attainment (Bryk, Lee, and Holland, 1995; Evans
and Schwab, 1995; Keister, 2007; Morgan and Sorensen, 1999). Still, Catholic
education tends to emphasize the humanities, arts, and language, and this
may play a role in Catholics’ aversion to scientific careers (Merton, 1963).
Additionally, private Catholic schools in the United States may lack the human
and physical resources to teach science at the same level as public and private
counterparts. This may be especially true for Catholic colleges, which tend
Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States 1139
to offer a smaller number of majors and are not able to support an extensive
array of science and engineering fields (Beaty, Lyon, and Mixon, 2004; Sherkat,
2007). Notably, since a large proportion of Catholics have attended Catholic
educational institutions (Keister, 2007), if Catholic deficits in scientificliteracy
are a function of resource inadequacy in Catholic educational institutions, this
should be evidenced by a negative interaction between Catholic affiliation and
educational attainment.
Broad networks of association also foster the learning and retention of scien-
tific knowledge. From a network perspective, there is an acknowledgment that
“networks and knowledge co-evolve, with the connections between individu-
als creating shared knowledge, which in turn shifts interaction propensities”
(Smith-Lovin and McPherson, 1993:231). Given this, individuals with a com-
mon knowledge base will tend to associate with one another and form stable
relationships (Carley, 1991; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, 2001), and
these relationships will impact group members’ cognitive structures (Carley,
1986). Both sectarian Protestants and Catholics are known to hold relatively
consolidated social ties across social arenas of work, residence, family, and
religion (Pescosolido and Georgiana, 1989; Sandomirsky and Wilson, 1990;
Sherkat and Wilson, 1995). Studies amplifying the importance of conservative
Christian congregational embeddedness demonstrate how this consolidation
of social ties leads to distrust of people outside of their social circles (Welch,
Sikkink, and Loveland, 2007; Simpson, 2006). Because sectarian and fun-
damentalist Christians also have lower levels of educational attainment, the
consolidation of social networks will lead to an intellectual deficit in their
social connections (Sherkat, 2010). Indeed, Morgan and Sorensen (1999)
show that indicators of overlapping parental social ties have a strong nega-
tive impact on mathematical proficiency. If Catholic education and Catholic
families promote study in nonscientific fields, then the consolidated social
networks of Catholics will also have deficits of scientific knowledge. Dimin-
ished intellectual capacity in social networks will hinder the ability to process
information from external sources, which organizational network studies have
found to limit knowledge transfer (Tsai, 2001). Further, the lack of trust in
other sources generated by consolidated social ties may diminish devotees’
motivations to consume information about science, even if they have access
to knowledge (Reinholt, Pedersen, and Foss, 2008; Sherkat, 2010).
In sum, there is considerable reason to suspect that Catholics, sectarians, and
fundamentalists will have diminished scientific literacy. Low levels of scientific
literacy may not be simply a function of low levels of educational attainment,
income disadvantages, ethnicity, or regional and residential segmentation in
the South and rural areas.
Data and Measures
Data for this study were taken from the 2006 General Social Survey,
a nationally representative random sample of the adult English-speaking
1140 Social Science Quarterly
population in the United States collected by the National Opinion Research
Center at the University of Chicago. The response rate for the 2006 survey
is 71 percent of targeted respondents. Of the 4,510 respondents in the 2006
GSS, a random sample of 1,863 was given the science exam. After list-wise
deletion of missing values on all the covariates in the study, there are 1,780
cases in the final multivariate analyses.
Scientific Literacy
The GSS employed a 13-question science examination covering: (1) under-
standing experimental control groups; (2, 3) two questions about probability
regarding disease in a brief vignette; (4) knowledge of the core temperature
of Earth; (5) understanding that radioactivity is not simply manmade; (6)
knowledge of male determination of sex in human reproduction; (7) under-
standing that lasers are light waves and not sound waves; (8) knowledge that
electrons are smaller than atoms; (9) understanding that the Earth revolves
around the sun and not the other way around; (10) that a revolution of the
earth going around the sun takes a year; (11) that the universe began with a
huge explosion; (12) that continents have drifted over time, and continue to
move; and (13) understanding that antibiotics do not kill viruses. A question
about evolution was eliminated, since the purpose is to see if religious factors
have a bearing on scientific understandings outside that controversial realm.
The scale approximates one developed by Miller (1998) for the measurement
of civic scientific literacy. A reviewer suggested that sectarians and funda-
mentalists might answer the “big bang” question correctly by interpreting it
through the lens of their distinctive faiths; however, that should minimize
rather than augment their differences from others. The scale has an alpha
reliability of 0.73, and no single item substantially influences the findings.
The scale approximates a normal distribution with a slight skew and a mean
of 8.4, a median and mode of 9, and a standard deviation of 2.8.
Religious Identification and Beliefs
Religious identifications are classified into five broad groups following
prior research on U.S. religion (Roof and McKinney, 1987; Sherkat, 2001):
(1) sectarian Protestant identifications (Baptists, Pentecostals, Churches of
Christ, Nazarenes, etc.); (2) other Protestants (mostly mainline groups such
as Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans); (3) Catholics;
(4) non-Christians (including Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, and other
faiths); and (5) no religious identification. Religious beliefs are gauged using a
question identifying whether respondents believe (1) “The Bible is the actual
word of God and should be taken literally, word for word”; (2) “The Bible is
the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally”;
Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States 1141
and (3) “The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral
precepts recorded by men.” The first answer to this question is commonly
used as an indicator of religious fundamentalism.
Control Variables
The multivariate analyses control for a host of demographic correlates,
including: age (in years), education (0–20 years), income (1 =under $1,000
to 25 =over $150,000); race (African American =1, others =0), Latin-
American ethnicity (yes =1, others =0), immigrant status (immigrant =1,
others =0), region (South =1, non-South =0), rural residence (rural =1,
others =0), and gender (female =1, male =0). Descriptive statistics and full
programs and data to replicate these analyses are available from the author on
request.
Results
Religious beliefs are significantly predictive of scores on the science exam,
as Figure 1 shows. On average, fundamentalist respondents who take the
Bible literally answered 54 percent of the questions correctly, while scores for
FIGURE 1
Percentage of Correct Answers on Science Examination By Religious Beliefs,
2006 GSS
54%
68%
75%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percentage Correct
Literal Word Inspired by God Book of Fables
R2=0.13
1142 Social Science Quarterly
FIGURE 2
Percentage of Correct Answers on Science Examination by Religious
Identification: 2006 General Social Survey
55%
65%
68% 68% 72%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Percentage Correct
Sectarian Protestant Catholic
Other Protestant Non-Christian
None
R2=0.07
respondents who believe that the Bible is a book of fables were 39 percent
higher (75 percent of the items answered correctly). The difference between
respondents with fundamentalist beliefs in the Bible and those who believe the
Bible is a book of fables is substantial and significant (t=14.2, p<0.001).
Fundamentalists also score significantly lower than people who think the
Bible is inspired by God (t=13.2, p<0.001), and believers in divine biblical
inspiration are significantly lower than respondents with secular beliefs (t=
6.10, p<0.001). Overall, religious beliefs explain 13 percent of the variation
in science scores (F2,1785 df =131, p<0.0005).
Religious identifications are also consequential for predicting scores on the
science examination, as Figure 2 presents. Respondents who identify with
conservative Protestant sects have significantly lower scores on the exam when
compared to other Protestants (t=9.6, p<0.001), non-Christians (t=
4.22, p<0.001), Catholics (t=6.3, p<0.001), or those with no religious
identification (t=10.1, p<0.001). Catholics also score significantly lower
than other Protestants (t=2.53, p<0.02), and those with no religious affili-
ation (t=4.39, p<0.001). The differences between religious identifications
account for 7 percent of the variation in science scores (F4,1783 df =33, p<
0.0005). Together, religious identifications and beliefs explain 15 percent of
the variation in scientific literacy (F6,1781df =53, p<0.0005).
To put these bivariate associations between religion and scientific apti-
tude into perspective, racial differences between whites, African Americans,
Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States 1143
TABLE 1
Adjusted Mean Percentage of Correct Answers on the Science Exam by Religious
Affiliation and Religious Belief, 2006 GSS∗
95% Confidence Interval % of
Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Sample
Religious Belief
Bible is literal word of God 60% 58% 61% 33
Bible is inspired word of God 66% 65% 68% 50
Bible is a book of fables 70% 69% 72% 17
R2=0.38
Religious Affiliation
Sectarian Protestant 61% 60% 63% 26
Catholic 63% 61% 65% 23
Other Protestant 67% 65% 68% 30
Non-Christian 64% 60% 68% 4
None 68% 66% 70% 17
R2=0.36
∗Controlling for age, education, income, race, Latin-American ethnicity, immigrant status,
southern residence, rural residence, and gender.
and persons of other races account for 9 percent of the variation in science
scores (F2,1785df =90, p<0.0005), and the difference between whites and
African Americans (68 percent vs. 51 percent) is not as large as the gap be-
tween fundamentalists and people who think the Bible is a book of fables
(75 percent vs. 54 percent). A linear regression with education accounts for
20 percent of the variance in science scores (F1,1786 df =438, p<0.0005),
while a bivariate regression with income explains 9 percent of the variance
(F1,1786 df =178, p<0.0005). The gender gap in the science scores is in
favor of men (70 percent vs. 61 percent), explaining 4 percent of the variance
(F1,1786 df =83, p<0.0005). Hence, religious factors are as important for pre-
dicting scientific proficiency as are many common sociological characteristics
such as race, education, income, and gender.
Table 1 presents multivariate mean estimates to ascertain whether religious
differences are primarily a function of educational attainment, income, eth-
nicity, region, and other factors that are associated with scientific literacy. The
least squares adjusted mean values show that even after controlling for these
factors, respondents with fundamentalist beliefs in the Bible score significantly
lower than respondents who believe the Bible is inspired by God (t=6.6, p<
0.001). Fundamentalists also score substantially lower than respondents who
think the Bible is a book of fables (t=7.9, p<0.001).
Controls for education and other demographic factors reduce the magni-
tude of the differences between sectarian Protestants and others; however, the
mostly mainline other Protestants (t=4.3, p<0.0001) and people with no
religious identification (t=5.0, p<0.001) have significantly higher scores
1144 Social Science Quarterly
TABLE 2
Ordinary Least Squares Regression Predicting Science Exam Scores, 2006 GSS
Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients Coefficients
B s.e. Beta B s.e. Beta
Age −0.033∗∗∗ 0.003 −0.200 −0.032∗∗∗ 0.003 −0.195
Female −0.957∗∗∗ 0.110 −0.166 −0.861∗∗∗ 0.110 −0.150
Black −1.550∗∗∗ 0.168 −0.200 −1.392∗∗∗ 0.167 −0.175
Latin
American
−0.929∗∗∗ 0.274 −0.072 −0.937∗∗∗ 0.269 −0.073
Immigrant −0.740∗∗∗∗ 0.157 −0.098 −0.715∗∗∗ 0.155 −0.094
Income 0.054∗∗∗ 0.012 0.098 0.048∗∗∗ 0.012 0.088
Education 0.314∗∗∗ 0.021 0.321 0.288∗∗∗ 0.021 0.294
Married 0.098 0.120 0.017 0.213 0.119 0.037
Rural −0.405∗∗ 0.150 −0.053 −0.395∗∗ 0.148 −0.052
Southern −0.324∗0.128 −0.052 −0.171 0.128 −0.028
Sectarian
Protestant
−0.712∗∗∗ 0.142 −0.109 −0.438∗∗ 0.145 −0.067
Catholic −0.500∗∗∗ 0.143 −0.073 −0.493∗∗∗ 0.143 −0.072
Bible is word
of God
−0.855∗∗∗ 0.134 −0.142
Bible is fables 0.421∗∗ 0.156 0.056
Intercept 6.152 0.373 6.526 0.377
R20.36 0.38
N1,780 1,780
∗p<0.05; ∗∗p<0.01; ∗∗∗ p<0.001, two-tailed ttest.
on the science examination when compared to sectarian Protestants even after
controls. Controlling for demographic factors lowers the estimated science
score for Catholics, leaving their scores not significantly different from sectar-
ian Protestants, and significantly lower than those of other Protestants (t=
3.5, p<0.001), and those with no religious affiliation (t=4.4, p<
0.001).
Table 2 presents coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regression
models predicting science scores. These models help discern whether scien-
tific deficits suffered by sectarian Protestants and Catholics are a function
of attraction to fundamentalist beliefs or aversion to secular views of reli-
gion. The first model controls for background demographics and for religious
identification. Other Protestants, respondents with no religious identification,
and non-Christians have virtually identical scores controlling for other factors,
and they serve as the comparison category. Sectarian Protestants and Catholics
have significantly lower exam scores than the comparison group, controlling
for other factors.
The second model in Table 2 controls for religious beliefs, comparing
fundamentalists and persons who hold secular views of the Bible to those who
Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States 1145
believe the Bible is inspired by God. After controls for beliefs, the negative
impact of sectarian identification declines but remains significant. Catholic
deficits on the science exam are not affected by controls for beliefs about the
Bible. Fundamentalists have significantly lower scores net of other factors, with
agapof−0.86 compared to respondents who believe the Bible is inspired by
God, and a deficit of more than a point when compared to people who believe
the Bible is a book of fables (−0.86 −0.41 =−1.27, t=7.1, p<0.001).
Respondents who believe the Bible is a book of fables also score significantly
higher than those who think the Bible is inspired by God, even after controls
for demographic characteristics.
The gap between sectarians and fundamentalists and other Americans is
quite substantial. Indeed, only education is a stronger predictor of scientific
proficiency than are religious factors. In the multivariate models, African
Americans score 1.35 points lower than whites on the science exam, which
is approximately the same as the gap between fundamentalists and people
who believe the Bible is a book of fables. The religion gap is larger than the
gender gap, which places women at a deficit of 0.85 when compared to men.
Controls for religious factors eliminate the significance of the negative impact
of southern residence on science scores, suggesting that regional differences
in scientific literacy are a function of the concentration of sectarians and
fundamentalists in the South. Deficits remain between rural Americans and
others, but the difference is not as large as the religious differences. Notably,
even after controls for the negative impact of immigrant status and Latin-
American ethnicity, Catholic differences from the mainline Protestant and
non-Christian comparison category are negative and significant.
I investigated a number of potential interaction effects, including interac-
tions between religious affiliation and southern residence, education, and rural
residence (results available on request). I found that none of these interactions
were significant, including the interactions between Catholic and sectarian
identifications and educational attainment. Hence, the religious effects are
not a function of the differential impact of education on scientific literacy, nor
are they simply a function of particular religious regional cultures.
Conclusions
Scientific literacy is low in the United States relative to other developed
nations (Baldi et al., 2008; Bybee, 2008; Bybee, McCrae, and Laurie, 2009;
Cromley, 2009), and this research suggests that religious factors play a sub-
stantial role in creating these deficits. This study adds to a growing body of
research demonstrating the importance of religious commitments for struc-
turing stratification outcomes, and pointing to the negative impact of sec-
tarian Christian commitments for life chances (Darnell and Sherkat, 1997;
Glass and Jacobs, 2005; Fitzgerald and Glass, 2008; Keister, 2003, 2007,
2008; Lehrer, 1999, 2004a, 2004b; Read and Oselin, 2008; Sherkat, 2010;
1146 Social Science Quarterly
Sherkat and Darnell, 1999; Massengill, 2008). In contrast to expectations of
structural sociological theories, which root educational, occupational, and
income deficits in material circumstances, this research shows that religious
factors have persistent negative effects on scientific literacy even after controls
for educational attainment, ethnicity, immigrant status, and income. Further,
the magnitude of the impact of religious factors on scientific literacy is sub-
stantial. Religion plays more of a role in structuring scientific literacy than
does gender, ethnicity, or income.
In an era when citizens are called on to evaluate scientific evidence for issues
like evolution, global warming, health-care policy, environmental pollution,
and the like, the low levels of scientific literacy in the United States are a
substantial barrier to reasoned discourse and informed political action. Al-
though conservative Christian activists claim that their conflict with science is
primarily related to theories of evolution or the propriety of stem cell research,
this research shows that the effect of sectarian religious identifications and
fundamentalist religious beliefs extends well beyond these two issues. Given
the low levels of scientific literacy prevalent among fundamentalist and sec-
tarian Christians, they may have difficulty understanding public issues related
to scientific inquiry or pedagogy, and they may have a limited capacity to
understand technical information regarding their own health and safety.
