Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

  • Tom Kaden


Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social fields underlies the theoretical approach to analyze the conflict between professional creationists and anti-creationists in the United States. This choice from among the variety of social scientific theories is not arbitrary, because both the history of the conflict (see Chaps.  3 and  4) and the analysis of previous research on creationism (Chap.  5) provide open questions and problems that can be addressed in the framework of Bourdieu’s work.


  1. Answers in Genesis. (2007). Men in white. A creation museum special effects theater show. 1 DVD.Google Scholar
  2. Answers in Genesis. (2015). Statement of faith. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  3. Answers in Genesis. (2018b). Answers research journal. Accessed 16 Jan 2018.
  4. Answers in Genesis. (2018g). Dr. Tommy Mitchell. Medical Doctor, Speaker, Author. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  5. Bio-Complexity. (n.d.). About. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
  6. Berlinski, D. (2009). The devil’s delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. BioLogos. (n.d.). Our mission. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
  8. Bishop, G. F. (2003). Intelligent design. Illusions of an informed public. Public Perspective, 14(3), 5–7.Google Scholar
  9. Bishop, G. F. (2004). The illusion of public opinion: Fact and artifact in American public opinion polls. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Böckenförde, E.-W. (1976). Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit. Studien zur Staatstheorie und zum Verfassungsrecht. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1987). Legitimation and structured interests in Weber’s sociology of religion. In S. Lash & S. Whimster (Eds.), Max Weber, rationality and modernity (pp. 119–136). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Genesis and structure of the religious field. Comparative Sociological Research, 13, 1–44.Google Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (1995). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bourdieu, P. (2002). The forms of capital. In N. W. Biggart (Ed.), Readings in economic sociology (pp. 280–291). London: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boyer, P. (2002). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Branch, G. (2010b). The latest “intelligent design” journal. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  19. Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. (1998). The Wedge. O.O., o.V.Google Scholar
  20. Charity Navigator. (2017a). Answers in genesis. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  21. Charity Navigator. (2017b). Institute for creation research. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  22. Charity Navigator. (2017c). Discovery institute. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
  23. Counterbalance. (n.d.). Peter Hess. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  24. Creation Science Evangelism. (n.d.). The Hovind theory (creation seminar 6). Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  25. d’Holbach, P.-H. (1889). The system of nature, or laws of the moral and physical world. Boston: J. P. Mendum.Google Scholar
  26. Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dembski, W. A. (2009). The end of christianity: Finding a good god in an evil world. Nashville: B&H Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Focus on the Family. (2011). Is the bible reliable? Building the historical case. 2 DVDs.Google Scholar
  29. Focus on the Family. (2012). Does god exist? Building the scientific case. 2 DVDs.Google Scholar
  30. Gosse, P. (1857). Omphalos: An attempt to untie the geological knot. London: John van Voorst.Google Scholar
  31. Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping Magisteria. Natural History, 106(2), 16–22.Google Scholar
  32. Graf, F. W. (2010). Der “liebe Gott” als blutrünstiges Ungeheuer: Richard Dawkins und Christopher Hitchens – ein biologistischer Hassprediger und ein liberaler Skeptiker greifen in ihren Büchern die Religion an. Accessed 22 Jan 2018.
  33. Haeckel, E. (1934). The riddle of the universe. London: Watts & Co.Google Scholar
  34. Hess, P. M. J. (2012). Science and religion. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  35. Hill, J. (2014). National study of religion and human origins. Grand Rapids: BioLogos Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. Hutton, J. (1788). Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution, and restoration of land upon the globe. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1, 209–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, P. E. (1993). Creator or blind watchmaker? First Things, 4(1). Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  39. Kaden, T. (2012). Rationalisierung religiöser Überzeugung im amerikanischen Kreationismus. Kent Hovinds Theorie der Sintflut. Arbeitstitel. Forum für Leipziger Promovierende, 4(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  40. Kaden, T. (2016). Material apologetics. Interpreting the purpose of answers in genesis’ ark replica. Accessed 16 Jan 2018.
  41. Kaden, T., Jones, S. H., Catto, R., & Elsdon-Baker, F. (2017). Knowledge as explanandum. Disentangling lay and professional perspectives on science and religion. Studies in Religion, online first.Google Scholar
  42. Karstein, U. (2013). Konflikt um die symbolische Ordnung: Genese, Struktur und Eigensinn des religiös-weltanschaulichen Feldes in der DDR. Ergon: Würzburg.Google Scholar
  43. Lyell, C. (1830–33). Principles of geology, being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation (Vol. 3). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, K. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god: A Scientist’s search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  45. Morris, H. (1974). Scientific creationism. El Cajon: Master Books.Google Scholar
  46. Peters, T., & Hewlett, M. (2003). Evolution from creation to new creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Popitz, H. (2017). Phenomena of power: Authority, domination and violence. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Proctor, J. D. (2004). Resolving multiple visions of nature, science, and religion. Zygon, 39(3), 637–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ramm, B. (1954). The Christian view of science and scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Rational Wiki. (n.d.-b). BIO-complexity. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  51. Schröder, W. (1998). Ursprünge des Atheismus. Untersuchungen zur Metaphysik- und Religionskritik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt, Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  52. Scott, E. (2005). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  53. Scott, E. C. (2013). Donation letter of the National Center for Science Education.Google Scholar
  54. Seibert, L. H. (2010). Glaubwürdigkeit als religiöses Vermögen. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 20(1), 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor, P. F. (2010). Isn’t the bible full of contradictions? Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  56. The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. (n.d.). About. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
  57. The Mail Archive. (2013). [ECOLOG-L] Executive Director Position at the National Center for Science Education. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  58. UpChurch, J. (2011). The danger of BioLogos: Blurring the line between creation and evolution. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  59. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  60. Whitcomb, J. C. (2011). Jesus Christ: Our intelligent designer. An evaluation of the intelligent design movement. Waxhaw: Kainos Books.Google Scholar
  61. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Kaden
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of SociologyBayreuth UniversityBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations