Creating creationists: The influence of ‘issues framing’ on our understanding of public perceptions of clash narratives between evolutionary science and belief

Introduction

Scholarly and public discourse about the relationship between evolutionary science and religion is an area that receives considerable media attention. In recent decades in the United Kingdom, prominent communicators of evolutionary science, for example, Richard Dawkins, have linked evolutionary theory to actively anti-religious stances. This further contributes to public representations of a necessary clash between evolutionary science or ‘Darwinism’ and individual’s personal beliefs. This subject is a recurring theme within UK media. Recent examples include negative coverage of a National Trust exhibition at the Giant’s Causeway in October 2012 and reports of ‘Islamic creationist’ opposition to public events on evolution and Islam at London universities in December 2012. ¹ There also appears to be growing political and public concerns over ‘Islamic creationism’. For example, in August 2014, in the wake of public concerns over the teaching of ‘hardline Islamic fundamentalism’ in British Schools, the incoming UK Education Secretary UK Nicky Morgan (in pronouncements concerning state funding and the teaching of ‘British Values’ in pre-school education) has linked the teaching of creationism to the promotion of ‘extremist views’ in nurseries, ² with state funding to be withdrawn from those who teach toddlers ‘creationism’ as ‘scientific fact’ ³ − although critics argue there is inadequate evidence that this is happening. ⁴

Given the predominant representation of debates surrounding evolution and faith in the public sphere, one would be forgiven for assuming that there is a public consensus that acceptance of evolutionary theory is an incompatible worldview with acceptance of a deity. However, despite the evident media interest in this purported clash, there has been little effective in-depth, comprehensive or comparative research undertaken outside of the United States that explores public perceptions of the evolution and religion debate or even of evolutionary science.

In this article, I discuss the issue framing of polling of public opinion regarding levels of anti-evolutionism outside of the United States. I will use four polls as exemplars of a wider philosophical concern over markedly ‘atheistic’ stances employed in issue framing in public opinion polls, and by extension the framing within media and scholarly representation of a clash narrative between ‘religion’ and ‘evolution’. This theoretical paper is an appeal not only to undertake more comprehensive international research in this area, but also to develop research that more effectively incorporates publics lived experience of the relationship between evolutionary science and belief in any form of a ‘creator’.

Given the contentious nature of this debate, it is important to clarify my position within this discourse and my own research. For purposes of transparency, I would class myself as a lifelong atheistic evolutionist (AE). From June 2008, I worked as the head of the British Council’s Darwin Now project, which ran in 50 countries worldwide, as part of the Darwin anniversary celebrations. While developing such a large-scale science communication project, it quickly became apparent there was a significant gap in the necessary research data available on international public perceptions of evolutionary theory. Primarily, the concerns I highlight here are borne out of my own journey from a rather parochial UK-centric ‘secularist’ historian and philosopher of evolutionary science, to running science communication and scholarly activities across a diverse range of audiences − including directing the first ever large-scale international conference on Darwinian evolution in North Africa. Through this process, I began to develop a stronger understanding of public space discourse, lived experience and identity politics surrounding evolutionary science and religion in an international and geopolitical context, which now frames my ongoing research. I was given the opportunity to spend time in a number of predominantly Muslim countries discussing evolutionary science, and increasingly I noticed a worrying trend towards ‘Orientalist’ (Said, 1978) or ‘clash of civilizations’ (Huntingdon, 1993) approaches towards ‘Islamic creationism’ within ‘Western’ scholarly, public space and media discourse. Public debates surrounding evolution and ‘New Atheism’ were increasingly linked into the wider monolithic representation of Muslims evident in the United Kingdom and beyond in the post-9/11 and post-7/7 era. This reframing of my own worldview coupled with my experience of the diversity and complexity of on-the-ground perceptions of evolution led me to question and analyse the framing and scope of research in this area. My primary concern was that by situating the mainstream understanding of ‘creationism’ within a distinctly ‘Western’ and ‘secularist’ worldview, we (as ‘Western’ academics, policy researchers and science communicators) were in danger of inflating the level of anti-evolutionism, not only in terms of our scholarly understanding, but also in real terms by presenting an overly simplistic binary choice − either you accept evolutionary science or a creator God. Were we, in the words of Ian Hacking, ‘making people up’ in such a way that it reinforced the categories we were imposing on individuals and groups? (Hacking, 2007) In order to reassess what we mean by ‘creationism’ and therefore truly gauge ‘anti-evolutionary’ perspectives within the public domain, we need to take believers’ lived experience of evolutionary theory in relation to their own beliefs seriously. If we recognize the ideological underpinning of anti-evolutionary or ‘creationist’ stances in the United States relating to opposition to ‘secular humanism’ (Toumey, 1994), then we conversely need to critically recognize the ‘atheistic’, ‘secularist’ or anti-religious ideological positions within aspects of the academic and media discourse in this field and in the wider study of religion (Smith et al., 2013).

What I needed to understand from a project directorship, science communication and cultural relations perspective was how anti-evolutionary discourse related to real peoples’ day-to-day lived experience. In other words, how did these discourses impact upon public engagement with the topic of evolution in educational settings as well as in exhibitions and/or scholarly or public events across a wide range of cultural contexts? The answer was we didn’t really know. Five years later, we still don’t.

As is highlighted by Blancke et al. (2013) outside of the United States within the European context, there has been little comparative research undertaken to gauge the nature or distribution of creationist beliefs. Existing empirical data do not provide a clear picture of public perceptions of a potential clash between ‘evolution’ and ‘religion’, or the societal and cultural drivers of these narratives. There is insufficient research to build a comprehensive understanding of whether this clash narrative reflects the lived experience of ‘publics’, be they religious or non-religious. Even less research has been undertaken outside of the European context. ⁵

It is important to note that the stark divisions promoted at both ends of the ‘evolution versus religion’ debate are not necessarily as representative of public opinion or individual’s lived experience as one might think. There is a distinct paucity of evidence to support the media notion of a systematic or necessary clash in the public mindset between ‘evolution’ and ‘religion’. However, this clash narrative approach is not something that can be blamed solely on the perennial bad guys, the ‘media’. Indeed, it is worth exploring further whether the media framing in conjunction with, or as result of, the issue framing in recent polls might actually be creating a distorted or exaggerated picture of a battle between worldviews. To expand on this point, I review here the issue framing in four polls, conducted over the past 8 years, regarding public perceptions of whether there is a necessary a clash between evolutionary science and believing in a deity. The four polls are as follows:

The first two focus on the United Kingdom. These provide a case study in the binary framing of questions, highlighting some of the ambiguity and complexity of public perceptions of the relationship between evolutionary science and personal faith. The third poll, undertaken in 10 countries worldwide, is the one I was involved in commissioning. The fourth focuses specifically on Muslim majority contexts. I have selected these polls specifically because they were in part, if not wholly, designed to be used within media campaigns. A fundamental issue arising out of analysis of the issue framing within these polls is that it quickly becomes evident that there is a cultural skew in the questioning that reflects the culturally ‘Christian’ or ‘secular’ context of the polling bodies. By this, I mean that the type of creationism or anti-evolutionism being canvassed for is borne of a ‘Western’ context and may not reflect attitudes towards evolutionary science outside of a predominantly Christian context. Most provocatively, I ask whether we in the research or science communication community are creating ‘creationists’ in the way we frame data collection and its subsequent dissemination.

