Whatever you posit about why students reject evolutionary theory, the use of
the concept of "cognitive dissonance" is somewhat off mark. The term does,
indeed, originate with Leon Festinger but it means soemthing more precise
than "inconsistency" which is what you really mean to designate. Cognitive
dissonance theory, at least as regards attitudes, focusses upon
"counter-attitudinal advocacy undertaken for high or low incentives (i.e.
promised rewards). The apparently paradocxical prediction is that whover
areues against his own convictions for minimally rewarding enticement is
more likely to shift his attitude in the formerly inauthentic direction than
the one who does the same for more rewarding enticement. There are terrible
limits to the applicability of this model (cf. my article When Dissonance
Fails in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology way back in 1965 or
thereabouts).
So, back to the more basic an non-musical term "inconsistency" which
designates any and all cognitive encounters with mutually opposed
propositions or percepts.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mann [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance


Subject:      Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance

The heavily qualified Stephen Sacks wrote:
>
>Some of you may have observed that after teaching evolution and testing
>students' knowledge of it, some of the A and B students comment that
>although they understand Darwin's concepts, they nevertheless do not
believe
>it.  Surely some of the students had religious training and come from
>religious families, but many of the students are secular with non religious
>peers and culture.
>
>One explanation is, since the students demonstrated they learned the
>concepts, cognitive dissonance occurred (Leon Fessinger). The students
>reject evolution as a way of reducing the dissonance as opposed to
embracing
>evolutionary thought to reduce the dissonance.
>
>Another explanation is, students reject attempts to get them to personally
>accommodate to Darwin thought now matter how well they understand the
>concepts.
>
>Another explanation is the students are bright and they have attempted to
>intellectually falsify the thesis, and they wind up rejecting it because of
>its weaknesses and not being airtight.
>
>Just how far do you think teaching should go to encourage personal
>accommodation and adaptation to evolutionary thought? If faculty encourage
>to students to use what they learn, is not social construction being
>introduced in science teaching?
>
>Your thoughts on any of the above will be appreciated. If there is enough
>interest and new analysis, we may want to publish an article about it.
>

        I don't doubt that all these influences operate.
        In NZ universities, teachers report considerable numbers of
students turning away from biology because it is taught with evolution
suitably woven in, whereas the students' parents are 'creationists'.  This
is a very unfortunate malign influence on education.
        But I like to think some students perceive, if only vaguely, that
neoDarwinism is one of the biggest intellectual con-tricks of all time.
This has been shown by N D Broom in his book 'How Blind Is The Watchmaker?'
(Ashgate 1998) and shortly before in The Ecologist.

R

-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878   Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949