Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Bourdieu 2002.
- 2.
See Sect. 3.2.
- 3.
See, for instance, Jesus Christ: Our Intelligent Designer. An Evaluation of the Intelligent Design Movement (Whitcomb 2011).
- 4.
Ross 2001: “Several people have asked me how RTB [Reasons to Believe] relates to the Intelligent Design (I.D.) movement. Certainly, our message overlaps, but our approach differs. We claim the evidence identifies Jesus Christ as the Designer. Intelligent design proponents think it is more prudent given non-theists’ resistance, to establish first the existence of some undefined intelligent designer.”
- 5.
In Sect. 4.2, we saw how the former director of the National Center for Science Education emphasizes that her organization distances itself from overtly atheistic views. Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, who leads the contemporary scientific atheism movement, accuses the center of intellectual disingenuousness (see Dawkins 2006).
- 6.
Bourdieu (1995, p. 193) characterizes what happens in the field as „the circle of relativizations which mutually relativize each other, like so many reflections indefinitely reflecting each other”.
- 7.
Ibid., p. 231.
- 8.
- 9.
Weber 1978, pp. 424–427, 439–442.
- 10.
Bourdieu 1987, p. 129.
- 11.
Seibert 2010, p. 95.
- 12.
Weber 1978, p. 54.
- 13.
Weber 1978, p. 425.
- 14.
Weber 1978, pp. 439–442.
- 15.
Bourdieu 1987, p. 122.
- 16.
Section 6.3
- 17.
Bourdieu 1995, pp. 227–228.
- 18.
Bourdieu 1987, p. 126.
- 19.
I call it the synthetic principle, and I explain what I mean by that in Sect. 6.2
- 20.
Indeed, this kind of characterization is sometimes applied to New Atheism, where it functions as a polemic against Dawkins, who is characterized as a “biologistic hate preacher” (Graf 2010, my translation TK). As mentioned above, the sociological approach pursued in this book strives to distance itself from these kinds of evaluations.
- 21.
Bourdieu 1995, p. 193.
- 22.
Wittgenstein 2001, p. 5.
- 23.
Of course, there are also Muslim, Hindu, and even possibly atheist forms of creationism, which would require a different reference question. Consequently, atheistic proponents of creationism, such as David Berlinski (2009), who is a fellow of the Center for Science and Culture, cannot fully be accounted for in the suggested framework, but they are marginal figures in the conflict anyway.
- 24.
This does not mean that these processes could not be ultimately caused by god as a prime mover. The reason for this definition is to allow for an analysis of the relative importance of god and nature in answering the reference question. The breadth of philosophical notions of “nature” is discussed by Proctor (2004).
- 25.
We will henceforth use the key analytic terms of our definition without the quotation marks.
- 26.
- 27.
Gosse 1857.
- 28.
Ibid., p. 337.
- 29.
- 30.
This is one result of Winfried Schröder’s study of early atheism, see Schröder 1998, pp. 45–89.
- 31.
Ibid., p. 58.
- 32.
Dawkins 2006, p. 51.
- 33.
Haeckel 1934.
- 34.
Ibid., p. 227.
- 35.
d’Holbach 1889.
- 36.
Boyer 2002.
- 37.
See Sect. 4.2.
- 38.
According to Gould, it is religion which is responsible for „the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives” (Gould 1997, see Sect. 4.2). Of course, there are also polytheistic and even nontheistic religions that can perform this function. But the religious reference in the American creationist and anti-creationist scene is almost exclusively Protestantism, whose understanding of the world hinges upon its understanding of god.
- 39.
- 40.
See Peters and Hewlett 2003. They also provide criticism of other creationist concepts.
- 41.
In addition to the positions which are analyzed in-depth in this book, this field also features Old Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution, which are not in the focus of this study. Still, it is important to locate them in the field, because they are important reference points for the groups discussed here.
- 42.
See Sect. 3.1.
- 43.
This is not to say that many representatives of Intelligent Design do not hold much more rigid positions, which are easily identifiable as other forms of creationism. But the sociological analysis points out that it is the reduced, “official” program which grants Intelligent Design its status as a separate group within the field, as it guarantees its organizational, intellectual, public and financial autonomy from other forms of creationism. To make a broader point, the field graphic is not in competition with other descriptions of the creationist scene, such as the National Center for Science Education’s Creation/Evolution Continuum (Scott 2005, p. 57; see Sect. 8.2), but coexists peacefully, since it is the result of a different vantage point.