Catholic deficits in scientific literacy are less pronounced, and mostly arise
after controls for education. This suggests that while Catholics have achieved
considerable gains in educational attainment (Keister, 2007), their scientific
proficiency does not match their educational position. It is possible that
Catholic scientific disadvantages are a function of limited scientific offerings
in Catholic colleges and high schools. However, the lack of a significant inter-
action between educational attainment and Catholic identification suggests
that Catholics’ social networks may de-emphasize scientific knowledge, and
channel intellectual curiosity into other pursuits. Future investigations should
focus on the impact of Catholic and sectarian religious schools on scientific
literacy, and on the influence of the burgeoning “home-schooling” movement.
Longitudinal research will be crucial for identifying the mechanisms impair-
ing the scientific literacy of Catholics, sectarians, and fundamentalists. Future
research should also focus on the role of social networks for producing cultural
barriers to scientific understanding.
REFERENCES
Baldi, Stephani, Ying Jin, Melanie Skemer, Patricia J. Green, Deborah Herget, and Holly
Xie. 2008. Performance of U.S. 15 Year Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in
an International Context. NCES 2008-016. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Banks, Adelle. 2007. “Dobson, Others Seek Ouster of NAE Vice President.” Christianity Today
March.
Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States 1147
Beaty, Michael, Larry Lyon, and Stephanie Litizzette Mixon. 2004. “Secularization and Na-
tional Universities: The Effect of Religious Identity on Academic Reputation.” JournalofHigher
Education 75:400–19.
Berkman, Michael B., Julianna Sandell Pacheco, and Eric Plutzer. 2008. “Evolution and
Creationism in America’s Classrooms: A National Portrait.” PLoS Biology 6:920–24.
Bryk, Anthony S., Valerie E. Lee, and Peter B. Holland. 1995. Catholic Schools and the Common
Good. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bybee, Rodger. 2008. “Scientific Literacy, Environmental Issues, and PISA 2006.” Journal of
Science Education and Technology 17:566–85.
Bybee, Rodger, Barry McCrae, and Robert Laurie. 2009. “PISA 2006: An Assessment of
Scientific Literacy.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46:865–83.
Carley, Kathleen M. 1986. “An Approach to Relating Social Structure to Cognitive Structure.”
Journal of Mathematical Sociology 12:137–89.
———. 1991. “A Theory of Group Stability.” American Sociological Review 56:331–54.
Cromley, Jennifer G. 2009. “Reading Achievement and Science Proficiency: International
Comparisons from the Programme on International Student Assessment.” Reading Psychology
30:89–118.
Darnell, Alfred, and Darren E. Sherkat. 1997. “The Impact of Protestant Fundamentalism on
Educational Attainment.” American Sociological Review 62:306–16.
Deckman, Melissa M. 2002. “Holy ABCs! The Impact of Religion on Attitudes About Edu-
cation Policies.” Social Science Quarterly 83:472–87.
———. 2004. School Board Battles: The Christian Right in Local Politics. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. “Cognition and Culture.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:263–87.
Drori, Gili S. 2003. Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Jerry Z. Park. 2009. “Predicting Conflict Between Religion and
Science Among Academic Scientists.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48:276–92.
Ecklund, Elaine Howard, Jerry Z. Park, and Phil Todd Veliz. 2008. “Secularization and Reli-
gious Change Among Elite Scientists: A Cross-Cohort Comparison.” Social Forces 86:1805–40.
Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Christopher Scheitle. 2007. “Religion Among Academic Scien-
tists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics.” Social Problems 54:289–307.
Ellison, Christopher G., and Marc Musick. 1995. “Conservative Protestantism and Public
Opinion Toward Science.” Review of Religious Research 36:245–62.
Evans, William N., and Robert M. Schwab. 1995. “FinishingHigh School and Starting College:
Do Catholic Schools Make a Difference.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110:941–74.
Faia, Michael A. 1976. “Secularization and Scholarship Among American Professors.” Socio-
logical Analysis 37:63–73.
Fitzgerald, Scott T., and Jennifer Glass. 2008. “Can Early Family Formation Explain the
Lower Educational Attainment of U.S. Conservative Protestants?” Sociological Spectrum
28:556–77.
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-
Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological
Review 48:781–95.
1148 Social Science Quarterly
Gieryn, Thomas F., George M. Bevins, and Steven C. Zehr. 1985. “Professionalization of
American Scientists: Public Science in the Creation/Evolution Trials.” American Sociological
Review 50:392–409.