A number of problematic assumptions are made. For example, it is often assumed that to be ‘anti-evolution’ is to be ‘anti-science’. However, the rejection of evolutionary theory can be a decision, which is not made based upon understanding or level of scientific knowledge, but more by framing the evolution versus religion debate as one which sees evolutionary theory as equally outside of the remit of ‘science’ as religion (Hildering et al., 2012). Therefore, this is viewed as an ideological debate not a scientific debate. Hameed (2008) further highlights in his review of research into Muslim’s perceptions of evolution in Pakistan, Turkey and Morocco, that while some respondents may feel there is an issue arising from the perception of ‘human evolution’ as being atheistic, no respondents extended this to an outright ‘anti-science’ stance. Locke (1999) observes ‘creation scientists, in general do not present themselves as rejecting science only evolution’ (p. 17). Locke (1999) goes on to highlight that treating rejection of evolution as tantamount to a wholesale rejection of a ‘monolithic’ model of science in surveys exploring the public understanding of science could potentially mask a more nuanced public understanding of the nature of ‘science’ arguing such surveys ‘… may tell us something about the public understanding of science, but perhaps what they mainly tell us about is the researchers’ own boundary work’ (p. 18). As Evans and Evans (2008) argue, we also need to recognize that the traditional assumption that ‘clash narratives’ between religion and science are based on epistemological conflicts and can simply be boiled down to an incompatibility of ‘truth claims’ has potentially hindered building a more comprehensive understanding of the reality of this relationship. Conversely, we need to be aware when framing our research questions that we cannot assume that the perceived clash between individual belief or faith perspective and acceptance of evolutionary theory can be neatly packaged as scientific knowledge deficit. It may actually be that previous attempts to ‘enlighten’ people of faith who reject evolutionary theory have inadvertently fuelled the perception that there is a necessary clash. Furthermore, adherence to a necessary epistemological clash in the way we frame ‘creationism’ has potentially constrained our ability to build a comprehensive picture of the lived experience of evolutionary scepticism, the processes of ‘othering’ of non-atheistic positions and the complexity of self-identification of individuals as creationists.

An underpinning assumption of this article is that it is philosophically plausible to accept methodological naturalism with regard to evolutionary science and still believe in a God, deity or other spiritual force (theistic or deistic evolutionism). I therefore use the term ‘creationism’ to represent specifically anti-evolutionary science stances. Several different authors have tried to outline differing scales and categories of evolution and creationism that encompass the wide range of versions of creationism (see Arthur, 2013; Scott, 2009). This kind of categorization is highly contested as these categories are not necessarily discrete nor definitive and do not entirely capture the range of possible perspectives or reflect the lived experience of individual’s understanding of the relationship between their own spiritual or religious belief and evolutionary science. One less well-articulated viewpoint in relation to this spectrum of worldviews is concepts of human exclusionism − I will expand on this throughout my examination of the polls and in the final discussion.

Horizon War Against Science poll

This poll was undertaken for the BBC documentary series Horizon. It is worth noting the title of the programme: Horizon: A War on Science. It is apparent that the programme makers approached their poll with certain expectations. Ipsos Mori conducted it between 5 and 10 January 2006; the programme was transmitted on 26 January 2006. ⁶ The BBC press release states,

Participants in the survey were read three statements and asked which best described their view of the origin and development of life. The statements were:

The first problem with this categorization is the glossing over of the difference between the ‘origin of species’ and the ‘origin of life’. The origin of species is about how species have emerged over geological time. The ‘origin of life’ is how life started in the first place. The ‘origin of species’ is essentially the province of Darwinian evolutionary theory, while the ‘origin of life’ is not. That is not to say that there are no cogent scientific theories about the origin of life, but when it comes to gauging public opinion about evolutionary theory, this distinction can make all the difference. Many people of faith happily accept that all species including humans have evolved entirely by natural selection and believe that a God of ‘first cause’ started this process. This accommodationist approach tends to be categorized as ‘theistic’ or ‘deistic’ evolutionism. However, the questions in the poll do not clearly allow for this view and adhere to a binary ‘either/or’ position. Some people of faith when presented with this question in a poll may find it extremely difficult to choose the first option, as it states that God had no part in the process that led to the origin and development of life. Yet, the other two options force them to either choose creationism or intelligent design (ID), or to simply state ‘I don’t know’.

The results reflect this ambiguity in the way the questions are designed. As the BBC reported,

Of those surveyed, 48% said evolution theory most closely describes their view; 22% chose creationism; and 17% chose intelligent design. 39% then purportedly taking an anti-evolution stance.

A further 12% said they did not know. This brings the total percentage of those not choosing evolution to 51%.

When asked if the theories should be taught in school science classes, 69% agreed that evolution should be taught; 44% that creationism should be taught; and 41% that they believed intelligent design should be included on the science curriculum. (Quoted in Elsdon-Baker, 2009: 163–164)

Further to this, the BBC news website’s analysis of this survey stated that

Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons. (Quoted in Elsdon-Baker, 2009: 165)

These seem contradictory. If only 48% of the people surveyed accepted the theory of evolution, why did 69% think it should be taught in schools? Even allowing for the ‘don’t knows’ to be added to those who choose to accept evolutionary theory − that’s still only 60% of those surveyed. And if, as is suggested, 39% of those surveyed rejected evolutionary theory, why would nearly a quarter of them choose to have evolution taught in school science lessons?

We could explain this by assuming that a quarter of these ‘creationists’ may accept the teaching of evolution, providing creationism or ID is taught alongside it as a rival scientific theory (Williams, 2008). Thus, adopting a similar stance to the US creationist arguments to allow ‘equal time’ in the classroom. However, it is also possible that some of this ambiguity could be explained as an artefact of the categorization within this poll.

In contrast, as a later discussion of the Darwin Now poll highlights, only 15.8% of those polled in the United Kingdom selected the anti-evolutionary ‘creationist’ option (see Figure 1). The results of the Darwin Now poll also indicated a more complex picture surrounding evolution, ID and creationism in the classroom in the United Kingdom. We asked: which, if any, of the following statements comes closest to your own opinion about how evolutionary theory should be taught in science lessons in schools?

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Listed below are a range of different views, which people may or may not have about the origins of species and development of life on earth. Which of these comes closest to your own view?

Only the UK results are shown above. The large response to option 2 above surprised us, given the relatively low level of respondents choosing the ‘creationist’ option in earlier questions. When you break down the respondents who selected option 2, it turns out that actually 55% of those who selected this option had selected the AE option in earlier questions (58% of AE respondents chose this option, 31% chose option 1, 4% chose option 3 and 2% chose option 4). Conversely, of those who we categorized as adopting a ‘creationist stance’, the response was: option 1 − 16%, option 2 − 46%, option 3 − 10% and option 4 − 9%. It is clear that adopting a ‘creationist’ stance is not the primary driver in this instance for wanting ‘equal time’ in the classroom and a proportion of those we had classified as ‘creationist’ wanted only evolution to be taught.

The BBC said that their poll ‘represents our first introduction to the British public’s views on this issue’ (quoted in Elsdon-Baker, 2009: 166). However, the design of the questions means that this poll is less than representative as the issue is framed as a divisive clash narrative.

British Council Darwin Now poll

The UK ‘AE’ driver to the ‘evolution versus faith’ clash narrative was also identified in a poll commissioned in 2009 as part of the British Council Darwin Now project.

The poll was undertaken in multiple languages by Ipsos Mori in 10 countries around the globe: the United Kingdom, USA, Mexico, Argentina, Spain, China, Russia, India, Egypt and South Africa. It was conducted through April and May 2009 and was undertaken as a face-to-face poll in six countries and via the telephone in Mexico, Argentina, China and the USA.

There were 10 questions in total, but I will focus on the results from three. Those that focus on the respondents’ personal views about the origins of species including humans (Figure 1), the level of public awareness of Darwinian evolution (Figure 2) and whether it is possible to believe in a God and still hold the view that life on Earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection (Figures 3 and 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Which, if any, of the following statements best describes how well you understand the term ‘evolution’?

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that it is possible to believe in a God and still hold the view that life on earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection?

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Views on origin of species of those who disagree/strongly disagree with the statement that it is possible to believe in a God and still hold the view that life on Earth, including human life, evolved over time as a result of natural selection.

Figure 1 shows there are clearly a broad range of perspectives, and the results suggest that views do not fall into discreet polar opposites. Although still far from ideal, we sought to provide a more fine-grained approach to the categories available in the Horizon poll − offering options that moved beyond binary either/or positions. When selecting the options for respondents, we attempted to make the distinction between AEs (option 3) and ‘Theistic’ or ‘Deistic’ evolutionists (option 2), thus avoiding those of faith who accept evolutionary theory being categorized automatically as ‘creationists’ (option 1). It was expected ID approaches to be captured in the ‘creationist’ response as the theistic/deistic evolutionary response specifies that life on earth including humans have evolved over time. Conducting this poll was a lesson in translation issues and in conducting polls across such a broad set of cultural contexts − different words such as ancestor or evolution have very varied meanings across cultures. We wanted to add in an ID category; however, as this was an international poll and ID is best known in the United States, it was felt that it would confuse respondents and skew the results. However, the phrasing of the responses is still problematic, as some ID responses could also be captured under the theistic/deistic option. There could also clearly be some blurring between option 2 and option 3 if respondents had thought option 3 was implying a form of methodological naturalism, but not a form of philosophical naturalism. Further to this, the poll refers to a ‘God’ and does not capture the range of religious or spiritual beliefs in the countries polled.

Interestingly, Egypt had the highest number of respondents who selected the ‘theistic/deistic’ (50.2%) or the ‘creationist’ (33%) option − totalling 83.2%. Egypt is closely followed by India, 74.9%, and the USA, 74.5%. The key difference within the respondents in Egypt is that the number of those polled who had never heard of the term evolution was the highest of all countries polled: 62% − compared with only 5.2% in the USA (see Figure 2). Egypt also had the lowest overall understanding of the term ‘evolution’ − just 26% of those polled. This may be in part be related to the problems of translating the term ‘evolution’ within this context.

This suggests that responses in Egypt are actually based more on positions relating to personal faith perspectives than to debates around the scientific theory. It is also important to note that the most common position held is one that does not sit within the more ‘Western’ young earth creationist model. While there are constraints in the way we can analyse these results, given the range of cultural contexts, and the limitations of phrasing questions, this poll still offers a useful insight into international public opinion on whether there is a necessary clash between evolutionary science and belief in a God.

Figure 3 shows that in all 10 countries polled, more people agree than disagree that it is possible to believe in both the existence of a God and accept evolution occurs through a process of natural selection. The key overall message is that the majority of people (55% worldwide) felt that it was possible to believe in God and think that evolution occurs through a process of natural selection. Only 19.5% of those polled worldwide felt there was a clash between evolutionary worldviews and belief in a ‘God’. If we break down the results for those who uphold a clash narrative, it provides some insight into why people may reject a stance that allows for accommodation of both faith perspectives and acceptance of evolutionary science.

In the United Kingdom, only 18.8% felt it was not possible to believe in God and think that evolution occurs through a process of natural selection. Of this group, only 23.6% were classed as upholding ‘creationist’ beliefs, while 53.9% were classed as upholding an ‘atheistic’ perspective on evolution. This challenges any assumption that it is predominantly ‘creationists’ who feel there is an incompatibility between belief in a God and the acceptance of evolutionary science. That atheistic respondents felt more strongly about the division between faith and science is perhaps unsurprising in the context of the United Kingdom, where a ‘new atheist’ stance has been quite prevalent in the communication of evolutionary science. However, as Figure 4 shows, it is not just in the United Kingdom that this clash narrative is more likely to be upheld by ‘atheistic’ respondents − this is also the case in China, Spain, Argentina, Mexico and Russia.

The geographical spread of the ‘atheistic’ support for a clash narrative deserves further attention. It is possible that these results reflect that the public perception is related not only to recent ‘new atheist’ style accounts of evolution, but may also have links to the historical communication of ‘Darwinism’ within differing cultural contexts.

In Egypt, it was those who ascribed to a theistic evolution account (61.1% of those responding negatively) that felt there was a clash. This could be in part due to the questions including humans; this corresponds with other research suggesting that the principal concern within certain predominately Muslim countries may actually be related to the exclusion of humans from aspects of macro-evolution and that there may be less of an issue with micro-evolutionary processes for humans, or concerns with geological time and the evolution of all other species (Hameed, 2014).

The United States has the largest number of ‘creationists’ who support the ‘clash narrative’. This highlights that there is clearly a specific and unique USA political and cultural context we need to be aware of when studying public perception of evolution or models of creationism, which should not be generalized across cultural contexts.

While this kind of poll can only ever be indicative, it does seem to suggest that public perceptions surrounding evolution and faith are less polarized than expected. It appears that it is not always as is often portrayed; as a body of ‘anti-scientific’ creationists who are responsible for the clash narrative between evolutionary science and faith to which beleaguered atheists are responding or retaliating against. Rather, it is driven by two ideological stances − a form of ‘materialistic scientism’ and ‘creationism’. However, the picture concerning ‘creationist’ perspectives is far from clear, as many of those who chose the ‘creationist’ option did not uphold a clash narrative.

