Cognitive Styles Used in Evidence Citation by Ancient Christian Authors: The Psychology of a Major Ancient Controversy over the Historicity of the Pentateuch, and Its Implications for Science Education Today

Cognitive experiential self-theory recognizes two cognitive styles that humans use as modes of everyday thinking – experiential thinking and rational thinking – which appear to be products of two functional systems in the brain. These cognitive styles are diagnosable in writing samples of authors who cite evidence in support of a position. Here, I report an analysis of writing samples of opponents in a momentous ancient controversy. Christian authors of the first five centuries disagreed as to whether the stories in the Pentateuch were literal, accurate records of history that could be interpreted allegorically (the literocredist camp) or included non-historical stories that were allegory only (the allophorist camp). Cognitive analysis of their evidence citations reveals a predominance of experiential thinking in literocredists and rational thinking in allophorists in reference to this question. This finding augments those of previous studies that implicate the experiential thinking system as the source of today’s biblical literocredism, and shows that the connection between experiential thinking and literocredism is millennia-old. This study also reveals that the allophorist position was dominant among Christian writers in the first three centuries and that the literocredist position did not rise into prominence until the fourth century, suggesting a major cognitive shift among theologians in that century. These findings elucidate the psychology of a prominent ancient controversy but also are relevant to current science education, because the literocredist mindset continues today as anti-evolution bias. The role of cognitive style in such bias has profound implications for classroom strategies for conceptual change.


Introduction
Cognitive experiential self-theory recognizes two cognitive styles that humans use as modes of everyday thinking: experiential thinking (also called intuitive cognitive style or System 1 processing) and rational thinking (also called analytical cognitive style or System 2 processing). The two cognitive styles appear to correspond to two different systems that the brain uses to process information (Epstein et al., 1992;Lindeman, 1998;Niemenen et al., 2015). Experiential thinking is the default mode in humans and appears to be the evolutionarily older of the two (Epstein et al., 1992;Lindeman, 1998). It is based on concrete information and personal experience. It is the faster of the two cognitive styles, and its speed makes it useful for most dayto-day tasks. However, its analyses of evidence often involve logical fallacies, and its conclusions are not as reliable as those of rational thinking. It is also heavily influenced by emotion, making its conclusions difficult to change even in the face of contrary evidence. In contrast, rational thinking is abstract and is based on logic and unemotional analysis of evidence. It is useful in objective analysis and its conclusions are more reliable than those generated by experiential thinking, but it is slow and demanding. Different people use the two cognitive styles in different proportions, with some relying more on experiential thinking and others relying more on rational thinking when making decisions (Epstein et al. 1992;Lindeman, 1998).
Textual analysis is an effective tool for determining which of the two cognitive styles is employed in the rationale for a position on a topic (Niemenen et al., 2015). When a person writes on a specific topic or responds to a question, the response or writing sample may contain clues as to which cognitive style the writer used to address that topic (Pennycook et al., 2012;Shenhav et al., 2012;Razmyar & Reeve, 2013;Gervais, 2015;Djulbegovich et al., 2015;Niemenen et al., 2015). As a result, when an author cites evidence in support of a position, that citation can be examined for signs of rational thinking or experiential thinking. For example, Niemenen et al. (2015: 4-12) found that the ' evidence' that antievolution authors cite against evolutionary theory in their writings generally consists of logical fallacies, confirmation bias (the tendency to emphasize only the bits of information that support one's argument even if the rest of the available information contradicts the argument), and irrelevancies, all of which are indicative of experiential thinking.

Senter: Cognitive Styles Used in Evidence Citation by Ancient Christian Authors 3
Here, I present a textual analysis of a collection of ancient writings in which evidence citation reveals a difference in cognitive styles between the proponents of opposite sides of a major controversy. Christian authors of the first five centuries disagreed as to whether the Pentateuch (the five volumes of the Hebrew Torah, which became the first five books of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible), were accurate historical records or included non-historical stories. Authors on both sides of the controversy used allegorical interpretation-in which characters, places, and events are treated as symbols of spiritual principles-to extract deeper spiritual meaning from the Pentateuch than was evident from its literal wording alone. Authors in one camp considered the Pentateuch's narratives to be historically accurate accounts that simultaneously possessed hidden meanings that could be found by allegorical interpretation and which were spiritually useful (Schaff, 1984;Schaff & Wace, 1988;Roberts & Donaldson, 1994). Authors in the other camp considered some or all of the Pentateuch's narratives to be a special brand of historical fiction that placed historical characters and places into non-historical stories that possessed hidden meanings that could be found by allegorical interpretation and which were spiritually useful (Mahlerbe & Ferguson, 1978;Schaff & Wace, 1988;Roberts & Donaldson, 1994). The latter camp considered the hidden meanings the true meaning of the stories and considered the literal wording a veneer that veiled the stories' true meaning.
The two camps could be labeled literalist and allegorist camps respectively, but this would be an oversimplification since both camps utilized allegorical interpretation, so in a sense both camps were allegorist. Here, therefore, I have coined the terms literocredist and allophorist for the two camps. The literocredist ('letter-believing', from the Latin littera [letter] and credere [to believe]) camp accepted the letter of the Pentateuch as historically accurate, despite using allegorical interpretation to find deeper meaning in the Pentateuch. The allophorist (' different-bearing' or ' otherbearing', from the Greek ἄλλος [different/other] and φορέω [to bear]) camp did not accept the letter of the Pentateuch as historically accurate and thought that the Pentateuch bore a hidden meaning beneath the literal wording and that this other, different meaning was its true meaning. It should be noted that within the allophorist category is a spectrum of ancient opinions as to how much of the Pentateuch Senter: Cognitive Styles Used in Evidence Citation by Ancient Christian Authors 4 to take literally, with some ancient authors accepting some parts of the Pentateuch as accurate history and others accepting none of it as accurate history. However, ancient authors at all points on the allophorist spectrum had in common the opinion that it is incorrect that the entire Pentateuch is an accurate record of past events.
In contrast, the authors in the literocredist camp accepted the entire Pentateuch as a literal and accurate record of past events.
A plethora of ancient writings survives from authors on both sides of the controversy, and several authors cited evidence for their positions ( Table 1). The different categories of evidence that are cited correspond to specific cognitive styles.
Here, I present a review of such evidence citations, to contrast the cognitive styles revealed by the cited categories of evidence. To fully grasp the implications of the data in such writings it is important to understand that in the first few centuries of the Christian Era the Pentateuch was typically treated as a single, five-volume work called the Pentateuch, the Torah, the Book of Moses, or the Law. The five volumes became the first five books of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Genesis tells the story of creation, Noah's Flood, and the lives of the patriarch Abraham and his family. The next four books tell the story of the Israelites' enslavement in Egypt, their exodus, their subsequent journey to Canaan, and the delivery from God to Moses of numerous legal and ritual regulations. Because the early Christians considered the Pentateuch a single composition, doubt as to the historicity of any part of it extended to the whole of it, as Gregory of Nyssa noted (Mahlerbe & Ferguson, 1978: 112-13).

Methods
Choosing texts for inclusion in the study I used two criteria to select early Christian texts for inclusion in this study: (1) that the text is from one of the first five centuries of the Christian Era, and (2) that its wording reveals whether or not the author considered the Pentateuch to be a literal, accurate record of history. The writings of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers meet the first criterion. To determine whether they meet the second criterion, I read through all of them and identified passages addressing the historicity of the Pentateuch.  2.2, 9.21 -12.32, 14.43 -47, 17.56 -18.59, 19.63 -27.85 (Yonge, 2006) God did not actually create the world in six days. In Genesis 1, heaven and earth are symbols of mind and body, and the plants and animals are symbols of mental processes, as are the waters that watered the garden. The making of the man from earth plus breathof-life symbolizes the dual (partly physical, partly spiritual) nature of humankind. Paradise (Eden) is a metaphor for a state of virtue, and its trees and rivers symbolize particular virtues.
It is impossible to have time divided into days before the creation of the sun, which determines the length of a day (VN). Adam and Eve continued to live long after eating the fruit that they were told would cause their deaths (CP). , 7.19 (Yonge, 2006) It is ridiculous to think that a woman was made from the rib of a man.

Allegorical Interpretation Two
A human cannot be made from another human's rib (VN). Paul's writings teach that the Pent. is not to be taken literally (NT).
Paul's writings teach that the Pent. is not to be taken literally (NT).
Homily 6 on Genesis, 1 (Heine, 1981) 'If anyone wishes to hear and understand these words [the story of Abraham and Abimelech] literally…let him hear Paul saying "the Law is spiritual", declaring that these words are allegorical when the Law speaks of Abraham and his wife and sons'.
Paul's writings teach that the Pent. is not to be taken literally (NT).
Homily 10 on Genesis, 4 (Heine, 1981) 'In these stories history is not being narrated, but mysteries are interwoven'.
Homily 1 on Exodus, 5 (Heine, 1981) 'These words were not written to instruct us in history, nor must we think that the divine books narrate the acts of the Egyptians'.
Homily 2 on Exodus, 1 (Heine, 1981) Certain parts of the story of Moses are impossible and were '…written not to relate ancient history…[but you should] understand that these things which are said also happen now not only in this world, which is figuratively called Egypt, but in each of us also'.
It makes no sense that because the midwives feared God they built houses for themselves (Exodus 1:21, LXX) (NS).
Homily 5 on Exodus, 1 (Heine, 1981) The Apostle Paul taught that the Pent. is not to be taken literally, even the exodus story.
Paul's writings teach that the Pent. is not to be taken literally (NT).
Homily 1 on Leviticus, 1.1 (Barkley, 1990) The ritual regulations in Leviticus are not meant literally.
The declaration that anyone who touches a corpse is unclean (Leviticus 5:2-3) makes no sense, because it means the corpse of a prophet is unclean and that a live prophet becomes unclean by touching a corpse to raise the dead, and by making buriers unclean it prevents burial of the dead (NS).
Homily 7 on Leviticus, 4.1-5 (Barkley, 1990) The Apostle Paul taught that the Pent. is not to be taken literally, even the dietary laws.
Paul's writings teach that the Pent. is not to be taken literally (NT).

(Contd.)
Homily 16  Paul's writings teach that the Pentateuch is not to be taken literally (NT).
After employment of the procedures above, any ancient work that did not reveal an identifiable stance on the historicity of the Pentateuch was omitted from the study.
I used the following as search terms in the electronic searches: allegor, figur, histor, literal, deluge, euphrates, flood, giant, hexa, paradise, six days, tigris. I used the word literal and the word fragments allegor, figur, and histor to find all words that include these fragments (e.g. the words allegory, allegories, allegorical, allegorically, etc.), so as not to miss any reference to literal, allegorical, figurative, or historical interpretations. The word fragment hexa was used to find references to the hexameron or hexaemeron (the six days of creation). I used it and the other latter eight terms listed above to search for references to Pentateuch stories the historicity of which was commonly disputed in ancient Christian circles (Tables 1 and 2). In addition to the terms listed above, I also searched the ancient works for references to New Testament passages that were commonly cited by ancient allophorists in support of the allophorist position (

Identification of literocredist and allophorist authors
Once pertinent passages were located with the search methods delineated above, I used the following sets of predictions regarding the passages in order to test hypotheses on the authors' stances toward Pentateuch historicity. The hypothesis that a given author is in the allophorist camp predicts that the author either (a) makes an   & Ferguson, 1978;Schaff, 1984;Schaff & Wace, 1988;Roberts & Donaldson, 1994).
Authors whose available writings reveal a stance on whether to accept the literal sense of the Pentateuch are listed in Table 1, along with their stances. There are some ancient authors whose inclusion in this study may be controversial. This is because they were censured by ecclesiastical authorities at some point in history, and some ecclesiastical historians might therefore consider their writings heretical.
Appendix 2 lists these authors and the justifications for including each in this study. it is less important for the author to have been Peter than for the author to have been a different first-century author than the other first-century texts that are included in this study. Modern scholars agree that such was the case (Senior, 2008: 3-13).

Attribution of putative first-century works
Modern scholars vary in their opinions as to the authorship and date of the Pastoral Epistles. Some attribute these epistles to the Apostle Paul, others attribute them to a different first-century author, and others attribute them to a secondcentury author (Marshall & Towner, 1999). Here, I attribute the Pastoral Epistles to Paul. I base this attribution upon the arguments of Aherne (1912: n. pag.) andPorter (1995: 107-17), who point out that the reasoning behind contrary claims is questionable. Alleged problems with fitting these letters into the chronology of Paul's life are nonexistent (Aherne, 1912: n. pag.;Porter, 1995: 107-8). Differences in style between the Pastorals and the undisputed Pauline epistles are no greater than those among the undisputed Pauline epistles (Aherne, 1912;Porter, 1995), and are to be expected because the Pastorals are addressed to individuals, whereas the other epistles are addressed to congregations. Numerical differences in word usage between the Pastorals and the undisputed Pauline letters are inconsequential, because in this respect the Pastorals do not differ from the undisputed Pauline epistles any more than the undisputed Pauline epistles differ from each other (Aherne, 1912;Porter, 1995). Additionally, there is abundant evidence that the argument by some modern scholars that the Pastorals address Gnosticism (and therefore must be later than the first century) is spurious (Senter, in press).
The epistle to the Colossians begins with identification of Paul and Timothy as authors. It ends with an assertion by Paul that he wrote the last few lines himself, which implies that Timothy wrote the rest. Many modern scholars doubt the attribution to Paul, mainly on stylistic or theological grounds (Moo, 2008), but the theology of the letter is a close match for that of the undisputed Pauline letters (Moo, 2008), and stylistic differences are to be expected if Timothy wrote the epistle. Here, I accept Timothy as the main author, with Paul's approval as indicated by the closing of the letter.
The Pastoral Epistles and the undisputed Pauline epistles all begin with the author identifying himself as Paul. In contrast, the epistle to the Hebrews was written anonymously. A few scholars of the first few centuries of the Christian Era attributed the epistle to the Hebrews to Paul, but most expressed doubt as to that attribution, and modern scholars almost universally accept that some other first-century author wrote it (Lincoln, 2006). Here, I accept that the epistle was written by someone other than Paul in the first century.
The earliest ancient comments on the authorship of the Epistle of Barnabas usually attribute it to the Apostle Barnabas, but modern scholars generally doubt that attribution and attribute it to some other first-or second-century author (Holmes, 2007). Modern arguments against Barnabas as the author or against a first-century date for the epistle are summarized by Paget (1994)  ignores the testimony in Acts 15 that Barnabas did oppose it. Even so, it is less important to this study that Barnabas be the author of the epistle than that the epistle be dated to the correct century. Here, I accept a first-century date for the epistle, for two main reasons. Firstly, the epistle makes no reference to any New Testament work, which is unusual in Christian writings after the first century. Secondly, its primary focus is on the lack of need to literally follow Pentateuch regulations, an issue that was a hot topic in the first century (see Paul's New Testament epistles, for example) but had ceased to be a problem in the churches by the second century, as witness the lack of second-century exhortations on the topic. As Paget (1994) and Rhodes

Identification of cognitive styles
For authors whose available writings reveal a stance on whether to accept the literal historicity of the Pentateuch, I searched the relevant texts for stated evidence in support of each stance and listed that evidence in Table 1 The sixth category of evidence, physical evidence, is concrete and therefore conducive to experiential thinking, but its use can correspond to either mode of thinking. Its use indicates rational thinking if it is used to draw logical conclusions without confirmation bias. Confirmation bias, the tendency to emphasize only the bits of information that support one's argument even if the rest of the available information contradicts the argument, is a type of error that stems from experiential thinking (Nelson, 2000: 259;Niemenen et al., 2015: 2). Confirmation bias in the use of physical evidence therefore indicates experiential thinking.
The last two categories of evidence, New Testament authority and the authority of extrabiblical written sources, can correspond to either mode of thinking. Authors citing sources do so with rational thinking when their sources are relevant and support the position under consideration. Authors citing sources do so with experiential thinking when a citation involves confirmation bias, or when their sources are irrelevant or do not support the position under consideration.

Statistical tests for differences in the ratio of literocredist to allophorist authors between centuries
To determine whether the ratio of literocredist to allophorist authors differed from one century to another, I used two-tailed z-tests, which test for whether a differ- It should also be noted that many ancient texts that were written have not survived. Any statistical test applied to ancient texts therefore comes with the caveat that it applies only to surviving texts. Any such test is therefore applied to an incomplete sample of ancient writing, and there is no guarantee that the surviving texts represent an unbiased sample. The reader should keep this caveat in mind.

Results
Among early Christian authors whose writings reveal a definite stance on Pentateuch historicity, all those from the first century were allophorists, including the only four New Testament authors whose works reveal a stance on Pentateuch historicity.
The majority from the second and third century were also allophorists; literocredist authors were present but in the minority. Pentateuch literocredism became the predominant view among Christian authors in the fourth century and remained so during the fifth century (Table 1; Fig. 1, 2). The results of two-tailed z-tests (Table 4) indicate a significant rise in the proportion of authors embracing a literocredist stance in the fourth century. The z-tests do not reveal a significant difference in this proportion between any two of the first three centuries, except between the first and third when alpha is set at 0.1 (Table 4); however, this may be an artifact of small sample sizes.
Not all of the ancient authors cited evidence to support their positions. Among those that did, there is no overlap between categories of evidence cited by allophorist authors and categories cited by literocredist authors (Table 1; Fig. 3 Table 4: Results of two-tailed z-tests for significant differences, between centuries, in the proportion of Christian authors espousing literocredist versus allophorist views. Blanks with 'yes' indicate z-tests that found a significant difference in this proportion between centuries, and blanks with 'no' indicate z-tests that did not find a significant difference in this proportion between centuries.

Discussion
The results of this study implicate experiential thinking as the root of scriptural literocredism in ancient Christian literocredists. Because experiential thinking is the default cognitive mode in humans, it is unsurprising that literocredism overturned allophorism as the predominant Christian approach to the Pentateuch within five centuries of the beginning of the Christian religion. Ancient allophorists amassed a voluminous set of evidence against the historicity of the Pentateuch and recorded it for posterity ( Table 1), but in the end even this mountain of evidence was not powerful Figure 2: Proportion of ancient Christian authors who did (black) or did not (white) accept the historicity of the Pentateuch. Note that acceptance of the historicity of the Pentateuch was rare in the first two centuries but had become the predominant view by the fourth century.
Senter: Cognitive Styles Used in Evidence Citation by Ancient Christian Authors 39 enough influence to sway readers into overcoming their natural human impulse to employ the error-prone cognitive style that leads to literocredism. Centuries later, the pernicious influence of this error-prone cognitive style persists as opposition to the findings of science, as shown by previous studies that demonstrate a strong connection today between experiential thinking and the phenomena of scriptural literocredism and anti-evolution bias (Razmyar & Reeve, 2013;Niemenen et al., 2015).
An interesting subject for future researchers would be to analyze whether it is possible to identify cultural or educational factors that were involved in the sea change that had occurred by the fifth century. What factors enabled early Christian allophorists to overcome the natural human impulse toward experiential thinking those factors that had changed by the fifth century, dooming allophorism to nearextinction? Answers to these questions would be of interest to researchers studying the phenomenon of conceptual change and may be applicable in today's world.
An important finding of this study is that before the fourth century, the allophorist position was predominant among Christian authors. This should perhaps be unsurprising, because Christianity originated as an outgrowth of first-century Judaism, and opposition to literal interpretation of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch was common among first-century Jewish scholars. The first-century Jewish theologian Philo of Alexandria-citing evidence that indicates rational think- Hamurot, also insisted that the Pentateuch should be understood as allegory rather than literal history (Lauterpach, 1911: 329-330, 509-510).
Early Christian rejection of the historicity of the Pentateuch was therefore not a new phenomenon but was instead an outgrowth of contemporary Jewish scholarship.
That Jewish scholarship, in turn, may have been inspired by Greek influence. At least as early as the fifth century B.C.E., Greek scholars had been interpreting their own sacred texts allegorically (Brisson, 2004: 29-40). The prevalence of the practice of allegorical interpretation of sacred texts in the Greco-Roman world may even have been an important factor in the acceptance of Christianity by Gentiles during the early spread of Christianity, because it was a religious practice to which they were already accustomed.
The connection between cognitive styles and Pentateuch interpretation, together with the overturning of allophorism by literocredism in the fourth century, suggests a major shift in the psychology of Christian authors of that century. The same century witnessed sudden and enormous changes in ecclesiastical procedures, interpretations, architecture, and liturgy after Emperor Constantine legalized the Christian religion in the year 313 (Schmemann, 1966: 91-125). It would be interesting to determine whether the cognitive shift that is reflected in the change in Pentateuch interpretation was a result of the post-Constantinian metamorphosis of Christianity, but such determination is beyond the scope of this study.
The shared foundation of experiential thinking between modern (Razmyar & Reeve, 2013) and ancient scriptural literocredism suggests continuity through the centuries in the psychology of literocredism. Such continuity is further suggested by the tendency of literocredist authors from both periods to commit similar mistakes in the citation of evidence, including fossil evidence. One such mistake is to misinterpret physical evidence about which an author is ignorant. Such ignorance is understandable in authors of the first five centuries, because it antedates the relevant scientific findings. Eusebius cited fish fossils in mountains as evidence that the Genesis Floodwaters reached the mountaintops (Table 1), revealing fourth-century ignorance that geological processes can lift ancient marine deposits far above current sea level. Augustine and Pseudo-Clement, revealing ancient ignorance of the former existence of now-extinct giant mammals, cited large bones and a large tooth as evidence of the physical existence of the Genesis giants (Table 1), perpetrating an error similar to that of other ancient authors who mistook large fossil mammal remains for the remains of the giants of pagan myths (Mayor, 2000: 104-129, 197-202).
Similarly, recent anti-evolution publications reveal ignorance about physical evidence via numerous misinterpretations of the fossil record (Kuban, 1989;Rowe, 1991;Isaak, 2005; Senter, 2011) and misidentifications of bones (Senter & Wilkins, 2013;Senter & Klein, 2014). Another mistake that is shared by literocredists of the first five centuries and present-day literocredists is to cite ancient written accounts that provide contradiction instead of support for the literocredist position (Senter, 2013a, b) (Appendix 2). A third mistake that both sets of authors have in common is to fall frequent prey to confirmation bias in areas other than literature citation (Niemenen et al., 2015).
This study's finding that Augustine of Hippo was a literocredist ( Table 1) provides an important cautionary tale for evolutionary biologists. Modern authors sometimes quote The Literal Meaning of Genesis 1.19 out-of-context as an example of ecclesiastical permission to accept a non-literal interpretation of Genesis and, by extension, evolutionary theory (Nelson, 2000;Prothero, 2007). However, the context of the quote-Augustine's book The Literal Meaning of Genesis-is a defense of a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account (Hill, 2002). It therefore provides contradiction and not support for a non-literal interpretation. To provide ecclesiastical support for a nonliteral interpretation it would be more appropriate to quote an ancient author who opposed literocredism. See Table 1 for numerous appropriate examples.
Through the centuries, Christian theologians have long embraced the concept that nature and scripture constitute two books by the same divine author, and that the two books cannot contradict each other (Tanzella-Nitti, 2005: 11-12); any apparent contradiction is due to one's having misunderstood one book or the other.
Current literocredists insist that scientists who accept evolution have misunderstood nature (e.g., Brown, 2001;Sarfati, 2002;Vail, 2003;Ham, 2006 (Stein, 2006;Prothero, 2007) but also for an age of billions of years for the Earth and the rest of the universe (Patterson, 1956;Lineweaver, 1999;Senter, 2013c;Planck Collaboration, 2014), in addition to archaeological evidence for the non-historicity of certain details in the Pentateuch's exodus account and in its accounts of the lives of the patriarchs (Finkelstein & Silberman, 2001).
Communication of this permission could prove helpful in the struggle with antievolution bias in public schools, because when this bias is based on loyalty to the Christian Bible (coupled with the misunderstanding that such loyalty entails a literocredist interpretation), minds may change upon learning that loyalty to the New Testament actually entails rejecting literocredism. By itself, presentation of scientific data that support evolutionary theory usually does not change the minds of students who begin with anti-evolution bias (Lawson & Worsnop, 1992;Sinatra et al., 2003;Chinsamy & Plagányi, 2007). This is plausibly because presentation of physical data appeals to the rational thinking system, whereas anti-evolution bias is based on experiential thinking. This would explain why the cognitive processes that sustain anti-evolution bias are typically unresponsive to fact-based attempts at persuasion (Evans, 2008;Coburn, 1996;Lawson & Worsnop, 1992;Sinatra et al., 2003;Chinsamy & Plagányi, 2007). Because they are not fact-based but worldview-based they are more likely to be responsive to worldview-based persuasion (Coburn, 1996;Smith, 2010).
Because educational strategies that appeal to rational thinking alone are inadequate to combat bias that is based on experiential thinking, it may be useful to supplement strategies that appeal to rational thinking with strategies that appeal to the experiential thinking system, and because anti-evolution bias is worldview-based such a strategy should address worldviews. One such strategy is to address religious viewpoints on evolution in science classes. It is legal, at least in the United States, to address religious viewpoints in science classes if it is done within certain parameters (Hermann, 2013: 541-542). Previous studies have found that conceptual change, in which student attitudes toward evolution become more rational, occurs more often in classes in which religious viewpoints are carefully addressed than in those in which they are not (Verhey, 2005). It is possible that the success of such strategies is due to engagement of the experiential thinking system, because experiential thinking is correlated with religious belief (Pennycook et al., 2012;Shenhav et al., 2012;Razmyar & Reeve, 2013) and particularly with scriptural literocredism (Razmyar & Reeve, 2013). The results of the present study are applicable to such strategies and could therefore prove useful as a tool for such conceptual change. Moreover, the introduction to students of a study that involves hypothesis-testing would reinforce education on the scientific method. Therefore, as part of a remedy for anti-evolution bias in science students, I recommend-with due caution-the communication of the results of this study to students, or the invitation to students to examine it on their own, outside of class.

Additional Files
The additional files for this article can be found as follows: •