Glass, Jennifer, and Jerry Jacobs. 2005. “Childhood Religious Conservatism and Adult Attain-
ment Among Black and White Women.” Social Forces 84:555–79.
Glenn, Norval D., and Ruth Hyland. 1967. “Religious Preference and Worldly Success: Some
Evidence from National Surveys.” American Sociological Review 32:73–85.
Gross, Neil, and Solon Simmons. 2007. How Religious Are America’s College and University
Professors? New York: Social Science Research Council.
———. 2009. “The Religiosity of American College and University Professors.” Sociology of
Religion 70:101–29.
Keister, Lisa A. 2003. “Religion and Wealth: The Role of Religious Affiliation and Participation
in Early Adult Asset Attainment.” Social Forces 82:175–207.
———. 2007. “Upward Wealth Mobility: Exploring the Catholic Advantage.” Social Forces
85:1195–1226.
———. 2008. “Conservative Protestants and Wealth: How Religion Perpetuates Asset Accu-
mulation Processes.” American Journal of Sociology 113:1237–71.
Larson, Edward J., and Larry Witham. 1998. “Leading Scientists Still Reject God.” Nature
394:313.
Lehman, Edward C. Jr., and Donald W. Shriver, Jr. 1968. “Academic Discipline as Predictive
of Faculty Religiosity.” Social Forces 47:171–82.
Lehrer, Evelyn. 1999. “Religion as a Determinant of Educational Attainment: An Economic
Perspective.” Social Science Research 28:358–79.
———. 2004a. “Religion as a Determinant of Economic and Demographic Behavior in the
United States.” Population and Development Review 30:707–26.
———. 2004b. “Religiosity as a Determinant of Educational Attainment: The Case of Conser-
vative Protestant Women in the United States.” Review of Economics of the Household 2:203–19.
Lemert, Charles. 1979. “Science, Religion and Secularization.” Sociological Quarterly 20:445–
61.
Lerner, Lawrence S. 2000. “Good and Bad Science in US Schools.” Nature 407:287–90.
Leuba, James H. 1916. The Belief in God and Immortality.Boston,MA:Sherman,French.
Lienesch, Michael. 2007. In the Beginning: Fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, and the Making
of the Antievolution Movement. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Lite, Jordan. 2009. “Bobby Jindal and Volcano Monitoring: What Was He Talk-
ing About?” Scientific American. Available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-
second-science/post.cfm?id=bobby-jindal-and-volcano-monitoring-2009-02-25.
Massengill, Rebekah Peeples. 2008. “Educational Attainment and Cohort Change Among
Conservative Protestants, 1972–2004.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47:545–62.
Mazur, Allan. 2004. “Believers and Disbelievers in Evolution.” Politics and the Life Sciences
23:55–61.
———. 2007. “Disbelievers in Evolution.” Science 315:187.
McPherson, J. Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. “Birds of a Feather:
Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–44.
Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States 1149
Merton, Robert. K. 1963. Social Theory and Social Structure.Glencoe,IL:FreePress.
Miller, Jon D. 1998. “The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy.” Public Understanding of
Science 7:203–23.
Miller, Jon D., Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto.2006. “Public Acceptance of Evolution.”
Science 313:765–66.
Moore, Randy. 2001. “The Lingering Impact of the Scopes Trial on High School Biology
Textbooks.” BioScience 51:790–96.
Morgan, Stephen L., and Aage B. Sorensen. 1999. “A Test of Coleman’s Social Capital Expla-
nation of School Effects.” American Sociological Review 64:661–81.
National Council of State Legislatures, 2008. Embryonic and Fetal Research Laws. Available
at http://www.ncsl.org/issuesresearch/health/embryonicandfetalresearchlaws/tabid/14413/
default.aspx.
Page, Ann, and Donald Clelland. 1978. “The Kanawha County Textbook Controversy: A
Study in Alienation and Lifestyle Concern.” Social Forces 57:265–81.
Pennock, R. T. 2001. Intelligent Design, Creationism, and its Critics. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Pescosolido, Bernice A., and Sharon Georgiana. 1989. “Durkheim, Suicide, and Religion:
Toward a Network Theory of Suicide.” American Sociological Review 54:33–48.
Peshkin, Alan. 1986. God’s Choice: The Total World of a Fundamentalist School.Chicago,IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Plutzer, Eric, and Michael Berkman. 2008. “Evolution, Creationism, and the Teaching of
Human Origins in Schools.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72:540–53.
Pulliam, Sarah. 2008. “Richard Cizik Resigns from the National Association of Evangelicals.”
Christianity Today December.
Read, Jen’nan Ghazal, and Sharon Oselin. 2008. “Gender and the Education-Employment
Paradox in Ethnic and Religious Contexts: The Case of Arab Americans.” American Sociological
Review 73:296–313.
Reinholt, Mia, Torben Pedersen, and Nicolai Foss. 2008. Why an Attractive Network Isn’t
Enough: The Role of Motivation in Realizing Benefits from Knowledge Access. Center for Strategic
Management and Globalization Working Paper. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
Reischardt, Tony, David Cyranoski, and Quirin Schiermeier. 2004. “Religion and Science:
Studies in Faith.” Nature 432:666–69.
Roof, Wade Clark, and William C. McKinney. 1987. American Mainline Religion: Its Changing
Shape and Future. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Rose, Susan D. 1988. Keeping Them Out of the Hands of Satan: Evangelical Schooling in America.
New York: Routledge, Chapman, Hall.
Rutherford, Floyd James, and Andrew Ahlgren. 2000. Science for All Americans.Oxford:Oxford
University Press.
Sandomirsky, Sharon, and John Wilson. 1990. “Processes of Disaffiliation: Religious Mobility
Among Men and Women.” Social Forces 68(4):1211–29.
Scott, Eugenia C. 2004. Evolution vs. Creationism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Sewell, William H. Jr. 1992. “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.”
American Journal of Sociology 98:1–29.
1150 Social Science Quarterly
Sherkat, Darren E. 1998. “Counterculture or Continuity? Examining Competing Influences
on Baby Boomers’ Religious Orientations and Participation.” Social Forces 76:1087–1114.
———. 2001. “Tracking the Restructuring of American Religion: Religious Affiliation and
Patterns of Mobility, 1973–1998.” Social Forces 79:1459–92.
———. 2007. Religion and Higher Education: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.NewYork:
Social Science Research Council.
———. 2010. “Religion and Verbal Ability.” Social Science Research 39:2–13.
Sherkat, Darren E., and Alfred Darnell. 1999. “The Effect of Parents’ Fundamentalism on
Children’s Educational Attainment: Examining Differences by Gender and Children’s Funda-
mentalism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38:23–35.
Sherkat, Darren E., and Christopher G. Ellison. 1997. “The Cognitive Structure of a Moral
Crusade: Conservative Protestantism and Opposition to Pornography.” Social Forces 75:957–
82.
———. 2007. “Structuring the Religion-Environment Connection.” Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 46(1):71–86.
Sherkat, Darren E., and John Wilson. 1995. “Preferences, Constraints, and Choices in Religious
Markets: An Examination of Religious Switching and Apostasy.” Social Forces 73:993–1026.
Sikkink, David. 1999. “The Social Sources of Alienation from the Public Schools.”Social Forces
78:51–86.
Simpson, Brent. 2006. “The Poverty of Trust in the Southern United States.” Social Forces
84:1625–38.
Singham, Mano. 2009. God vs. Darwin: The War Between Evolution and Creationism in the
Classroom. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.
Skoog, Gerald. 2005. “The Coverage of Human Evolution in High School Biology Textbooks
in the 20th Century and in Current State Science Standards.” Science and Education 14:395–
422.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and J. Miller McPherson. 1993. “You Are Who You Know: A Network
Approach to Gender.” Pp. 223–51 in Paula England, ed., Theory on Gender/Feminism on
Theory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge. 10985. The Future of Religion: Secularization,
Revival, and Cult Formation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
———. 1987. A Theory of Religion. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Stark, Rodney, and Roger Finke. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Tsai, Wenpin. 2001. “Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network
Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance.” Academy of
Management Journal 44:996–1004.
Walberg, Herbert J. 1991. “Improving School Science in Advanced and Developing Countries.”
Review of Educational Research 61:25–69.
Weber, Max. [1904–1905] 1998. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.LosAngeles,
CA: Roxbury.
Welch, Michael R., David Sikkink, and Matthew T. Loveland. 2007. “The Radius of Trust:
Religion, Social Embeddedness and Trust in Strangers.” Social Forces 86:23–46.