One possible factor here relates to the self-identification of ‘creationists’. There is a lot more work to be done, but it is evident when interviewing or discussing the idea of creationism with individuals who identify themselves as creationists that there is confusion surrounding definitions. Often, there is not an issue with common ancestry or geological time, but rather an assumption that evolutionary theory disproves or discounts a ‘creator God of first cause’ account of life − for example, deistic or theistic evolutionism approaches, which can both fully incorporate all evolutionary processes (see also Pharoah et al., 2009). When working on Darwin Now, I encountered a number of individuals internationally who assumed that if they believed in a deity, then they must de facto be ‘creationists’ − even if they fully accepted evolutionary mechanisms for the origin of species.

I suggest this is due to the perception of an intrinsic link between being a ‘Darwinist’ and an ‘atheist’. This link can be seen in the results of a straw poll taken at a 2010 public debate on Evolutionary Science we ran in Jordan as part of the Darwin Now project. From an audience of 350, an anonymous entry and exit poll was undertaken of 89 attendees. There were 10 questions in total written in Arabic and one in particular asked whether or not people thought that Darwinian evolutionary theory is linked to atheism.

A student’s comment from the event neatly sums up the issue here:

my beliefs in Darwin were based on him being a non-Muslim and I didn’t consider the scientific side, I thought his theory calls for atheism

This experience suggests that to effectively communicate evolutionary science, there is a need to decouple the notion that it is necessarily ‘atheistic’ from discussions of evidence to support the science.

Pew World Muslims Poll 2013

A more recent example which highlights the problem of human evolution in non-Christian contexts is the Pew poll on ‘The Worlds Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society’. Acceptance of evolution is included in the section that focuses on religion, science and popular culture:

‘Q.20 Thinking about Evolution, which comes closer to your view?

While the question is phrased in such a way that it does not make any value judgment or insert a notion of a deity to the questioning, it is still problematic for one key reason. The ‘Creationist’ option is framed from a US perspective and is a version based on a ‘macro-evolution’ model of creationism that does not allow for ‘micro-evolution’ versions of human exclusion. Within this framing, if you accept that all forms of other living things but humans have evolved over time, you cannot answer yes to the first ‘evolutionary’ proposition − you have to take a hardline anti-evolutionist stance. However, as we picked up when conducting the Darwin Now poll and as Hameed (2008) (and Hameed, 2014) highlights, the main concern within Muslim communities may actually be models of human exclusionism whereby acceptance of common ancestry, geological time and evolutionary mechanism for all species except humans are considerably less controversial, if at all. Ergo, there is potential for fairly nuanced kinds of human exclusionism − some of which could possibly be classified as forms of theistic or deistic evolutionism.

Discussion

In each of the polls discussed above, we can see that there are a range of impacts on the data collated dependent on the varying approaches to framing the issue of ‘evolution’ versus ‘creationism’. In the BBC Horizon poll, we see a binary framing that does not easily allow for any form of theistic or deistic evolutionism. By its definition in this poll acceptance, evolutionary science is acceptance of atheism or agnosticism. In essence, this poll creates ‘creationists’. In the Theos and the British Council’s Darwin Now poll, we encounter a less polarized picture and gain some insight into the non-creationist drivers for public space clash narratives around evolution and spiritual or religious belief. However, both these polls are framed around ‘Christian’ models of creationism and evolutionism and do not give a clear picture of the more nuanced role human exclusionism may play in these debates across diverse cultural contexts. Finally, the Pew poll undertaken in predominantly Muslim countries creates a dichotomous frame not by providing only an atheistic model of evolutionary theory as in the BBC poll, but by excluding any theistic or deistic evolutionist accounts of the human soul or accommodationist approaches to macro- and micro-evolutionary processes in humans. Thereby, this poll has a similar effect to the BBC Horizon poll and is potentially creating some ‘Islamic Creationists’.

Controversially, we need to recognize that not all ‘creationism’ is actually ‘creationism’ in what we might consider the mainstream understanding of the word as oppositional to acceptance of evolutionary theory. Surprisingly, in my experience, not all of those who would classify themselves as ‘creationists’ are actually anti-evolutionists. One way around this is to unpick the epistemic categories that we have structured under the classification that is ‘creationism’. Far from arguing that spiritual explanations should be included in scientific discourse or communication, I am arguing that we need to recognize the nuanced, varied and, in some cases, sophisticated accommodationist models employed across differing cultural contexts in a way that does not exclude people of any faith from being evolutionists. Especially as the Theos and Darwin Now polls show, the situation is far more complex, and the perception that there is a necessary clash between evolution and belief in a God is a minority view. If we accept that Christian versions of deistic and theistic evolutionism are not fundamentally opposed to evolutionary worldviews and are therefore not anti-evolutionary ‘creationist’ models, we perhaps also need to recognize that some versions of human exclusionism can potentially work in a similar fashion. By attempting to outline three abstract categories of human exclusionism, it becomes clear that these approaches could be utilized in an allegorical way which allows for an instrumentalist account of natural processes in relation to human evolution. Simply put, they make no difference to an individual working in a lab or on field research, as they do not have to undermine the basic underpinning of modern biology. Recognition that philosophically human exclusionism does not necessarily have to equate to a rejection of all evolutionary processes and can work in a similar allegorical way to theistic or deistic evolutionism is fundamentally important, given the increasing interest in the relationship between Muslims and evolutionary theory.

In the past decade, there has been a growing interest in the notion or concept of ‘Islamic creationism’. This has become an area seen as worthy of systematic data collection starting with the research published by Salman Hameed in Science in 2008. When I was undertaking the commissioning and design of the Darwin Now project for the British Council, little was really known about Muslim perceptions of evolutionary theory. The only movement that had received any significant attention was the creationist movement promulgated by Harun Yayah in Turkey, a movement, which is clearly not representative of the public perceptions in the 57 predominantly Muslim countries in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) or Muslim’s worldwide. As Hameed (2014) points out, ‘Muslims’ are not a monolithic entity when it comes to their views on evolution. Burton (2010) further highlights that there are stark differences in approach across regions towards evolution within education; citing Iran and Saudi Arabia as two countries which due to their own historical and political context have very different approaches to teaching evolutionary science. As Burton points out, you cannot discuss the teaching of what is viewed to be ‘Western’ science without understanding the post-European colonial context, especially in relation to a scientific theory seen as tainted by a perceived association with racism. Conversely, you cannot understand European Muslim perceptions of evolution without recognizing the highly charged political backdrop to debates about or involving ‘Muslims’. Against the backdrop of the larger scale othering of Muslims and the ‘Muslim World’, there is a pervading, but as yet unsubstantiated, notion that there is a significant clash between a ‘Muslim worldview’ and an ‘evolutionary worldview’. For example, in 2009, concerns were raised about the security or wisdom of delivering Darwin Now in predominantly Muslim countries. It is a credit to the British Council that it did not collectively step back from this activity over unsubstantiated preconceptions of the risk involved.

I am not arguing that some members of Muslim communities don’t see a clash between their personal faith and acceptance of evolutionary theory. Rather, given the lacuna in scholarly research, I am questioning the real scale and nature of this clash and the role of the use of an undifferentiated term like ‘creationism’ to represent a spectrum of worldviews. Is there now a feedback loop between the self-identification of Muslims as creationists and reporting of the phenomena of ‘Islamic creationism’? What I would like to ask is, have we or are we in the process of creating ‘Islamic Creationists’? I am using we here in its most inclusive sense − by which I mean this to represent not only those of us who are deemed any kind of ‘experts’ within the academy or other institutions, but also the people who are being classified or self-classifying as ‘Islamic creationists’ and those within wider society that are uncritically rebroadcasting the concept and wide spread acceptance of ‘Islamic creationism’ as ‘fact’.

More comparative quantitative and qualitative research needs to be undertaken, to understand the real ‘lived experience’ of Muslim and other non-Christian communities (including ‘Non-believers’), in relation to evolutionary science, specifically human evolution and ‘science’ more generally. Given that there are currently no adequate baselines and significant problems with issue framing in some of the existing data sets, this work needs to be undertaken through a multidisciplinary historically informed approach that is inclusive of the perspectives of those ‘people’ whom we are seeking to categorize.