- 44.
This should not give the impression of an indirect normative statement that I reject the value orientations that are present within the field. But, as a sociologist interested in the intersubjective validity of sociological work, my sociological concept aims to be comprehensible and acceptable without being tied to any of those normative positions.
- 45.
Bourdieu 1995, p. 230.
- 46.
Bourdieu 1993, p. 74.
- 47.
Bourdieu 1995, pp. 47–176.
- 48.
Ibid., pp. 71–77.
- 49.
Ibid., pp. 121–127.
- 50.
See Chap. 4.
- 51.
- 52.
For the purpose of clarity, the names of the organizations that represent the respective ideas are put beneath them in the field graphic, instead of on top of the position, which would be more accurate.
- 53.
E.g.. Bourdieu 1995, pp. 62–63, where Charles Baudelaire lists representatives of ‚pure literature‘ in a letter to Gustave Flaubert.
- 54.
Answers in Genesis 2015.
- 55.
Taylor 2010.
- 56.
See Sect. 3.2.1.
- 57.
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998], p. 1.
- 58.
Ibid.
- 59.
See Sect. 4.2.
- 60.
See Sect. 4.3.
- 61.
See Sect. 5.2.
- 62.
Following Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde’s statement: „The liberal secularized state lives by prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself.” (Böckenförde 1976, p. 60, my translation TK.)
- 63.
E.g. Miller 1999, p. 80: „Most scientists, quite rightly, have ignored the religious claims of the creationists, but those claims are worth noting if only to emphasize the insidious danger they present to both science and religion.“ See also p. 124.
- 64.
- 65.
E.g. Dawkins 2006, p. 96: „I am arguing that, notwithstanding the polite abstinence of Huxley, Gould and many others, the God question is not in principle and forever outside the remit of science. As with the nature of the stars, contra Comte, and as with the likelihood of life in orbit around them, science can make at least probabilistic inroads into the territory of agnosticism.”
- 66.
Dawkins 2006, pp. 69–73.
- 67.
Dawkins recognizes this weakness when he (albeit in the form of a polemic) writes about theologians who adopt NOMA (Dawkins 2006, p. 83): „You can bet your boots that the scientific evidence, if any were to turn up, would be seized upon and trumpeted to the skies. NOMA is popular only because there is no evidence to favour the God Hypothesis. The moment there was the smallest suggestion of any evidence in favour of religious belief, religious apologists would lose no time in throwing NOMA out of the window.”
- 68.
For instance, William Dembski in his book The End of Christianity (Dembski 2009) develops a theodicy based on the nature-related arguments of Intelligent Design. His core argument is that death and extinction, which characterize the evolutionary development (which is accepted by most proponents of Intelligent Design) are the retroactive result of the lapse. The claim in the bible that death entered the world through Adam’s sin is then true even if death occurred before this, because god transcends time. Likewise, the redemptory work of Christ also applies retroactively. The theological interpretation of how god acts in the world is informed by prior analysis of natural processes.
- 69.
The organization has since been led by his son Eric Hovind, and renamed Creation Today.
- 70.
Gen 7:11; see Sect. 2.1.
- 71.
Besides this, the meteor is responsible for other features of the solar system and the earth, such as the rings of Saturn, the craters on the moon, the tilt of the earth’s axis, the continental drift, the increased UV ray, and others. Hovind explains his theory in the video course The Hovind Theory, see Creation Science Evangelism n.d.
- 72.
See Kaden 2012.
- 73.
Bourdieu 1995, p. 290.
- 74.
Weber 1978, p. 213.
- 75.
Section. 4.2.1.
- 76.
Scott 2005, pp. 71–133.
- 77.
See Chap. 3.
- 78.
- 79.
UpChurch 2011.
- 80.
Ibid.
- 81.
Bourdieu 2002, p. 281.
- 82.
Ibid., p. 286.
- 83.
Ibid., p. 282.
- 84.
Ibid.
- 85.
Ibid.
- 86.
- 87.
See Sect. 4.2.
- 88.
The National Center for Science Education states that its annual budget is around $1.2 million US. This information was part of the center’s 2013 job description for the new executive director, which has since been removed from its website, but a copy of the text can still be accessed at The Mail Archive 2013.
- 89.
Another important source of economic capital in the debates surrounding science and religion in the United States is, of course, the Templeton Foundation. In 2015, it gave out more than US$180 million in grants, and much of the money went towards questions of how sciences relates to “the big questions.” Continuous funding is provided to the BioLogos foundation (see Sect. 6.2.2), which, broadly speaking, advocates Theistic Evolution, and is occasionally mentioned by other players in the creationist/anti-creationist field. So while its financial influence is significant, and while the programs it funds are influential in public discourse and increasingly in academia as well (see Hill 2014), it ultimately remains a marginal factor in the conflict discussed here, because, as I mentioned in the introduction, the position it supports has little influence on the dynamics of the field.
- 90.
Bourdieu 2002, p. 280.
- 91.
Answers in Genesis 2018g.
- 92.
Ibid.
- 93.
The job listing was originally posted on the center’s website at http://ncse.com/about/jobs (27.06.2013). It has since been removed, as the position was filled by Dr. Ann Reid. The text can still be accessed at The Mail Archive (2013).
- 94.
Hess 2012.
- 95.
Counterbalance n.d.
- 96.
Creationist peer-review exists for Answers in Genesis‘ Answers Research Journal (Answers in Genesis 2018b) and the Intelligent Design journal BIO-Complexity (Bio-Complexity n.d.). Anti-creationist comments on BIO-Complexity can be found at Rational Wiki (n.d.-b), and at the website of the National Center for Science Education (Branch 2010b).
- 97.
Bourdieu 2002, p. 285.
- 98.
A video that was part of this series is discussed in Sect. 9.2. A third installment of the TrueU series (“Who is Jesus? Building a Comprehensive Case”) appeared in 2013 without Meyer’s participation.
- 99.
Focus on the Family 2012.
- 100.
Focus on the Family 2011.
- 101.
Bourdieu 1998, pp. 47–52.
- 102.
Karstein 2013, my translation TK.
- 103.
These awards were mentioned as the most important by deputy director Glenn Branch in a conversation with the author.
- 104.
Scott 2013.
- 105.
Ibid., p. 2.
- 106.
Bourdieu 2002, p. 286.
- 107.
Hunter 1991.
- 108.
Weber 1978, p. 53.
- 109.
See Sect. 6.3.2.
- 110.
Weber 1978, p. 53.
- 111.
In Bourdieu’s terms, the question is how and whether the social field is homologous to the field of positions. See Bourdieu 1995, pp. 161–166, 249–252.
- 112.
Weber 1978, p. 53.
- 113.
Weber 1978, p. 34.
- 114.
Popitz 2017, p. 1.
- 115.
Ibid., pp. 11–12.
- 116.
Ibid., p. 12.
- 117.
Ibid., p. 14.
- 118.
Ibid., p. 15.
- 119.
Ibid., pp. 15–16.
- 120.
See Sect. 3.1
- 121.
- 122.
Answers in Genesis 2015.
- 123.
This is true at least since the movement became more professional and institutionally stable during the waning of Philip E. Johnson’s influence. He had in his writing repeatedly referred to divine authority in order to support the validity of Intelligent Design. See Johnson 1993.
- 124.
One such exception is the center’s frequent appeal to diminishing the influence of creationism because it impedes the “scientific literacy” of the United States population. The consequences of this, such as reduced international economic competitiveness, political and technological decline, etc. are an appeal to standards that have little to do with the validity of evolutionary theory itself.
References
Answers in Genesis. (2007). Men in white. A creation museum special effects theater show. 1 DVD.
Answers in Genesis. (2015). Statement of faith. https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Answers in Genesis. (2018b). Answers research journal. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018.
Answers in Genesis. (2018g). Dr. Tommy Mitchell. Medical Doctor, Speaker, Author. https://answersingenesis.org/bios/tommy-mitchell/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Bio-Complexity. (n.d.). About. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
Berlinski, D. (2009). The devil’s delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions. New York: Basic Books.
BioLogos. (n.d.). Our mission. https://biologos.org/about-us. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
Bishop, G. F. (2003). Intelligent design. Illusions of an informed public. Public Perspective, 14(3), 5–7.
Bishop, G. F. (2004). The illusion of public opinion: Fact and artifact in American public opinion polls. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Böckenförde, E.-W. (1976). Staat, Gesellschaft, Freiheit. Studien zur Staatstheorie und zum Verfassungsrecht. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
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.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Genesis and structure of the religious field. Comparative Sociological Research, 13, 1–44.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. (1995). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2002). The forms of capital. In N. W. Biggart (Ed.), Readings in economic sociology (pp. 280–291). London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Boyer, P. (2002). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. London: Basic Books.
Branch, G. (2010b). The latest “intelligent design” journal. https://ncse.com/library-resource/latest-intelligent-design-journal. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. (1998). The Wedge. O.O., o.V.
Charity Navigator. (2017a). Answers in genesis. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5214. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
Charity Navigator. (2017b). Institute for creation research. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7485. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
Charity Navigator. (2017c). Discovery institute. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=9757. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
Counterbalance. (n.d.). Peter Hess. http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/phess-body.html. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Creation Science Evangelism. (n.d.). The Hovind theory (creation seminar 6). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0rj-TEx4o. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
d’Holbach, P.-H. (1889). The system of nature, or laws of the moral and physical world. Boston: J. P. Mendum.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. London: Bantam Press.
Dembski, W. A. (2009). The end of christianity: Finding a good god in an evil world. Nashville: B&H Publishing.
Focus on the Family. (2011). Is the bible reliable? Building the historical case. 2 DVDs.
Focus on the Family. (2012). Does god exist? Building the scientific case. 2 DVDs.
Gosse, P. (1857). Omphalos: An attempt to untie the geological knot. London: John van Voorst.
Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping Magisteria. Natural History, 106(2), 16–22.
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. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/religion-und-wissenschaft-der-liebe-gott-als-blutruenstiges-ungeheuer-1.879879. Accessed 22 Jan 2018.
Haeckel, E. (1934). The riddle of the universe. London: Watts & Co.
Hess, P. M. J. (2012). Science and religion. https://ncse.com/religion. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Hill, J. (2014). National study of religion and human origins. Grand Rapids: BioLogos Foundation.
Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic Books.
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.
Johnson, P. E. (1993). Creator or blind watchmaker? First Things, 4(1). https://www.firstthings.com/article/1993/01/001-creator-or-blind-watchmaker. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Kaden, T. (2012). Rationalisierung religiöser Überzeugung im amerikanischen Kreationismus. Kent Hovinds Theorie der Sintflut. Arbeitstitel. Forum für Leipziger Promovierende, 4(1), 1–11.
Kaden, T. (2016). Material apologetics. Interpreting the purpose of answers in genesis’ ark replica. http://sciencereligionspectrum.org/long-reads/material-apologetics-interpreting-the-purpose-of-answers-in-genesis-ark-replica/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018.
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.
Karstein, U. (2013). Konflikt um die symbolische Ordnung: Genese, Struktur und Eigensinn des religiös-weltanschaulichen Feldes in der DDR. Ergon: Würzburg.
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.
Miller, K. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god: A Scientist’s search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: Harper Perennial.
Morris, H. (1974). Scientific creationism. El Cajon: Master Books.
Peters, T., & Hewlett, M. (2003). Evolution from creation to new creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Popitz, H. (2017). Phenomena of power: Authority, domination and violence. New York: Columbia University Press.
Proctor, J. D. (2004). Resolving multiple visions of nature, science, and religion. Zygon, 39(3), 637–657.
Ramm, B. (1954). The Christian view of science and scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing.
Rational Wiki. (n.d.-b). BIO-complexity. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Ross, H. (2001). More than intelligent design. https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2001/06/30/more-than-intelligent-design. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Schröder, W. (1998). Ursprünge des Atheismus. Untersuchungen zur Metaphysik- und Religionskritik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt, Frommann-Holzboog.
Scott, E. (2005). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Scott, E. C. (2013). Donation letter of the National Center for Science Education.
Seibert, L. H. (2010). Glaubwürdigkeit als religiöses Vermögen. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 20(1), 89–117.
Taylor, P. F. (2010). Isn’t the bible full of contradictions? https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/isnt-the-bible-full-of-contradictions/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. (n.d.). About. http://www.ctns.org/about.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.
The Mail Archive. (2013). [ECOLOG-L] Executive Director Position at the National Center for Science Education. https://www.mail-archive.com/ecolog-l@listserv.umd.edu/msg31041.html. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
UpChurch, J. (2011). The danger of BioLogos: Blurring the line between creation and evolution. https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/the-danger-of-biologos/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Whitcomb, J. C. (2011). Jesus Christ: Our intelligent designer. An evaluation of the intelligent design movement. Waxhaw: Kainos Books.
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaden, T. (2019). Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict. In: Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99379-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99380-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)