Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the History of their Conflict

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States

  • 293 Accesses

Abstract

The history of the conflict between professional creationists and anti-creationists in the United States consists of numerous actions, such as publications, forming coalitions, developing and disseminating labels and arguments, criticizing opposing views, and many others. These actions are instruments of power in a struggle that is about enforcing views on the relationship between god and nature. As part of a power struggle, these actions can be seen as investments of different types of capital (social, cultural, economic, and symbolic), which are accumulated and exchanged. At the same time, they are expressions of different worldviews the groups and individuals participating in the conflict use to make sense of their social, cultural, and physical environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rickert 1986.

  2. 2.

    Weber 2012, pp. 100–138.

  3. 3.

    See Sect. 5.2.

  4. 4.

    See Sect. 6.2.

  5. 5.

    This means that the groups all possess and put forward arguments that legitimate their participation in the conflict, and that this legitimation is based, at least in part, on the existence of opposing parties in the field. See Sect. 6.3.2.

  6. 6.

    This approach does not entail an answer to another methodological question that results from this process of distancing, namely, how the value application of the researcher is justified, if it is not drawn from one of the positions within the field itself. Why are history, order, and person categories that can count as valid objects of social scientific analysis at all? Rickert’s solution to this problem was to distinguish between subjective, individual values, and broader, more generally held “cultural values” (Kulturwerte or Kulturwertideen). According to his perspective, the analytical view held in this and the following chapters is based on those cultural values, since history, order, and person are categories of general interest, and represent aspects of the conflict that can be deemed influential. Neither Rickert’s critics (such as Guy Oakes, see Oakes 1990 nor the author of the present study are completely satisfied with this solution, but the subsequent analyses and their results will hopefully show this approach to be fruitful nonetheless.

  7. 7.

    Morris 1984.

  8. 8.

    Whitcomb and Morris 1961.

  9. 9.

    Morris 1984, pp. 17–18.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., p. 223.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., pp. 21–29.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., p. 19.

  13. 13.

    Morris 1984, p. 77; emphasis added. With regard to the Scopes Trial, Morris’ says that the reason why creationism suffered a defeat is that William Jennings Bryan was not able to present a credible creationist viewpoint, because he adhered to Day/Age creationism, which holds that every creation day actually means a long age in the history of the earth. Morris is clear that, had Bryan adopted a Young Earth position, the outcome would have been different. „Darrow [Clarence Darrow, John Scopes’ defense lawyer, who interrogated Bryan], of course, made the most of it, ridiculing the idea of people claiming to believe the Bible was inspired when its meaning was so flexible that one could make it say whatever he wished!“(Ibid., p. 66.)

  14. 14.

    Ibid., pp. 55–56.

  15. 15.

    See Sect. 3.1.

  16. 16.

    Morris 1984, p. 145.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., p. 186.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., p. 307.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., p. 311.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., p. 317.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., p. 324.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., pp. 331–332.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., p. 332.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., pp. 333–335.

  27. 27.

    See Sect. 5.1.

  28. 28.

    See Sect. 8.1.

  29. 29.

    Dawkins 2006, p. 60.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., p. 61.

  31. 31.

    The most prominent of these kinds of collaboration happened between Henry Morris and Tim LaHaye, one of the leading figures of the New Christian Right, and author of the popular Left Behind book series. In 1970, both co-founded the Christian Heritage College (which today is called San Diego Christian College). For their history construct, see also LaHaye 1980, Morris 1984.

  32. 32.

    LaHaye 1980, p. 59, 86–87 et passim. Cf. Kaden 2018.

  33. 33.

    Gervais et al. 2011, Swan and Heesacker 2012.

  34. 34.

    For instance, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins have been supporters of the movement The Brights, which serves as a lobbying group for „person[s] who [have] a naturalistic world view“ (see The Brights’ Network 2018). Dawkins (2006, p. 380) suggested that atheism should be politicized in the same way as homosexuality, since the situation of both groups shares many similarities.

  35. 35.

    Dawkins 2006, pp. 272–278.

  36. 36.

    Islamist terrorist attacks in London on July 7, 2005.

  37. 37.

    Dawkins 2006, p. 1.

  38. 38.

    Harris 2004, p. 109.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., p. 108.

  40. 40.

    References to Boyer 2002 can be found in Dawkins 2006, pp. 36, 177, and in Harris 2010, pp. 150–151. Dawkins developed his meme theory in his first monograph, The Selfish Gene (Dawkins 1989b).

  41. 41.

    See Boyer 2002, Dawkins 2006, p. 214.

  42. 42.

    Woodward 2003.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., p. 10.

  44. 44.

    See Sect. 3.2.

  45. 45.

    Kuhn 1996.

  46. 46.

    Woodward 2003, p. 28.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., pp. 33–45.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., pp. 38–39.

  49. 49.

    Denton 1986.

  50. 50.

    Woodward 2003, p. 45.

  51. 51.

    Ibid., p. 50.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., pp. 62–63.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., pp. 65–91.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., p. 64.

  55. 55.

    Johnson 1991.

  56. 56.

    Woodward 2003, pp. 93–94.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., p. 130.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., p. 131.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., p. 190.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., pp. 189–210.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., p. 195. The phrase that Intelligent Design is „creationism[!] in a cheap tuxedo“ goes back to paleontologist Leonard Krishtalka, see Slevin 2005.

  62. 62.

    Woodward 2003, pp. 195–196.

  63. 63.

    Ibid., pp. 81, 99–100.

  64. 64.

    See Sect. 3.2.1.

  65. 65.

    Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998], p. 1.

  66. 66.

    All quotes ibid.

  67. 67.

    See Sect. 3.2.

  68. 68.

    Purdom 2010.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

  70. 70.

    Dennett 1995, p. 521.

  71. 71.

    Cf. Hitchens 2007, p. 6: „Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.“

  72. 72.

    See Sect. 6.3.1.

References

  • Boyer, P. (2002). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. (1998). The Wedge. O.O., o.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1989b). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. London: Bantam Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denton, M. (1986). Evolution: A theory in crisis. Adler & Adler: Bethesda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, W., Azim, M., Shariff, F., & Norenzayan, A. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1189–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2004). The end of faith. London: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great. New York: Twelve.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. E. (1991). Darwin on trial. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaden, T. (2018). American humanism and sociology of religion. In P.-U. Merz-Benz & P. Gostmann (Eds.), Humanismus und Soziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • LaHaye, T. (1980). The battle for the mind. A subtle warfare. Ada: Revell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, H. (1984). History of modern creationism. San Diego: Master Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, G. (1990). Weber and Rickert: Concept formation in the cultural sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purdom, G. (2010). Is the intelligent design movement Christian. https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.

  • Rickert, H. (1986). The limits of concept formation in natural science: A logical introduction to the historical sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slevin, P. (2005). Teachers, scientists vow to fight challenge to evolution. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402022.html. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.

  • Swan, L. K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Anti-atheist bias in the United States: Testing two critical assumptions. Secularism and Nonreligion, 1, 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Brights’ Network. (2018). Synopsis. http://www.the-brights.net/movement/synopsis.html. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.

  • Weber, M. (2012). In H. H. Bruun & S. Whimster (Eds.), Collected methodological writings. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitcomb, J. C., & Morris, H. (1961). The genesis flood. The biblical record and its scientific implications. Philipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, T. (2003). Doubts about Darwin. A history of intelligent design. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Sociology, Bayreuth University, Bayreuth, Bavaria, Germany

    Tom Kaden

Authors
  1. Tom Kaden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kaden, T. (2019). Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the History of their Conflict. In: Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_7

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation