Creationist and Anti-Creationist Exemplar Constructs

  • Tom Kaden


Some creationist and anti-creationist publications feature ideal or exemplary persons. These persons are often fictitious literary creations, but sometimes they are real people who tell their stories. These invented or true stories exemplify important aspects of the groups’ positions and the conflict as it appears from their vantage point. For instance, creationists perceive that their entire society is morally damaged by the triumph of evolutionism. But this social damage is, ultimately, always suffered by individuals, and becomes apparent in their individual actions and stances. This means that the kind of social reform the creationists envisage also entails the personal repentance or conversion that comes with accepting creationism. It is not surprising, then, that there are creationist publications that depict the moral dimension of the reference question through the presentation of ideal or exemplary persons. Professional anti-creationists make use of such persons as well. In this chapter, three such persons from different groups are presented and compared to each other. In what situation do they find themselves? What kinds of problems do they encounter, and what solutions are suggested by the group that created them? What is their intellectual and emotional journey, and what is the conflict that surrounds and influences them? We will see that there exists a direct link between the position of the group and the exemplary person created by them. The persons are exemplary in that they experience the conflict the way the group does. They mirror the way the groups perceive themselves and their opponents in the field. Looking at exemplary persons helps answer the question as to what extent the groups perceive the conflict as based on questions of morality, institutional authority, or facts.


  1. Answers in Genesis. (2007). Men in white. A creation museum special effects theater show. 1 DVD.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. (2006). The evolution dialogues: Science, christianity, and the quest for understanding. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  3. Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. (1998). The Wedge. O.O., o.V.Google Scholar
  4. Dawkins, R. (1989a, April 9). Review of: Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey: Blueprint. Solving the Mystery of Evolution. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  5. Evans, J. H., & Evans, M. S. (2008). Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, M. S., & Evans, J. H. (2010). Arguing against Darwinism. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to the sociology of religion (pp. 286–308). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Focus on the Family. (2008). The toughest test in college. Accessed 22 Jan 2018.
  8. Frankowski, N. (2008). Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Rocky Mountain Pictures: Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  9. Kelly, C. R., & Hoerl, K. E. (2012). Genesis in Hyperreality: Legitimizing disingenuous controversy at the creation museum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48, 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Morris, H. (1984). History of modern creationism. San Diego: Master Books.Google Scholar
  11. Popitz, H. (2017). Phenomena of power: Authority, domination and violence. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations