Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States

Tom Kaden

Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States A Sociology of Conflict

Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States

Tom Kaden

Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States A Sociology of Conflict

Tom Kaden Institute of Sociology Bayreuth University Bayreuth, Bavaria, Germany

Original German edition published by Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2015 ISBN 978-3-319-99379-9    ISBN 978-3-319-99380-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018957078 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

For Sarah, Milan and Juno

Acknowledgement

This book is based on my German Ph.D. thesis, which I completed at the University of Leipzig in 2014. The Ph.D. was supervised by Monika Wohlrab-Sahr and Thomas M. Schmidt, and I thank them for their support and advice on numerous occasions. Thanks to Ron Numbers for helpful advice on the first four chapters. Rob Glaser patiently proofread the manuscript and turned my translation into proper English. All remaining errors are, of course, mine.

vii

Contents

1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Part I Creationist and Anti-Creationist Ideas and Organizations 2 Creationist Positions��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    9 2.1 Young Earth Creationism������������������������������������������������������������������    10 2.1.1 Young Earth Creationism on Evolutionary Theory��������������    11 2.2 Old Earth Creationism����������������������������������������������������������������������    14 2.2.1 The Position of Evolutionary Theory in Old Earth Creationism ��������������������������������������������������������������������������    15 2.3 Intelligent Design������������������������������������������������������������������������������    16 2.3.1 The Position of Evolutionary Theory in Intelligent Design ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������    17 2.4 Discussion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    19 3 Creationist Organizations and Their Activities������������������������������������   21 3.1 How the Young Earth Creationist Organizations Originated and Developed����������������������������������������������������������������������������������    24 3.1.1 The Institute for Creation Research��������������������������������������    27 3.1.2 Answers in Genesis��������������������������������������������������������������    29 3.2 How Intelligent Design Organizations Originated and Developed����������������������������������������������������������������������������������    32 3.2.1 The Center for Science and Culture��������������������������������������    34 3.2.2 Further Intelligent Design Organizations: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, the Access Research Network, and the Biologic Institute����������������������    40 3.2.3 Illustra Media������������������������������������������������������������������������    42 3.3 Discussion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    43 4 Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions�������������   47 4.1 Anti-Theistic Anti-Creationism (New Atheism) ������������������������������    47 4.2 Nomatic Anti-Creationism����������������������������������������������������������������    52 ix

x

Contents

4.2.1 ‘Nonoverlapping Magisteria’ as a Position in the Creation/ Evolution Controversy����������������������������������������������������������    52 4.2.2 How Nomatic Anti-Creationists Originated and Developed����������������������������������������������������������������������    54 4.2.3 The National Center for Science Education�������������������������    62 4.3 Discussion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    64 Part II Theorizing the Creationist Conflict 5 Themes and Problems of Creationism Research����������������������������������   69 5.1 About the Research ��������������������������������������������������������������������������    70 5.1.1 Historical Investigations�������������������������������������������������������    70 5.1.2 Statistical Studies on Creationist Views and Knowledge������    72 5.1.3 Investigations of the Conflict Motives of Creationists����������    74 5.1.4 Reasons, Content, and Arguments of Creationist Groups����    76 5.2 Value Problems of Creationism Research����������������������������������������    77 5.2.1 Max Weber on the Problem of Value Judgments������������������    79 5.2.2 “Science” and “Religion” as Normative Concepts in Creationism Research ������������������������������������������������������    81 6 Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict����������������������������   87 6.1 General Features of Field Theory ����������������������������������������������������    87 6.2 The Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field of Positions ������������������������    90 6.2.1 The Reference Problem of the Field ������������������������������������    90 6.2.2 The Field of Positions ����������������������������������������������������������    91 6.3 The Field’s Rules (Nomos) and Inherent Value (Illusio)������������������    96 6.3.1 The Nomos of the Field��������������������������������������������������������    97 6.3.2 The Illusio of the Field����������������������������������������������������������   104 6.4 Capital and Power in the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field������������   107 6.4.1 Kinds and Distribution of Capital ����������������������������������������   108 6.4.2 Power������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   115 Part III Creationist and Anti-Creationist History, Order and Exemplar Constructs 7 Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the History of their Conflict����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  121 7.1 History Constructs of Young Earth Creationism������������������������������   124 7.2 History Construct of New Atheism��������������������������������������������������   128 7.3 History Construct of the Intelligent Design Movement��������������������   131 7.4 Variance and Unity of Creationist/Anti–Creationist History������������   137 8 Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the Order of Their Conflict��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 8.1 Order Construct of Young Earth Creationism����������������������������������   141 8.2 Order Constructs of Nomatic Anti-Creationism ������������������������������   146 8.3 Discussion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   151

Contents

xi

9 Creationist and Anti-Creationist Exemplar Constructs����������������������  155 9.1 The Camper Wendy in Men in White (Young Earth Creationism)����������������������������������������������������������������������������   156 9.2 The Student Jay and Other Students in the TrueU Series (Intelligent Design) ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   159 9.3 The College Student Angela Rawlett in The Evolution Dialogues (Nomatic Anti–Creationism) ������������������������������������������   162 9.4 Discussion ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   165 10 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  167 Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)������������������������  171 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  195

Chapter 1

Introduction

As a European with a liberal Christian background, my first encounters with people rejecting evolution for religious reasons in the United States left me astonished and eager to learn more about this phenomenon, which seems so much at odds with the preconceived image of America as a center of human progress and scientific advancement. One of the first things I learned was that people rejecting or modifying the theory of evolution to fit their religious beliefs is by no means the only way in which science comes under fire for worldview or political reasons. I learned that even many biology teachers question the theory of evolution (Welsh 2011); that conservative interest groups and politicians are influencing school curricula to the extent that the theory of anthropogenic climate change is no longer even taught (Dockrill 2016); that the General Assembly of North Carolina adopted a law barring the state’s coastal protection agency from mentioning calculations in their reports that can be attributed to climate change (Young 2012); and that sex education lessons often do not take place at all, or contain misleading or false claims (Smothers 2015). By following the news, I saw that controversial statements surrounding scientific knowledge occur up to the highest political levels. During the presidential election campaign in 2011, Republican candidate Michelle Bachmann claimed that vaccinations against human papillovirus (HPV) cause mental disabilities such as autism, a claim that was also made more recently by Donald Trump (Weiner 2011; Specter 2017). This situation leads some analysts to claim that there is widespread and deeply rooted “science denialism” in the American population. What was not clear to me, however, is whether this issue is at its core a political problem (Mooney 2005), or as an issue of proper science education, or whether it is more accurate to view it as a broader cultural phenomenon, as a culture war, as James Hunter has put it (Hunter 1991; Morrison 2011). Another thing I learned when I first read about creationism and it being part of a broader cultural struggle, was that it is by no means limited only to the United States (Numbers 2006; Blancke et al. 2014; Kutschera 2008). Creationist initiatives and organizations have popped up all over the world, and in many cases, they adopt arguments and strategies they first saw at work in America. Even in my home © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_1

1

2

1 Introduction

c­ ountry of Germany, where the educational system is traditionally closed to most non-­state educational influence, creationist groups with educational aspirations exist (Kutschera 2008). As I read more about and from American creationists, I learned that there is not a single theory of why creationism persists. Rather, depending on who is treating the issue, it appears as part of a broader cultural renaissance of a particular form of conservative Protestantism (Hochgeschwender 2007) or, seen as part of a political movement, as an element of the “New Christian Right” (Wuthnow 1988), which originated as a result of the modernization crises of American Evangelicalism during the twentieth century. Philosophers of science, on the other hand, see it as a crucial element of a much broader discussion on how science and religion relate (Bird 1998; Popper 2005; Plantinga 2011; Pennock and Ruse 2009; Gordon and Dembski 2011). As I will point out in this book, these two terms are particularly problematic when it comes to describing the creationist conflict, because they entail all kinds of evaluations which are being mixed up with descriptions of the issues.1 In any case, wherever I looked, creationism was always described as part of something broader, and in many cases even just a symptom of something else, for instance, the problems of the American educational system. But these contextual approaches did not fully satisfy my need to understand how creationism actually works. For instance, there are a number of different forms of creationism, and they differ significantly in their theological and scientific views, sometimes to the extent that they heavily criticize each other’s positions. For the past 70 years or so, new variants that have been labeled ‘creationist’ have been popping up, but the older versions continue to exist, even though the goals their representatives had set for themselves have become unattainable. This persistence led me to wonder what the role of scientific institutions has been in this process. Did they try to counter creationism, and if so, why have they not been more successful? The inner workings of the creationist conflict are the main topic of this book. I look at the groups that put forward creationist positions, and at the groups and individuals that engage in countering these positions. I am interested in how they communicate, and the effects this communication has on their positions. But as a sociologist, I am not only interested in ideas, but also in the social conditions in which these ideas are developed. So I will be touching upon the legal, political, economic, and personal environments of the key creationist and anti-creationist players at times, when this helps understanding of how things got to be the way they are. All in all, I think there has, in fact, been an “evolution of creationism” (Harmon 2011; Berkman and Plutzer 2012), but it has been accompanied, and put in motion by, a simultaneous “evolution of anti-creationism.” I start with what creationists actually think. What are their core ideas, and how do they try to render them plausible? I think it is important to start here, with the theo1  The best-known of these frameworks is the so-called conflict thesis (Draper 1875; White 1896), which posits an inevitable clash between religion and modern civilization. The latest representatives of this framework combine a scientific worldview with criticism of religion (Stenger 2007, Dawkins 2006; see Sect. 4.1).

1 Introduction

3

logical and scientific intricacies of the creationist theories, because often creationists are depicted as backward ignoramuses or as irrational deniers of truth. But they have their own truth, and they defend it in a way that is comprehensible, even if it is not acceptable for many people. In any case, looking at the logic of creationism first is a precondition for seeing them as the serious players in the social conflict that they are. In particular, I look at three distinct versions of creationism. Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and Intelligent Design (ID) are by far the most frequently discussed forms of creationism in the American public, and the educational and public initiatives of their leading representatives reverberate in US schools, television programs, churches, and court houses. Old Earth Creationism  (OEC), the third idea presented, is somewhat less prominent, but it is still important to explain it, because for YEC and ID proponents, it is one of the most important competing positions. Of course, there are many other views that could be labeled ‘creationist,’ which are not treated in this book. For instance, there are still people and groups in the United States who argue, based upon their reading of the Bible, that the sun moves around the earth,2 and although they are sometimes mentioned by anti-creationists, their views are marginal, and they are not serious players in the social conflict surrounding creationism. The reader might also be surprised to find no detailed discussion of non-Protestant views on evolution and religion in this book. For instance, although there are about 70 million Catholics in the United States, and although the Catholic Church has a distinct view on how evolution relates to its doctrine, Catholics are only mentioned occasionally. This is because, like Muslim, Hindu, and other religious communities, Catholic groups are not a prominent part of the social struggle that shapes the creationist scene in the United States. Rather, individual Catholics are scattered across the spectrum of groups. For instance, one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design, Michael Behe, is Catholic, as is one of his prominent antagonists, Kenneth Miller, who argues in favor of a religious reading of the evolutionary process as described by mainstream science. But there is no Catholic pressure group or science and religion think tank that engages in shaping the public discourse the way the leading creationist and anti-creationist groups discussed in this book do. Catholics, like many mainline Protestants, have views on how evolution and their religious views relate to each other, but largely remain at the margins of the conflict that drives the discussion in the United States. Once we know what the creationists think, we can look at the way their thinking developed historically, and what social conditions shaped this development. In Chap. 3, I describe how creationists first tried to assemble and form institutions to put forward their cause, and what problems they encountered. The groups over time became more stable and better equipped to make their voice heard by the American public. At the same time, their increased visibility and strategic activity led to opponents of creationism organizing as well. Here we encounter a number of core arguments and publicity programs that were supposed to help the creationists gain influence among their fellow Christians and in the wider society. From this 2  E.g. Robert Sungenis and his organization The Bellarmine Report, cf. Sungenis and Bennett (2007).

4

1 Introduction

perspective, creationism has two levels. At its core are positions or idea systems such as Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design. Depending on the social conditions, and what happened to prior attempts at gaining influence, these positions are expressed by the creationists using a range of different strategies and arguments. For instance, during the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s, Young Earth Creationism frequently appeared as Scientific Creationism or Creation Science. Likewise, Intelligent Design proponents chose what they termed the Wedge strategy to chip away on what they regarded as a secular predominance in public discourse. We will look at the way in which these strategies developed, what their links to the underlying creationist idea systems were, and how and why they ultimately failed to deliver what their creators had hoped. I think that since as early as the 1970s, the development of creationism can hardly be understood without considering the increasingly better-organized resistance to it on the part of secular science, as well as in other social realms. That is why this book is among the first3 to examine organized anti-creationism as thoroughly as it does creationism. Chapter 4 does for anti-creationism what Chaps. 2 and 3 did for creationism: it provides an overview of its core ideas and of the history and social environment of its main players. We will find that anti-creationism comes in two basic variants, an antitheistic and a “nomatic” form. I coined the term “nomatic anti-creationism” for the view that religion and science are separate spheres of the world, resulting in calls for mutual ideological and social non-­ interference. The term is derived from the works of Stephen Jay Gould, a paleontologist who argued in 1997 that science and religion occupy “nonoverlapping magisteria” or “NOMA” (Gould 1997). To be sure, the label that fits the views of most mainline Protestants and Catholics, Theistic Evolution, is also represented professionally in the conflict in organizations such as BioLogos, and there are many scientists and religious professionals who advocate the view that, ultimately, science and religion are not only not in conflict, but can actually speak to each other in a positive and mutually supporting way. In this sense, Theistic Evolution is an established part of the scene. However, the reconstruction of the conflict’s history will reveal that its dynamic was largely shaped by other creationist and anti-creationist strands. I argue that Theistic Evolution, at least until recently, mainly served as an option proponents of NOMA could point to in order to avoid the impression that science and religion are mired in a fundamental conflict. But it seems to me that no important event in the institutional and programmatic history of creationism and anti-creationism has been set in motion or shaped by proponents of Theistic Evolution. My forays into the history and ideas of creationists and anti-creationists led me to think that the development of creationism and anti-creationism are closely related and, ultimately, to my central thesis that the creationist/anti-creationist conflict, at this point, is not merely an extension of a broader culture war, but largely 3  To my knowledge, there is only one significant academic work that deals with anti-creationism, namely, Hee-Joo Park’s unpublished 1997 dissertation Anti-Creationism in America. I rely heavily on his work.

1 Introduction

5

self-­perpetuating. Both split into radical and mediating positions during roughly the same period, and I found these developments to be mutual strategic adjustments. This close interconnectedness made me think that I could find out more about the exact way in which their conflict works by applying sociological theory. There are many fellow social scientists who have treated this issue before me, and I review some of their approaches that I found particularly interesting in Chap. 5. What struck me, though, is that the terms used by social scientists to describe the creationist conflict (and related issues) are often also used by the creationists and anti-­creationists themselves. This is mainly the case for the general notions of “science” and “religion”, or descriptions of views as “scientific” or “religious.” In Chap. 5, I give a few examples of why this is problematic. In short, it makes it hard for social scientists to gain a healthy distance from the conflict they analyze. Granted, not all social scientists think that it is beneficial or, in fact, possible to be completely neutral in any kind of research. But I think that, even though complete neutrality might not be possible (or even desirable), research is generally better that tries to avoid getting mixed up with the objects of study, voluntarily or not. This is why I thought about how the conflict can be described without the laden terms “science” and “religion.” I had read some works by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, and his theory of social fields inspired me to develop my own field theoretical approach to capture the dynamics of the creationist conflict. I develop this field model in Chap. 6. In short, the point of field theory is to imagine any social realm as a playing field, be it an entire section of society, such as literature or the economy, or a smaller social unit such as a company or a church. Once the players are determined, and the goal of their struggle is defined, the interesting part is the analysis of the rules of the game and the means the players employ playing it. Bourdieu’s is an intriguing concept, although his works are not always easy to understand. For instance, he calls the game’s rules the nomos, and the players’ means capital. I tried to keep this chapter as simple as possible. Nevertheless, it still features a lot of technical sociological language, but I hope that the main purpose is also comprehensible to the general reader. In any case, my approach sidesteps the issue of whether any creationist (or, for that matter, anti-creationist) position is “scientific” or “religious” (or both). The alternative terms I use are “god” and “nature.” This allows me to make sense of what is going on without, willingly or not, engaging in evaluations of the groups’ positions. In the last three main chapters, 7, 8 and 9, I put my theory to use. Here, my main interest is to understand why the creationists and anti-creationists say and do the kinds of things they do. In these chapters, I tried to get to the core of the players’ image of themselves and of their social world. I think this core has three parts. Chapter 7 shows how the position of those involved in the conflict informs their understanding of the history of the conflict. When creationists write the history of creationism, they not only write a different story from the anti-creationists, their accounts also differ from those of their creationist competitors. What terms and images they use to describe the historical process depends on where they are in the field, from what directions their opponents attack them, and what these opponents have in common with each other. In Chap. 8, I look at the way in which the field’s

6

1 Introduction

players characterize their part in the conflict. Here, too, I find that this characterization is closely linked with where they are in the field. While all of them are part of the same conflict, there are strong differences in the way they perceive this conflict. The differences are particularly clear when looking at graphic representations of the conflict. Finally, in Chap. 9, I look at their self-designed exemplars or role models that appear in various media, such as books, films, pamphlets, and drawings. I examine what characteristics are attributed to them, what development they undergo, and what values are represented in their stories. The aforementioned link between the field position and the players’ statements occurs here as well. Hopefully, then, these three chapters show how my field model helps make sense of the creationist conflict by showing that the things creationists and anti-­creationists say and do is, in part, the result of their engagement in the conflict. This does not mean that the broader interpretations of the creationist conflict that I mentioned above play no role. But my analysis, if my readers find it convincing, provides an answer to the question how creationism became exactly what it is today: a highly specialized and diverse group of people and institutions that speaks to each other at least as much as it does to the general public.

Part I

Creationist and Anti-Creationist Ideas and Organizations

Chapter 2

Creationist Positions

As mentioned above, there are many forms of “creationism” in the United States, and I think it is important for any social scientific analysis of creationism to first try and understand what these different ideas are about. This is because (and I hope to be able to show this further below) the kinds of ideas creationists harbor have a strong influence on what they are willing and able to do in order to promote them. If you think the other creationists are actually completely wrong and maybe not even Christian, you will find it hard to enter into coalitions with them. If the point of your creationist system is to spread the truth of the Bible, then you will have a harder time getting into public schools than if you focus on a few scientific issues, leaving questions of Biblical interpretation aside. What I will try to do, then, is to present some prominent creationist idea systems the way their proponents see them. This is why I rely mostly on creationist sources in this chapter.1 Of course, the actual views of creationists are much more complicated, and sometimes contradictory, and I cannot do justice to the full complexity of these idea systems. So not all Young Earth Creationists would agree with everything I include in the description below. Also, some might add things that are important to them that I leave out. But I hope that the descriptions cover the most important aspects of each form of creationism. In any case, these descriptions are supposed to 1  These are mostly Statements of Faith, which can be found on the websites of the leading creationist organizations. They are summaries of doctrinal statements which must be affirmed by every person who wishes to become a member of the respective professional creationist organization. Early creationist organizations in the 1930s and 1940s were often short-lived (see Sect. 3.1) because of disagreement among their members on various issues. The Statements of Faith were, thus, further refined with each newly founded organization until the teachings gathered there were so differentiated and unambiguous that only members who had agreed on all important points were accepted. These documents have proven themselves as summaries of the relevant creationist teachings, and can be regarded as valid and representative documents. The Intelligent Design movement does not have a Statement of Faith proper, but the views of its professional representatives are available in the form of Frequently Asked Questions, which can be found online (Center for Science and Culture n.d.-a).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_2

9

10

2  Creationist Positions

give the reader a rough orientation, and they allow me to then proceed to the historical processes that shaped these systems. The forms of creationism do not only differ in their doctrinal standpoints in terms of Biblical interpretation, god’s activity in the world, and what areas are best suited to detect it. They also differ in how they describe their principal adversaries. Of course, they all, in a way, criticize much of society as secular, humanistic, materialistic, anti-Christian, naturalistic, etc. However, what they have in common is that they all regard the naturalistic theory of evolution as a particularly important adversary to their respective causes. But because of their different doctrinal viewpoints, they differ from each other in how they conceive, formulate, and argue this antagonism.

2.1  Young Earth Creationism2 From the perspective of its representatives, the following views characterize Young Earth Creationism: The Bible is completely divinely inspired and, therefore, exact and free from error, even in its details. For this reason, it is an unquestionable authority on everything that it deals with. This applies to the creation accounts in the book of Genesis. It follows that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, and via the steps mentioned there. Also to be taken literally are the genealogies that cover the period from Adam to Noah (Gen 5: 1–32), and the ancestral generations of Jesus (Mt 1: 1–17 and Luke 3: 23–38). When this information from the Old Testament is linked with events that can be dated independently of the Bible, such as the beginning of the Babylonian exile of the Jews in 597 BC, the year 4000 BC emerges as the approximate date of creation.3 Finally, the literal validity of the Flood in Genesis 7: 10–24 and Gen 8: 1–14 is of particular importance. The Flood was, in their view, universal, not local, and, aside from creation, it represents the earth’s most important natural history event.4 It follows that most of the geological layers of the earth, and the oil and fossil deposits contained in them, are the sole result of the Flood. The part of Young Earth Creationism that deals with the attribution of 2  The basis for the following presentation is the Statement of Faith of the organization Answers in Genesis (Answers in Genesis 2015) the Statement of Belief of the Creation Research Society (Creation Research Society 2018) and  the  Principles of  Scientific and  Biblical Creationism of the Institute for Creation Research (Institute for Creation Research 2018). 3  The first detailed attempt to date creation by means of this method was made by the Irish archbishop James Ussher in 1650, who put the date of creation on the 23rd October, 4004 BC and even gave the time (early evening) (Ussher 1650). See McCalla 2006, pp. 32–33. Ussher’s chronology and his approach have become important for the development of creationism, especially because his approach has been used in the Scofield Reference Bible, which was, and still is, widespread among creationists. See Morris 1984, pp. 58–59. 4  Cf. Gen 7:19 f. KJV: „And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.”

2.1  Young Earth Creationism

11

geological facts to the Flood, is called Flood geology (Whitcomb and Morris 1961, pp.  7–10, cf. also already Price 1923). The Flood was fed by sources above and below ground.5 This explains why the antediluvian world is fundamentally different from the post-­Flood world; the breaking up of the underground sources was a onetime event, and explains, among other things, plate tectonics. Today’s continental drift, for example, is the remnant of the plates rapidly dissipating when these subterranean sources burst in the course of the Flood. The ark contained representatives of all land-living creatures that had not died out by this time (around 2300 BC),6 and the Flood killed all mankind, except for Noah and his wife, their three sons, and their wives. This point mirrors the limited survival of the species to the human sphere: Noah’s family is the bottleneck for any biological and cultural developments. World-wide flood myths find origin in the actual Flood, and in the experiences of the people on board the Ark. Accepting the authority of the biblical account regarding these points is an important aspect of the acceptance of the biblical message, but it is not sufficient. More important than all these explanations of natural history provided by the Bible is, ultimately, its role in salvation history. The fall and expulsion from paradise makes it necessary for every human being to seek and proclaim Jesus Christ as a personal savior. The Bible is the only source for this, as opposed to the evidence they claim to find in nature for the effects of the Flood. Trusting its authority with regard to moral questions is much more difficult if its statements on the origin of the world are not recognized as literally true. The Bible is also authoritative concerning some aspects of individual conduct, and social organization in a broader sense. The existence of evil as specifically anti-Christian is an everyday reality, and it must be identified and opposed. Anyone who consciously decides against Christ as the Savior is condemned. The only legitimate love-relationship between two people is in the form of heterosexual marriage, and the only appropriate form of rearing children is the traditional family. Strictly speaking, secular knowledge is not even possible, because it cuts out the Bible as the only source of truth. On the contrary, every empirical science must be conducted in accordance with, or as a continuation of, a valid interpretation of the Bible.

2.1.1  Young Earth Creationism on Evolutionary Theory7 According to Young Earth Creationists, any assumptions and statements of science which contradict the literal meaning of the biblical account as ultimate authority must, by definition, be false. With regard to evolution, there can be no 5  Cf. Gen 7:11 KJV: „In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” 6  The calculations of this time vary considerably even within Young Earth Creationism. 7  This ideal-type position is compiled from  several articles of  Answers in  Genesis’ Answers Magazine: Ham (2006, 2009), Wood (2009), Ross (2009).

12

2  Creationist Positions

macro-evolutionary processes, i.e., step-by-step natural developments of new species, since on the fifth and sixth day God had already created all creatures as developed species. The mechanism of natural selection is not a sufficient explanation for biological variation. While macro-evolution is to be rejected due to the animals being originally created by God, micro-evolution, that is, variation within biological families or kinds, is a valid concept, which is why some of Darwin’s observations are correct, such as variation by breeding. For example, all varieties of dogs can be traced back to the pair which came ashore with Noah, and must have emerged within the period since this event. The area that deals with the biological kinds as created by God, their precise subdivision, and their development since the Flood is called baraminology.8 However, other central claims of evolutionary biology, and of those sciences on which they are based, are invalid. For instance, there is no sequence of rock layers with fossil deposits that document a macro-evolutionary history. These deposits can be explained by the Flood, which not only caused the death of almost all living creatures, but also accounts for a large part of the deposits. Radiocarbon dating and other dating methods, which are often used to classify fossils in evolutionary history, are extremely imprecise, and they are based on the unproven view that today’s decay rates are the same as those in the past. A similar problem exists with regard to other phenomena which supposedly suggest an old age of the earth and the cosmos, such as continental drift, the existence of light emitted by stars farther away than 6000 light years, the supposed seasonal deposits which can be found by the tens of thousands in drill cores from the Arctic ice, and much more. The conclusion that the earth is eons old is based on the false assumption that today’s processes (the speed of continental drift and of light, the rate of erosion, etc.) can be projected back on events in the past. This so-called “uniformitarianism”, a term coined by one of the founders of a theory of an ancient earth, Charles Lyell, is at odds with Biblical catastrophism (based on a history of Creation, Fall, Deluge), which has a much greater explanatory power. Evolutionary theory (like any other science based on uniformitarianism, such as secular geology and cosmology) and creationism are quite similar in regard to their status as sciences, because both accept and interpret unrepeatable past processes (referred to as origins science). This distinguishes them from those sciences whose method involves tests and repetitions of processes (operational science). To these creationists, it follows that the uniformitarianism which underlies the theory of evolution is a non-provable faith, just like the position that the biblical account is literally true. To them, every view of the origin and development of the world and of men is, per se, ‘religious,’ and if a theistic view is rejected, this is explicitly anti-religious or atheistic. It is no surprise, then, that anti-theistic

8  The term is a neologism that was coined by the creationist biologist Frank Lewis Marsh (Marsh 1941). It is composed of the Hebrew verb ‫( ארב‬bara – created) and the noun ‫( ןימ‬min – type, variety). I thank Tobias Funke for explaining the Hebrew roots of the term. See also Numbers 2006, p. 150.

2.1  Young Earth Creationism

13

t­ endencies can be observed in the statements of many well-known representatives of uniformitarianist sciences. Charles Darwin himself turned away from God because of criticism of the Bible and of religion in general by Charles Lyell and James Hutton, who provided important foundations for his own theory, and also because of the early death of his daughter Anne. More recent proponents of evolutionary theory also are purported to be antireligious materialists. For example, the astronomer Carl Sagan introduces his book Cosmos with the anti-theistic credo, “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be “ (Sagan 1980:1), and Richard Dawkins likens faith in God to a delusion (Dawkins 2006; see Sect. 4.1). Young Earth Creationists insist that the theory of evolution is not simply a scientific paradigm, but an anti-Christian world view or religion, not only because it contradicts the biblical account, but also because of its social and personal consequences. The devastating ideologies of the twentieth century, Nazism and communism, were essentially evolutionary worldviews; the racism propagated by the Nazis followed directly from the ideas in Darwin’s work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which has as a subtitle “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. The conviction that human life is the result of an accidental and senseless mechanical development leads directly to its depreciation. The moral decay of Western societies with their high crime rate, disregard of interpersonal bonds such as marriage and the family, and hedonistic consumerism, can be traced back directly to the rejection of the idea of the divine image of man, which is inherent in the theory of evolution. Correspondingly, from Thomas Huxley to Richard Dawkins, the representatives of evolutionary biology are depicted as unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue with religious critics, and generally display insulting, deceptive, and aggressive  – in short, unchristian  – behavior. Therefore, the dispute over the questions of the validity of the Bible in scientific matters has always had the character of a salvation-historical struggle, a conflict between the forces of God and Satan in which evolution is a vehicle of Satan. The importance of this struggle is indicated by the fact that it is announced in the Bible in 2 Peter: Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed (2 Peter 3:3–6 (New International Version).

This prophetic passage not only defines uniformitarianism, it also shows that it entails a negative evaluation and a mocking of Christianity, and it proves that the secular scoffers take this position deliberately and against their own better knowledge. They deny the truth of the Bible and, thus, of God, in order to be free to follow their evil impulses, the dire consequences of which can be observed by watchful Christians in their own societies.

14

2  Creationist Positions

2.2  Old Earth Creationism9 Subsumed under the label of Old Earth Creationism are several variants that all, in one way or another, contain religious or biblical studies-related justifications for the possibility that the earth and life are not young, but many millions of years old. We will focus here on the variant of Old Earth Creationism that is represented by what is currently the largest Old Earth organization, Reasons to Believe. Unlike other versions of creationism, this organization will not specifically be discussed here (see Chap. 3). However, to the extent that other creationists see Old Earth Creationism as an illegitimate position, they are mainly referring to the variant that Reasons to Believe represents.10 According to proponents of Old Earth Creationism, between the two extremes of an interpretation of the Bible as advocated by Young Earth Creationism, and a purely naturalistic and, therefore, atheistic interpretation of the history of the universe, there is a third way. It combines the authentic Biblical message with the latest scientific, especially cosmological, insights, and finds that they complement each other. Although the Bible is inspired by God, and does not contain errors, its individual books also reflect the immediate environment and experience of those who wrote them. A literal interpretation ignoring these contexts is, therefore, rejected. This contextualization has several consequences: the Hebrew word for ‘day’ (yom, ‫ )יום‬is used metaphorically in the Bible, as are the words for ‘evening’ (ereb, ‫)ערע‬ and ‘morning’ (boqer, ‫)בקר‬. Thus the days in the creation account can be understood metaphorically as long periods or ages (Day/Age Theory).11 This results in a significant overlap between the biblical history of creation and secular science. The geological and paleontological processes, which characterize the geological ages for secular scientists, are posited to have taken place during long periods of time, which are called Creation Days. The various species, however, did not arise in the course of a seamless evolutionary process, but through successive acts of creation, to which the fossil layers bear the corresponding testimony (progressive creation; 9  This idealtypical summary of Old Earth Creationism uses information from scholarly texts that treat it as a distinct form of creationism (Numbers 2006, pp. 10–11, 72 and passim and McCalla 2006, p. 57, 155), and from the book The Fingerprint of God by Hugh Ross (Ross 1989), who heads Reasons to Believe (Glendora, California), the largest Old Earth organization. It also draws from the Statement of Belief of this organization (Reasons to Believe n.d.), and from the book The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Ramm 1954). 10  Detailed criticism of the form of creationism represented by Reasons to Believe can be found on the webpages of the two largest Young Earth organizations, Institute for Creation Research, and Answers In Genesis (Faulkner 1999). 11  The Day/Age Theory is one of the variants of Old Earth Creationism. It differs from other variants in how it justifies long periods through an interpretation of the book of Genesis. The Gap Theory assumes that there was a long period between Gen 1: 1 and Gen 1: 2, during which the same natural processes were at work that Day/Age ascribes to the 6 days of creation. The Ruin and Restoration Theory assumes that the creation account deals only with the last of a series of creations, and that the fossil record is the result of earlier ‘creations’. See Scott 2000a for this entire spectrum.

2.2  Old Earth Creationism

15

cf. Ramm 1954). The finite nature of the universe, which has become the dominant cosmological view in the course of the twentieth century, points to the activity of a creator. The exact values of the natural constants, the proportions of the solar system and of its planets, and the nature of the earth testify to planning activity, for only in exactly the present condition of the universe is life possible. This applies particularly to man, its highest form of realization. Therefore, the possibility of human, conscious life – the “anthropic principle” – is part of the construction plan of the universe. Through the act of looking at the universe, God reveals himself, just as he does in the Bible. Consideration of the greatness of the universe also gives emphasis to the smallness and impotence of man, from which follows the necessity of salvation through God. Through the concordance of modern cosmology and the biblical image of the Creator, the truth of the Christian faith is confirmed.

2.2.1  T  he Position of Evolutionary Theory in Old Earth Creationism12 The proponents of Old Earth Creationism do not deny that their views are based on a particular interpretation of the Bible. However, it does not, in their view, follow that the interpretation of the conflict between evolutionary biologists and cosmologists is one of “science versus religion”. On the contrary, an evolutionary biologist needs at least as much faith to accept his theory as a representative of Old Earth Creationism. In fact, the modern theory of evolution also contains an unprovable creation myth, and the process of natural selection functions as a quasi-divine, omnipotent, creative entity, from which all biodiversity is derived. It is, thus, a worldview in direct competition with the Christian perspective. It is no coincidence, therefore, that its representatives often behave quite similarly to religious fundamentalists. They are equally intolerant to divergent views, and adore Charles Darwin as an infallible prophet. Despite these obvious ideological flaws, they ask, is it possible to characterize evolutionary theory as scientific? Their answer is no, because scientific method involves observation, hypothesis formation, and experiments, all of which guarantee the potential for falsified results. In contrast to this, the Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution, which is basically Darwin’s original vision combined with knowledge of modern genetics, is not falsifiable, because it assumes random, unpredictable mutations. Any kind of evolution or non-evolution of any species is, therefore, compatible with it, and no biological event can function as evidence against it. This fundamental objection alone puts the theory of evolution outside the domain of science. On the level of concrete research, it is confronted with various problems, all of which confirm this general diagnosis. The development of life from non-life (abiogenesis) has seen only a single experimental validation (not confirmation!) in  This ideal-type position is compiled from the series Evolution as Mythology, which was published on the Reasons to Believe website in 2008 (Henry et al. 2008).

12

16

2  Creationist Positions

decades of research, and today even this experiment is questioned by scientists with regard to its presuppositions and execution.13 Even statistically, they claim that the random composition of complex organic molecules such as proteins is impossible. They insist, moreover, that the development of different species through the mechanisms cited by evolutionary theorists (macro-evolution), can only be made plausible through extrapolation of micro-evolutionary processes (small changes within the species boundaries) over very long periods of time. Macro-evolution has never been observed. In addition, the number of useful mutations is extremely low, and there is little evidence of a continuous evolution between species in the fossil record. Commonality between the organs of different species (homology) cannot serve as an argument for macro-evolution, since the development of the respective body parts is controlled by different genes. Overall, modern evolutionary theory is, therefore, viewed as a myth which serves the purpose of lending support to certain cultural ideologies, especially materialism, naturalism, and antitheism. Because of its dominant position as the only truly naturalistic paradigm, it continues to exist despite its scientific refutation. One of the main reasons for this is that the core group of its defenders is an influential atheistic minority. Since the alternative to evolutionary theory is God the creator, they defend it vehemently, despite the mounting evidence against it.

2.3  Intelligent Design14 Intelligent Design is particularly prominent in this work because of its importance in the public dispute over creationism in the United States. However, explaining Intelligent Design is also particularly difficult. While its representatives insist that they hold a scientific theory that is entirely independent of religious foundations or convictions, there is clear evidence that this position is closely linked to specific religious ideas and motives. This link is partly validated by some of the writings of the most prominent representatives of Intelligent Design itself, who occasionally refer to the religious basis of their position. But this link is also particularly obvious in the movement’s internal documents. Ultimately, Intelligent Design as a theory of the emergence and development of life cannot be separated from Intelligent Design as a theory of how God acts in the world. Therefore, this position is treated here as part of the creationist spectrum, even though its representatives deny this  This is the Miller-Urey experiment, where an assumed primordial atmosphere was imitated in 1953 under laboratory conditions. It produced simple organic substances by adding electricity to this supposed primordial soup. The criticism states that at the time of the abiogenesis, the atmospheric conditions were different from those assumed by Miller and Urey. 14   The presentation in  the  following two sections is based on  the  self-characterization of the Intelligent Design movement (Center for Science and Culture n.d.-b) as well as on articles of the New World Encyclopedia (New World Encyclopedia 2014). In addition, select arguments were used from monographs by well-known Intelligent Design representatives (Meyer 2013; Wells 2000; Behe 2006; Dembski 1998a). 13

2.3  Intelligent Design

17

classification. For this purpose, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the official, non-religious position of Intelligent Design, and its semi- or unofficial religious foundation. For it is, above all, due to the persistence of its representatives in declaring that Intelligent Design is not a distinctly religious view that renders it significant in the public sphere, in the education system, and in the dispute between creationists and anti-creationists in general. Therefore, we will first examine the ‘official’ variant. According to its proponents, Intelligent Design is characterized by the following views: it is a scientific research program that assumes that there are “certain features of the universe and of living things” (Center for Science and Culture n.d.-b) which can best be explained by reference to an intelligent cause, rather than a purposeless process like natural selection. There are biological forms, such as the flagella, the ‘motors’ of bacteria (such as E. coli) which cannot have naturally evolved from simpler forms. Theoretical earlier forms, such as individual parts of the bacterial motor, would not provide a selection advantage and, thus, would not be inherited. These biological forms fulfill a function only in their current complex configuration, making them irreducibly complex. In addition, such biological forms are highly specified, i.e., they fulfill a precise function in a precise configuration. It is obvious in these cases that there was an intervention by an intelligent designer, since there is no natural explanation of the phenomena. The method employed to detect irreducible and specified complexity is scientific, because it involves empirical observations, hypothesis formation, and experiments, and its conclusions are based on these techniques. While this method can be used to recognize intelligent design in nature, the designer remains undefined. For this reason, they claim it is wrong to postulate a link between Intelligent Design and creationism, or even to link the two, because creationists usually start their argument with reference to a religious text, and seek to reconcile the empirical world to it. Intelligent design not only uses the opposite approach by starting with empirical observations, but it also denies that modern biology can recognize whether the intelligent designer is even a supernatural agent, let alone the god of Christianity.

2.3.1  T  he Position of Evolutionary Theory in Intelligent Design Most proponents of Intelligent Design emphasize that their position is by no means fundamentally opposed to the theory of evolution, in so far as evolution is understood simply to mean change over time. The theory also does not reject out of hand the common descent of all creatures, since that does not contradict the theory of the existence of an intelligent cause for some biologically complex phenomena. Only the central proposition of natural selection is decidedly contradicted. As part of its goal of proving an intelligent designer as the most scientifically plausible cause of

18

2  Creationist Positions

evolution by researching irreducible complexity, Intelligent Design offers a scientific critique of the contemporary theory of evolution, and is, thus, in a scientific debate with it. They claim that the version of the theory of evolution that is presently dominant has some weaknesses, especially with regard to the explanation of irreducibly complex phenomena: the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, the cell, the molecular machines in the cell, the so-called Cambrian explosion,15 and some other objects and mechanisms. The proponents of Intelligent Design claim that debate and scientific exploration of these controversial subjects could happen peacefully and in the spirit of mutual scholarly respect, except that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are hostile to Intelligent Design, which they see as a threat to the dominance of the neo-­ Darwinian paradigm. The most frequent and persistent criticism is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory at all, but only another version of creationism that refrains from referring to god only because it seeks to become part of school and university curricula. These kinds of attacks are seen as not only inaccurate, but fundamentally unscientific, and fit what Intelligent Design advocates see as the generally aggressive behavior of the scientific establishment. As cases in point, they claim that it can be shown that the most important arguments and symbols of the neo-­ Darwinian paradigm are either refuted (e.g., Darwin’s tree structure of evolutionary development), or are the result of deliberate deception (such as Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of embryos of different species), or that they do not actually support the claim they are supposed to (such as the Miller-Urey experiment). The dishonesty of proponents of Neo-Darwinism can not only be seen in how they deal with representatives of Intelligent Design, but also with regard to their own theory, elements of which are still found in schoolbooks despite these profound criticisms.16 The goal of the evolutionists who use these means is to defend their own scientific standing as a dominant group. To Intelligent Design advocates, these defenses of an ossified paradigm in the face of an emerging new one are as old as the history of science itself. On the other hand, the ideological basis of the conflict from the Neo-Darwinist side should not be underestimated. Not only prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, but also many other leading representatives of evolutionary biology, are outspoken atheists, and representatives of cosmology and public education often display secular, humanistic, and materialistic attitudes. To be sure, their background and philosophies do not say anything about the scientific validity of Neo-Darwinism, per se, but then it follows that the Christian background of many Intelligent Design

 The Cambrian explosion refers to a period of rapid increase in biological complexity at the beginning of the Cambrian era, about 540 million years ago. In the course of a few million years, different biological strains were formed. For an interpretation of the Cambrian explosion from an Intelligent Design perspective, see Meyer 2013. 16  In anticipation of the next chapter of the institutional history of Intelligent Design, it can be noted that this stance has practical implications for the activities of its representatives, who see themselves as victims of censorship and bullying. See also the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Frankowski 2008). 15

2.4 Discussion

19

representatives should not play a role in the evaluation of their theory either. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the idea of a purely natural process based on blind chance of selection and variation as the origin of human life is well suited to support the claim that there is no creator.

2.4  Discussion There are similarities and differences between the variants of creationist ideas, and between the ways in which their representatives formulate their opposition to the theory of evolution. All deal with the relationship between science and religion.17 The theory of evolution receives special attention from the creationists, and all variants accept micro-evolution (development within species), but criticize or completely reject macro-evolution (emergence of new species), and doubt the purely natural, not divinely enacted, origin of life. Differences between Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, and Intelligent Design can be specified on three levels. First, their theological foundations vary considerably. Young Earth Creationism insists on a strict interpretation of the Bible as inerrant, which entails a literal reading of many of its parts, but Old Earth Creationism allows for allegorical interpretations of critical passages, and even integrates deistic arguments like the anthropic principle, that is, the belief that the universe is physically structured in a way that allows, maybe even compels, the emergence of humans. Finally, Intelligent Design, at least in its official version, does not mention any theological foundations at all, and treats religious interpretations of its results as separate from its scientific case, e.g., as implications of its research. Secondly, these fundamental differences result in considerable variation as to what kinds of scientific theories and facts are criticized or rejected, and what realm of natural processes can be considered independent of divine action. Due to its biblical literalism, Young Earth Creationism must not only reject the generally accepted scientific explanation for biological diversity and strive for a coherent alternative version, but also reject vast parts of geology, cosmology, paleontology, history, behavioral research, and psychology for the same reason. Old Earth Creationism, on the other hand, allows for the theological acceptance and integration of basic knowledge of modern astronomy and cosmology, which Young Earth Creationism has to deny because of the narrow time frame that it supposes for the development of the universe. Finally, since Intelligent Design does not have to defend any religious propositions besides the presupposition of acts of “mere creation”,18 it does not have  Despite the emphasis on the scientific nature of Intelligent Design by the representatives of this position, they do not deny the possibility that the theory is affine to and compatible with theism (Meyer 2009; Dembski 2009), and they often deal with religious validity claims (Johnson 2000; Behe 2006, pp. 232–253; Meyer 2009, pp. 439–452; Dembski 1998a, 2009; Ratzsch 1998). 18  This is the title of one of the early Intelligent Design conferences that helped consolidate the movement in the 1990s. See Chap. 3. 17

20

2  Creationist Positions

to take any position on the vast majority of the content of those sciences Young Earth Creationism has to explain or reject. The official subject area of Intelligent Design is mainly limited to specific parts of evolutionary biology which are analyzed critically, especially by means of biological and mathematical arguments. Lastly, the extent to which scientific theories and acknowledged facts are rejected by creationism largely determines the image of the scientists and institutions who advance these theories in the eyes of their critics. In Young Earth Creationism, science as a whole is theologically determined, while in Old Earth Creationism only parts of it are. This variant claims that scientists are not driven by a desire for truth, but by the desire to defend an image of the world without God. Old Earth Creationism, however, is also able to adopt many statements by non-creationist scientists, and it tries to gain legitimacy by emphasizing its agreements with them. Finally, in the case of Intelligent Design, there are no religious condemnations of scientists; rejection of the theory is discussed primarily in scientific terms (‘competing paradigm’) (Denton 1986; Moreland 1994:37, Wells 2006:195–207, Woodward 2003; see also Sect. 7.3).

Chapter 3

Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

In the previous chapter, the different variants of creationism were presented as concepts or, more specifically, as both different and partly overlapping systems of interpreting the world that also contain a specific perspective of the opposing interpretation system of secular science and, in particular, evolutionary theory. Sociologically, these ideas become relevant (and apprehensible) only when they are expressed via social action (Weber 1978:3–62). It is, therefore, necessary to ask how the social representation of creationism is structured. Who are the creationists, how do they organize themselves, how do they try to make their views public and defend themselves against criticism? For a number of reasons, it is particularly difficult to answer these questions in regard to the social representation of United States Creationism. In 2014, when asked about their views on the roles of God and evolution in the development of humans, 42% of respondents chose the following statement as matching their own views the most: „God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000  years or so.“31% of respondents chose the second answer: „Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.” Merely 19% chose the final option, which is: „human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process” (Swift 2017). None of these answers are identical to the beliefs of any particular form of creationism. The first can be accepted by both Young Earth and certain Old Earth creationists, the second by some Old Earth and Intelligent Design proponents, as well as by non-creationist theists, such as proponents of Theistic Evolutionism.1 Moreover, not only Deists or atheists would embrace the third option. Finally, the results of this survey, and those of most surveys on the subject, depend in part on contingent factors. For example, the results vary by a few percentage points depending on whether religious or 1  Generally speaking, „Theistic Evolution“ means the view that evolution happens as a natural process as described by science, but that it was set in motion and/or is guided by God. Today, this view is held by the largest (mainline) churches in the United States.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_3

21

22

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

s­ cientific issues have been addressed in the previous questions, how the preambles are formulated, and so on (Berkman and Plutzer 2010: 41–45). Despite these limitations, it remains a basic problem for a sociological analysis of American creationism that the number of Americans who hold creationist views is very large.2 In fact, in each of the representative surveys on creationism in the United States, there is a majority who support creationist views.3 This finding is important in regard to the objective of this book. It is impossible to capture and describe the ways in which millions of different people hold creationist views, even in a generalized form. Apart from the lack of resources for such a project, there is the problem that creationist arguments play a role in many areas of social life in the United States. Even if it was limited to public figures, such an analysis would have to take into consideration the contexts of such diverse people as Republican presidential candidates,4 conservative TV presenters,5 media activists6 and many other groups and individuals. Their statements involving creationism would have to be analyzed with regard to their respective intentions, reference groups, and sources of knowledge. All these people, however, draw their arguments from a relatively small number of sources: the producers of creationist knowledge and creationist strategy. These producers and their professional opponents are the topic of this work. They are not individual people, but institutions that represent one of the three variants presented. The main focus of this work is their development and positioning, and it will be shown that their development can be understood only with reference to the simultaneous development of their opponents. In this chapter, however, these structures and modes of action will first be examined without reference to their opponents. Here, too, no claim to completeness is made. Obscure creationist “research institutes”, mostly one-man businesses with a newsletter as their only output, exist by the dozens

2  Especially in light of recent research by Hill (2014), this blunt statement requires serious qualifications in addition to the critique of Gallup’s questionnaire; see Chap. 5. 3  Berkman and Plutzer 2010, p.  39 arrive at this conclusion after giving an overview of survey results that treat the question whether creationism should be taught in public schools. This means that the authors assert that to support the teaching of creationism is also to accept its truth claims. 4  The republican presidential candidates Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo answered in the negative when asked during a debate in 2007, whether they “believe in evolution”, see Cohen 2007. During the 2012 presidential election campaign, the Republican candidate Rick Perry drew attention with a statement against evolutionary theory, see Huffington Post 2011. 5  The well-known conservative journalist Bill O’Reilly came forward with statements supporting an Intelligent Design perspective multiple times. For instance, he stated that there is no scientific explanation for the tides. See the video interview at http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=wb3AFMe2OQY (07.05.2015). 6  The attorney and conservative activist Andrew Schlafly was in a prolonged conflict with the evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski, who had observed a rare useful mutation in bacteria. Schlafly, motivated by anti-evolutionary skepticism, demanded Lenski’s laboratory files and notes, which he denied to him on the grounds that he was not a member of the scientific community. The “Lenski Affair” is documented at Rational Wiki (n.d.-a)

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

23

in the United States.7 But there are institutional flagships for each of the ­‘creationisms’ considered here: The leading representatives of Young Earth Creationism in the United States are the Institute for Creation Research (Dallas, TX) and Answers in Genesis (Petersburg, KY). Intelligent Design is mainly represented by the Center for Science and Culture (Seattle, WA). These organizations develop and disseminate much of the content of the form of creationism they represent and, thus, have a great influence among those who adhere to their views. This is supported by the fact that smaller, regional creationist organizations and ministries often use the materials and arguments presented by these important organizations. They are also recognized as representative organizations by their anti-creationist opponents.8 It is very important to look at the producers of creationist and anti-creationist knowledge and strategy9 if one wants to gain a deeper understanding of why the conflict surrounding evolution and creationism exists in the form it does. These organizations are highly specialized, and strongly influence the public debate with their activities, even if what they say opposes other social trends, like the steady rise in the acceptance of scientific knowledge, and even if they do not reflect the position of larger population groups: Let us begin by recognizing the controversy as a debate between anti-Darwinists and anti-­ creationists, rather than creationists and evolutionists. Not all creationists are anti-­ Darwinists and not all evolutionists are anti-creationists. The debate is between a small, highly vocal subset of the populations each side claims to represent. Recalling this is the first step in resolving the apparent paradox of how such an antiscientific movement could garner so much attention at a historical moment when the life sciences have achieved unprecedented status and power (Comfort 2007:2–3).

Therefore, this chapter will address the following questions: What are the social and ideological positions of these organizations? In what ways do they represent a particular variant of creationism, and by what means do they try to increase its acceptance in the general population? Old Earth Creationism is represented by Reasons to Believe in Los Angeles (CA), and its viewpoints are a reference point for creationist (and also anti-­ creationist) organizations. Nevertheless, Reasons to Believe is not treated in this chapter. This is because it barely engages in the kinds of action that will be shown in the following chapters to be important to the conflict. In contrast to Young Earth and Intelligent Design organizations, Reasons to Believe has never been involved in the dissemination of creationist educational programs and materials in public schools, and members of the organization did not appear as expert witnesses in any of the important court cases concerning the teaching of evolution, creationism, or 7  See, for example, the list of regional creationist organizations in Morris 1984, pp. 341–347. In an earlier article, I analyzed one of the less significant creationist figures, Kent Hovind, and his organization Creation Science Evangelism (Kaden 2012; in German). 8  Anti-creationism will be discussed in Chap. 4. For instance, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research are featured in the works of leading anti-creationists, see Scott and Branch 2006, pp. 6–7. 9  „Strategy“refers to the way in which the organizations enforce their views within the American society at large, or in certain parts of it, for instance, in certain religious milieus. In Chap. 6, I will present a sociological theory of the creationist controversy, which entails a closer look at the strategies and means of the organizations.

24

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

Intelligent Design. It very obviously represents a religious position, which is why its legal exclusion from the public education system has never been a problem for anti-­ creationists. Furthermore, its arguments and public presentation do not seem to have changed significantly since it was founded in 1986.10

3.1  H  ow the Young Earth Creationist Organizations Originated and Developed Professional Young Earth Creationist initiatives in the United States came about as a reaction to two challenges: one religious, in the form of so-called Progressive Creationism, and one secular, in the form of a federal education reform. Henry Morris, who would later go on to found the Institute for Creation Research, responded to these challenges by, among other things, co-authoring the book The Genesis Flood, which was, and still is, foundational for modern creationism (Whitcomb and Morris 1961). Due to its great success in spreading and strengthening creationist views, the book has served as a catalyst for the formation of Young Earth institutions. Both the challenges that creationism experienced, and Morris’ reaction to those challenges, form the basis for the development of professional Young Earth Creationism. In 1954, the Baptist theologian and philosopher Bernard Ramm, in his book The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Ramm 1954), developed an interpretation of Scripture that was more in line with the findings of modern science. His approach attracted many Evangelicals in the United States, and was approved by prominent figures like Billy Graham (Numbers 2006:209). Ramm termed his approach Progressive Creationism, which is a version of Old Earth Creationism.11 Ramm accepts an old earth, and denies the possibility of gaining scientific knowledge from the Bible. He also denies that the Flood was a world-wide phenomenon, which leads him to reject Flood geology. The six creation days are for him only the period in which God revealed creation, while creation itself took place in a step-by-step process lasting millions of years. This applies in particular to biology: the individual species have been created by God successively (hence the name ‘Progressive Creation’), which is why the fossil record of secular science is valid in principle. This conception alone is an implicit critique of the theories of a young earth. But Ramm added to this criticism by calling it an “ignoble tradition” of hyperorthodoxy, which is in fundamental opposition to science (Ramm 1954:28–29). In 1961 the  An exception to this is the commitment of Hugh Ross, the head of Reasons to Believe, to the early Intelligent Design movement, which is illustrated by his participation in the 1996 Intelligent Design Conference ‘Mere Creation’. Ross, however, withdrew from the movement after a short time, and today Reasons to Believe distances itself clearly from Intelligent Design. See Ross 1998, but Rana 2010. 11  Progressive Creationism is part of a history of ideas of its own. St. Augustine first spoke of creatio continua. See Peters and Hewlett 2003, pp. 24–25., and passim. 10

3.1  How the Young Earth Creationist Organizations Originated and Developed

25

theologian John C. Whitcomb, and the already-mentioned Henry Morris, published, on the basis of Whitcomb’s dissertation, the book The Genesis Flood, which would become foundational for Young Earth Creationism. The book was motivated by their desire to defend an earlier account of flood geology (Price 1923) by countering Ramm’s influence on Evangelicals, yet Whitcomb took the trouble to specifically state that it had not been written exclusively in response to Progressive Creationism: „If the book is to be published only for the purpose of answering Dr. Ramm, it won’t be worth publishing.“ (Letter of Whitcomb, quoted after Numbers 2006:213.) In their introduction to The Genesis Flood, Whitcomb and Morris made it clear that their issue was not primarily the developments in science, but the Christian attempts to accommodate to these findings: If a worldwide flood actually destroyed the entire antediluvian human population, as well as all land animals, […] then its historical and scientific implications are tremendous. […] But of even greater importance are the implications of the mighty Flood of Genesis for Christian theology. […] Even evangelical Christians, though still professing belief in the divine validity of Scripture, have often capitulated to uniformitarian scholarship, denying the universality of the Flood and, with the denial, thereby sacrificing its mighty evangelistic witness to a world in rebellion against its Creator. (Whitcomb and Morris 1961:xix-xx.)

Here the connection between the creationist idea and the reader becomes apparent. The contradiction between the biblical account and scientific theories is, on the whole, a religious problem, that of a “world in rebellion against its Creator”. The Flood, although of great scientific importance, is above all a “powerful testimony to the Gospel.” Morris strikes a similar tone more than twenty years later in his History of Modern Creationism: The most disconcerting and lamentable aspect of the creation/evolution conflict is not the bitter opposition of the evolutionary humanists (one would expect this), but rather the willingness – even eagerness – of professing Christians to compromise with the evolutionists (one would not expect this!). (Morris 1984:327.)

The main audience of creationists is, therefore, religious individuals and organizations, with the intent of counteracting this trend. The main goal of these creationists is not just the integration of secular social areas (in particular, science and its institutions) into a religious framework but, first of all, the re-establishment of a difference between religious and non-religious logic, which to them seems to be blurred by Progressive Creationism. From this point of view, Young Earth Creationism is a special form of ecclesiology in its social aims and, thus, an inward-­ looking phenomenon. This view is vindicated by the structure of The Genesis Flood. The book begins with the chapter Basic Arguments for a Universal Flood (Whitcomb and Morris 1961:3–35). However, this chapter does not provide any scientific evidence, such as evidence of a catastrophic source for geological structures such as the Grand Canyon. The seven arguments listed there are all taken from the Bible. In Genesis 7: 19–20 the height of the flood is related, in Genesis 7 and 8 its duration of 371 days. Genesis 7:11 gives information about an important geological aspect (the abovementioned fountains of the deep), and Genesis 6:15 mentions the exact size of the Ark. Here, as in many other places, the function of the Ark is described, to save

26

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

all (not some) animal species from a universal (not local) flood. Second Peter testifies to the literal validity of the flood report and, finally, many different passages of the Bible testify to the extinction of all mankind by the Flood, thus proving its moral function. In sum, the character of Young Earth Creationism at this stage seems to be a form of “evangelism” or theological affirmation. The internal threat of Progressive Creationism seems to be of greater significance than the external threat, which serves as an additional argument. This second challenge appeared to representatives of the theory of a young earth to be secular education policy. In order to make this challenge comprehensible, we must look a little further into the past. In 1925 the biology teacher John T. Scopes in Tennessee had violated the Butler Act, a state law prohibiting the teaching of human evolution. In the subsequent spectacular Scopes Monkey Trial, creationism was prominently represented by the three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. The result of the trial was mixed. Large sections of the public saw creationism as an outdated remnant of the past, and Bryan, who agreed to be cross-­examined, contradicted himself. Legally, however, the prosecution won its case, and Scopes was sentenced to a minor fine. The Butler Act, as well as similar laws in Mississippi and Arkansas, remained in force for decades. Among other things, this meant that publishers of schoolbooks intentionally avoided evolution as a topic in order to be able to sell their products in these states. An abrupt change in this situation occurred in 1957, when the USSR unexpectedly succeeded in transporting a satellite into space. The resulting Sputnik Shock prompted the US government, under Dwight Eisenhower, to reform the education system so as not to fall behind in the science race between the superpowers. This educational program included, among other things, the establishment of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which was charged with the development of up-to-date biology textbooks. The books produced by the BSCS put emphasis on the theory of evolution, and were quickly adopted widely throughout the country.12 In many schools, where teachers had not taught evolution, sometimes for decades, the Sputnik Shock was followed by an ‘Evolution Shock’. In 1968, a Supreme Court decision further exacerbated the situation for opponents of evolutionary theory. Up to this point, laws from the days of the Scopes Trial prohibiting the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools had been in force in some twenty states. But biology teachers in these states had been conflicted since the educational reform took effect: How could they continue to ignore the theory of evolution when it constituted a central component in the textbooks they were now using? One of these teachers, Susan Epperson, sued to overturn the antievolution law of her home state of Arkansas in 1965, and three years later the Supreme Court of the United States decided in her favor (Epperson v. Arkansas; cf. Scott 2005:104; Thorndike 1999).

For Young Earth Creationists, this decision increased the pressure to strategically reorient themselves. „[I]f evolution could not be banned, how could children be protected from it? Keeping evolution out of the classroom was obviously not possible with evolution widely included in textbooks. Teaching the Bible along with evolution was one solution.” (Scott 2005:105.) The name under which Young Earth  The first editions were published in 1963, and within a few years they were used in about half of all American high schools. Within ten years, 48 states (except Mississippi and Alabama) had placed the BSCS books on their lists of textbooks (adoption lists) to be used. See Park 1997, pp. 83 & 90.

12

3.1  How the Young Earth Creationist Organizations Originated and Developed

27

Creationism posed in the 1970s and early 1980s in order to at least retain equality with evolutionary theory in biology teaching in public schools was Scientific Creationism or Creation Science.13 This programmatic development was mainly accomplished by Henry Morris’ Institute for Creation Research, which is introduced in more detail below.

3.1.1  The Institute for Creation Research14 After the rather marginal Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research is the second-oldest US Young Earth organization that is still active today. It was founded in 1972 by Henry Morris (1918–2006) who, 11 years previously, had published with John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, which made him one of the founders of modern scientific creationism (Whitcomb and Morris 1961. See also Numbers 2006: 225–234). The educational policy initiative of the US government during the 1960s evoked a counter-reaction on the part of the creationists, which resulted in the Creation Science program. Many of the activities undertaken by the Institute for Creation Research in the 1970s and 1980s were aimed at affecting the public education system, because it had been reformed in an unfavorable way for creationists as a result of the Sputnik Shock. Accordingly, the focus of its activities was on influencing schools through the presentation of draft legislation, the training of teachers, and the issuing of publications which were designed specifically to be used in schools. In the course of its first decade, there was virtually no scientific research at all, but this would later be a major activity of the organization (Numbers 2006, S. 315). During this time, the activities of the Institute for Creation Research consisted of sponsoring trips to Mount Ararat and other places, as well as literature research and the publication of texts which, however, did not yet contain their own research, but consisted mostly of commentary on existing research.15 In the 1970s, four states proposed laws in response to the Epperson decision. They decreed that the increasingly popular Creation Science was to be given the same status as the theory of evolution (Balanced Treatment) in biology teaching. These so-called equal time or balanced treatment laws were designed by the Institute for Creation Research, and debated in state legislatures in 1974  in Washington, 1976, 1977, and 1979  in Tennessee, 1979  in Georgia, and 1977 and 1979 in Iowa, although none were ultimately adopted as law (Park 1997:263). In Iowa, the creationist legislative initiative was particularly intense. Between

13  Henry Morris, coauthor of The Genesis Flood, is also the author of the foundational work Scientific Creationism (Morris 1974). For an overview of the development of Scientific Creationism see Scott 2005, pp. 91–111, McCalla 2006, pp. 181–198, Numbers 2006, pp. 268–285. 14  The following brief summary of the history of the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis is elaborated in detail in Numbers 2006, pp. 208–238 and pp. 312–320 (on the Institute for  Creation Research) and  pp. 400–421 passim (on Answers in  Genesis). For  the  Institute for Creation Research, see also Morris himself in Morris 1984, pp. 235–272. 15  According to Park (1997, p. 69), the Institute for Creation Research sold over one million copies of a total of 60 publications during the first decade of its existence.

28

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities 1977 and 1983, no less than nine bills were debated in the state’s General Assembly, all aimed at giving equal status to Creation Science in biology teaching. At the beginning of the 1980s, a model law was developed by the Institute for Creation Research which was eventually passed into law in Arkansas and Louisiana.16 It compelled all school districts to teach Creation Science. In January 1982 the Arkansas law was quickly struck down as unconstitutional,17 and when the United States Supreme Court annulled the Louisiana law in 1987 (see Justia.com n.d.), the Creation Science offensive had officially failed. In the wake of legal enforcement of creationism in schools, the Institute for Creation Research wanted to contribute to teacher training, and began to run a graduate center (Division of Graduate Study and Research) for that purpose. In the academic year 1981/82 it offered a master’s degree in science education for the first time, a subunit of which was titled Two Models for Origins and Scientific Thought Today (Institute for Creation Research [1981]:37–38). This program was accredited by the State of California until 1988 (Numbers 2006:318–319). Since then, there have been several attempts to regain accreditation for these or similar courses in California, as well as in Texas, where in 2010 a longer litigation ended in a defeat for the Institute for Creation Research (Branch 2010a). It is still possible to obtain non-accredited degrees at the Institute for Creation Research’s School of Biblical Apologetics (SOBA),18 as well as an online course specially tailored to Young Earth Creationists in local leadership positions.19

In the publications of the Institute for Creation Research, references to the Bible and the Christian god were initially integrated into the text. But there have been publications that specifically omitted these references, and only retained the “scientific” arguments and criticisms, that is, those referring to natural processes. By omitting Biblical references, the members of the Institute for Creation Research hoped to incorporate their ideas into the public school system. The above-mentioned model law was based on the already-existing publications of the Institute of Creation Research. In 1974, Morris had already published the book Scientific Creationism, which came in two versions, one “general edition”, which contained a chapter Creation According to Scripture (Morris 1974:203–255), and a version for schools without this chapter. After the political failure of Creation Science, the Institute for Creation Research moved the focus of its activities to publications for a broader public, as well as public debates and lectures focusing on the scientific foundation of Young Earth Creationism. The theories it employed contained clear references to the Bible, such as baraminology and Flood geology. Since 1988, it has had great success with its Back to Genesis seminar series, a series of biblical education events in churches and congregations, which sometimes attracted several thousand people, and served as a  Act 590/R.S. 17:286.1 to 286.7, Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public Schools. 17  For this process there is a detailed documentation at Antievolution.org 2005a. 18  “The Institute for Creation Research School of Biblical Apologetics is a formal education arm of the Institute for Creation Research. SOBA provides graduate-level training in biblical education and apologetics, especially emphasizing the theological issues tied to Genesis 1–11, through its current Master of Christian Education (M.C.Ed.) degree that features a joint major in Biblical Education and Apologetics. Also, the M.C.Ed. program currently provides a choice of four academic minors to allow concentrated study of different areas of biblical education and apologetics.” (Institute for Creation Research 2016a, p. 6.). 19  The program is entitled The Creationist Worldview. See Institute for Creation Research 2016b. 16

3.1  How the Young Earth Creationist Organizations Originated and Developed

29

large source of revenue for the Institute for Creation Research (Numbers 2006:318– 319). The person responsible for the series was Ken Ham, founder and current president of Answers in Genesis (see below).20 Today, the regular publications of the Institute for Creation Research include the daily exegetical newsletter Days of Praise, which according to their own data (Institute for Creation Research n.d.-a) has about 300,000 readers, as well as the magazine Acts & Facts, which is available monthly free of charge on the Internet and, according to data from the Institute, reaches about 200,000 people (Institute for Creation Research n.d.-a). Research articles appearing in this magazine are peer reviewed by other Creation Scientists before publication. In addition to books, CDs, and DVDs on exegetical, biological, geological, and social issues, the Institute provides foundational works such as the Defender’s Study Bible. This is a version of the King James Bible that contains several thousand marginal notes by Henry Morris, which are intended to point the way for exegesis in the Young Earth sense. In addition, there is a radio program, which according to the Institute is syndicated by about 1500 stations worldwide.21 In addition to these publications, the Institute for Creation Research conducts its own research programs, which continue to be the main focus of its activities. A project on Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth (RATE) led to the publication of eight articles, a five-part audio series, and four books in the years between 1999 and 2005 (Institute for Creation Research n.d.-c). Currently (April 2017), the organization pursues twelve projects in seven research areas, among them physics, anatomy, and climate science (Institute for Creation Research n.d.-d). The Institute for Creation Research also maintains an article database with Technical Research Papers. The series begins in 1984, ends in 2013, and includes exegetical, hydrological, physical, and historical works (Institute for Creation Research n.d.-e).

3.1.2  Answers in Genesis Answers in Genesis was founded in 1994 by Ken Ham, and now is more important for Young Earth Creationism than the Institute for Creation Research as a knowledge and strategy resource.22 Ham was born in Australia, and worked there as a biology teacher.23 His  Ibid, p.  400. The latest transfer of personnel is in the other direction: the former head of the astronomy program at Answers in Genesis, Jason Lisle, has been Director of Physical Sciences at the Institute of Creation Research since 2012. See Institute for Creation Research 2012. 21  For this purpose, the Institute for Creation Research offers its own station finder, which can be used to determine channels and send times from its programs. For instance, the service records 48 stations in California, and 54 stations in Texas. See Institute for Creation Research n.d.-b. 22  Scott (2005, p. 103) still refers to Answers in Genesis as the second-largest Young Earth organization and justifies this estimate on the basis of the organization’s annual earnings, which was around US $ five million in 2000. In 2017, however, revenue had risen to more than 21 million US $, which is more than three times the earnings of the Institute of Creation Research. See Charity Navigator 2017a, b. 23  Numbers 2006, p. 400. A presentation of the life story of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis from the perspective of the organization is provided by Answers in Genesis (2018a). 20

30

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities attention was drawn to the United States and the developing professional creationism movement after reading The Genesis Flood in 1974. In the early 1980s, he founded the Creation Science Foundation with other creationists in Australia. During these years, his work consisted mainly of public lectures. In 1987, the year he published his first and best-known book The Lie: Evolution, he moved to the US and became an employee of the Institute for Creation Research. In 1994, he left that, and founded Answers in Genesis. Within a few years, the organization established a network of sister institutions in Australia, the USA, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, Japan, and South Africa. Since then, Ham speaks to more than 100,000 people a year (Numbers 2006, p. 400).

In order to understand the way Answers in Genesis acts, it is important to note that Ham began to engage in professional American creationism when the Creation Science program had already failed as a means to provide creationists access to American public schools. Activities aimed at implementing the creationist message in public schools had been legally prohibited since 1987. This development is clearly reflected in Answers in Genesis’ strategies. The organization does produce material that can be used in schools, such as Evolution Exposed, which offers a critical analysis of the most frequently used biology textbooks, and is supposed to aid pupils in engaging their teachers in classroom discussions (Patterson 2006). But this material is legally illegitimate as teaching material and is, therefore, conceived as a provider of information for informal opposition by students. In addition, scientific research, which is central to the Institute for Creation Research, is only a marginal component of Answers in Genesis. Since 2008, the organization has published its Answers Research Journal which, in the same way as Acts & Facts, features mainly scientific texts, is also peer reviewed, and is available free of charge online (Answers in Genesis 2018b). But at Answers in Genesis, there are no long-running scientific research projects, such as the RATE project of the Institute for Creation Research, which generate new creationist knowledge, and disseminate it through various media. Instead, the main activities of Answers in Genesis bear witness to a strategic reorientation of creationists that takes account of the development described above. Compared to its older sibling, it places less emphasis on the production of convincing creationist theories, and concentrates more on the marketing of existing theories to the public. Even moreso than for the Institute for Creation Research, the focus here is on evangelism, or affirmation of the creationist message within the faith community. Accordingly, in contrast to the Institute for Creation Research, at Answers in Genesis there is a tendency towards the so-called Disneyfication of religion and creationism. This means that it embeds its messages in an artificial landscape, like an amusement park, which presents a harmonious and utopian view of the world and society (Hochgeschwender 2007:207, Kelly and Hoerl 2012). At the same time, presenting creationism in a Disneyfied way also entails a loss of scientific seriousness and credibility. This is only a plausible strategy because it has become impossible to officially teach creationism in public schools, and the creationists still want to reach their target audience. Examples of how Answers in Genesis Disneyfies creationism are its Vacation Bible Schools with their annually changing themes,24 the Creation Museum (Answers in Genesis 2018d), and the life-sized Ark replica near Petersburg, Kentucky (Answers in Genesis 2018e; see also Kaden 2016, Bielo 2018). By

 See Answers in Genesis 2018c. In addition to the Vacation Bible Schools organized by Answers in Genesis, one can also purchase material packages on the site to create one’s own summer camp.

24

3.1  How the Young Earth Creationist Organizations Originated and Developed

31

his own account, Ken Ham grew frustrated with the depiction of evolution in secular museums, and he had harbored the idea of an orthodox Christian natural science museum for a long time before his idea was realized in 2007. It gained national (Rothstein 2007) and international (Woltersdorf 2007) attention even before its opening. The approximately 2.4 million people who visited the museum between the opening in 2007 and mid-2015 (Trollinger and Trollinger 2016) were exposed to different marketing strategies, in particular elaborate cross-promotion. For example, a lecture on the topic Is Genesis Relevant in Today’s World is held daily in the Legacy Hall. During the talk, the geologist Dr. Terry Mortenson, weaves in the current activities of Answers in Genesis, and promotes its current publications. Meanwhile, a team of employees sets up a sales table near the entrance of the hall, so the audience can purchase the products that were talked about during the lecture as they exit.

The publications mentioned by Mortenson include a commented collection of biblical texts called Begin (Ham and Hodge 2011). Near the end of Begin, there is a chapter titled Ten Basics to Boldly Proclaim a Biblical Worldview, in which the central arguments are summarized (Ibid., p. 210–232). At the end of all ten sections, the authors provide links to further articles on the organization’s website, and mention relevant publications by Answers in Genesis staff. On these websites and in these publications, there are references to further Answers in Genesis books and video presentations. These many self-references are likely an important reason why the annual earnings of Answers in Genesis continue to be in the millions of dollars (Charity Navigator 2017a). The marketing character of these activities is also reflected in their use of catchy slogans. The catchphrase “belief in millions of years”, originally used by Ken Ham to denounce theories of an old earth, has been used in many other books, essays, and video presentations by all the leading Answers in Genesis staff members, and it can be found thousands of times on the organization’s website.25 According to their own account, Answers in Genesis operates one of the largest religious Internet sites. The website contains video productions, a sales page, and essays, along with a list with arguments which should no longer be used by Young Earth Creationists (Answers in Genesis 2018f). This list includes arguments such as the dust layer on the moon proving universe to be young,26 or that there are no useful mutations.27 The latter argument is important in other variants of creationism, which is why the criticism on the Answers in Genesis website serves as an important indicator of differences among creationists.

 Examples for this are the essay Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years? (Mortenson 2006) and the video presentation Noah’s Flood: Washing Away the Millions of Years by Terry Mortenson (Mortenson 2009). 26  DeYoung 2007. There is less dust in the universe than assumed by proponents of this argument, so the relatively thin dust layer would also be compatible with an old moon. 27  Purdom 2008. Answers in Genesis argues here that the strict statement that there are no useful mutations is wrong, since it is always necessary to look at the context. Specific mutations increased the body’s defenses against HIV but made them more susceptible to other viral diseases. The concession of this point is important because the question of the existence of useful mutations is a central point in all variants of the critique of evolution theory. Thus, unlike the question of the dust layer on the moon, it is not linked to a Young Earth context, but is also relevant to Young and Old Earth arguments. 25

32

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

Unlike the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis’ focus of research is not on natural sciences, but on social science studies of the spread of creationist views. Two publications, Already Gone and Already Compromised, deal with the religious development and representation of Young Earth Creationism by American Christian colleges. The results of both studies were alarming for Answers in Genesis: young people are beginning to doubt the literal truthfulness of biblical testimony, and are internally alienated from their communities even before they leave the parental home (Ham and Beemer 2009). Already Compromised supplements this diagnosis of the impending religious decline of the younger generation by showing that many Christian schools do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible (Ham and Hall 2011). Both studies were conducted in collaboration with America’s Research Group, a South Carolina survey company (Ham and Beemer 2009:189). Both contain advice for better communication of the biblical message. In Already Gone, the advice is that preachers should avoid “shallow, relational, and sentimental stuff”, and focus more on the biblical message itself (Ham and Beemer 2009:123). Similarly, Already Compromised states: „If we are going to reclaim the ground lost in this battle, we are going to have to develop strategies for the Church to move forward and not into further retreat.” (Ham and Hall 2011:99.) The purpose of these works is to stimulate and develop strategies to better convey the creationist message, rather than to produce creationist knowledge. Like the other activities of Answers in Genesis, they can be understood as elements of public relations or inner mission.

3.2  H  ow Intelligent Design Organizations Originated and Developed The history of the Intelligent Design movement can roughly be divided into three sections. From the early 1980s to the early 1990s, the key figures gradually created distance from the failed Creation Science program by bringing in new people, developing new arguments, and creating new institutions. The movement consolidated and gained some early major public significance in the early 1990s, when Intelligent Design was taken up and promoted by the law professor Phillip E. Johnson. The same period also saw the founding of the central institutional hub of Intelligent Design, the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, which today is called the Center for Science and Culture. The years since the turn of the millennium have witnessed Intelligent Design’s high point of public and educational influence, its judicial failure in Pennsylvania in 2005, and a subsequent, and still ongoing, reorientation. The roots of Intelligent Design as a social movement lie in the Creation Science movement and its legal failure. The relationship of Intelligent Design to Creation Science, and its history, can be exemplified by the editions of the book Of Pandas and People, published in

3.2  How Intelligent Design Organizations Originated and Developed

33

1989 and reissued in 1993 and 2004.28 Although the phrase “Intelligent Design” had been used earlier in creationist contexts, Of Pandas and People is the first book in which the connection between intelligent design and creationism is systematically denied. But this was not the case from the beginning. Since 1983, five different manuscripts of the book have circulated, some of them under a different title. Two are from 1987. The first identifies the cause of biological complexity, the origin of life, and other phenomena, as an “intelligent creator”, but in the second version of the manuscript from the same year, this phrase is changed to “intelligent designer.” This change happened so hurriedly that, in a passage in the second manuscript of 1987, the phrase “cdesign proponentsists” (sic!) appears, an obvious mistake, where the replacement phrase “design proponents” was inserted without first fully deleting the prior “creationists” (Matzke 2009:382–383). The history of Young Earth Creationism, considered above, provides clues about the reasons for this change. 1987 was the year of the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, when the Supreme Court conclusively rendered the balanced treatment laws unconstitutional. Before that, the book had been designed by its authors as a Creation Science textbook (Ibid.:399–401). One of the two authors of Of Pandas and People, the biologist Dean H. Kenyon, had been present at the Edwards hearing in 1987 as a witness to the defense, and issued a sworn statement claiming that Creation Science is a legitimate science.29 Of Pandas and People and, therefore, the Intelligent Design movement are highly likely to have changed their terminology as a result of Creation Scientists’ attempts to change their program to get it into constitutionally safe waters.

At that time, Intelligent Design was little more than a loose group of a few Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists, some with secular, accredited scientific degrees, and some with close connections to religious congregations. What united them was the desire to produce something similar to Creation Science that could be disseminated to the public, and gain public, legal, and scholarly recognition. At that time, the only organization dedicated to the spread of Intelligent Design, was the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, and its main purpose was the publication of Of Pandas and People.30 The marginal position of the representatives of Intelligent Design was altered in 1991 with the publication of the book Darwin On Trial by Phillip E. Johnson (Johnson 1991.). Johnson had been an assistant to a United States Supreme Court judge, and later held a professorship at the prestigious University of California at Berkeley, which lent considerable substance to his intercession in the creationist milieu and beyond.31 It was also thanks to Johnson that the leading figures of the Intelligent Design movement found each other. These include the science historian Stephen C. Meyer, currently director of the Center for Science and Culture (see below), the mathematician William Dembski, and the biochemist Michael Behe, who are the authors of the best-known books on Intelligent Design (Numbers 2006:380; Forrest 2001:7–8). 28  Davis and Kenyon 1993. „It was in the production of Pandas that the ID terminology, in its present use, was born.” (Ruse and Pennock 2009, p. 369). 29  See The Talk Origins Archive (2005). He states: „I believe that a scientifically sound creationist view of origins is not only possible, but is to be preferred over the evolutionary view.” 30  The organization still exists, and maintains close contacts with the Center for Science and Culture (see below). In fact, it is now officially integrated into the Discovery Institute, the parent organization of the Center for Science and Culture, as a DI press imprint. See Discovery Institute Press n.d. 31  For example, the well-known paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (see Sect. 4.2) panned Johnson’s book in the renowned popular scientific journal Scientific American (Gould 1992).

34

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

Johnson was also the intellectual father of the Intelligent Design strategy of forming a coalition of different views by emphasizing the common denominator of rejecting the theory of a non-directed, purely naturalistic evolution. In 1993, he presented this diagnosis: What the situation requires is a critique of evolutionary naturalism that puts aside the biblical issues for the time being and concentrates on the scientific and philosophical weaknesses in the established Darwinist orthodoxy (Johnson 1993).

Later, this strategy became known as the “tent strategy” (Numbers 2006:380). It first manifested itself in a series of conferences, one of which took place in 1996 at the Evangelical Biola University in Southern California. Its title, Mere Creation, signals the intention to form a union of opponents of evolutionary theory, the positive common denominator being “mere creation” independent of exegetical creationist details. At the same time, the use of ‘creation’ instead of ‘design’ or a similar term shows that the transformation of the Creation Science program had not yet completely taken place. Mere Creation was also the title of the keynote address by William Dembski (Dembski 1998a). In it, he described the purpose of the program: „Rather than look for common ground on which all Christians can agree, propose a theory that puts Christians in the strongest possible position to defeat the common enemy of creation, to wit, naturalism.” (Ibid.:13–14.) The list of participants in Mere Creation gave reason to hope that this strategy would work. The emerging Intelligent Design movement had brought together not only representatives of Progressive Creationism (see Sect. 3.1.1) like Dembski, but also other Old Earth Creationists, above all the head of Reasons to Believe, Hugh Ross, as well as Biochemist Michael Behe, a Catholic, and even a representative of Young Earth Creationism. Consequently, at that time Intelligent Design was different from Young Earth organizations, such as the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, whose main focus and audience were Protestant denominations from the spectrum of fundamentalism and evangelicalism.

3.2.1  The Center for Science and Culture A new phase in the history of Intelligent Design began with the foundation in 1996 of the Center for Science and Culture, which is still the main institutional representative of the movement. Organizationally, the Center for Science and Culture is a division of the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle, Washington, founded by Bruce Chapman just prior to the Center for Science and Culture.32 The Discovery Institute hosts several departments dealing with issues of economics, technology, and human exceptionalism (Discovery Institute n.d.). Indirectly, there Chapman had previously been Secretary of State in the State of Washington, had directed the Census Bureau of the United States in the 1980s, and worked as an assistant to Ronald Reagan. See Numbers 2006, p. 381.

32

3.2  How Intelligent Design Organizations Originated and Developed

35

fore, this structure indicates there is also a link between creationism and other social questions, just as with Young Earth Creationism. The Center for Science and Culture has a permanent staff, including its director Stephen C. Meyer. But the most prominent representatives of Intelligent Design are associated with the Center as Fellows (22 in 2017) and Senior Fellows (18 in 2017 see Center for Science and Culture n.d.-c), including the previously mentioned Michael Behe33 and William Dembski.34 Many of the Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture are involved in academic activities that are not linked with the American fundamentalist counterculture (Armstrong 2000:199–232). Intelligent Design is, thus, located outside the milieu which hosts other creationist groups. Behe, for example, is a professor of biochemistry at the respectable Lehigh University in Pennsylvania (Lehigh University n.d.), and Dembski was a member of the Christian Baylor University in Texas between 1999 and 2005. A conflict that occurred during this period illustrates how the organizational structure of the Intelligent Design movement (in contrast to the relatively closed-off nature of Young Earth organizations and educational institutions) can cause problems. In 1999, Dembski attempted to found a research institute dedicated to the spread of Intelligent Design, the Michael Polanyi Center, at his home university.35 It existed for only a year in its original form, after which it was dissolved, and continued as a sub-­ program of the Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning, due to criticism by other faculty members.36 Michael Behe proactively tackles this issue through an official disclaimer on his faculty website, which states that his professional opinions are not that of the faculty, and that most of his colleagues, in fact, contradict him.37 The plan for the establishment of the Michael Polanyi Center can be seen as part of the general strategic plan of the Center for Science and Culture and its members to gain influence in secular institutions. The Center’s own term for this is wedge strategy. If the tent strategy represents the strategy of Intelligent Design within the  Behe is known as an Intelligent Design proponent mainly through his Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 2006), which presents the idea of a (possible) irreducible complexity of biological structures, and which sold several hundred thousand copies (cf. Behes’ statement on the sales figures in Olson 2006). 34  Dembski discusses whether there is intelligent design and how one can identify it from a philosophical-logical standpoint (Dembski 1998b). His best-known contribution to the theory of Intelligent Design is the “explanatory filter”, through which design can be found in nature (Dembski 1998b). See the criticism of Scott 2005, pp. 120–121. 35  The center is named after Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian-British scientist who criticized, among other things, reductionist explanations of the biological cell. Cf. Polanyi 1968, where he already speaks of biological irreducibility. 36  The National Center for Science Education (see Sect. 4.2.3) summarizes this development as follows: „So the Michael Polanyi Center was stripped of its name, placed squarely under the jurisdiction of a philosophy and religion administrative unit, subjected to a faculty advisory committee, and not very subtly put on notice that ID lacked status as a scholarly enterprise.” (Scott 2000b). 37  „My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.” (Lehigh University n.d.) 33

36

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

creationist milieu, the wedge describes an attempt to increase its influence in the wider culture. The basis of the wedge strategy is an internal document of the Center for Science and Culture called The Wedge, which was published on the Internet in 1999, and was probably written by its members the year before (Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998]; cf. Forrest 2001:13–14). The document lists as goals of the Center „[t]o defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies“, and „[t]o replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God“ (Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998]:4). In light of previous efforts to eradicate direct references to religious beliefs (“creator”) in Of Pandas and People, it seems justified to assume that the dual strategy of the Center for Science and Culture also entails a dual way of talking about Intelligent Design. Internally, i.e., among colleagues of the Discovery Institute and religious proponents of the program over which Intelligent Design is to be stretched as a tent, religious terminology is applied. When addressing the secular world into which Intelligent Design is to be driven like a wedge, it is replaced by (supposedly) secular terms. In addition to the above mentioned general objectives, the Wedge document sets out more precise ways to achieve them. Within five years (i.e., by 2003/2004), Intelligent Design is to be established as a recognized alternative within the natural sciences, specifically through public debates, books on various topics,38 scientific articles, and coverage in national media (including explicitly the public service broadcaster PBS). In addition, a “spiritual & cultural renewal” should also already be noticeable. This means that “mainline renewal movements”, i.e., groups within the established United States denominations “repudiate theologies influenced by materialism”. As a result, larger denominations should be brought in to defend the “traditional doctrine of creation”, and reject Darwinism. Eventually, public surveys are supposed to show a positive reception of the religious point of view on topics such as sexuality, abortion, and faith in God. Fifteen years later, Intelligent Design is to be established as the dominant perspective within science, and applied in the natural sciences and the humanities, politics, theology, and art; in short: “[t]o see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.” (Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998]:4). Until the mid-2000s, the Center for Science and Culture seemed to be on the right path to achieving many of the goals set out in the five-year plan. In 2005, however, the movement suffered a major setback which would significantly influence its future prospects and actions. A district judge in the state of Pennsylvania ruled in a precedent setting case that Intelligent Design is, indeed, inherently religious, and prohibited it from being taught in biology classes (Jones 2005). The reason for the trial was a decision by the regional school board in the small town of Dover in October 2004: „Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.“ (Ibid.) A coalition of concerned parents, among them Tammy Kitzmiller, who gave  Here a social ethical impetus of the program is already apparent. The points which these publications are intended to cover include “sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion” (p. 4).

38

3.2  How Intelligent Design Organizations Originated and Developed

37

the case its name, filed a lawsuit against the school district, and won their case in a widely covered trial in December 2005. In the course of the trial, members of the Center for Science and Culture, such as Michael Behe, appeared as witnesses, as well as members of anti-creationist organizations, such as philosophy professor Barbara Forrest (Spath 2008). According to the plaintiffs’ brief, the most important argument against the scientific nature of Intelligent Design was its historical link to Creation Science, which had already been declared unconstitutional, as shown in the editions of Of Pandas and People. In fact, the study of the manuscripts of the book was only made during preparation for the trial, since the defending school commission had further determined that teachers would read a text to the pupils of ninth grade classes which included the statement: “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.” (Jones 2005.) Even after the legal defeat, the Center for Science and Culture remained an active and very visible organization. Its members publish books and articles highlighting peer-­ reviewed publications in scientific journals (Center for Science and Culture n.d.-d).39 3.2.1.1  The Center for Science and Culture and New Atheism Among the movement’s more recent publications, references to atheism, and in particular the so-called New Atheism discussed in the following chapter, are particularly prominent. Above all, the work of the ethologist Richard Dawkins is the focus of the work of many members of the Center for Science and Culture. Since the focus of this book is on the interactions of creationist and anti-creationist groups and individuals, the references of Intelligent Design proponents to Richard Dawkins are worthy of description here. Several aspects of Dawkins’ work are referenced and criticized by the representatives of Intelligent Design on three levels: First, the natural science-related content of Dawkins’s work, namely his theory of genetic reproduction; second, the defense of the theory of evolution by Dawkins as an indisputable scientific fact; and third, his atheistic interpretations of the scientific findings, that is, his worldview. The epistemological critiques, especially on the philosophical or worldview level, are the most significant part of the creationist critique of Dawkins. But there is also a predominantly content-related concern with Dawkins’ work. Michael Behe, one of the most prominent representatives of Intelligent Design, presents such criticism in several places in his book Darwin’s Black Box. For instance, he criticizes Dawkins’ evolutionary explanation of the biochemical mechanism in the Bombardier beetle. The beetle mixes two substances that, when combined, are explosive, and hurls  Signature in the Cell, the Opus Magnum of the Director of the Center for Science and Culture, Stephen C. Meyer (Meyer 2009), was included in the Books of the Year list of the Times Literary Supplement.

39

38

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

them at enemies. Dawkins (Dawkins 1986) makes it clear that the substances require a catalyst for this, and that the starting chemicals also have other functions in the beetle. The evolutionary explanation of the defense mechanism, therefore, mainly concerns the origin of the catalyst, and not that of the entire system (Ibid.:86–87). In this, as in many other instances, Behe’s criticism is that the presence of the starting products does not explain their arrangement in a complex system. Behe claims that mechanisms like that of the Bombardier beetle are irreducibly complex, i.e., they only function when a plurality of existing parts are arranged in a specific manner. A gradual development is, therefore, impossible, since everything must have developed at the same time. Interestingly, Dawkins had written his explanation of the mechanism in question as a reply to a critique of Darwinism. Although the author of this criticism, Francis Hitching, is not a creationist, Behe suggests that his approach constitutes creationism, and he positions Intelligent Design as the truth between two errors: Although Dawkins gets the better of the exchange [between Hitching and Dawkins], neither he nor the creationists make their case. […] The problem with the above “debate” is that both sides are talking past each other. One side [Hitching] gets the facts wrong; the other side [Dawkins] merely corrects the facts (Behe 2006: 34).

The criticism of Dawkins’ work by Michael Denton, Fellow of the Discovery Institute, is on a different level. His Evolution: A Theory in Crisis from 1986 is one of the foundational documents of Intelligent Design (see Sect. 7.3). In the chapter From Darwin to Dogma, he quotes Dawkins’ statement that „[t]he theory [of evolution] is about as much in doubt as the earth goes around the sun,“(Denton 1986:75; cf. Dawkins 1976:1) and he comments: „Now of course such claims are simply nonsense. For Darwin’s model of evolution is still very much a theory and still very much in doubt when it comes to macroevolutionary phenomena.” (Denton 1986:75). Denton does not, however, detail what problems he sees when trying to explain “macroevolutionary phenomena”, i.e., the emergence of new species, through the mechanisms of evolution. Instead of such content-related considerations, which would resemble Behe’s, Denton interprets the Dawkins’ statement as an attempt to defend a scientific paradigm by one of its foremost representatives. Denton makes it clear that a basic tenet of “sociology of knowledge” is the fact that the validity of paradigms depends less on their respective cognitive value, that is, on their “empirical content or rational consistency”, but on the degree of “social support” they can chalk up (Ibid.). In the search for factors that assure this support apart from, and even despite, the paradigm’s empirical validity, Denton cites Karl Popper, who had accused evolutionary theory of being unfalsifiable for a time. He also quotes Paul Feyerabend, who identified ‘absolutization mechanisms’ within paradigms. These mechanisms serve as a means of consolidation, but at the same time, they render a paradigm a ‘myth’. Consequently, both the theory of evolution and its proponents suffer from mythological blindness (Denton 1986:75–77). This philosophy of science-­based criticism is already quite a bit removed from mere criticism of the presentation of evolutionary facts by Dawkins.

3.2  How Intelligent Design Organizations Originated and Developed

39

A third level of criticism is reached with arguments pertaining to worldview or religious issues. Dawkins, along with a few other contemporary writers, can claim a monopoly on this form of criticism from proponents of Intelligent Design ever since the movement took shape. This despite the fact that the combination of evolution, ontological materialism, and atheism is a classic theme of US religious conservatism, and is not limited to certain variants of creationism. Most of the works that provide content-related and philosophy of science-based criticism of New Atheism also treat this worldview-related dimension of Dawkins’ work. The book How To Be An Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not) (Dembski and Wells 2008) quotes Dawkins at the outset: „Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.“The second book, The Devil’s Delusion (Berlinski 2009), refers to the title of Dawkins’ atheistic principal work, The God Delusion. Both books come from Fellows of the Center for Science and Culture and, thus, from the central hub of the Intelligent Design movement. How To Be An Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not) appeared in 2008 as a standalone publication of a chapter on the impossibility to explain the origin of life in a naturalistic way, which had been published the year before in the Intelligent Design textbook The Design Of Life.40 This link between atheism and the origin of life seems odd at first. But the introduction and conclusion of the standalone chapter provide information about the connection the authors see between the critique of atheism and the critique of naturalistic explanations of the origin of life. Even if the evolutionary process formulated by Darwin was responsible for the variety of life (which they consider doubtful), there would be no intellectually fulfilling atheistic perspective if it could not be shown that the foundation of this process, namely the emergence of the first life, did not have a naturalistic explanation as well. This is why the majority of the chapters contain criticisms of previous attempts at a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life. For instance, the experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey presupposed complex organic structures, and did not give any information about how they developed in a naturalistic way. On the contrary, the fact that these structures were brought about by the rational experiments is all the more proof that their original development was initiated by an intelligence as well (Dembski and Wells 2008:25–27). Mirroring Dawkins’ argument, the authors include the scientific findings in their worldview. Since a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life is still lacking, it follows that the denial of God is implausible. Until science can show that physical processes operating under realistic prebiotic conditions can bring about full-fledged cells from nonliving materials, intellectual fulfillment remains an atheistic pipedream (Dembski and Wells 2008:115).

The book concludes with the characterization of atheism as a superstition and scientifically unfounded speculative faith. This assertion that atheism is actually in a way religious, is supported by David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion, which posits that being an atheist and being scientific do not go together naturally. Moreover, the appreciation of religious thought and sentiment is not dependent on one’s own religiosity. Berlinski writes in the foreword about himself:

40

 Dembski and Wells 2007.

40

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities I am a secular Jew. My religious education did not take. I can barely remember a word of Hebrew. I cannot pray. I have spent more years than I care to remember in studying mathematics and writing about the sciences. Yet the book that follows is in some sense a defense of religious thought and sentiment. (Berlinski 2009:xiii.)

At the same time, Berlinski maintains that many sciences experience a crisis in precisely those areas which, according to Intelligent Design, are particularly good candidates for the intervention of the Designer. We do not know how the universe began. We do not know why it is there. Charles Darwin talked speculatively of life emerging from a ‘warm little pond.’ The pond is gone. We have little idea how life emerged, and cannot with assurance say that it did. We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial theory about the manner in which the brain functions (Ibid.:xv).

Against the social-historical assertions of the New Atheists, put forward especially by Christopher Hitchens, that religion is responsible for many evils of the world, Berlinski argues that the atheism of twentieth century fascist and communists was a main reason for their brutality (Berlinski 2009:25). However, the main focus of the book, similar to How To Be ..., is the questioning of atheism, insofar as it is based on scientific (cosmological, biological, cognitive science, etc.) findings. These findings, such as the Big Bang, are characterized by Berlinski as open to theistic interpretations. Conversely, many atheistic scientists, from Fred Hoyle to Richard Dawkins, are presented as having prematurely and inadequately interpreted these findings from an atheistic vantage point, thus rendering their “scientific atheism” as merely one faith among others. For instance, Daniel Dennett’s assertion that evolution is proven “beyond any reasonable doubt” is, in Berlinski’s assessment, „the ecclesiastical bull of a most peculiar church, a cousin in kind to an ecclesiastical bluff.“(Ibid.:196.) It would be easy to provide more examples of Intelligent Design proponents and other creationists criticising the “new atheism” and, in particular, Richard Dawkins’.41 The significance of these references is discussed in more detail in Sect. 4.1 and in part II of this book.

3.2.2  F  urther Intelligent Design Organizations: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, the Access Research Network, and the Biologic Institute In addition to the Center for Science and Culture, there are a number of other organizations that represent and disseminate Intelligent Design theory. A network of university clubs, the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center, has existed

 On the website of Answers in Genesis, Dawkins is mentioned almost 600 times, on the homepage of the Discovery Institute, which also houses the Center for Science and Culture, his name appears almost 500 times. (as of April 24, 2017).

41

3.2  How Intelligent Design Organizations Originated and Developed

41

since 1999, and was founded by Philip E. Johnson, together with engaged students from the University of San Diego (IDEA 2001). Later, the network grew to encompass several dozen centers on four continents. However, as early as 2008, an observer of the network reported that the approximately two dozen locations in the United States are all inactive.42 It is likely that this decline can at least in part be attributed to the loss of legitimacy of Intelligent Design from the above-mentioned Kitzmiller ruling. The Access Research Network in Colorado Springs, which by now is also moribund, lists Johnson and many of today’s members of the Center for Science and Culture as “friends of ARN”.43 This organization had for a long time been known as the publisher of the only magazine dedicated solely to Intelligent Design, Origins & Design, which appeared from 1996 to 2001.44 Both the Access Research Network and the magazine had existed prior to 1996 as Students for Origins Research. This magazine had existed since 1978, initially as a newsletter, in which the contents of Scientific Creationism were presented and defended. This obvious link with Young Earth Creationism was severed by the Intelligent Design movement in the middle of the 1990s in a similar fashion as with Of Pandas and People.45 The booklets from the early 1980s contain the usual terminology of Scientific Creationism. For instance, in volume 4–1 (1981), a comparison of the Evolution Model and the Creation Model can be found. Both are presented as absolutely equivalent in terms of their views on origins, in terms of their explanatory value, and their legitimacy as research programs.46 In a volume from 2000, the terminology had changed, and was now along the lines of that used by Intelligent Design. It contained an article that dealt with Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity,47 its advertising pages praised books by Behe and ​​ William Dembski, and a book review dealt with a volume edited by Philip E.  Johnson.48 The journal closed down in 2001. Only nine years later, BIO-Complexity, a new Intelligent Design journal, appeared ­(Bio-­Complexity n.d.) During the time in between, some members of the Intelligent Design movement attempted to publish in magazines outside the movement. BIO-Complexity is published by the Biologic Institute in Redmond (Washington), which has existed since 2005. It is an organization dedicated to the theoretical integration of new biological research into the framework of Intelligent Design, and closely linked to the Center for Science and Culture.49 The Institute is led by the  MacNeill 2008.  „These are the folks who help provide much of the information and subject matter expertise found on this server.” 44  According to Ron Numbers (personal communication), the termination of the journal was linked with the death of David Weyerhaeuser, who had supported it financially. 45  See Scott 2005, p. 103. 46  Moore 1981. 47  Francis 2000. On irreducible complexity, see Sect. 2.2. 48  Helder 2000. 49  According to its director Douglas Axe, who had already been a member of the Center for Science and Culture until 2000, the Center provided “significant financing” for the Biologic Institute. See Forrest 2007:23. 42 43

42

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

Cambridge graduate Douglas Axe, a former member of the Center for Science and Culture, who has published in, among other publications, the renowned Journal of Molecular Biology.50 Axe’s name already appears in 1998 in the abovementioned Wedge document, where he is mentioned as an example of someone who provides “frontline research” in the field of molecular biology.51 The brief history of the Biologic Institute reflects the strategic decisions of the leading Intelligent Design representatives. It achieved public recognition for the first time in an article in the August 2005 New  York Times in which the debate about irreducible complexity was detailed, and representatives of the various camps presented their views.52 Douglas Axe was introduced in this article as „a molecular biologist and the director of research at the Biologic Institute, a new research center in Seattle that looks at the organization of biological systems, including intelligent design issues.” Critics of the Intelligent Design Movement hold that the timing of the emergence of the Biologic Institute is not accidental. Only one month after the publication of the article in which the institute was first mentioned, the hearings in the Kitzmiller trial, centered on the scientific nature of Intelligent Design, began in Dover, Pennsylvania. The presumption is that the institute was first and foremost a “Potemkin lab”,53 which was created in order to improve the legal standing of Intelligent Design. This is supported by the fact that it did not display any publication activity until 2008, and still mostly publishes essay-like commentaries which resemble those of the official Intelligent Design blogs.54

3.2.3  Illustra Media The last Intelligent Design organization considered here is the media production company Illustra Media, of which it is only known that it is based in Southern California.55 Illustra Media produced nine documentaries by 2017, in which many of the critical and affirmative arguments of the members of the Center for Science and Culture are presented. Members and Fellows of the Discovery Institute are interviewed in most films. In order to learn more about the affiliation of Illustra Media, it is once again necessary to look beyond the information that is provided by the organization itself. At the time of the publication of the first documentary, Unlocking the Mystery of Life in 2003, a request from the anti-creationist National Center for Science Education to the internet provider of the homepage of Illustra Media revealed that it was registered by the organization Discovery Media, which

 Ibid.  Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998], p. 4. 52  Chang 2005. 53  Glenn Branch, personal communication, September 13, 2012. 54  Biologic Institute 2018. 55  Illustra Media 2015. 50 51

3.3 Discussion

43

distributed media that had a clear Christian context.56 One of the Illustra Media films, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, was aired as a scientific entertainment program by the American public broadcaster PBS.  PBS had already been mentioned as a target in the Wedge document.57 Another film produced by Illustra Media, The Privileged Planet, was the subject of a controversy in 2005. The Discovery Institute, home of the Center for Science and Culture, had, through a grant to the prestigious Smithsonian Institution, earned the right to broadcast The Privileged Planet under its formal patronage of the Natural History Museum in Washington. In the face of criticism that this would lend Intelligent Design undeserved scientific credibility, the Smithsonian Institution returned the donation and withdrew its official participation in the event.58

3.3  Discussion If we look at the ways in which creationist organizations operate, we can see similarities and differences that are closely linked to the history of creationism and its conflicts with its social environment. This history is characterized by three features. First, professional creationist activities have never arisen without an external cause, but have always been reactive in their inception and further development or differentiation. It is not important whether or not actions which were seen as directed against creationism or creationist beliefs actually occurred and, if they did, whether they had any negative effect on creationists. The educational policy initiative of the early 1960s, for example, can hardly be regarded as intentionally anti-creationist. The reaction of creationists to the extended treatment of evolutionary theory was rather an unintended side-effect of the reforms. Nevertheless, creationist groups reacted as if there was an intended antagonism to their beliefs. The activities of creationists arose in religious niches or, as in the case of the Intelligent Design movement, in already existing creationist circles. Gradually, they acquired public acceptance through publications, lectures, films, etc. Public awareness is, thus, to be regarded as the primary objective for the organizations considered here. Only on the basis of increasing attention and support among the public do the groups hope to extend their influence to other social areas (education, science). However, efforts to gain public attention do not diminish, but rather continue in parallel to educational initiatives, and are supported by them.

 National Center for Science Education 2003. The homepage of Discovery Media is now only available through the Internet Archive. In a stored version from the 2002 period, one can see films offered such as Heaven and Hell, The Miracle and Power of Prayer, The End Times and Amazing Grace. See Discovery Media Productions 2002. 57  Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998], p. 4. 58  Dorick 2005. 56

44

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

All attempts to expand beyond mere public recognition (Scientific Creationism, Wedge strategy) have been countered by legal decisions of varying magnitude. In the case of Creation Science, a Supreme Court decision halted the initiative, but only a district court ruling was issued in regard to Intelligent Design. Research on creationism, therefore, states that the framework within which creationists in the United States can act generally decreases over time.59 These obstacles, however, did not lead to the disappearance of the individual forms of creationism or of the organizations which primarily represented them.60 Instead, such decisions generated strategic follow-up activities on the part of those organizations which were affected by negative rulings. These strategic adaptations open up new areas of action or replace old ones. At the Institute for Creation Research, after the final defeat of the Creation Science Program in 1987, a stronger emphasis was placed on the religious roots of creationism. The Back to Genesis seminars, which bear this emphasis in their title, are a good example of this. This tendency is not surprising in view of the fact that by the end of the 1980s no further benefits within the public education system were to be expected from the separation of ‘biblical’ from ‘scientific’ creationism. After all, Scientific Creationism was based on this separation, and it had failed in court in 1987. The Institute for Creation Research, however, has not abandoned its struggle for scientific standing, and it still carries out research projects and academic educational programs. Answers in Genesis, on the other hand, came into existence only after Edwards v Aguillard. It hardly produces any creationist theory or research at all. In response to the verdict that biblically founded creationism is denied legal entry into schools, its activities focus almost exclusively on the public and mass media. In so doing, it never conceals its biblical claims, and never asserts that creationism can be separated from its underlying religious convictions. The Intelligent Design movement, on the other hand, represents the opposite reaction to the failure of Creation Science. Instead of treating critical or affirmative ‘scientific’ statements as subsidiary, as Answers in Genesis does, it is all the more concerned with their development and dissemination. Rather than reverting to the religious content of creationism, it rejects even more than Creation Science the connection between Christianity and creationist theory. It even denies being creationist at all. In anticipation of the analysis to follow, it can be said that the historical overview shows that American creationism split itself institutionally and strategically after it was legally defeated. In subsequent chapters, we will look at the logic which underlies this split, and how the Intelligent Design movement developed further  Berkman and Plutzer 2010, p. 25.  An indicator of the stability of the institutions is their financial health. In the case of the Discovery Institute, annual revenues between 2003 and 2010, that is, before, during, and after the critical Kitzmiller judgment, remained relatively stable. In 2005, there was a drop by about one third to just under 3 million US $, which is mainly due to lower donations. However, the financial situation was already recovering in the following year. In 2010 the level of 2003 was again reached, about 4.3 million US $. The income of the Institute for Creation Research is similarly stable. Answers in Genesis even managed to quadruple its revenues between 2001 and 2011 from approximately 5 million US $ to over 19 million US $. For detailed financial information for all three organizations, see Charity Navigator 2017a, b. c.

59 60

3.3 Discussion

45

after it suffered a defeat in 2005 which was quite similar to that of Creation Science in 1987. At this point, however, a second feature of American creationism becomes apparent, which is its increasing tendency to conceal its religious roots. Much creationist activity is concerned with this concealment. This is particularly clear when looking at the historical sequence of Young Earth Creationism, Scientific Creationism, and Intelligent Design. The classic, biblically grounded Young Earth Creationism contains a clear statement of the religious basis guiding all further knowledge. Morris and Whitcomb state this overtly in their introduction to The Genesis Flood: Our present study […] has a twofold purpose. In the first place, we desire to ascertain exactly what the Scriptures say concerning the Flood and related topics. We do this from the perspective of full belief in the complete divine inspiration and perspicuity of Scripture, believing that a true exegesis thereof yields determinative Truth in all matters with which it deals. […] The second purpose is to examine the anthropological, geological, hydrological and other scientific implications of the Biblical record of the Flood, seeking if possible to orient the data of these sciences within this Biblical framework.61

In the Creation Science program of the mid-1970s, this open display of religious convictions had almost completely disappeared. Thus, the claim in Scientific Creationism of 1974 is formulated so that “all the important aspects of the creation-­ evolution question” are dealt with “from a strictly scientific point of view, attempting to evaluate the physical evidence from the relevant scientific fields without reference to the Bible or other religious literature.”62 This method is supposed to produce a creation model which fits the empirical data, and which is superior to the competing evolution model. The compatibility of the creation model with the biblical narrative is only explained in the last chapter of the book’s general edition. In contrast to earlier creationist arguments, the logic has thus been reversed: on the basis of “scientific” criticism, not on the basis of a presupposed belief, the truthfulness of the biblical account of creation is asserted as a conclusion. While Scientific Creationism was still based on the established competition between the theory of evolution and creation science, the representatives of the Intelligent Design movement did not make this distinction after the late 1980s, and claimed to represent only ‘science’, not ‘religion’. As the presentation of the Wedge paper, Of ​​Pandas and People, and Illustra Media have shown, it requires investigative effort to identify the religious core of Intelligent Design arguments. This broader view suggests that the religious context, which is part of creationism, has been further and further concealed in the course of its development. Finally, the cultural dynamics of creationist development have always been, and still are, legally induced. Without the desire to forcibly prohibit the teaching of evolutionary theory, literalist Christians would hardly have seen the need to bring creationist theories into public schools. Without the ruling that these attempts were unconstitutional because they could not be independent of their religious founda-

61 62

 Whitcomb and Morris 1961, p. xx.  Morris 1974, p. iv.

46

3  Creationist Organizations and Their Activities

tions, there would not have been the impetus to make them even more unrecognizable in the form of Intelligent Design. To sum up, the three general characteristics of the recent creationist history mentioned here are that creationism is reactive, that it tries to conceal its religious roots more and more in hopes of gaining a foothold in public schools, and that its development leads to legal opposition which in turn leads to programmatic adjustments. These characteristics shift the attention to opposition to creationism. How is it structured, how does it act, and how does it influence creationism? Do the creationists simply imagine a secular humanist elite that has hijacked American culture and severed it from its religious roots, or is opposition real?63 Is the ever more thorough concealment of religious arguments within creationism actually based only on the perception of legal pressure? And if so, can the judicial system be considered an active player in the creation/evolution controversy, or does the actual antagonism to creationism lie with its scientific opponents? The answer to these questions can already be anticipated here: in the course of the twentieth century anti-creationism has developed and differentiated as a movement. It can be regarded as a main opponent and often a direct or indirect reference point for the creationist groups considered here. The proof of this assertion is presented in the following chapter.

 For Secular Humanism as an enemy of the Religious Right in the United States, see LaHaye 1980, Toumey 1993, Kaden 2018.

63

Chapter 4

Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

This chapter presents the two most important anti-creationist positions in the United States, anti-theistic and ‘nomatic’ anti-creationism. The structure of this chapter differs from the preceding ones on creationism in that they first presented creationist ideas, and then creationist organizations. This two-step approach will also be applied to the treatment of ‘nomatic’ anti-creationism in this chapter, but the ideas and proponents of anti-theistic anti-creationism will be presented together. The reason for this is the difference in structure of this form of opposition to creationism. In the confrontation between creationists and anti-creationists, the position of New Atheism is closely linked to its articulation by a small number of leading representatives, such as Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and especially Richard Dawkins. A separate presentation of ideas and representation would only complicate the understanding of this phenomenon. Hence, the presentation of ​​anti-­ theistic anti-creationism as an idea in the struggle of ideas coincides with its presentation as a social group in the dispute with other social groups.

4.1  Anti-Theistic Anti-Creationism (New Atheism) To describe the current scientific atheism, or “New Atheism”, as part of the dispute over creationism is not immediately obvious. After all, the popular representatives of scientific atheism, as opposed to those of ‘nomatic’ anti-creationism,1 are only marginally concerned with the theme of creationism – professionally, they pursue other activities. They are scholars or publicists, and have gained recognition through activities other than their religious criticism. In addition, Richard Dawkins, who is by far the most famous representative of contemporary scientific atheism, does not even live or work in the United States, but in the UK.

 See Sect. 4.2.

1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_4

47

48

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

But the fact that the development of New Atheism is closely connected with the public activity of religious groups, including creationists, is evident in some research on New Atheism.2 The New Atheism comes together with creationism in terms of its themes, as well as in terms of how the people who represent it engage in this controversy. In the last chapter, we saw how creationists refer to the work of Richard Dawkins as the principal representative of New Atheism. This perspective is now complemented by Dawkins’ own references to creationism. There is also a temporal connection: the criticism of creationism by the New Atheists is especially explicit during times of high activity by organized creationism. Also, not only creationists, but also other anti-creationists, critically deal with the ideological implications of New Atheism, whose proponents, in turn, react with their own criticism.3 Creationism, although often not directly named, can be seen as a central polemical reference point in many of Dawkins’ writings. Conversely, creationists, especially the representatives of Intelligent Design, point to Dawkins’s works and the anti-religious references they contain as the most important example of the connection between Darwinism and atheism. For them, New Atheism represents a key example of the alleged religious (i.e. atheistic) character of naturalistic evolutionary theory. Already in his first monograph, The Selfish Gene of 1976, Dawkins argued for a naturalistic explanation of religion, which formed the basis for his further thinking on this subject, and on which he based his later comments on creationism. For Dawkins, religion, like any other cultural system, consists of smaller units,4 so-­ called memes, which replicate while competing for attention in the minds of their hosts. As replicators “acting” in an environment with limited resources, they are comparable with genes. Against this backdrop, Dawkins comes to a functionalist explanation of the belief in God:  Davie 2012, Amarasingam 2010.  For instance, the evolutionary biologist, and proponent of scientific atheism, Jerry Coyne, accused the leading anti-creationist organization National Center for Science Education (see Sect. 4.2.3) of being “accommodationist” to religious claims. „Isn’t the [National Center for Science Education’s] flat assertion that faith/science incompatibility is a ‘misconception’ really a statement not about science, but about theology and philosophy? […] This pervasive pandering to religion on websites supposedly about science—and the deliberate distortion of the views of scientists—is starting to anger me. The NCSE doesn’t really care whether it throws us atheists under the bus, because they take our support for granted.” (Coyne 2011.) The National Center for Science Education reacted to this criticism, as the comment by Eugenie Scott in the interview with the author shows: „Jerry Coyne wrote a brisk critique on his blog. This was a couple of years ago. And so we went back and re-read those passages and we re-edited them so that it sounded, I mean, they didn’t seem to us that we were advocating, but if somebody else thinks we are then we should, you know, make it less so, because it’s what people hear that is more important than what you say. Any teacher knows that. So we did revise those pages, and took out things that might have been interpreted as advocacy [for Theistic Evolution, TK]. […][O]ur goal is to get evolution taught. One of the things that will help get evolution taught is if there’s less religious resistance to it. Letting people know that there are options within Christianity […] will allow more of them, I believe – I think I can show that empirically – to let evolution be taught.” (Eugenie Scott in an interview with the author, May 14, 2012; see appendix). 4  „[T]unes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes, fashions, ways of making pots or building arches”. Dawkins 1976, p. 192. A more detailed list is given by Dennett 2006, p. 344. 2 3

4.1  Anti-Theistic Anti-Creationism (New Atheism)

49

What is it about the idea of a god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. The ‘everlasting arms’ hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor’s placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture. (Dawkins 1976, p. 193.)

Dawkins links his general critique of religion in many places in his work with explicit criticism of religious beliefs, creationist interpretation of religious dogma, and the references of this interpretation to scientific theories. His criticism of creationism, in particular Intelligent Design, occurs on the same three levels as Intelligent Design’s criticism of his own work: first, primarily a content-related or factual level; second, a methodological or theory of science argument; third, the metaphysical implications of interpretations of the scientific findings in his works, that is, a philosophical level. In addition to The God Delusion, The Blind Watchmaker5 is Dawkins’ most explicit anti-creationist work, which is why creationists quite often direct their criticism to this work.6 In that work, Dawkins critiques the two levels of concrete content of creationist theories, and the method or strategy behind them. He is particularly concerned with the confusion between apparent and actual design. In addition to the above-mentioned criticism of creationist statements about the bombardier beetle,7 Dawkins also mentions the case of allegedly human footprints, which were found together with dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Valley in Texas. The Paluxy River Tracks were used by creationists during the 1980s as proof of the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs and, consequently, as proof of a young earth.8 Dawkins also addresses the creationist strategy of interpreting disagreement among evolutionary theorists as an argument in favor of the creationist viewpoint. The subject of these attempts was Stephen Jay Gould’s and Niles Eldredge’s theory of Punctuated Equilibrium,9 a theory of biological development which posits discontinuous change, with long phases of stability (equilibrium) being disrupted (punctuated) by sudden short phases of significant change. Creationists repeatedly tried to frame this theory in their sense as ‘neo-catastrophism’, which conformed to

 Dawkins 1986.  Isaac Asimov, in the testimonial section at the beginning of the book, states: „A lovely book. Original and lively, it expounds the ins and outs of evolution with enthusiastic clarity, answering, at every point, the cavemen of creationism.” (Dawkins 1986, not paginated). 7  See Sect. 3.2.1. 8  Dawkins 1986, p. 225. By now, the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis state that arguments based on the tracks are probably not valid. See Morris 1986. On detailed inspection, most of the supposedly human footprints turned out to be dinosaur footprints that had eroded to resemble human footprints. Others were intentionally altered by locals during the Great Depression in order to sell them. 9  Gould and Eldredge 1977. 5 6

50

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

the biblical account.10 Against this backdrop, Dawkins generally criticizes the creationist strategy of casting scientific disputes as a sign of a crisis of the evolutionary paradigm, or that creationist ideas take hold within it. Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion.11

In River Out of Eden,12 Dawkins employed the above-mentioned functional-­ cognitive explanation of religion as a meme to shed light on creationism. In his view, the idea of a creator offers a simple and plausible explanation for the beauty and complexity of the earth.13 Likewise, in The God Delusion, his 2006 atheistic reference work, he deals extensively with the content of creationist theories and critiques of evolution theory. Glenn Branch, the Deputy Director of the National Center for Science Education,14 even sees the refutation of design arguments as the central theme of the work.15 For example, Dawkins discusses extensively the bacterial flagellum that is mentioned by the Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe in his Darwin’s Black Box as a core example of his concept of irreducible complexity.16 In his view, Behe provides no evidence for the flagellum being irreducibly complex. Instead, the cell biologist and anti-creationist activist Kenneth Miller makes plausible suggestions for an evolutionary explanation of the flagellum. As in his other works, Dawkins also discusses the methodological errors underlying the creationist arguments, namely the false alternative that the absence of a naturalistic explanation of a phenomenon automatically serves as an argument for an intelligent design explanation.17  Cf. Numbers 2006, pp. 336–337.  Dawkins 1986, p. 251. 12  Dawkins 1995. 13  “Creationism has enduring appeal, and the reason is not far to seek. It is not, at least for most of the people I encounter, because of a commitment to the literal truth of Genesis or some other tribal origin story. Rather, it is that people discover for themselves the beauty and complexity of the living world and conclude that it ‘obviously’ must have been designed. Those creationists who recognise that Darwinian evolution provides at least some sort of alternative to their scriptural theory often resort to a slightly more sophisticated objection. They deny the possibility of evolutionary intermediates. ‘X must have been designed by a Creator,’ people say, ‘because half an X would not work at all. All the parts of X must have been put together simultaneously; they could not have gradually evolved’.” Dawkins 1995, p. 59. 14  See Sect. 4.2.3. 15  Glenn Branch, personal communication, 17 Feb 2011: „[B]asically, what The God Delusion consists of is an argument, familiar from his other work, that evolution undercuts the argument from design, and then a whole lot of argument and polemic intended to make it plausible that theism in general pivots on the argument from design.“ 16  Dawkins 2006, pp. 129–132. 17  Cf. Dawkins 2006, p. 128: “The logic turns out to be no more convincing than this: ‘I [insert own name] am personally unable to think of any way in which [insert biological phenomenon] could have been built up step by step. Therefore it is irreducibly complex. That means it is designed.’” See also Dawkins 2006, p. 132: “Here is the message that an imaginary ‘intelligent design theorist’ might broadcast to scientists: ‘If you don’t understand how something works, never mind: just give 10 11

4.1  Anti-Theistic Anti-Creationism (New Atheism)

51

In this context, Dawkins adds a philosophical or religion-related level to his criticism of creationism. At the beginning of an invented dialogue, the imaginary Intelligent Design representative says: ‘Please do not go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, do not work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them.’18 Dawkins then draws on this juxtaposition of religious and scientific “mysteries”: the God-meme, which was previously characterized as an explanation for ultimate concerns, actually serves as the opposite of an explanation when applied to science, and contributes to the premature termination of experiments in the search for truth.19 In contrast, the theory of evolution has a much higher explanatory value than theism. Instead of blurring the vision of the researcher through recourse to the action of God, the theory of evolution sharpens it.20 In Richard Dawkins’ work, in general, there is a tendency to explicate the critical potential of his theory and Weltanschauung in regard to religion ever more clearly. On a general level, this tendency can be observed when comparing the portions of The Selfish Gene (1976) and The God Delusion (2006) which deal critically with religion. In The Selfish Gene, religion is mentioned as one among many cultural systems that can be explained biologically with recourse to meme theory. There are only few comments critical to certain religious beliefs, e.g. Dawkins’ explanation of the Christian belief in the virgin birth of Jesus as the result of a mistranslation.21 In contrast, virtually all of The God Delusion is devoted to criticism of religion. This can be further refined by expanding the view to include factors outside his work. There is a clear temporal connection between creationist initiatives and the publication by Dawkins of works that are explicitly critical of religion and creationism. Conversely, this criticism becomes less prominent when such initiatives are not pervasive. Similar differences are also found in the critical treatment of Dawkins by creationist authors. While his works are constantly discussed by representatives of Intelligent Design, and in some cases whole works are devoted almost exclusively to him, others treat him as one among many scientific or ideological opponents. up and say God did it. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful!“ 18  Ibid., p. 132. 19  Ibid., p. 134: „Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It’s not – it’s a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an ‘I dunno’ dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is that they haven’t a clue, so they’re attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from, and odds are you’ll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing.“ 20  Ibid.: „Darwinism raises our consciousness in other ways. Evolved organs, elegant and efficient as they often are, also demonstrate revealing flaws – exactly as you’d expect if they have an evolutionary history, and exactly as you would not expect if they were designed. […] Predators seem beautifully ‘designed’ to catch prey animals, while the prey animals seem equally beautifully ‘designed’ to escape them. Whose side is God on?“ 21  Dawkins 1976, p. 270.

52

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

This variation can be explained, in part, by the constant mutual perception of the groups involved in the creation/evolution controversy. Richard Dawkins is a witness and commentator on the development, spread and, finally, the legal failure of two variants of creationism: Scientific Creationism or Creation Science and Intelligent Design. The two most outspoken anti-creationist works by Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, were published at times when these forms of creationism had gained influence in public awareness and in the American educational system. In 1986, when The Blind Watchmaker appeared, the law that introduced Creation Science in Arkansas had already been struck down by the State Supreme Court, but the decision on the same law in Louisiana was still pending. When The God Delusion was released in 2006, the Kitzmiller decision in Dover, which ruled against Intelligent Design, was only a few months old. This comparison, together with the thematic similarities of Dawkins and his creationist opponents, shows that the development of the New Atheism corresponds with the religious developments criticized by the New Atheists. Dawkins’ explicit religious criticism happens, in part, in response to the growing media and school influence of variants of creationism.

4.2  Nomatic Anti-Creationism 4.2.1  ‘ Nonoverlapping Magisteria’ as a Position in the Creation/Evolution Controversy Within American anti-creationism, the anti-theistic position is highly visible, but is still in the minority. Most anti-creationism is based on the view that religion and science are strictly differentiated, while creationism is conceived as a religiously motivated attempt to mix these areas (and not, as Dawkins argues, merely as a particularly clear example of the dangers that are inherent in all religion). This view is called Nonoverlapping Magisteria or NOMA.  Therefore, the variant of anti-­ creationism based on this distinction is called “nomatic anti-creationism” in this book. The abbreviation NOMA, from which the term “nomatic” is derived, was created by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. In a 1997 article for the magazine Natural History, he wrote that science and religion occupy different domains of competence and exert different functions: Science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains. […] The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise – science in the empirical

4.2  Nomatic Anti-Creationism

53

constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives.22

However, the argument that religion and science are functionally and practically separate had been applied long before Gould’s statement. In 1972, in the course of the first major controversy about Scientific Creationism in California, the National Association of Biology Teachers (see below) stated that „[science and religion are] separate mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief.“23 The National Center for Science Education (see below) uses this basic distinction to argue for the compatibility of both in the form of a peaceful coexistence: ‘[C]reation’ and ‘evolution’ do not occupy competing categories, but are complementary ways of looking at the universe. ‘Creation’ is a philosophical concept: it is the belief that the universe depends for its existence upon something or some being outside itself. […] By contrast, ‘evolution’ is in the scientific category. It is a statement about physical reality, not a metaphysical claim.24

In everyday practice, the principle of a peaceful coexistence of religion and science, and those representing this separation, are under pressure from two sides. Representatives of a more extensive notion of religion, which includes creationists, consider NOMA to be clandestine atheism, because it denies religion any real effect in the world.25 From the other direction, New Atheists argue that NOMA already represents too large a concession to religion. As nomatic anti-creationism gained ground, and its own institutional representation in the form of the National Center for Science Education (see below), it increasingly focused on expressing distance from any worldview, in particular to atheism, as the then director Eugenie Scott of the Center made clear when I interviewed her: [W]e work very hard to avoid that. And I have a lot of problems with that. Because, you know, we deal with the evolution side, so a lot of people’s knee-jerk reaction is “Oh, therefore you must be an atheist organization.” What I try to point out to people is that our members range all over the place. We’ve got evangelical Christians, all the way through every religious de-nomination you can think of in Christianity, to agnostics and atheists, and Unitarians, and all kinds of combinations. Our staff over the years has included people who are theists as well as people who are atheists. […] Our board of directors includes people who are theists, people who are atheists, we’ve had Mormons, Jews, Unitarians, we’ve had all kinds of people on our board of directors. […] [Y]ou don’t have to be an atheist to want good science to be taught in your schools.26  Gould 1997.  National Association of Biology Teachers 1973. 24  Hess 2009. 25  The video presentation Men in White contains a critique of the National Center for Science Education by Answers in Genesis. See the detailed analysis in Sect. 8.1. 26  Interview with Eugenie Scott, 14 May 2012 (see appendix). 22 23

54

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

4.2.2  H  ow Nomatic Anti-Creationists Originated and Developed In Chap. 3, the US school system was identified as an important realm of action for the creationists. The activities of anti-creationists, and their efforts to organize and coordinate, developed in parallel with the threat of creationists gaining a foothold in public schools. Their activities declined when this influence diminished or was rendered impossible through legal action. This means, in reverse, that anti-creationist activity does not exist simply because creationists are active in publishing books, giving lectures, etc. The US public educational system (public schools and universities) is the arena where the professional creationist/anti-creationist conflict comes into existence, and this conflict spreads to other areas, such as the mass media, on the basis of conflicts occurring in the educational system. Public education is an area of American society which is, in some respects, not centrally regulated, and it consequently provides entry-points for creationists, which are then contested by anti-creationists. The activities of the anti-creationists considered here are predominantly directed against Intelligent Design. This is due to the fact that the development of anti-creationism began during the height of the Creation Science movement which, in fact, significantly promoted its institutionalization. Since then, Intelligent Design has been the leading form of creationism in terms of education policy initiatives and media representation, which is why its opponents pay special attention to it. 4.2.2.1  P  eculiarities of the American School System and Creationism in Schools The principle of local political administration with strong direct democratic elements, which stands in ideological and practical opposition to national political institutions, permeates American history. As a “crucible of democracy,”27 the public school system, in particular, is strongly shaped by local democracy. This is evident from the number of local administrative units. There are around 14,000 school districts across the country, which differ greatly in their size and structure.28 In order to gain an understanding of the above-mentioned regulatory absence, it is essential to understand that a local school board is the governing body of a school district. Its members are chosen from among the population of the respective district. They serve for a certain period of time, often for two years, and are endowed with extensive powers. They decide what extracurricular activities are offered, teachers’ salaries, class sizes, and also have a say in many aspects of curriculum that can affect the teaching of evolution and creationism. The majority of school boards manage all

27 28

 Iannaccone and Lutz 1994.  Berkman and Plutzer 2005, p. 1.

4.2  Nomatic Anti-Creationism

55

educational institutions in a district from kindergarten through high school.29 Their composition and the way their members are chosen varies from region to region, and between urban and rural areas. In New England, which has retained more of the direct democratic features of the early United States, school boards are often chosen by direct elections in town hall meetings. In many large cities, on the other hand, members are appointed by the municipal authorities along the lines of the demographic composition of the city.30 Nevertheless, there is no connection between the way the school board is chosen and the size of the school district. There are larger school districts where the representatives are elected, and smaller ones where the board members are determined through demographic proportionality. Therefore, the extent to which school boards represent the population in their district varies considerably.31 Ironically, grass-roots town hall meetings lead to less representation of the total population in the school board. The effort to participate in such meetings is relatively high and, therefore, certain parts of the population, such as single mothers or full-time workers, are disadvantaged by this system.32 This kind of management of the school districts means that what is being taught in the schools they administer can change when the composition of the school board and the individual interests of its members change. The debate about the doctrine of creationist theories in schools is also reflected there. In some states, the conflicts surrounding this issue are particularly strong. Kansas, for instance, has seen four changes in its educational policy with regard to creationism since the late 1990s.33 In 1999, the State Board of Education decided to adopt new science standards for public schools that had been developed by the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, and completely excluded evolutionary theory. At the beginning of the next term, two years later, the guidelines were changed in favor of teaching evolution. Four years later, another change took place when Intelligent Design was added to the teaching standards. Prior to this, public hearings held by the State Board of Education had taken place, where leading proponents of Intelligent Design argued their case. It was only when a new board was elected in 2007 that the changes were reversed. Professional creationist organizations play an important role in these processes. In the case of Kansas, they drew up the education guidelines, sent experts to hearings, and publicized the views of the State Board of Education in the media. These actions illustrate the extent to which they can influence the development of the country’s education policy because of the localized structure of the public school system in the United States. This situation has existed for a long time, and has contributed significantly to the establishment of professional anti-creationism. In the course of the late 1970s, laws were passed in four states with intent to give the increasingly popular Creation  Ibid.  Ibid., pp. 1–2. 31  Ibid., p. 2. 32  Ibid., p. 12. 33  Moore and Decker 2009, p. 200. 29 30

56

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

Science the same treatment as evolutionary theory in biology teaching.34 Only a few states at that time had guidelines dealing with ‘scientific creationism’, let alone a fully developed policy position on the subject.35 For example, the Iowa Department of Education published a position paper that denied the scientific standing of creationism in 1978, but despite the fact that this paper enjoyed broad support among the state’s scientists, creationist activities were not stopped. After the first creationist bill died in 1977, two new legislative proposals were discussed in the Iowa Senate the following year. At this point, many Iowa-based scholars became active as participants in Senate hearings and other public discussions. In 1980, the classic reference work of Young Earth Creationism, The Genesis Flood, had already been on the market for 19 years, and creationist theories, public debates with secular scientists, and media campaigns were well-established. But it was only at this time that the initiatives that would later become the basis of today’s anti-creationist activities developed in reaction.36 The National Association of Biology Teachers In 1980, the only national science-based organization actively engaged in the debate about creationism, was the National Association of Biology Teachers. Its approximately 6000 members accounted for about 20% of the country’s high school biology teachers.37 Its director Wayne Moyer tried to establish various anti-creationist initiatives in the early 1980s, but each failed. In view of the efficient organization and prolific publication efforts of the creationists, Moyer proposed in 1980 to initiate a Program in Evolution Education within the National Association of Biology Teachers. The program was supposed to provide a newsletter featuring information on the biological themes addressed by the creationists, as well as a monograph on the subject. The program was also supposed to foster an efficient national network of anti-creationists. This initiative failed for two closely connected reasons. The first reason had to do with legal constraints. Some years before, the National Association of Biology Teachers had acquired tax-exemption as a non-profit organization, and could accept tax-deductible donations. However, one requirement of being a non-profit organization is a ban on lobbying.38 Board members feared that any activity of the program involving evolution education could be interpreted as an argument against creationist legislation and, therefore, as lobbying. For the same reason, the National Association of Biology Teachers could play only a limited, and  See Sect. 3.1.  Park 1997, p. 264. 36  Ibid., p. 265. 37  National Association of Biology Teachers: Celebrating 50 Years of Service to Biology Educators, NABT’s 50th anniversary pamphlet 1994, p. 1. Quoted by Park 1997, p. 191. 38  This ban still exists, see. IRS 2018: “In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c) (3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).” 34 35

4.2  Nomatic Anti-Creationism

57

potentially inconsistent, role in the formation of the nationwide network. It was supposed “[to] provide accurate information, a public forum, and local contacts” without, however, fostering the development of “appropriate political action” by the members of this network.39 All in all, the tax problem led the organization to focus more strongly on the positive message that the theory of evolution is valid, and led them to completely omit references to creationism in order to avoid the semblance of political activity.40 William Mayer, who had led the program and had always argued for its anti-creationist orientation, resigned in 1982 at the height of the creationist legislative initiative. This spelled the end of Moyer’s project.41 The second reason the initiative failed was related to the structure and resources of national science organizations. The two Balanced Treatment laws, which came into force in 1981 in Louisiana and Arkansas, lent new urgency to anti-creationist action. In October of the same year, the National Association of Biology Teachers organized a conference attended by representatives of leading scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Education Association. Religious associations such as the National Council of Churches and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations were present, as well as secular organizations, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Humanist Association. At this conference, it was decided to prepare a list of literature which could be useful for anti-creationist efforts, and to form a committee which would be responsible for developing the concept of an anti-creationist network.42 The committee formed to implement these decisions met several times, but without producing tangible results. According to Moyer, this was due to the fact that all parties had to deal with the workload of their normal professional activities in the organizations they represented, and the financial resources for the planned activities had to be taken from the budgets of these organizations.43 The American Humanist Association and the Journal Creation/Evolution Another topic of the conference was the outcome of a recent debate between biochemist Russel Doolittle and Duane Gish, a leading member of the Institute for Creation Research. Since the early 1970s, public debates had been an important way for professional creationist organizations to disseminate their views.44 In fact, the debates often left the public with the impression that the creationists won, because „[t]he proponents of evolution largely ignored creationists’ arguments and, thus,  Wayne Moyer, undated letter to the donors to the Fund for Freedom in Science Teaching, quoted by Park 1997, p. 201. 40  Park 1997, pp. 205–206. 41  Ibid., p. 209. 42  Ibid., p. 211. 43  Ibid. 44  See Sect. 3.2.1. 39

58

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

didn’t bother to learn and prepare for their anti-evolutionary arguments.“45 A tactic often used by creationist debaters was (and still is) to point to conflicts among evolutionary biologists themselves, and to interpret these as a sign of a crisis for the theory.46 In order to defend evolutionary biology against such criticism, the debaters needed to present a level of detail and reflection on the nature of scientific exchange which is difficult in the limited time of a debate. As a result, while the debaters usually did not lack knowledge of the theory of evolution, they lacked the strategic or performance skills required to present it. Russel Doolittle’s poor performance in a debate in October 1981 was only one of many examples of this basic problem, but it was a very clear one. Doolittle, overwhelmed by the tight time frames and technical demands of the debate hosted by Christian TV broadcaster TBN, later described himself as a “speechless oaf,” who hardly touched Gish’s arguments, and did not convincingly present his own points.47 These difficulties were proof enough of the futility of these debates to those anti-creationists who completely rejected the format, but this allowed the creationists to boast that they frightened their opponents.48 A more aggressive approach to dealing with the problem had already taken shape the previous year, but got a special boost from the Doolittle incident. „Everyone seems to agree that Doolittle lost. […] [He] said nothing in the debate that was wrong or incorrect, the only problem is that Dr. Gish got away with a number of arguments which went unanswered.“49 This appraisal came from Frederick Edwords, the then vice-president of the American Humanist Association. As early as 1977, he had made the observation that the performances of creationists in debates were more convincing than the “academic approach” of their opponents.50 After finding  Park 1997, p. 218.  Michael Denton refers to this argument in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Denton 1986), which was seminal for the development of Intelligent Design. This perspective is also prominent in Woodward’s history of the Intelligent Design movement (Woodward 2003), which is discussed in detail in Sect. 7.3. 47  Park 1997, p. 235. 48  A recent example of this dynamic developed out of a short video, in which the well-known science journalist Bill Nye criticizes creationism. Answers in Genesis then challenged him to a public debate, which he did not react to at first. Another creationist organization commented: “It is worth mentioning that our friends at Answers in Genesis posted a video in reply to Bill Nye. He and his evolutionary friends were publicly insulting of this video, which featured two PhD scientists (Nye has only a first degree in Mech. Eng.) So Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis has challenged Nye to a public debate. Nye has so far declined, obviously knowing that he would lose, and lose badly.” Bill Nye’s video is documented at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU (May 21, 2017). The invitation to debate Answers in Genesis can be found in a blog entry by Ken Ham: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/09/12/will-bill-nye-publicly-debatean-aig-scientist-about-his-public-comments-against-creation (May 21, 2017). The comment from Creation Today can be found on their blog at http://www.creationtoday.org/bill-nye-falls-flat/ (May 21, 2017). - The debate between Nye and Ken Ham, head of Answers in Genesis, happened eventually on February 4, 2014, and it sparked huge public interest. See https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI (May 21, 2017). 49  Letter of Frederick Edwords to William M. Thwaites, November 6, 1981. Quoted by Park 1997, p. 245. 50  Ibid., p. 247. 45 46

4.2  Nomatic Anti-Creationism

59

that there was virtually no ‘non-technical’ anti-creationist literature to help resolve this issue, he started testing a simplified approach on his own, using other members of the American Humanist Association as debate opponents. Since 1978, enough material had been accumulated using this approach to fill an anti-creationist journal, Creation/Evolution. In addition to providing training for debaters in other parts of the country, the journal was supposed to foster an exchange of experience and coordination of political actions, such as lobbying, in contested states. All this was intended to adapt anti-creationism to the strategies of creationism (“we would be like the creationists”), inasmuch as it would transform it into a social “movement”.51 Since the Committees of Correspondence (see below) had already taken up this function, Creation/Evolution limited itself to the transfer of knowledge. Ironically, potential authors were found through the Institute for Creation Research’s monthly magazine, Acts & Facts. It listed all debates by members of the Institute, and also mentioned the names of their opponents, so Edwords knew who had direct experience.52 The first edition appeared in the summer of 1980, and within two years the magazine had about 1300 subscribers.53 When Edwords’ became director of the American Humanist Association, the question arose whether the journal should remain part of an organization that unambiguously represented a certain worldview. The majority of scientists who were polled on this question rejected the affiliation of Creation/Evolution with the American Humanist Association, because the ideological neutrality of science was exactly what was at stake in the fight against creationism.54 Ultimately, the magazine remained with the American Humanist Association, but under the condition that the term humanism be avoided. In 1991 it was purchased by the National Center for Science Education (see below). The Committees of Correspondence. The creationist legislative offensive described in Chap. 3 and at the beginning of this chapter was particularly strong in Iowa. This led to an intense public debate, which resulted in Iowa becoming one of the first states to see the development of successful defensive strategies against teaching creationism in public schools.55 The Committees of Correspondence, which formed as part of this development, constituted the first professional anti-creationist initiative. Their founding marks the beginning of anti-creationism as an organized movement, even if the initiative itself only existed for a few years in this form. Initially, the anti-creationists active in Iowa realized that they were at a disadvantage in terms of their ability to organize. “[E]volution defenders began to realise an essential component was missing in their efforts to counter creationist campaigns. They found the strength of the creationist movement to lie in the many small groups of dedicated believers that existed in communities in Iowa and all over the country. These creationist activists went to  Quotes taken from Edwords‘strategy paper In Defense of Creation/Evolution, quoted by Park 1997, p. 249. 52  Park 1997, pp. 251–252. 53  Ibid., p. 253. 54  Ibid., p. 254. 55  Park 1997, p. 263. 51

60

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

public meetings, distributed literature, sent letters, called in to talk shows and lobbied legislators.”56 Therefore, in the fall of 1980, Stanley Weinberg, a retired biologist, organized the first Committee of Correspondence, which grew rapidly as it connected Iowa’s anti-creationists.57 In the course of his career, Weinberg had repeatedly been personally confronted with creationist activities. He was the author of a biology textbook which was supposed to be introduced in Texas, one of the largest markets, in 1965. It was, however, only adopted after it had been attacked in public hearings held by the State School Board simply because it mentioned the theory of evolution. The same process repeated itself when, five years later, renewal of its use was decided. „Although his book was one of a few textbooks adopted twice in Texas, these experiences left him with a personal grievance against creationism.“58 Wayne Moyer, the director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, actively promoted the Committees of Correspondence as an anti-­ creationist form of action.59 Committees of Correspondence formed in many other states after Weinberg published a report on his experiences in Science in June 1980.60 Frederick Edwords, publisher of the magazine Creation/Evolution, took part in the exchange with Weinberg that followed this publication. The second Committee was founded in New York in December of the same year. Its director was the well-­ known evolutionary biologist Niles Eldredge, who published the first explicitly anti-­ creationist book, The Monkey Business, two years later.61 Due to the large number of established scientists in the New  York Committee of Correspondence, it soon acquired a leadership position among the other Committees that were now emerging in rapid succession. As early as 1982 there were Committees of Correspondence in 45 states, and four years later North Dakota was the last to get its own.62 Among the Committees, or “C/C’s”, there were significant differences in terms of what they did and to what extent their membership engaged in anti-creationist work. The basic task of the Committees of Correspondence was to monitor the state legislatures and administrative bodies, as well as creationist interest groups exerting pressure on state and local school administrations. They also focused on whether schools were abiding by the constitutional guarantee of religious neutrality. They pointed out that creationist ‘educational programs’ served the purpose of discrediting evolutionary theory.63 “They would counsel local school personnel, speak out at public hearings, provide documentation to public officials, arrange lectures, symposia, and  Ibid., p. 266.  Ibid. In the years before the outbreak of the American War of Independence, the term “Committees of Correspondence” signified a network of advocates of independence who exchanged reports of British troop activity among themselves. After 1773, these historic committees of correspondence formed shadow parliaments, from which the state governments of the United States would emerge. 58  Park 1997, p. 275. 59  Moyer 1980. 60  Weinberg et al. 1980. 61  Eldredge 1982. 62  Park 1997, p. 283. 63  Ibid., p. 284. 56 57

4.2  Nomatic Anti-Creationism

61

­ orkshops to inform teachers and the public, distribute informational leaflets at w anti-­evolutionary lectures, […] provide well-prepared debaters to oppose what would otherwise be creationist monologues, write letters to editors of local newspapers […].”64 Referring to his own C/C in Iowa, Stanley Weinberg added the following activities to this list: [W]riting articles, sending letters to the press, radio and TV appearances, call-ins to talk shows, personal contact with individuals; talks to civic clubs, church groups, PTA’s, and community organizations of all kinds; and presentations before school boards and legislative committees, and testimony in lawsuits.65

Appearances in debates and creationist lectures soon led the creationists to take note of the Committees of Correspondence. In 1982, before one of his lectures, Henry Morris pointed out that “it is getting difficult to lecture anywhere, these days, without being confronted by a Committee of Correspondence.”66 In the following years, the work of the Committees of Correspondence received much recognition. For example, in 1987 Stanley Weinberg, who had taken on the coordination of all the Committees as well as publishing a monthly newsletter, was awarded the Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. One of the most significant developments that fostered nomatic anti-creationism during this time was the financial support provided to the National Center for Science Education. Today, this center, based in Oakland (California), is the leading anti-creationist organization. This is mainly due to the fact that it not only criticizes creationism, but also assumes political tasks, such as engaging in educational policy discussions. It was founded in 1983 as the umbrella organization for the Committees of Correspondence. However, after Creation Science had been derailed by the 1982 McLean v. Arkansas decision,67 the individual Committees of Correspondence became increasingly inactive. In its early years, the National Center for Science Education was little more than an organization in name only. Until 1986, it consisted only of a board of directors, whose only task was the publication of the Creation/Evolution newsletter. In view of this, leading anti-creationists such as Stanley Weinberg wanted anti-creationism to focus less on crises and more on specific topics, so it would not cease activities in supposedly crisis-free periods. The result of this shift was a plan, drawn up in 1985, in which the themes of institutionalized anti-creationism were developed. The plan included teacher training, publications, information campaigns, and the evaluation of textbooks.68 Prior to his retirement due to health issues, Weinberg used this program to apply for funding 64  Kenneth Saladin & Karl D. Fezer, The Committees of Correspondence: what they are and what they do. In: Creation/Evolution Newsletter 4, No. 2, March/April 1985, p. 3. Quoted by Park 1997, p. 284. Saladin directed the Georgia C/C, Fezer was head of the West Virginia Committee. 65  Stanley Weinberg, What is a C/C s[!]? Unpublished manuscript, December 1981. Quoted by Park 1997, pp. 284–285. 66  Henry Morris, oral statement. Quoted by Park 1997, pp. 287–288. 67  See Sect. 3.1.1. 68  Park 1997, p. 292.

62

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

from charitable organizations. In the following year, his efforts paid off when the Carnegie Foundation awarded the Committees of Correspondence a total of $250,000 over three years to realize these plans.69

4.2.3  The National Center for Science Education The National Center for Science Education, which then had existed for three years, was expanded for this purpose. Anthropologist Eugenie Scott was appointed director, and led the organization until her retirement in 2014. Scott had been the leader of the California Committee of Correspondence for some time. Her popularity as an anti-creationist activist, however, had mainly been a result of her work at the University of Kentucky, where she had taught in the early 1980s. The experience she gained there served as a basis for the activities of the National Center for Science Education after she became its director. In 1980, even before Creation Science gained nationwide attention through the Balanced Treatment laws in Arkansas and Louisiana, the introduction of creationism to the curriculum was discussed by the school board of Lexington, Kentucky. At that time, Scott had already been collecting creationist literature for several years, in particular for the Institute for Creation Research’s Acts & Facts. This made her the only member of her faculty to have a deep insight into the content of Creation Science. She started her anti-creationist work by distributing this literature according to topics (biology, geology, astronomy) to scientists with expertise in these areas. They issued written statements that were put together in a report which was handed over to the school board. Their recommendation, unsurprisingly, was that creationism should not be included in the curriculum. At the same time, Scott got in touch with the Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders. In a lecture, she explained to the assembled heads of multiple religious groups that the core of Scientific Creationism was biblical literalism, which would lead to problems for those communities that did not follow this doctrine: „[I]f they let the biblical literalism be taught Monday through Friday they had to straighten out the kids on Sunday.“70 Through these efforts, she formed, on an ad hoc basis, an anti-creationist coalition of scientists, teachers, parents, representatives of religious communities, and secular organizations. It’s like building a plane while you’re flying it. I mean I had to learn how to do this as I was doing it, and I didn’t know anything about community organizing, I didn’t know anything about politics, but I learned fast. So we put together a coalition, which managed to speak to the issues that the school board needed to hear about.71

 Ibid., p. 293.  Personal interview with Eugenie Scott, 14 May 2012 (see appendix). 71  Ibid. 69 70

4.2  Nomatic Anti-Creationism

63

This coalition convinced three of the five members of the school board of the harmfulness of creationism in public school teaching, and this majority prevented its introduction in the Lexington school district. As director, Scott introduced reforms at the National Center for Science Education that resembled her previous activities in Kentucky. She established formal membership for the center, and prohibited non-members from speaking on its behalf. This introduction of hierarchy to the previously informally structured anti-­ creationism movement weakened the autonomy of the individual Committees of Correspondence, and was criticized by many members, including Stanley Weinberg himself. This criticism was not very convincing, however, since only a half-dozen Committees had even responded to a letter Scott had sent to all Committees upon taking the job at the Center.72 Scott assigned projects that corresponded to the points developed by Weinberg in 1985. Here, too, there was a tendency to bundle existing individual activities. In 1989, for example, the Center published Voices for Evolution, a compendium of pro-evolutionary declarations by many national scientific organizations, as well as religious associations and civil society actors. This book had been in the works since 1984, and it can be interpreted as a generalized version of the tactics of the successful coalition in Lexington.73 Another volume, Reviews of Creationist Books, had been around since 1984, and the second edition also featured reviews of published Intelligent Design literature, such as Of Pandas and People and Darwin on Trial.74 In 1991, the National Center for Science Education acquired Creation/Evolution from the American Humanist Association, thus absorbing the function of developing and spreading anti-creationist arguments.75 Later, the Journal merged with the Reports of the National Center for Science Education, which today is the Center’s main publishing outlet. The National Center for Science Education was involved in criticism of Intelligent Design early on. As the Center grew,76 this task became increasingly important because of the rising influence of Intelligent Design with the public and in the educational system. The culmination of this was the Center’s engagement in the Kitzmiller trial in 2005. One of the Center’s board members, Barbara Forrest, argued against the scientific validity of Intelligent Design, and Nick Matzke, who was an employee at the center at the time, analyzed the various editions of Of Pandas and People. The result of this analysis became a decisive argument against the scientific nature of Intelligent Design. As of 2017, the National Center for Science Education had 11 full-time employees, and some of its work was devoted to criticism of deniers of current climate research.77 This development seems to be

 Park 1997, p. 296.  The National Center for Science Education 1989. 74  The National Center for Science Education 1992. 75  Park 1997, p. 299. 76  Eugenie Scott describes this process with regard to the large number of times the Center had to move over the years. See appendix. 77  See National Center for Science Education n.d.-b 72 73

64

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

part of a general broadening of the scope of the Center’s work, so as to include all kinds of ‘science denialism’.78 One of the core aspects of the Center’s work is to bring attention to, and critically examine, veiled or overt creationist legislative initiatives in all states, and to provide expert support to local anti-creationists.79 The National Center for Science Education contributes to the goal of promoting teacher training in evolution, an issue which Stanley Weinberg had originally envisioned for organized anti-creationism, through its journal Evolution: Education and Outreach, which was founded in 2008.80

4.3  Discussion The previous synopsis of creationist positions and groups81 revealed three patterns of action which had a strong influence on the development of American creationism. Creationists reacted to actual or assumed social secularization processes, such as the reform of the education system in the early 1960s. Creationism was influenced by judicial decisions which, at certain points, made it impossible to pursue the original strategies for gaining influence and, thus, made it necessary to develop new strategies. One of these strategies consisted of increased concealment of religious references in creationist theories and justifications. These patterns also play an important role in the development of anti-­creationism. It is also reactive, as the name “anti-creationism” indicates. Since it responds to the development of creationism, it reacts indirectly to the rationalization and secularization processes which the creationists themselves react to. The anti-secular actions of creationists prompt anti-creationists to put forward their own arguments, develop their own media content, and lobby for legislation against creationism. Anti-­ creationism is also heavily oriented toward the legal system, in that the legal and political initiatives of creationists are the starting point for their activity. They author expert reports or amicus briefs for judges, comment on legislative and judicial procedures, and serve as coordinators and opinion leaders. This means that anti-­ creationists, by trying to counter the creationists’ actions, influence their further behavior, because they adapt to the changed situation. This is the answer to the  See the Special Issue of the Reports of the National Center for Science Education on science denialism: Science Denialism: Evolution and Climate Change. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31(5). 79  For instance, a controversy concerning the so-called Tennessee Monkey Bill developed in 2012. The bill mentions evolution and climate change as “controversial issues” about which teachers should encourage “critical thinking” to the students. The law differs from most other laws adopted by state legislatures in that it was signed by Governor Bill Haslam (R) and has been in force since April 2012. The National Center for Science Education has an information page on this subject, which provides the text of the law as well as analysis of its wording, an overview of its history, and offers a resolution for signature. See National Center for Science Education n.d.-a. 80  SpringerLink 2018. 81  See Sects. 2.4 and 3.3. 78

4.3 Discussion

65

question raised at the end of Chap. 3 as to whether the legal system can be regarded as an independent actor in the dispute over creationism. It cannot, since it serves only as an ‘arbitrator’ in disputes between creationists and anti-creationists. Also, something akin to the creationists’ increasing concealment of religious or, more generally, worldview-related references can be found in anti-creationism. This tendency becomes apparent in the decision by the American Humanist Association to drop references to humanism in the Creation/Evolution magazine in order to separate content-related points from worldview.82 The National Center for Science Education, too, has increasingly distanced itself from overt secular humanists. Instead, the center affirmed the NOMA principle, and rejected scientific atheism. This means that anti-creationism split between the “nomatic” variant (the center and affiliated groups and individuals), and the anti-religious form (the New Atheists and affiliated groups and individuals). This split of anti-creationism supporters reflects that of creationism in a concealed religious variant (Intelligent Design with the Center for Science and Culture as its prime representative), and an overt religious form (Young Earth Creationism with Answers in Genesis as the currently leading organization). Moreover, these differentiations took place during the 1980’s both at the level of ideas or strategies, and at the level of organizations. This synopsis of the two differentiation processes raises the question of in what sense can NOMA be regarded as something comparable to a creationist position. Unlike Young Earth Creationism, NOMA states that science and religion are not related. It also does not say that one is abolished through the other, or that both are complementary, but that science and religion have nothing to do with each other, and that both, when understood correctly, can never relate, either positively or negatively. So in what sense can NOMA be compared with creationist and new atheist ideas at all? As will be explained in more detail below,83 NOMA’s position in the creation/ evolution controversy is the result of a strategic adaptation of groups that are interested in a defense against creationism. It presents a norm which, to the extent that it is accepted, diminishes or rejects creationist views and practices. From the perspective of those who accept NOMA, creationism by definition is an impermissible transgression of the boundaries of religion. This means that NOMA does not necessarily reflect the convictions of the anti-creationists who promote it. But it also does not mean that it is merely a pretext by which the anti-creationists obscure their own critical attitude towards religion, much as Dawkins (as well as Miller) accused Gould. It is completely irrelevant to an analysis of NOMA’s role in the conflict whether those who promote it actually believe in it philosophically. NOMA is the result of a number of strategic decisions that occurred in response to developments in creationism. On the basis of the Establishment Clause, the legislative history from Epperson to Kitzmiller produced a practical distinction between religion and science, which is further detailed in the face of new adaptations by creationists. For them, this means that if they want to continue to participate in this 82 83

 Cf. Park 1997, pp. 253–254.  See Sect. 6.2.

66

4  Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions

controversy, they must increasingly hide their religious or ideological references in order to escape being legally defined as religious. At the same time, this legal construction of the demarcation between religion and science84 also constrains the science side of the controversy. It has to abstain from virtually all religious or quasi-religious statements, and needs to be sure that nothing they say can be construed as overstepping the boundaries of science. Only by doing so can they make this distinction work in favor of their practical educational policy goals. This is why the center distinguishes between methodological naturalism, that is, the rejection of other than natural causes as part of the scientific method, and ontological naturalism, that is, the belief that there are only natural causes anyway.85 It also explains the shedding of humanism from anti-creationism, and helps explain eliminating atheistic positions in the work of the National Center for Science Education, as practiced by Eugenie Scott during her tenure. All these processes work as strategic differentiations, and do not have to form a philosophically coherent system. This also seems to be the case with Gould’s own definition of NOMA, which is apparent when he states: “I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving concordat between our magisteria - the NOMA solution.”86 The historical development of creationist and anti-creationist organizations in the United States has shown their intimate interdependence at many points. There are further questions to be asked about this interdependence. What logic underlies this process, what are its functional principles, and why has it developed the way it has, and not another way? These questions cannot be answered by a purely historiographical recounting. In the following two chapters, we will look at scholarly literature on creationism in the United States, and develop a sociological system based on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social fields. This makes it possible to better understand and explain why creationism has developed as it has.

 On the issue of how to differentiate science from non-science with regard to creationism, see Laudan 1983. 85  Scott 2000a. 86  Gould 1997. 84

Part II

Theorizing the Creationist Conflict

Chapter 5

Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

Creationism research is closely tied to the struggle over its position in American society. This is, in part, due to the fact that cultural and social sciences tend to focus on phenomena that are of great cultural and social importance. Research on creationism is particularly strong during times when it is an acute political or educational issue,1 because many researchers take a positive or negative stance toward creationism, and aim to limit (or, in some cases, support) its societal influence. This, of course, does not mean that the findings of this research are necessarily invalid or flawed. However, we will see that in many cases the concepts social scientific research employs to shed light on creationism are very similar to those the creationists (and anti-creationists) themselves use in their conflict with each other. This poses a problem for social scientists who are interested in value-neutrality in their research. In particular, it is the widespread use of the notions of ‘science’ and ‘religion’ which lead to this problematic closeness of research concepts to the language and strategies of the creationists and anti-creationists. In the next chapter, I propose a concept that puts research at a greater (and arguably healthier) conceptual distance from the conflict between creationists and anti-­ creationists by dropping the notions of ‘science’ and ‘religion’ altogether as descriptive tools. But before we delve into these theoretical considerations, it is necessary to gain an overview of some research on creationism. The point of this overview is not to give an exhaustive account of prior research, but to highlight important studies that have either made a considerable conceptual or empirical contribution, or that speak to a critical point about the science/religion terminology, or both. After this overview, I present some more general considerations on the problem of value-neutrality in social science. Why should social science strive to be value-neutral at all? And why is it particularly important when dealing with controversial issues such as creationism? Can it be achieved, and in what sense? Being

1  E.g. Godfrey 1984, which was reissued and expanded to include research on Intelligent Design: Petto and Godfrey 2007.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_5

69

70

5  Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

able to treat creationism from a sociological perspective is an important test of whether sociology can or cannot achieve ‘objectivity’.

5.1  About the Research I will present five major themes of research that directly or indirectly deal with professional creationism. There are works on the history of creationist movements and individuals, quantitative studies on the spread of creationist views, analyses of the motives of creationists, research on the validity of their arguments, and a few studies that deal with anti-creationism. Of course, there is no clean distinction between them in actual research, as many studies are concerned with more than one theme.

5.1.1  Historical Investigations Significant parts of the research on creationism deal with the personal, institutional, and ideological origin, development, and content of creationism, and with the people involved in it. The aim of these investigations is to show similarities and differences between creationist ideas, publications, and institutions, and to discern trends in the development of creationism. The subject areas of this reconstruction work differ significantly. Small-scale investigations deal with individual historical episodes, such as the Scopes Trial.2 Middle-range analyses are concerned with the development of a certain variant of creationism, and the broadest studies deal with the history of creationism as a whole. In addition, there are historical works that embed creationism in other contexts of human history. An example of a small-scale examination is the analysis of the various manuscripts of the Intelligent Design textbook Of Pandas and People.3 Middle-range studies of the development of a single variant or of modern professional creationism as a whole have a broader scope. Historian Ronald Numbers has done foundational work in this regard with his collection of sources on early American creationism, as well as his often-cited historical account The Creationists.4 At the outset of this study are antievolutionist responses to Darwin’s publications by his contemporaries. Numbers shows that many of the arguments of the later professional creationist organizations had already been developed at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. In his book The New Geology, George McCready Price had already developed the basics of flood geology, which a few decades later served as the basis of early Young Earth Creationism.5 Numbers is particularly concerned  E.g. Larson 2006.  See Sect. 3.2. 4  Numbers 1995, 2006. 5  Numbers 2006, pp. 98–100. 2 3

5.1  About the Research

71

with the short-lived organizational predecessors of the stable Young Earth organizations, Creation Research Society and Institute for Creation Research. It becomes clear that in the course of the 1930s and 1940s, a process of ideological clarification was taking place, which led to the organizations’ statements of faith becoming so specific as to prevent doctrinal quarrels.6 At the end of his study, Numbers considers the globalization of creationist initiatives that have spread since the 1980s, for example, in Australia, the United Kingdom and the Islamic world.7 Other historical works go beyond the boundaries of Numbers’ investigation, and embed creationism into Western intellectual history. An example of this is Arthur McCalla’s The Creationist Debate: The Encounter Between the Bible and the Historical Mind. McCalla’s reconstruction is based on the theme of the “two books”, Nature and Revelation, whose relationship has been interpreted differently in the course of the history of the West. The origins of their complex interplay lay in the Renaissance, at the beginning of the systematic study of nature, when researchers such as Paracelsus, Galileo, and Bacon tried to put their observation of nature into rational relationship with Christian revelation.8 In the course of the 17th and 18th centuries, the relationship of studying nature and revelation was expressed primarily in the form of Natural Theology in the works of Robert Boyle and Athanasius Kircher.9 At this time, attempts to harmonize both “books” entered into a crisis as the accuracy of natural science increased, as fossil finds suggested ancient epochs in earth’s history, and as the Enlightenment developed criticism of religion. These developments led to a questioning of the role of the Bible as a means to interpret the natural world while being exempt from rational questioning.10 In 1725, Giambattista Vico in his book Scienza Nuova, made an attempt to incorporate the increasing complexity of knowledge about nature into a system consistent with biblical history, an operation which is still the basis of creationist theories.11 Even broader than McCalla’s work is historical research on the creationist side. It is questionable to treat these works as scientific literature in the strict sense, because the historical analysis happens in a creationist framework, which is not regarded as scientific by the vast majority of historians. However, Henry Morris’ History of Modern Creationism, which is the main work in this category of creationist historical literature, contains many undisputed descriptions of the institutionalization of professional creationism since the 1960s, and it is used as a source by non-creationist historians.12 We will look at his historiographical approach in detail in Sect. 7.1. 6  These quarrels had blown apart early creationist organizations. For instance, the Religion and Science Association became incapacitated by the fact that while its members agreed on the rejection of “macroevolution,” some accepted an ancient earth and assumed that there had already been cultural development before Adam, which had been destroyed by the flood. See Numbers 2006, pp. 131–136; Morris 1984, pp. 112–117. 7  Numbers 2006, pp. 399–431. 8  McCalla 2006, pp. 2–13. 9  Ibid., pp. 14–21. 10  Ibid., pp. 21–39. 11  Ibid., pp. 46–51. 12  See Numbers 2006, pp. 286.

72

5  Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

5.1.2  Statistical Studies on Creationist Views and Knowledge Quantitative studies on creationism have mostly focused on acceptance of evolution by the US population, on the extent and form of the opposition to it, and on the educational and political convictions of the general population. These studies supplement, and sometimes motivate, the historical works. They motivate them in that their results provide reasons to deal with the history of creationism. They supplement them because the analysis of the frequency of the occurrence of creationist ideas helps to determine the significance of individual variants of creationism, which are then examined more closely. Included in these studies is an analysis of the link between creationism and social structure. Like Ronald Numbers, the political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer point out that religious affiliation has an influence on the acceptance or non-­ acceptance of evolution. “Doctrinally conservative” Protestants reject the theory of evolution by more than 60%, while only 27% of the members of mainline churches13 are convinced that humans are not descended from other species.14 The link between lower cognitive abilities and the rejection of evolution is very weak, and general understanding of science has no appreciable influence on the attitude to the subject.15 Opposition to the theory of evolution varies geographically, but here, too, there is no unambiguous distribution.16 Rejection rates vary between 20% in New England to 51% in the southeast United States. Berkman and Plutzer summarize their results in three points: I. Over two-thirds of the public endorse teaching creationism (either along with or instead of evolution). Thus, a supermajority expresses opposition to Supreme Court decision banning this practice. II. Every survey shows that anti-evolutionists outnumber pro-evolutionists. III. The highest recorded support for teaching evolution and only evolution is 35%, very far from a majority. Most polls show even lower support. […] Therefore, no more than one-­ third of U.S. citizens endorse the policy that is actually in place in all fifty states.17

A problem with this research concerns the knowledge of the interviewees about the subject. The political scientist George Bishop even speaks of the “illusion of public opinion”.18 With regard to creationism, he sees this illusion in the fact that while respondents strongly support the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools, only a minority claims to actually know that Intelligent Design means as a concept. In Ohio, there was an intense public debate in 2002 when the State Board of Education discussed the question of whether Intelligent Design should be included  Though there is no generally agreed-upon definition of mainline churches or denominations, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregrationalists, Quakers, and Reformed Christians are usually subsumed under this term. 14  Berkman and Plutzer 2010, p. 73. 15  Ibid., p. 77. 16  Ibid., p. 81. 17  Ibid., p. 39. 18  Bishop 2004. 13

5.1  About the Research

73

in biology classes. The media attention the controversy caused led to several surveys conducted by Ohio newspapers and television broadcasters, all of which resulted in a large majority being in favor of the inclusion of Intelligent Design. A survey conducted at the same time by Bishop showed that 84% of the respondents answered in the negative to the question “Do you happen to know anything about the concept of ‚intelligent design‘“?19 This apparent inconsistency also shows how certain questions were designed to generate a high degree of acceptance for Intelligent Design. The Discovery Institute, for example, framed the issue like this: “The Ohio State Board of Education is currently trying to decide whether high school students should learn both the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory of evolution.”20 It seems that surveys inquiring about propositional content or educational preference do not actually indicate approval of creationism, since people generally know little about the content of creationism.21 This analysis leads the authors to criticize anti-creationist initiatives. Berkman and Plutzer show that the American public largely agrees that there is dissent within the scientific community as to the validity of the theory of evolution. “This shows clearly that the public education efforts of the scientific establishment have been ineffective.”22 From this, it might seem that the prior statement that professional creationists and anti-creationists are strongly interconnected is questionable. However, the diagnosis that creationists have little influence over their actual theories, and that anti-creationists have little success in countering creationist activities, has little consequence for their engagement with each other. For the Intelligent design movement, as well as for its opponents, it is of little relevance whether the reasons people support it are based on knowledge about its content or not.23 This situation can be characterized as a version of the Thomas theorem: „If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.“24 For professional groups and individuals in this controversy, it makes no difference as to the importance they assign to other professionals, whether their importance is based on a merely superficial understanding (or complete misunderstanding) of the ­scientific validity of their claims, or whether people actually understand and believe in this scientific validity. The issue of knowledge becomes relevant only when the professionals think of strategies that direct the social consensus in the direction they desired. Bishop’s general criticism of the inflated role of professional creationist knowledge systems, such as Intelligent Design, is mirrored by a more recent in-depth  Bishop 2003, p. 6.  Quoted in Bishop 2003, p. 6. 21  See Kaden et al. 2017 for a detailed analysis of current literature on science and religion with regard to issue framing by professionals. 22  Berkman and Plutzer 2010, p. 49. In the same vein Evans 2011. 23  This point is similar to the one made at the end of the previous chapter that for the social validity of the NOMA principle, the extent to which its representatives (or their opponents) believe in it is irrelevant. 24  Thomas and Thomas 1928, pp. 571–572. 19 20

74

5  Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

analysis of the American public’s views on science and religion. Jonathan Hill in his National Study of Religion and Human Origins showed that while around 40% of American adults agree that God created humans in the last 10,000 years, only 8% agree with all major claims put forward by young earth creationists.25 Finally, a part of the quantitative research is concerned with the development and testing of teaching methods which increase the acceptance of the theory of evolution among students who may be opposed to it, at least in part for religious reasons. Since its inception in 2008, the Journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has been mainly devoted to this issue. It features articles that present games teachers can use to impart genetic knowledge,26 and provides resources to teach evolutionary explanations of moral behavior.27

5.1.3  Investigations of the Conflict Motives of Creationists The question of how creationism developed, and what proportion of the population holds creationist views, does not yet touch on the question of why such views exist at all. The analysis of the motives of creationists is concerned both with the professional producers of creationist material and with their audience. Here, different motivation levels can be identified. The conflict can be understood as epistemological, which means creationists act because they believe that the theory of evolution is factually wrong, which is why their opponents are those who are convinced that it is not wrong. This perspective reduces the whole conflict to the discussion about the validity of evidence for and against evolution and other sciences. Another conflict level is identified by researchers who interpret creationism as a moral phenomenon. Their view is that behind statements about scientific truth are moral concerns about evolutionary theory and the consequences of accepting it. This explains why a refutation of creationist theories does not lead to any progress for anti-creationist initiatives, since they do not get to the core of the problem. A third direction of research into creationist motives looks at creationist institutions, which are seen as self-­ perpetuating units. Rather than truth or morals, the conflict is supposed to be about institutional power and the fight for the resources that allow institutions to persist. The following section presents influential studies from all three research strands. The goal of this presentation is to look for elements that can feed into an integrated theory, which is presented in the next chapter. The ethnologist Christopher P.  Toumey argued in 1994 that the motivational basis of creationism is moral: “Creation is a moral theory that the idea of ​​evolution is intimately involved in immorality, as cause or effect or both.“28 Toumey substanti Hill 2014.  Eterovic and Santos 2013. 27  Allchin 2009. 28  Toumey 1994, p. 52. See also Toumey 1993, p. 292: “[C]reationism is essentially a by-product of fundamentalism’s critique of immorality in American society, as organized according to the concept of Secular Humanism.” 25 26

5.1  About the Research

75

ates his definition by identifying the various social groups that supported creationism. Among them is the New Religious Right. Ever since its inception in the 1970s, its leaders have been in close contact with Henry Morris, who was then Vice President of Tim LaHaye’s conservative Christian Heritage College. Creationism was part of the curriculum. LaHaye stated that “[e]volution provides a theory of man’s origin independent of the God the atheist believes does not exist. The atheist’s next conclusion is, we believe, very dangerous to society. If man is an animal, then, like other animals, he is amoral.”29 Creationism is also engrained in the beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest US Protestant church. There, the issue of the acceptance of creationist theories serves, above all, are to fortify the church’s belief in scriptural infallibility.30 The moral foundation of creationism has also been emphasized by the sociologists John Evans and Michael Evans. Their argument is part of a revision of the entire social scientific research program on the relationship between science and religion. Surveying the literature on this relationship,31 they find that what they call the “epistemological conflict narrative” still prevails. Science and religion are supposedly in conflict with one another, since they provide contradictory knowledge about the same objects, which is why their claims to validity collide. While Evans and Evans do not deny instances of conflict revolving around truth claims, they nevertheless express skepticism about the value of the epistemological conflict narrative as a basis for research on the relationship between science and religion.32 They hold that actual epistemic conflicts between the two are historically rare and almost always concern only certain subgroups of ‘religious people’ or ‘scientists’. In addition, analyses of the relationship between science and religion which dispense with the conflict narrative and instead consider individual groups and individuals, as well as their interests and resources, have proved more fruitful. These basic assumptions lead Evans and Evans to consider those opposed to creationists as an active factor in the development of creationism. Indeed, moral aspects of the theory of evolution are often not merely figments of the creationists’ imagination, but have been and are actually put forward by leading evolutionary biologists. Examples are the eugenics movement of the interwar period in the United States, and contemporary evolutionary psychology.33 Evans and Evans identify three anti-creationist strategies that fall short due to their focus on issues of factual truth.34 The strategy of using science education to increase the quality of education of students who are critical of evolution fails because more knowledge about evolution has not changed critical views. Another strategy consists of attempts to convince  LaHaye, The Religion of Secular Humanism. In: Public Schools and the First Amendment. Ed. by S. M. Elam. Bloomington: Phi Delta Kappa, pp. 1–13. Quoted in Toumey 1994, p. 56. 30  Toumey 1994, pp. 57–62. 31  Evans and Evans 2008 32  Evans and Evans 2008, pp. 100–101. 33  Ibid., pp. 295–298. 34  Evans 2011. 29

76

5  Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

courts to define science in an anti-creationist way, as was the case in the Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trials.35 Evans and Evans state that this strategy is risky, because it leaves science relying on an authority outside science to maintain its autonomy. Finally, the strategy of suppressing the creationist movement through the work of anti-creationist organizations such as the National Center for Science Education,36 merely strengthens creationism by leading to strategic adjustments, and is arguably undemocratic, since a majority of the US public supports teaching creationism in public schools.37 Evans and Evans therefore advocate a public discussion of moral concerns about evolution, which would include teaching creationism in public schools.38

5.1.4  Reasons, Content, and Arguments of Creationist Groups From the perspective of sociologists concerned with the motives of creationists, the studies dealing with the reasoning and content of creationists treat the fact-based level of the conflict. Although creationists may actually be concerned about the morality of evolution or their social status, these studies deal with whether the arguments of creationists against evolutionary theory and for their own theories are true. They delve into the content of creationist theories and their philosophical presuppositions, as well as the criticism of evolution by creationists. Because this research deals with creationist theories, in a way it mirrors the structure of creationism, meaning that it takes up the creationist concepts and arguments, analyzes them critically and, in most cases, rejects them as wrong. This applies particularly to the main points of Intelligent Design, such as the concept of irreducible complexity and the examples provided for it (see Sect. 3.2.1).39 A few years after the publication of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, philosopher Niall Shanks, together with biologist Karl H.  Joplin, argued that the functional redundancy of complex biochemical systems speaks against their being intelligently designed.40 When Michael Behe used the mousetrap as an example for how intelligent design (by humans) combines a number of parts to form an irreducibly complex whole,41 critical researchers showed how a mousetrap could work that was made up of very few or even just of one part without losing its functionality.42

 See Sects. 3.1.1 and 3.2.  See Sect. 4.2.3. 37  Evans and Evans 2010, pp. 298–302. 38  Ibid., pp. 302–304. 39  Young 2004, Musgrave 2004, Ussery 2004, Mackenzie 2010, National Academy of Sciences 2008. 40  Shanks and Joplin 1999. 41  Behe 2006, pp. 42–43. 42  McDonald 2011. 35 36

5.2  Value Problems of Creationism Research

77

Other articles with titles such as Why Behe’s ‘Irreducible Complexity’ is Silly43 and a collection of counter-arguments entitled Irreducible Complexity Demystified,44 speak to the detailed attention given to the refutation of these arguments. The same is true for William Dembski’s ‘explanatory filter’, which he says serves to identify design in nature by ruling out other causes.45 Wesley Elsberry summarizes his criticism of this concept: the filter leads to “false positives” (incorrectly identifying intelligent design) and has no “maybe option”, and Dembski does not specify criteria to determine when the knowledge of the person testing for intelligent design is sufficient to recognize it.46 The fact that proponents of Intelligent Design are critical of the principle of methodological naturalism,47 which underlies science, has also been the object of a broad critical debate.48 While today this kind of in-depth criticism mostly concerns Intelligent Design, it had also been directed at other variants of creationism, such as Scientific Creationism, back when that still had significant political and educational influence.49 There is a great need for research on organized anti-creationism in the United States. Initiatives such as the Committees of Correspondence or the National Center for Science Education are mentioned in passing in studies of creationism,50 but apart from general statements that creationism is evolving in the face of anti-creationist initiatives,51 Park’s Anti-Creationism in America52 seems to be the only study devoted specifically to the development of anti-creationism. Since it has already been cited in detail,53 its core arguments will not be repeated here.

5.2  Value Problems of Creationism Research A core feature of research on creationism is that it is often linked with creationist or anti-creationist values. This is especially apparent in studies concerned with the history of creationism. For instance, the aforementioned work by Nick Matzke, in  Theobald 2006.  Dunkelberg 2003. 45  Dembski explaines his concept in his book The Design Revolution (Dembski 2004, pp. 87–93). He is criticized by Scott (2005, pp. 120–122), and Elsberry (2007). 46  Elsberry 2007. 47  Methodological naturalism posits that in science, natural phenomena can only be explained with recourse to natural causes. In contrast, philosophical naturalism holds that this principle is also a statement about the world as it actually is. 48  Gordon and Dembski 2011, pp. 135–270, Petto and Godfrey 2007, pp. 309–441. 49  The edited volume by Petto and Godfrey (2007) is an updated version of an edited volume (Godfrey 1984), which deals with the then virulent Creation Science. 50  E.g. Numbers 2006, pp. 2, 352; Evans and Evans 2010, pp. 298–302. 51  Berkman and Plutzer 2012, Harmon 2011. 52  Park 1997. This is an unpublished dissertation, but Park presents parts of his argument in Park 2000. 53  See Sect. 4.2.2. 43 44

78

5  Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

which he uses the editions of Of Pandas and People to show the connection between Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism,54 was used by him and Barbara Forrest in the Kitzmiller trial as an argument against including Intelligent Design in biology courses within the Dover Area School District. The study had been carried out specifically for this purpose. The search for the link between Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism was undertaken in order to further the political goal of excluding Intelligent Design from public schools. The National Center for Science Education, for which Matzke worked at the time, characterized Intelligent Design as “wrong for our schools”.55 It’s not only historical analyses that often have a clear anti-creationist goal.56 The edited volume Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, edited by the philosopher Robert T.  Pennock, deals with “philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives” (which is the subtitle of the book).57 Its title betrays a clear commitment to a value, namely the desired educational policy of excluding Intelligent Design by labeling it as a form of creationism. Other writers consciously move from a description of what is to a prescription of what ought to be, such as Michael Ruse, author of monographs and anthologies on the philosophy of science and creationism,58 who argued against the scientific nature of Scientific Creationism in 1981 as an expert witness in the McLean v. Arkansas trial.59 The problem here goes even deeper, since even authors who do not want to support an anti-creationist agenda in their work are drawn into debates about the evaluation of creationist positions by creationist organizations. For instance, an Intelligent Design website lauds Ronald Numbers as an “honest critic” of Intelligent Design, because he clearly states the difference between Intelligent Design and creationism.60 To sum up, creationist research has scholars who, in their work on creationism, voluntarily enter a social arena in which the scientific validity of their subject matter is decided. Moreover, there are creationist and anti-creationist activists who pursue their studies for this very reason and, finally, there are scholars who are drawn into the arena despite never intending to be part of the struggle surrounding creationism.  See Sect. 3.2.  Scott and Branch 2006. 56  Scott 2006. 57  Pennock 2001. 58  Pennock and Ruse 2009, Ruse 2005b. 59  Antievolution.org 2005b. On this occasion, Ruse mentioned a number of traits of authentic natural science, for instance, that it explains phenomena with recourse to natural laws, that its statements are verifiable, and that its results are tentative. Laudan (1982) criticized this approach. 60  „Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.” Center for Science and Culture (n.d.b): 54 55

5.2  Value Problems of Creationism Research

79

These issues all point to the same basic problem: that in research on creationism, scholarly perspectives are often mixed with questions of educational policy, religious or nonreligious values, and criticism of religion and/or science. At this point, it may be asked why these observations are problematic at all. In order to explain why it is difficult for sociology to analyze a social fact, and evaluate it at the same time, it is necessary to discuss some of the basic methodological points made by Max Weber. This will make it easier to assess the scope of the value problem in creationism research, and to then make the case for a new approach.

5.2.1  Max Weber on the Problem of Value Judgments Almost a hundred years before sociologists started dealing with creationism, German sociologists found themselves in a situation that, albeit very different in terms of its content, presented them with the same conundrum this author encounters when engaging with this topic. Most of the scholars involved in the founding of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie had long been in agreement about the importance of the problem that occurs when statements of fact and statements of evaluation are mixed, and they were largely in agreement on what to do about it. This sensitivity resulted from clashes in the 1890s, when the government exerted political pressure on professors of national economy who were sympathetic to socialism. That is why it’s not surprising that Ferdinand Tönnies, who chaired the first congress of the German Society for Sociology in 1910, gave his lecture on the subject of value neutrality. His thoughts largely mirror Max Weber’s on what the position and the task of a researcher are. Tönnies states that „at the most basic level [...] all our thinking and knowing is at the service of our will.”61 But it could be shown that “the sciences and humanities62 grow and develop the faster, the more they distance themselves from all direct and indirect influence of the will, and of practical interests, and leave it to practitioners to determine, if and what kind of use they want to make of the results of pure thinking and research.”63 For the scholar who is not also a “practitioner”, the following maxim applies: We leave all visions of the future [Zukunfts-Programme], all social and political tasks aside, not because we despise them, but in consequence of the scientific principle, because we deem the difficulties to substantiate such ideas scientifically insurmountable.64

A few years before Tönnies‘speech, Max Weber had already recognized the difficulty of deducing values from statements of fact: “it can never be the task of a science of empirical experience to determine binding norms and ideals from which  Tönnies 2010: 186. All translations mine TK.  In German, science and humanities are subsumed under the term “Wissenschaften.” 63  Ibid., pp. 186–187. 64  Ibid., p. 190. 61 62

80

5  Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

practical prescriptions may then be deduced..“65 Even the most thorough analysis of what is cannot provide any hint as to what ought to be. Facts cannot say anything about the desirability of any present or future state. At its core, this gap between things and values results from the gap between the infinite complexity of reality, and the limited human means of perceiving this reality. Even with the widest imaginable knowledge of “laws,“ we are helpless in the face of the question how is the causal explanation of an individual fact possible - since a description of even the smallest slice of reality can never be exhaustive? The number and type of causes which have influenced any given event are always infinite and there IS nothing in the things themselves to set some of them apart as alone meriting attention.66

If everything, including culture, is infinitely complex, how can a social scientist justify what she selects from reality in order to construct the objects of research? [O]nly certain aspects of the, always infinitely manifold, individual phenomena – namely those that in our view possess general cultural significance [Kulturbedeutung, meaning significance for the cultural phenomenon in question] – are worth knowing, and they alone are objects of causal explanation.67

For Weber, sociology is a “science of reality”68 (Wirklichkeitswissenschaft), and problematic value judgments are one part of the cultural meaning people ascribe to parts of empirical infinity. Weber grants that the cultural values which sort and select reality are always subjective. But obviously, it does not follow from this that research in the cultural sciences can only have results that are “subjective” in the sense of being valid for one person but not for another. Rather, what varies is the degree to which such results interest one person but not another.69

This means that while evaluation is always at the core of concept-formation, there is a difference between constructing an object of study based on whether one finds it good or bad (wertvoll), or whether one thinks it is worth knowing about it (wissenswert). It is by no means inevitable that both coincide. A researcher can attribute cultural importance to a phenomenon which he detests or feels indifferently about. To be sure, Weber does not argue for the exclusion of value-judgments from scholarly work, a task, which he says is impossible, because humans cannot but position themselves by what they see in the world. Instead, he calls for sociology in which. [one should] […] at all times make clear to the reader (and, to repeat, above all to oneself ) that and where it is no longer the reasoning scholar who speaks, but the striving human being who takes over – where the arguments are aimed at our reason, and where they appeal

 Weber 2012, pp. 101–102.  Ibid., p. 78. Weber relies on the argument developed by Heinrich Rickert in his 1902 book The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science (Rickert 1986). See also Oakes 1990. 67  Weber 2012, p. 118. 68  Weber 2012, p. 114. 69  Weber 2012, p. 121. 65 66

5.2  Value Problems of Creationism Research

81

to our feelings. One of the most widespread, but also most harmful, features of work within our discipline is that the scientific discussion of facts is constantly mixed up with evaluative argumentation.70

5.2.2  “ Science” and “Religion” as Normative Concepts in Creationism Research We can use Weber’s and Tönnies’ thoughts to describe the difficulties surrounding social scientific research on creationism, and to explore how deep these difficulties are. In this field of study, there is often no distinction between “practitioners” and “researchers.” People who conduct research on creationism are also often activists engaged in the struggle between creationism and evolution. Hence, while they deal with what is, they link their findings to what they think ought to be. Many researchers who take interest in the facts of creationism do so because these facts might help them combat creationism. It is not, per se, a problem that anti-creationist researchers regard creationism as wrong. But this stance must be distinguishable from research devoted to the analysis and reconstruction of facts, for instance, how creationism developed, or whether the statements of creationists are factually wrong. This part must be separate from any evaluation of creationism so that, in principle, even creationists themselves could, irrespective of their value judgments, recognize or reject the analysis of facts. A hundred years ago, this thought was expressed by Weber in a peculiar way: For it is, and continues to be, true that a methodically correct proof in the field of social science must, in order to have reached its goal, also be accepted as correct even by a Chinese – or, to put it more correctly: that goal must at any rate be striven for, although it may not be completely attainable because the data are lacking.71

We will see that this standard is not remotely met when it comes to agreeing on basic facts about creationism, such as its history or what the struggle between creationists and their opponents is actually about. For instance, representatives of Intelligent Design do not only disagree with how their critics evaluate it, but also with the way in which they state the facts. Those facts concern not merely biological details, but big and fundamental questions such as the history of modern science and its present form as a secular, institutionalized system. But before exploring the dimensions of this dissent, we will look at how evaluations and statements of fact are mixed together in research on creationism, and try to draw conclusions on how sociology must proceed if it wants to avoid this mixing. This is why we will now shift our focus away from particular value judgments, and instead explore the role of value judgments within the debate about creationism

70 71

 Weber 2012, p. 106.  Weber 2012, p. 105.

82

5  Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

in general. The question is: What makes it possible for value judgments and statements of fact to be blended together to such a large extent in this debate? All professional creationist and anti-creationist groups and individuals have in common the use of the terms ‘science’ and ‘religion’ or ‘religiosity’ to describe their positions, as well as those of their opponents, and relate these to the state of the conflict. Though these specific terms are not always used, they are often in the background as a normative matrix that forms the basis for the interpretation of their situation and the positions of their opponents and allies. This means that everyone involved has an understanding of science and of what is scientific, as well as an understanding of religion and of what is religious, and this understanding is the principle on which they position their views. As a result, in order to analyze the conflict, we need to analyze the ways in which these basic terms are being used. In doing so, our aim is not to make the case for whose use of the terms is wrong and whose is right but, rather, to gain an understanding of how these terms are being used, and how their use contributed to the history and current state of the conflict overall. There is more than one way in which something can be called scientific or unscientific. I propose a distinction of pragmatic, historical, and philosophical ways of defining science and non-science.72 Pragmatically, a theory, a study, or an argument is scientific to the extent that there is a chance that it is recognized as ‘scientific’ by people who have the power to determine what is scientific. The same applies to other attributes that are relevant in the conflict, such as ‘religious’, ‘creationist’, ‘pseudoscientific’, etc. This means that, for instance, the question of whether Intelligent Design is unscientific could be answered without making a judgment about the value of the content of science. Since the people and groups who currently have the power to determine what can be defined as scientific, that is, people who work as academic scientists, academic institutions, politicians, and also judges73 and courts, overwhelmingly agree that Intelligent Design as well as Creation Science and biblical literalism are not science, they do not qualify as scientific. For anti-creationists, relying on this way of defining science poses a risk, since those who have the power to make this definition legally binding might lean in a different direction. A judge might not be convinced by anti-creationist arguments during the next trial.74 Due to the fact that religious positions are excluded from state institutions such as public schools, the term religion turns into a political accusation as well. To demonstrate the religious nature of an opponent’s view or theory serves the anti-creationists in the defense against cre This differentiation serves its purpose only in the context of this study, and I do not claim that it is valid beyond the scope of my topic of research. Moreover, it is somewhat artificial, since, in practical reality, all three meanings are mixed, and sometimes confounded by the groups and individuals involved in the conflict. 73  E.g. John E. Jones III, who presided over the Kitzmiller trial, and William Overton, whose ruling spelled the end for Creation Science at the McLean v. Arkansas trial. 74  The theoretical view explained here forms the basis of Evans and Evans’ practical criticism of anti-creationism (Evans and Evans 2010, pp. 289–302.) which was described in Sect. 5.1. 72

5.2  Value Problems of Creationism Research

83

ationist educational policy initiatives, but it also serves the creationists as a rhetorical device to level the playing field by casting their opponents as actually (also) religious.75 These pragmatic definitions of science and religion are based only on the current balance of forces, but they claim support via historical and philosophical arguments. But if the relativistic approach, which is only based on current power relations, is supported by historical arguments, it also becomes easier to attack. Representatives of Intelligent Design, for example, often seek to increase the legitimacy of their claims to being real science by referring to scientists who, in Darwin’s time or even earlier, linked their theories with theistic arguments,76 or along the lines of today’s intelligent design.77 This historical justification is supposed to make up for a lack of pragmatic legitimacy. For anti-creationists, it is not enough to merely point out an alternative history of science that does not include Intelligent Design as a legitimate science, because pointing to other historical figures who rejected the argument of design, most prominently, Darwin himself, does nothing to increase the legitimacy of the historical account. For representatives of Intelligent Design, such an attempt could even be regarded as a win, because it could then present itself as a valid scientific theory which happens to be wrongly regarded as outdated by its opponents. This means that people opposed to Intelligent Design who argue from a historical perspective must find a way to evaluate different historical strands of science in order to prove that the strand Intelligent Design refers to as its scientific predecessor is of less scientific value than the strand of science history that led to today’s ruling paradigm. But doing so opens up an entirely separate question about the criteria one can use to evaluate strands of science history, and about the legitimacy of this evaluation. The Wedge document78 focuses precisely on this issue when it argues that anti-religious materialism is a principle that underlies modern science and culture, which is why one task of the emergent Intelligent Design movement is to oppose this philosophical presupposition. Another way to support current political views about whom to include and whom to exclude from the realm of science is to point to overarching principles of science that are violated by creationist research paradigms or by Intelligent Design. This strategy, however, is highly problematic from the viewpoint of philosophy of science. This becomes apparent when attempts are made to distinguish science from that which resembles science but is not science. To define pseudoscience is difficult, because all traits that can be used to define it at one point have been features of what  Young Earth Creationists ask “Is Evolution a Religion?” (Mitchell and White 2008), and answers its own question: “[Creationism and Evolution] are both religions!” (Hovind 2011). This use of the term religion is particularly important in creationist accounts of its own history, see Sect. 7.1. 76  Such a link was proposed by Darwin’s famous American colleague, Asa Gray. 77  Two scholars who often figure in attempts by Intelligent Design proponents to back up their stance are theologian William Paley, who originated the argument from design with his famous watchmaker analogy, and biologist Alfred Russell Wallace, who, contrary to Darwin, argued that higher mental capacities have a supernatural origin. Both arguments can be termed early versions of “intelligent design”. The structure of histories of Intelligent Design is discussed in Sect. 7.3. 78  See Sect. 3.2.1. 75

84

5  Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

is considered true science.79 It is, therefore, problematic to try to argue against the legitimacy of creationism in general, and Intelligent Design in particular, solely with arguments about the nature of science. This brief analysis points to the core issue that characterizes the creationism debate, as well as significant parts of creationism research. The problem lies not with single value judgments about creationist statements and strategies, as long as they are clearly marked as such. The problem is that the frequently used distinction between science and non-science itself is either weak if it relies only on the contemporary social definition of science, or vulnerable to criticism by creationists if it relies on historical or philosophical arguments. In any case, using “science” as a way to draw a distinction in the debates surrounding creationism means applying a certain norm. Conversely, using science to describe the conflict or any aspect of it is never just a statement of facts. The same applies to the terms religion and religious. This problem is not averted by taking a “moderate position” which is friendly towards religious truth claims. Weber, who in the following quotation refers to social policy, thinks that this approach is even more detrimental to the validity of scholarly knowledge: Of course, a practising politician may in a given situation subjectively be as duty-bound to mediate between opposing views as to side with one of them. But that has nothing at all to do with scientific “objectivity”. The “middle course” is not one hair’s breadth closer to scientific truth than the most extreme ideals of parties on the right or the left. Nowhere is science worse off in the long run than in the hands of those who refuse to face uncomfortable facts and the tough realities of life. The Archive [Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, where Weber served as editor] will unconditionally oppose the grave delusion that it is possible to arrive at scientifically valid practical norms by synthesizing a number of partisan viewpoints, or by drawing a median line between them: that point of view is characterized by a fondness for disguising one’s own value standards by relativizing them, and therefore poses a far greater danger to the impartiality of [scientific] research than the old, naïve belief of parties that their dogmas could be “demonstrated” scientifically.80

There are forms of a “middle course” in the conflict between creationists and anti-creationists, such as nomatic anti-creationism81 or theistic evolutionism. Although they do not conceal the values they represent, they still remain normative To argue for NOMA is different from arguing for Young Earth Creationism, but it is not more scientific or closer to scientific norms in Weber’s sense. The normative structure of science82 cannot be dispensed with, and sociological analysis - in accordance with its own value that avoidance of value judgments is  See Rupnow et al. 2008. Part of this debate is the analysis of the history of the terms “science” and “religion”, which suggests that using these terms to describe historical events is anachronistic. See Harrison 2006, 2015. 80  Weber 2012, p. 105. 81  See Sect. 4.2. 82  Merton 1974. Merton coined this phrase that summarizes his observation that science, rather than being merely an objective undertaking to discern truth which has nothing to do with norms, is based on a number of basic norms (universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism), which support its epistemic goals. 79

5.2  Value Problems of Creationism Research

85

better – should avoid reproducing these norms in its own analysis. The consequence of this analysis is radical, because it means that the sociological analysis must avoid characterizing the positions it analyzes as scientific altogether, and consequently avoid the term. As already suggested, the notion of religion or religiosity poses a similar problem to the researcher interested in avoiding value judgments as part of the scholarly analysis. The characterization of an intellectual position such as Intelligent Design as religious is part of the anti-creationists’ defense against creationist educational policy initiatives, but it is also used by creationists as a means to, if only rhetorically, establish equality with their scientific competitors. This means that just as with the concept of science, “religion” as an analytical term and as a normative concept, is hard to distinguish, and using it in one sense at least invites misunderstanding. The boundaries between the two meanings are as blurry as the boundaries between studies that only analyze the history of creationism without evaluating it, and those that transport an opinion about the validity of creationism as a religious concept. The following chapter shows how Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social fields can be used to gain a more objective view of the conflict surrounding creationism and evolution in the United States through the shedding of the notions of science and religion, and the problems that come with their use.

Chapter 6

Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

6.1  General Features of Field Theory 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. Bourdieu’s theory is a theory of conflict. The groups and individuals in a Bourdieusian field struggle for power by trying to accumulate the form of capital which is specific to the field.1 Of course, a theory that works on the assumption that groups are in conflict with each other is more applicable to describe the situation between the creationist and anti-creationist groups than a theory that emphasizes cooperation and coalitions. This is because in the field of professional creationists and anti-creationists, there exists more than the struggle between these two big groups. In Chap. 4, we saw how both creationism and anti-creationism branched into different variants, and these variants by no means coexist peacefully. Among creationists, broad coalitions such as Intelligent Design’s tent strategy proved to be fleeting endeavors,2 and since the late 1990s, leading Young Earth organizations are again critical of this variant of creationism.3 Old Earth Creationism, too, has turned against Intelligent Design.4 Moreover, within anti-creationism, there is a split  Bourdieu 2002.  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.” 1 2

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_6

87

88

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

between atheistic positions, which are more exclusivist towards religious claims in general, and “nomatic” positions, which are more conciliatory, and both strands engage in strong criticism of each other.5 Another general feature of Bourdieu’s theory is closely linked with being a theory of conflict, and it, too, helps immensely to understand how the current creationist and anti-creationist scene came into existence. For Bourdieu, what groups want to achieve in a field, and how they measure their success, are not based on fixed criteria. On the contrary, the way in which a field works for these groups is the result of a constant process of mutual perception and adaptation of all groups involved.6 This means that a field is a relational construct, and all values and intentions of its inhabitants are relational, too: Each position is objectively defined by its objective relationship with other positions, or, in other terms, by the system of relevant (meaning efficient) properties […].7

Bourdieu’s own theoretical contribution to research on religion in society consists primarily of two large essays.8 However, his concept is hardly suitable to deal with American creationism, since Bourdieu works with social roles and organizations that have almost no role in the creationist scene in the United States. Namely, Bourdieu employs Max Weber’s typology of religious roles of the priest, the prophet, and the magician,9 and he sees them as being in competition for religious power, that is, for influence on the religious worldview and interests of laypeople.10 Seibert11 argues convincingly that Bourdieu’s use of roles points to a typology of organizations, which also stems from Weber. The priest is the representative of a church, which means he exerts power by “distributing or denying religious benefits”.12 His actions consist in maintaining “a regularly organized and permanent enterprise concerned with influencing the gods”.13 In contrast, the prophet is the typical representative of a sect, that is, he is a bearer of personal charisma, and the social organization surrounding him is a community (Gemeinschaft).14 Consequently, the roles referred to by Bourdieu in his field theoretical approach to religion point to forms of religious organizations which would have to be identified within the creationist scene in the United States in order for his approach to be applicable. Looking at the way in which Protestantism in the United States is organized, that is, looking at its 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  Bourdieu 1987, 1991. 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.

6.1  General Features of Field Theory

89

denominational structure, makes it appear doubtful that something akin to a church or a sect in Weber’s sense lies at its heart. The problems multiply when trying to use Bourdieu’s framework to interpret, specifically, the professional creationist groups and individuals. What unites all groups within the religious field is, according to Bourdieu, “the religious interest. The interest causes lay people to expect religious specialists to carry out ‘magical or religious actions’, actions that are fundamentally ‘this-­ worldly’ and practical and are accomplished, as Weber has it, ‘that it may go well with thee … and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth’.”15 As will be shown,16 the reasons the different groups participate in the conflict surrounding creationism cannot be traced back to a similar reaction or a similar need of the people they try to influence. In Bourdieu’s terms, their illusio, that is, their belief in the value of the ‘game’ they participate in, stems from different sources.17 Organizations such as the National Center for Science Education do not strive for the monopoly of the legitimate exercise of the power to modify, in a deep and lasting fashion, the practice and world-view of lay people, by imposing on and inculcating in them a particular religious habitus.18

It is true that theological considerations are at least implicitly part of the way in which anti-creationism positions itself. In this, anti-creationists act similarly to all creationist groups in the field, and this specific way of linking arguments pertaining to nature and arguments pertaining to god is, indeed, a basic principle of the entire conflict.19 But to conclude from this that anti-creationism is ultimately a religious position,20 and that it strives to gain religious legitimacy for its own sake, is to distort the complexity of the conflict. The same is true for the opposite extreme, that is, to view the entire conflict as a mere struggle of the scientific field to maintain its boundaries. This interpretation, too, is countered by an analysis of the groups’ illusio.

 Bourdieu 1987, p. 122.  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. 15 16

90

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

6.2  The Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field of Positions What possibilities are there, then, to analyze creationism and anti-creationism using Bourdieu’s field theory? I will pursue the answer to this question by describing the core features of such a field. First, I will define the problem that all involved groups are trying to solve, and that constitutes the basis for their interaction with each other. Then I will explore what kinds of answers to this problem are theoretically possible. After that, the actual creationist and anti-creationist positions are mapped onto this schema, which makes visible their order. The abovementioned problem of evaluation can be sidestepped by this approach, and the entire conflict can be described in a way that is more detached from implicit and explicit normative stances than many prior attempts. This method allows for a formal definition of creationism, which works independently from whether one supports it or not. Bourdieu himself was very clear about the connection between the construction of a field as an analytic tool, and the distancing from evaluations that are going on within this field: “[O]ne cannot hope to get out of the circle of relativizations which mutually relativize each other, like so many. reflections indefinitely reflecting each other, without putting into practice the maxim of reflexivity, trying to construct methodically the space of possible points of view on the literary (or artistic) act in relation to which the method of analysis to be proposed is defined.”21

6.2.1  The Reference Problem of the Field A first step in answering the question how a field works is to look at what all groups in it have in common. What is the specific difference of these groups versus all other worldviews that are at the core of America’s various culture wars? What do they have in common with each other, but not with other representatives of worldviews? They all answer in a different way to the same question, and these answers make them part of the specific creationist/anti-creationist field. This reference question is an abstraction of the various reference problems the groups face, and it is: What place has “God” and what place has “nature” in the emergence and development of the “world”? Before we describe how the creationist and anti-creationist positions relate to this question, we will explain what is meant by the terms “God”, “nature”, and “world”, and illustrate the concept by presenting some answers to the reference question which mark extreme cases in order to show the breadth of possible positions relating to it. After that, we will position the actual creationist and anti-­ creationist views in this “field of ideas.” The “world” in the sense used here is “all 21

 Bourdieu 1995, p. 193.

6.2  The Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field of Positions

91

that is the case,” and “the totality of facts, not of things.”22 Thus, it not only contains the classic domains of creationist activity, such as biology, geology, and anthropology, but also non-physical concepts, such as morality, religion, and spirit. Because the overwhelming majority of American creationists are Protestant, “God” refers to the Christian creator god, whose attributes are, among others, omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness.23 “Nature” in our sense is the sum of all autonomous, causally independent processes in the “world” which can be analyzed without reference to a “god” which is outside of nature.24 We speak of “parts,” because the phenomena that make up the “world” are attributed to either “God” or “nature” by the groups that populate the field. This attribution can, in principle, be direct or indirect.

6.2.2  The Field of Positions This concept enables us to go beyond the exclusivist logic that often dominates descriptions of the conflict within the field as well as in research about it. “God” and “nature,” when understood this way are not necessarily mutually exclusive elements of explaining the “world”.25 The variety of positions that can be taken towards the reference question can be illustrated via the following scheme (Fig. 6.1). This field of possible positions towards the reference question stated above is not “absolute,” that is, its borders and corners do not mark the “greatest possible” parts of God, nature, both, or none in answering the reference question. To determine the absolute borders would be a philosophical task which cannot be undertaken here, but which is also not necessary for our purposes. This is because all groups in the field determine their position relative to all other available positions. Sociologically, the borders of the field are the area beyond which no group exists, even if there might be more rigid positions beyond it. We will now look at four extreme positions, some of which are not currently held by groups, in order to illustrate the breadth of views that can be captured by our method. These positions are the concept of “pro-­ chronic time,” as developed by Philip Gosse, scientific atheism, Theistic Evolution, and skeptical solipsism.

 Wittgenstein 2001, p. 5.  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. 22 23

92

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

Fig. 6.1  The field of possible positions towards the reference question

(a) “Pro-chronic time”: The sovereignty of god, and the subordination of nature One stance that attributes a very big part to god and a very small part to nature in answering the reference question was developed in the nineteenth century by theologian Philip Henry Gosse. His answer would fall in the lower left corner of the field. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the accumulation of geological and paleontological findings suggested a very high age of the earth.26 An attempt to solve the ensuing crisis of biblical belief in creation was put forward by Gosse in 1857 in his book Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot.27 There, he introduced the concept of pro-chronic time. Gosse holds that every living creature which god created in the beginning already displayed clear signs of a past development, such as, for instance, Adam’s navel (omphalos). This is due to the cyclical nature of organic life, and that all of creation displays this cyclical nature, thus leading scientists to presume that time had actually passed. But this time had not actually passed, and is therefore “pro-chronic.” Even if all geological, biological, and other scientific discoveries point to an old earth, Gosse contends that “[t]he law of creation supersedes the law of nature.”28 This concept, which is put forward by creationists even  Hutton 1788; Lyell 1830–33.  Gosse 1857. 28  Ibid., p. 337. 26 27

6.2  The Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field of Positions

93

today,29 attributes a large role to god as an acting force in the world and its history. Findings that can be interpreted as the result of autonomous natural processes, are actually the result of god’s imagination. The possibility that humans interpret these findings (erroneously) as the result of natural processes is also dependent on god’s will. This means that his intention, and the purpose of the world, are only accurately discernible through theology. Since the old age of the earth is only imaginary, and its exploration amounts to an illusion, there aren’t any real natural processes that actually exist that could transcend the boundaries set by biblical history, but are only results of godly activity. (b) Scientific atheism: The sovereignty of nature and the dead god The view that is directly opposed to Gosse’s, namely, that the world can be explained solely with recourse to natural processes, which explicitly excludes divine intervention, can only rarely be found throughout history. This is not to say that, at least in the course of modernity, there have not been self-described atheists who took this view, but only very rarely did this actually entail an explicit denial of god’s existence.30 Indeed, the term “atheist” was much more often used to slander deists, pantheists, and others by holders of religious authority, than as a self-description.31 Looking at well-known “atheist” concepts, it is apparent that many are not actually atheistic in a strict sense of the term. Even many of the representatives of New Atheism, which became popular in the early 2000s, are not atheists in this strict philosophical sense. Richard Dawkins, in his The God Delusion, sees god’s existence as extremely improbable, but not impossible.32 One atheist position which meets the stricter standards of definition was held about 100 years earlier by the then leading popularizer of biology and representative of scientific atheism, Ernst Haeckel. In his popular book The Riddle of the Universe,33 he frequently claims the refutation of god’s existence through scientific knowledge. “God the father [is] the omnipotent creator of heaven and earth (this untenable myth was refuted long ago by scientific cosmogony, astronomy, and geology)”.34 This position is completed by the naturalistic explanation of belief itself, which has its roots in early modernity. Just as Gosse traces human concepts of natural autonomy back to god’s actions, so atheist classics such as Baron d’Holbach,35 and modern scholars such as Pascal Boyer,36 trace back concepts of an autonomous god to the workings of natural processes. Freud and Marx also attempted explanations of religion through innerworldly forces.  Cf. Morris 1974, p. 210. This is criticised by representatives of Intelligent Design, see Dembski 2009, p. 66. 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. 29

94

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

(c) Theistic Evolution: The sovereignty of god as represented in the sovereignty of nature The positions which regard the relationship between god and nature as mutually exclusive are not the only possible views. Another possibility is to regard god, as well as nature, as important in answering the reference question. A position where this is the case is Deism, where god is regarded as the Unmoved Mover who set in motion the process of the universe, which functions without his further involvement. Even this very remote concept of god’s activity raises the question of whether nature can be regarded as completely autonomous in a deistic framework if it is seen as intentionally linked with god’s will. If the world has been set in motion through a special, non-natural act of god, nature cannot be regarded as the sole reason for the development of the world. It seems that god plays an even greater role in NOMA.37 Although there god is only responsible for questions of ethics,38 but the values that are discussed and applied in society, as well as the consequences they have for everyday actions of people, including their religious worldview, which are nonetheless “the case” and, consequently, are elements of the world in Wittgenstein’s sense. Besides its function of shielding science from religious influence, NOMA also has the effect of shielding ethics and the realm of the “last things” from naturalistic penetration. Also in this category is Theistic Evolution, which is at least mentioned favorably by the National Center for Science Education, and developed by organizations such as the Biologos Foundation and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.39 Broadly speaking, this position is about linking aspects of natural processes with the intention of god. For instance, the randomness of evolution might be justified theologically by saying that only a process which is completely detached from god’s influence can generate beings which are completely free to decide for or against worshipping god, which aligns with god’s will. In addition, god, because of his independence from time, might be able to retroactively grant meaning to the evolutionary process.40 (d) Skeptical solipsism: Denying both god and nature A position that denies both godly and natural influence on the emergence and development of the world can barely be found, at least in the West. Ultimately, such a position entails a radical solipsist doubt as to whether any explanation of the world can have any plausibility. Due to its negative nature, this position is not actually represented in the creationist/anti-creationist conflict, though skepticism is, of course, an important element of various positions of both camps.  See Sect. 4.2.  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  The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences n.d.; BioLogos n.d. 40  See Peters and Hewlett 2003. They also provide criticism of other creationist concepts. 37 38

6.2  The Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field of Positions

95

Based on this overview, the actual variants of creationism and anti-creationism can be located within this field as follows. This makes visible the creationist/anti-­ creationist field.41 Young Earth Creationism is the current position which grants the greatest role to god, and the smallest role to natural processes in its explanation of the world. Within the short time frame of the existence of the universe, the impact of astronomical, geological, and biological processes was limited to the extent that they cannot explain empirical findings. Instead, god is responsible for them. The various forms of Old Earth Creationism, through biblical exegesis, create spaces for natural processes, whose effects can be identified in the world through science. For instance, the Day/Age theory interprets the days of creation as long ages, during which geological natural processes produced today’s geological situation. Likewise, the Gap theory, which proposes an indefinite gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, thereby creating a space that is determined by nature and also interpretable through science. Intelligent Design is placed in the field in its “official” variant, which closely resembles Progressive Creationism.42 But it differs from this variant, and all other forms of Old Earth Creationism, in that it grants even more autonomy to nature by saying that god (or the “intelligent designer”) intervened at some points during the evolutionary development to create irreducibly complex forms, but it does not say that god created all species separately and consecutively so as to give the impression of a natural development of life. Our assessment of Intelligent Design is thus based on the negative assumption that, at least officially, it grants nature autonomy in areas where it does not explicitly see the intelligent designer at work.43 It might be added that, since this “official” variant is not shared by all representatives of Intelligent Design, there could be a second, “unofficial” position of Intelligent Design, which would stretch all the way down to the corner where Young Earth Creationism dwells. But it is precisely due to this variability that Intelligent Design is not merely identical with any other form of creationism, neither as a position, that is, a set of ideas and arguments, or as a social group. A striking feature of the creationist/anti-­ creationist field is the proximity of Intelligent Design to NOMA. This might be seen as odd, since there is a scholarly consensus that Intelligent Design is creationist, and NOMA is not, which is why both are very different. How can this proximity be  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. 41

96

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

justified? In Sect. 5.2 we saw that what makes a theory “scientific” is the result of a normative social process of attribution. The same is true for what is termed not-­ science, that is, pseudoscience or anti-science. One aim of this concept is to function independently from such normative attributions, which is why they are not used in the makeup of the field.44 The structure of the ideas reflected in the field, that is, their proximity or distance to each other, in a way happens “before” the social labeling process of positions as creationist or scientific. Granting nature a bigger role in answering the reference question does not make a position more scientific, per se. This status might be ascribed to it by groups inside and outside the field, and others might deny it this status. This conceptual distancing from this whole process of attribution allows for a formal definition of creationism: Creationism is every social representation of an answer to the reference question that encompasses a relatively low proportion of nature, and a relatively high proportion of god.

This definition is of no use for anti-creationists who want to employ it as a means to fight their opponents, and it might be too vague for scholars who are interested in a value-neutral analysis of creationism. What makes is useful is that it is applicable even in a changing institutional and intellectual landscape where new variants of creationism appear, and old ones cease to have much influence. It can adapt to processes of social change that lead to a new assessment of what creationism is. In the following chapters, we will add to this bare-bones definition more traits that apply to the current forms of creationism.

6.3  The Field’s Rules (Nomos) and Inherent Value (Illusio) The core mechanisms that make a field work are, according to Bourdieu, its nomos, the “principle of legitimate vision and division”45 within the field, and its illusio, that is, the shared “belief in the value of the stakes.”46 Both aspects concern the question of the autonomy of the field. Do the groups that make up the field follow rules in their interaction that are different from other rules in other social spheres? If so, do these rules lead them to identify each other as fellow members of the field, and to identify differences between each other (nomos)? And do the groups have the conviction that they have to be part of the field (illusio)?

 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. 44

6.3  The Field’s Rules (Nomos) and Inherent Value (Illusio)

97

6.3.1  The Nomos of the Field 6.3.1.1  T  he “Double Rupture” During the Establishment of the Autonomous Field of Art The constitution of an autonomous field entails a process of rupture, or articulation of difference to existing fields and their operating logic. Bourdieu traces this process using the example of art in France during the nineteenth century.47 He emphasizes that the autonomy of art that was propagated by young artists, such as Baudelaire and Flaubert, was the result of their criticism of existing concepts of what art is and what function it has. In these older concepts, art was subject to standards that were not generated by art itself, but instead emerged from other fields. In particular, there was the concept of “social art”, which was subject to socialist ideals, and “bourgeois art”, which communicated conservative values.48 In addition, the young, “pure” artists distanced themselves from the commercial art that developed during the nineteenth century which subjected art to the demands of economic interests.49 This means that the emerging field of art was the result of a process of becoming autonomous both from the economic and the political field. A similar process of differentiation can be seen in the creationist/anti-creationist field, which constantly distances itself from the nomoi of both the religious and the scientific field. This is why the concept of the double rupture is particularly useful in our case. If it can be shown that groups in the creationist/anti-creationist field speak out both against the autonomy of science and the autonomy of religion to deal with the issues they are concerned with, there is a strong case for the autonomy of their interaction. Whether this autonomy is the result of a true creation of something new, as is the case for the field of art with its principle of “art for art’s sake”, or whether the groups’ logic of action consists in a novel way of combining structures of meaning of other fields, remains an open question at this point. To demonstrate this autonomy also does not deny the possibility that the standing of the groups is, at least in part, the result of an external “consecration”. 6.3.1.2  Differentiation and Nomos Similar to the field of art in nineteenth century France, our field is “between” two existing, autonomous fields, namely, the religious and the scientific fields. Both fields provide their own interpretations of creationism, seeing it as either a fringe phenomenon of science or of religion. Seeing this clearly is important in order to explain the contemporary situation, but it does not explain why professional creationism differentiated into its contemporary variants with their specific sets of  Bourdieu 1995, pp. 47–176.  Ibid., pp. 71–77. 49  Ibid., pp. 121–127. 47 48

98

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

knowledge, strategies, and presuppositions. This process of differentiation is, of course, limited by religious and scientific systems, but within these limits, creationism develops autonomously. Put differently, there is neither a purely religious nor a purely scientific explanation why, for instance, Intelligent Design refers to the concept of design as its cornerstone argument, and why it tries to use biochemical and statistical arguments to make its case, or why there is a differentiation between two strands of anti-creationism (nomatic and anti-theistic).50 These specific structural and content-related aspects of the creationist/anti-creationist struggle cannot be deduced from the religious convictions of the groups supporting creationism, or from the contemporary understanding of science. Instead, the recapitulation of the history of the conflict in the first chapters showed how these traits are the result of mutual strategic adaptations of the groups to actions of other creationist and/or anti-­ creationist groups. This means that the structure and content of the conflict are predominantly the result of the conflict itself, even though its conditions of possibility lie outside itself. This specific form of field autonomy can also be seen in the massive amount of knowledge the groups have when compared with members of other fields which, practically, is what makes them professionals. Studies have shown that both supporters and opponents of creationism often display only superficial knowledge of the issues debated by professionals.51 Groups from within the religious field that are interested in the spread of creationism support it due to the religious values they see associated with it; groups from within the scientific field that are interested in the victory of anti-creationism support it because they see it as a defender of scientific autonomy. As will be shown below when we analyze the illusio of the field, these motivations are also part of what drives the professional creationists and anti-creationists. But the nomos of the field creates differences to all professional scientific and religious groups. When attempting to pin down this specific difference, we encounter a difficulty: There are numerous organizations and individuals in the United States that map onto the field of creationist and anti-creationist ideas as presented in Fig. 6.2. But the subjects of this study are only the professional creationist and anti-­ creationist groups which are the leading producers and nationwide distributors of knowledge. As already became clear by their numerous references to each other, they form a special layer of the controversy surrounding creationism, which is why they can be projected onto the field separately (see Fig. 6.3).52 In order to see whether this result is a field in Bourdieu’s sense, it is necessary to discuss some of the core mechanisms that make the field work. They will be discussed in the next two sections. In addition to the general definition of creationism given above, all groups in the field share a feature that creates a specific difference between them and all other groups that hold creationist or anti-creationist views, but  See Chap. 4.  Bishop 2003, 2004; Hill 2014; Kaden et al. 2017. 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. 50 51

6.3  The Field’s Rules (Nomos) and Inherent Value (Illusio)

Fig. 6.2  The field of creationist and anti-creationist positions

Fig. 6.3  Professional creationist and anti-creationist groups in the United States (selection)

99

100

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

that are outside the field. This feature is a core part of the field’s nomos. In contrast to conservative Protestant parishes, which may be convinced that evolution is false, but which do not have to refer to nature in order to make their case, professional creationist groups must always combine their opposition against a natural explanation of the world with arguments that refer to nature. There is no professional creationist who only uses theological arguments to support their position without refuting or reinterpreting natural phenomena or natural processes. This synthetic principle applies to anti-creationists as well. The National Center for Science Education, in order to pursue its educational political aims, must use nature-related arguments, but it also needs to point to theological or god-related arguments to render plausible its view that science and religion are separate. This is why it, albeit cautiously, advocates Theistic Evolution, and champions NOMA, which is a principle that is specifically about how the two spheres interrelate. But Richard Dawkins, who rejects NOMA, would not be a professional anti-creationist in our sense of the term if he merely attempted to show how natural processes and scientific processes support the theory of evolution, or merely criticize religion by pointing to its evils, without referring to natural processes that, at least in part, explain religious behavior. All professional groups that take part in the social struggle surrounding creationism must take into consideration both aspects of the reference question. Otherwise, they are merely secondary commentators or recipients of what is negotiated within the field. They all are in a position where they can only hope to enforce their religious position by explicating their scientific (or ‘scientific’) positions, and vice versa. We will now look at how this synthetic principle functions as the nomos of the field. 6.3.1.3  T  he Synthetic Principle: The Nomos of the Creationist/Anti– Creationist Conflict Just as Bourdieu has shown how artists in the nineteenth century created their own autonomous social space by distancing themselves from commercial, political, and moral framings,53 it can be shown how professional creationists and anti-­creationists critically refer to other fields’ nomoi in order to gain autonomy for their own undertakings. (a) Against the autonomy of science The groups within the field, creationist and anti-creationist alike, argue against the complete autonomy of science, that is, the logic of pure scientific activity for its own sake. This stance is most easily discernible among the creationist groups. Their typical view regarding science as a social undertaking can be seen in a variety of statements. For instance, part of the Statement of Faith of Answers in Genesis reads: „By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including  E.g.. Bourdieu 1995, pp. 62–63, where Charles Baudelaire lists representatives of ‚pure literature‘ in a letter to Gustave Flaubert.

53

6.3  The Field’s Rules (Nomos) and Inherent Value (Illusio)

101

history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.”54 This claim alone renders autonomous scientific activity impossible, and subverts the pragmatic understanding of the truth of scientific statements, which results from a continuous testing based on methods invented by science itself. This questioning of the autonomy of science by Answers in Genesis is supplemented by their simultaneous statement that the infallibility of the scriptural record is guaranteed by itself: „Our presupposition that the Bible will not contain error is justified by the Bible itself.“55 While Answers in Genesis denies science the ability to generate truth independently, they claim that religion possesses this ability. Further below (section b), we will see that this does not mean that religion is completely autonomous, either. The Intelligent Design movement, in its already mentioned Wedge document,56 states clearly that science is not autonomous. Identifying “materialism” as the root evil of modern civilization, which brings with it a variety of social problems, they simultaneously accuse science of being the architect and defender of this principle: Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea [of man being created in the image of god, TK] came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art.57

The consequences the Intelligent Design movement draws from this analysis are far-reaching. “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.“58 Both the problem they identify, namely, the alleged denial of man being created in the image of god, as well as the necessity to solve it, do not stem from the logic of science itself, but both deeply influence it. Science is brought under external standards of evaluation to an extent where its epistemological basis is denied and replaced by another one, which is also external to science, namely, the possibility of an intelligent agent intervening in natural processes. Nomatic anti-creationism, whose main institutional representation in the United States is the National Center for Science Education,59 also puts limits on the autonomy of science via the principle of non-overlapping magisteria. This principle puts science and religion in a relation of mutual tolerance, based on the assertion that both have to do with different topics, namely the ethically right, and the factually  Answers in Genesis 2015.  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. 54 55

102

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

true. It has already become clear that this position is the result of the practical necessity of keeping the educational system free from religious claims to authority.60 A side effect of the application of this principle is that it denies science the ability to affirm or question its non-intervention into the realm of religion based on its own logic. The justification that science and religion are functionally different is not based on scientific criteria, and the assertion that science will never be able to infringe upon the realm of religion is neither scientifically proven nor sociologically plausible.61 This means that nomatic science “lives by prerequisites which it cannot guarantee itself”62 and, consequently, is not autonomous with regard to the very point which guarantees its autonomy. This stance toward science even leads some anti-creationists to invite science to do away with its self-referentiality, and dedicate itself more to its position toward religion.63 (b) Against the autonomy of religion The above quotes from various groups within the field show that the creationist/ anti-creationist conflict cannot merely be analyzed as a battle on the margins of science itself, because the nomos of science is undermined, or only partly accepted, by the players in this conflict. The following quotes show that the same is true for the conflict’s relationship to the religious field and its operating logic. Anti-theistic anti-creationism does not only deny many truth claims of creationist and religious groups, it also attacks the ability of religion to gain valid knowledge.64 In a sort of reversal of the Young Earth Creationists’ stance, they argue a scientific determination of religious epistemology. Just as Answers in Genesis argues that science can only be valid on the basis of, and in accordance with, religious foundations, so New Atheism argues that all religious knowledge is knowledge about the world and, therefore, testable and subject to scientific scrutiny.65 This is why there can be a probability value of the existence of god,66 which relativizes and, therefore, subverts a core religious tenet, namely that god’s existence is absolute. Theology, or rather, any religious thought, is rendered senseless by this approach if they do not contain something akin to a scientific claim. Nomatic anti-creationism does not only limit the autonomy of science, but that of religion, too. To be sure, NOMA is not as radical in its refutation of religious  See Sect. 4.3.  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  See Sects. 4.1 and 4.3. 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. 60 61

6.3  The Field’s Rules (Nomos) and Inherent Value (Illusio)

103

truth claims as the scientism of the New Atheists. But the nomatic definition of the function of religion means that no religious ethical claim can ever be regarded as “real.”67 But insofar as religious systems presuppose a natural order established by god, NOMA contradicts it with the religious claim to an autonomous interpretation of the world. NOMA denies, a priori, that an ethical stance which is justified with recourse to religion can ever be regarded as an objectively true law of the world, and it denies this based upon criteria which are outside religion. The autonomy of religion is not only questioned by anti-creationists. Creationism, as well, entails a specific limitation of the logic of religion. Proponents of Intelligent Design frequently emphasize that religion cannot abandon these claims to objective truth without ceasing to be religion proper. The crisis of the modern world, which has fallen prey to materialism, is always also presented as a crisis of religion which has given up on its claims to validity in this world. This aspect of the position of Intelligent Design is rarely explicitly mentioned in their “official” statements and writings. But occasionally, members of the movement publish texts that specifically relate to religion, and these texts complement their arguments about nature and science.68 Ironically, Young Earth Creationism undermines the autonomy of religion precisely because of its strong validity claims. Since it always tries to increase the plausibility of religious texts, particularly the book of Genesis, by referring to natural processes and facts, it subjects the content of religion, and particularly god’s will, to the logic and limitations of nature. A clear example of this is the Young Earth proponent Kent Hovind. As a rather marginal figure who by now no longer heads the organization he founded, Creation Science Evangelism,69 he is of less ­importance in the field than the big nationwide creationist organizations. But his “Hovind Theory,” which is supposed to explain the Genesis Flood, is a particularly clear example of how the principles of creationism undermine the autonomy of religion. According to Hovind, the Genesis Flood, which occurred about 4400 years ago, is the result of an ice meteor entering the solar system. By crashing onto the surface of the earth with its full weight, it cracked open the “fountains of the deep”.70 The  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. 67

104

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

water from these fountains, as well as the melting ice water, are the causes of the flood.71 This example shows that creationism differs from non-creationist religion in that it strives to identify the actions of god with natural causes. Instead of seeing the Genesis Flood as a direct, ex nihilo result of god’s decision, creationism submits to criteria of rationality which ultimately derive their validity from the triumph of the very science creationism tries to undermine.72

6.3.2  The Illusio of the Field According to Bourdieu, the illusio is “the investment in the game by the informed player who, possessing a sense of the game made by the game, plays the game, and thereby makes it exist.”73 Although the illusio is not the precondition for the existence of the field, it is necessary for its stability. This means that nomos and illusio are closely linked. The belief in the value of the game derives from the way in which the groups want to limit the autonomy of science and religion. Their goals might even be re-described in the language of revised versions of both science and religion. The illusio itself is based, in Weber’s term, on the groups’ belief in the legitimacy (Legitimitätsglaube) of the game.74 The field only exists if the groups view the value of the game, and their resulting positions, as somehow legitimate or justified. The field would be completely heteronomous if the groups would derive their obligation to participate in the field’s game exclusively from religious or scientific considerations. Our finding that the nomos of the field consists in the rule to always combine arguments relating to nature and arguments relating to god suggests that the illusio, too, is not completely heteronomous to either the religious or the scientific field. But in order to make up a field proper, it must be shown that its inhabitants draw the legitimacy of their participation at least in part from the participation of other groups in the field. It must be shown that there exists some form of reciprocity of j­ ustification or legitimation. Ultimately, a reference of one group to another is often an indirect reference to science or religion. This means that if Answers in Genesis refers to the National Center for Science Education in order to justify its participation in the conflict, this reference is different from Flaubert referring to Baudelaire. References in the creationist/anti-creationist field do not function independently of the logic of other fields. This means that behind the direct reference to the National Center for Science Education stands a critique of either the scientific or the theological stance  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. 71

6.3  The Field’s Rules (Nomos) and Inherent Value (Illusio)

105

which is represented by this group. But this reference is only indirect, and works through a direct reference to this group, which constitutes a tight-knit network of mutual references. This means that the illusio of the creationist/anti-creationist field can be derived from mutual references of the groups to each other, through which they justify their own actions by pointing to the stances or actions of the referenced group. This structure can be most easily seen in anti-creationism, because its name already shows that its existence is due to the existence of creationism. The historical account provided above75 showed that the formation of nomatic anti-creationism is the result of actions of professional creationist groups. Eugenie Scott’s first encounter with Creation Science in Lexington was a result of the spread of products made by professional creationist groups, and the Committees of Correspondence formed in reaction to legislation drafted by the Institute for Creation Research. According to Scott, the history of creationism mostly consists of the history of professional creationist organizations.76 This form of anti-creationism does not refer to science or religion directly, to creationist views in general, or to the general population to ­justify its existence, but to a small group of professional creationist groups and their actions (publications, legislation, talks, etc.). Though the conditions which led to the emergence of professional creationist groups differ in this regard,77 they, too, refer to their opponents in the field in order to justify their taking part in the field’s game. An example, which is telling because of its subtlety, can be found in Answers in Genesis’ video Men in White.78 Among other things, the movie features an extensive polemic against scientists who arrogantly defend the validity of their anti-religious theories in the mass media, and look down on the doctrine of creation. One scene, which illustrates this situation, features the prototypical journalist Suzie Teevee who interviews Dr. Ed U. Kaded. He mentions various disciplines and discusses dating methods, the origin of life and the common ancestry of all species. He criticizes creationists for standing in the way of scientific progress. Both actors are framed by a collage of newspaper headlines that are also supposed to show the anti-religious hubris of mainstream science and the mass media. Only one out of the roughly 15 articles in the frame features a discernible real group active in the creationist/anti-creationist conflict. The headline “Creation Science is Rubbish – Says National Center [for] Science” points to the National Center for Science Education as a producer of anti-creationist messages (see Fig. 6.4). In passing, and in a typical manner, the National Center for Science Education is mentioned in this video as an opponent. Answers in Genesis presents accusations of creationism being unscientific as one of the main reasons for its existence. By this,

 Section. 4.2.1.  Scott 2005, pp. 71–133. 77  See Chap. 3. 78  Answers in Genesis 2007. The movie was produced to be shown in the Creation Museum, and is discussed in detail in Sect. 9.1. See also Kaden 2016. 75 76

106

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

Fig. 6.4  “Creation Science is Rubbish  – Says National Center [for Sc]ience”: the principle of vision and division applied by Answers in Genesis in its film Men in White (screenshot)

the National Center for Science Education becomes the main representative of an ideology, opposition to which is the basis of Answers in Genesis’ existence. The illusio understood in this sense is not only created by the main conflict between creationists and anti-creationists, but also in the subsidiary conflicts existing between different creationist groups and anti-creationist groups. For instance, Answers in Genesis also speaks out against Theistic Evolution put forward by the BioLogos Foundation, which considers itself to hold an intermediate position between the extremes of unscientific creationism and scientific atheism. According to Answers in Genesis, BioLogos faces a dilemma: „[W]hat’s the standard for deciding what’s correct and what’s not? If some scientists’ claims contradict Scripture, what, then, is the final authority?“79 From this vantage point, the author delineates the difference between Theistic Evolution and Young Earth Creationism: In reality, BioLogos’s balancing act doesn’t remove barriers to trusting Christ. It establishes new ones. By separating matters of God from matters of science, they build a wall that leaves God out of efforts to explain the real world.80

These examples show that professional creationist and anti-creationist groups regard the presence of their opponents as a justification to take part in the conflict. This mutual illusio is the precondition for an autonomous social conflict. In the following chapter, we will look at the means the groups employ to act in this conflict.

79 80

 UpChurch 2011.  Ibid.

6.4  Capital and Power in the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field

107

6.4  C  apital and Power in the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field Now that the structure of the field has been explained, it is necessary to look at the mechanisms that enable the groups to act within the field. This is done using Bourdieu’s notion of capital. What “currencies” do the groups use, how are they distributed, how do they exchange them, and what value do they attribute to them? Here, too, the question of autonomy comes into play: if the groups involved in the conflict can be shown to employ a specific kind of capital, which is only useful for their social purposes, then the conflict they engage in can be said to be autonomous in this regard. Bourdieu distinguishes between three basic types of capital, namely, economic capital, which is “directly and immediately convertible into money“,81 social capital, „the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition“,82 and cultural capital. The latter appears in three forms, as „embodied“capital, that is, “in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body”,83 as „objectified“ capital, that is., “in the form of cultural goods (pictures, books, dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc.), which are the trace or realization of theories or critiques of these theories, problematics, etc.,”84 and as “institutionalized” capital, where embodied cultural capital is objectified in the form of (academic) titles and other educational qualifications.85 Somewhat inconsistently, Bourdieu also speaks of field-specific capital, e.g., “scientific capital” in the field of science, “political capital”, etc. Here, these field-specific forms of capital are understood as special forms of cultural capital, which also occur in embodied, objectified, and institutionalized forms. We have already seen that the groups that engage in the struggle surrounding creationism in the United States follow a rule, which we called the “synthetic principle.” It is the basis for the autonomous functioning of the conflict. But this autonomy could not be realized if the capital structure of the involved groups was completely heteronomous. If, for instance, all actions in the field were stakes of scientific capital, the synthetic principle could still apply, but the conflict would in essence be an argument between scientists of various disciplines who use scientific arguments in order to support different value orientations. The same would be the case for other field-specific types of capital. The analysis presented below will not confirm these hypothetical scenarios. Using Bourdieu’s notions of capital, we will see that there is not a consistent structure and distribution among the groups in the field. Rather, we will see that the synthetic principle applies to their capital as well. Instead of being equipped with  Bourdieu 2002, p. 281.  Ibid., p. 286. 83  Ibid., p. 282. 84  Ibid. 85  Ibid. 81 82

108

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

only scientific capital, all groups combine different kinds of cultural capital, which puts them in a distance to other fields where only one kind is valid, and where any form of combining cultural capital would be detrimental to the status of a group. Since all kinds of capital used by the professional creationists and anti-creationists are in some way amalgamated, the question arises of what guarantees consistency within the field. The answer to this question lies in the symbolic validity of the amalgamated capital. We will see how this works through an analysis of letters issued by the groups inviting donations, where they strive for recognition of their different kinds of capital in order to acquire other, predominantly economic, capital.

6.4.1  Kinds and Distribution of Capital 6.4.1.1  Economic and Social Capital Economic capital is an important resource in the conflict between professional creationists and anti-creationists. Its main function is to be transformed into other kinds of capital. We will briefly answer the question whether the field shows a consistent distribution of economic capital. Professional creationism is relatively well-­ equipped with economic capital. Due to their status as charitable organizations, Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute, which houses the Center for Science and Culture, are obliged to publish parts of their financial structure. The data show that they are able to support their activities continuously through donations and other income.86 The situation is somewhat more difficult for the National Center for Science Education, which initially received generous support from the Carnegie Foundation,87 but since then has had to rely on smaller donations by foundations and its members. Its budget is much smaller than that of the big creationist organizations.88 Since the main activity of New Atheism in the creationist controversy consists of publications, which do not necessitate large financial investments, the category of economic capital can be neglected in this case, even though many of the New Atheists’ publications are economically very successful. The fact that many groups rely on donations to support their activities shows the close link between economic and social capital. The more a group is known and recognized, the higher the probability that requests for donations and commercial offers are met with broad positive response. While the National Center for Science Education relies mostly on its ~5000 members, from whom donations  See Charity Navigator 2017a, b, c.  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. 86 87

6.4  Capital and Power in the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field

109

are requested periodically, Answers in Genesis can support its work through a variety of books, DVDs, and other products that are marketed successfully at the Creation Museum and online.89 6.4.1.2  Cultural Capital: A Religious/Scientific Amalgam We saw that the nomos of the field consists in the synthetic principle, which states that all groups must combine in their statements references to god and nature. With regard to cultural capital, the question is not only whether the groups accumulate and apply it in its embodied, objectified, or institutionalized form. The more basic question is whether the synthetic statements also entail a synthetic capital structure, made up of religious and scientific capital. Can a group participate in the conflict if it does not invest “accumulated labor”90 from both the religious and the scientific field? A look at the personnel of the groups shows that they reference the synthetic principle with regard to their cultural capital as well. Individual persons, or the group as a whole, must always contribute religious and scientific capital in order to present themselves as competent players. An example from professional creationism shows how both types of capital are held by the same person, and an example from professional anti-creationism shows how both are represented in the same organization. The staff information provided by Answers in Genesis, which is on its website, in most cases includes their scientific credentials: Dr. [Tommy] Mitchell graduated with a BA with highest honors from the University of Tennessee-Knoxville in 1980 with a major in cell biology and a minor in biochemistry. For his superior scholarship during his undergraduate study, he was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa Society (the oldest and one of the most-respected honor societies in America). Dr. Mitchell subsequently attended Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, where he received his medical degree in 1984.91

This scientific capital is then amalgamated with a special religious qualification: As a scientist, physician, and father, Dr. Mitchell has a burden to provide solid answers from the Bible to equip young people and adults to stand in the face of their personal tragedies and popular evolutionary misinformation. Using communication skills developed  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. 89

110

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict over many years of medical practice, he is able to connect with people at all educational levels and unveil biblical truths that can change their lives.92

At first glance, there is no similar amalgamation of capital types on the anti-­ creationist side at the National Center for Science Education. A job description in 2013 for the position of executive director lists requirements for the successful applicant that are predominantly in the realm of science and education: –– a Ph.D. or the equivalent in a field related to science and/or science education; biology, geology, science education, and climate science are particularly desirable –– a record of scholarly research and publication –– a record of outreach to the public on science education issues –– experience in teaching in formal (K-12 or college) or informal (e.g., museum) settings –– knowledge of non-profit management and finance (experience preferred) –– experience in fundraising and development with foundations and individual donors –– superb communication skills, both written and oral –– a high degree of computer literacy, including expertise with social media and digital communication –– the ability to work cooperatively and manage effectively –– a record of effective involvement with public controversies over evolution and/or climate science –– the ability to work effectively and diplomatically with diverse communities and allies.93 This uniformity of the capital structure is not present in the entire organization, though. Though it has been discontinued, the center contained a department for religious community outreach that dealt with questions of science and theology. Texts pertaining to science and religion are still available on its website.94 Though the center does not directly advocate a Theistic Evolution perspective, it links to a number of websites, such as the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, and BioLogos, which do advocate Theistic Evolution. The former director of the center’s religion program, Peter M.  J. Hess, is equipped with a religious-scientific amalgam of academic titles, as he has a PhD from the Graduate Theological Union in Science and Religion, and an M.A. from Oxford University in Philosophy and Theology.95 There is no clear structure to the field’s distribution of institutionalized cultural capital. To answer the reference question with recourse to nature does not necessar Ibid.  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. 92 93

6.4  Capital and Power in the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field

111

ily entail having a higher academic degree. The picture becomes somewhat different when one also includes the published output, such as articles and monographs, as forms of scientific cultural capital. The defining criterion in this case is whether publications are reviewed by scientific peers prior to publication. With regard to this form of capital, there is a clear distribution: Members of the field who possess academic degrees and grant nature a small role when answering the reference question have a harder time making their case through peer-reviewed publications. Still, this form of capital consecration is accepted throughout the field, since creationists attempt to create their own versions of academic peer-review.96 Objectified cultural capital also displays widespread amalgamation of religious and scientific capital both among creationists and anti-creationists. The professional production of creationist material is based on the producers’ investment of institutionalized and embodied cultural capital,97 and it is clear that its value within the field is the result of an amalgamation of religious and scientific parts. For instance, the leading professional representative of Intelligent Design, Stephen C.  Meyer, rarely makes appearances outside the aegis of the Center for Science and Culture, which he chairs. It was therefore an exception when he appeared as the host of a two-part DVD course, which was published in 2011 and 2012 by the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family.98 The title of the series, TrueU – True University – points to its claim to scientific validity, but it also contains the claim to surpass mere secular scientific standards (“true”). A similar connection is being made by the titles and subtitles of the two courses. The first is entitled “Does God Exist? Building the Scientific Case.”99 The second course presents a similar link between a religious validity claim and its innerworldly confirmation, as it is entitled “Is the Bible Reliable? Building the Historical Case”.100 Having Meyer as a p­ resenter served the same function of linking religious and scientific credibility. Del Tackett, who presents the TrueU series as part of his Truth Project, introduces Meyer at the beginning of the first DVD, referring to Meyer’s academic title and institutional affiliation. But in the sentence that follows, he links this nature-related qualification directly with a god-related claim: “Steve is going to present a compelling case to show us that belief in a transcendent God and creator of the universe is nothing that you need to be embarrassed about.”

 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.). Anticreationist 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. 96

112

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

6.4.1.3  Symbolic Capital The analysis of capital amalgamation observable throughout the professional creationist/anti-creationist conflict supports the idea that this conflict is not merely a marginal battle within science or a special case of a religious debate, but that it, indeed, possesses its own logic. Although the types of capital used by the involved groups stem from the religious and scientific field, they are not used by them as stakes in those fields. Creationist statements do not serve to accumulate recognition within the scientific field for its own sake. Religious statements by anti-creationists do not serve to establish a legitimate religious position. It is precisely the peculiar combination of both capital types that impedes, or renders impossible, recognition in those fields. Referring to scientific evidence means nothing to pure theology, and pointing to the religious compatibility of a scientific view does not increase its acceptance in the field of science. On the contrary, these amalgamations will likely be rejected by many in the fields of science and religion, precisely because there, pure types of capital are the currency. At the same time, it is not enough to show that the conflict surrounding creationism does not follow the logic of either the religious or the scientific field in order to make the case for its autonomy. After all, any nature-related argument is still subject to the criteria established in the scientific field, and any god-related argument still has to follow basic rules of the religious field. The work of anti-creationists would lead nowhere if its criticism of creationist theories did not pass scientific scrutiny, and the theological arguments of creationists would be worthless if they were completely contrary to the theological convictions of the population they address. This means that we are left with a curious situation where the groups that make up the conflict gather and make use of cultural capital that is, at the same time, accepted and not accepted as valid currency. The key to solving this puzzle is Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic capital. It exists in a way “above” the already mentioned “concrete” kinds of capital, because it stems from the fact that the possession of capital is recognized by others, and this recognition turns into its own – symbolic – type of capital.101 The notion of symbolic capital is the key to understanding how professional creationists and anti-creationists can habitually make use of religious and scientific capital without being part of the religious or scientific field. The symbolic recognition of these religious and scientific arguments, that is, the ­recognition the groups seek for their own positions, is not identical with the recognition that is sought in the religious or the scientific field. Rather, it ultimately comes from the entire society, where in areas such as mass media, political and cultural fields, as well as in the general public, resonance with creationist and anti-creationist positions can be expected. There are clear signs that this external recognition is the actual currency of the field, and that the conflict between professional creationists and anti-creationists is, indeed, a “conflict over the symbolic order.”102 The groups always seek validation 101 102

 Bourdieu 1998, pp. 47–52.  Karstein 2013, my translation TK.

6.4  Capital and Power in the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field

113

(or, in Bourdieu’s words, “consecration”) of their views from all kinds of societal sources. This leads to a certain eclecticism in the way the groups deal with this external validation. They accumulate and seek to increase the most diverse signs of recognition from all kinds of social spheres. To do this, they rely on their scientific and religious capital in the form of nature- and god-related arguments. Back in 2013, when Eugenie Scott still led the National Center for Science Education, the walls of her office were covered with more than 30 awards she and the center had received for their work. These awards were honorary doctoral degrees from nine United States universities, awards from national educational institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Board,103 from professional organizations such as the National Association of Biology Teachers and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, but also from nonscientific organizations such as the Atheist Alliance International and the Playboy Foundation. It is obvious that these awards serve as symbolic capital. It may be less clear that other kinds of capital serve as symbolic capital, as well. Therefore, we will now look at how two groups, the National Center for Science Education and the Institute for Creation Research, use their various kinds of capital as symbolic capital in order to acquire economic capital. 6.4.1.4  Capital Transformations The symbolic quality of the various capital types can be seen when looking at donation letters. The letters are statements where the groups mention their acquisition and possession of economic, social, and particularly cultural capital and, thereby, turn it into symbolic capital. This means that donation letters are places where types of capital are transformed. Ultimately, any action in the entire conflict can be regarded as a kind of capital transformation. For instance, every book, as a form of objectified cultural capital, is the result of an investment of time, money, knowledge, and social relations and, therefore, results from the entire spectrum of the types of capital identified by Bourdieu. From this vantage point, the professional creationist and anti-creationist groups are “capital transformation machines” that serve to catalyze these transformations. The analysis below will show similarities and differences in how the two organizations use their capital to support their requests for donations. The basis for both attempts to acquire capital is the prior acquisition of social capital, which serves as the basis for a purposeful mailing of the letters. Moreover, both organizations have in common the aim to transform this social capital into economic capital. What steps do the National Center for Science Education and the Institute for Creation Research take in order to achieve this transformation? Of course, it is clear that it is not the capital itself which is used by them, but the appeal to readers to accept its symbolic validity. The Institute for Creation Research refers  These awards were mentioned as the most important by deputy director Glenn Branch in a conversation with the author.

103

114

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

Fig. 6.5  Capital transformation through donation letters (National Center for Science Education and Institute for Creation Research)

in its letter of April 2012 to a number of books featuring creationist views that had recently been published by members of its staff. But the Institute for Creation Research does not send these books together with their letter, which is why it does not, in this instance, use them as objectified cultural capital. Instead, it merely refers to them in order to gain recognition for them as valuable contributions. The National Center for Science Education’s reference to successful interventions in educational and political conflicts surrounding the teaching of evolution serves a similar purpose, since they are of no immediate use to the recipients of the letters, but are supposed to be recognized by them as valuable. The same function is the mentioning of the center’s social capital. After listing several legislative initiatives directed against the teaching of evolution and the theory of man-made climate change, Eugenie Scott states: I’m happy to report that the NCSE’s time-tested methods of mobilizing locals and forming coalitions to defend the integrity of science education continue to work.104

Here, too, it is not the social capital itself, but its symbolic recognition, which is supposed to create an effect as part of the letter’s message (Fig. 6.5). There are differences in the kinds of capital evoked in both texts to receive symbolic acclaim. At the National Center for Science Education, social capital is dominant. Besides the already mentioned instance, a central part of the letter is a statement by Zach Kopplin, a high school student from Louisiana. Kopplin had worked together with staff of the center against a Louisiana state law friendly to creationism, and in his statement he lauds the National Center for Science Education for its work: We could not have done any of this without the help from NCSE. […] If we want the next generation to learn evidence-based science, we must do everything we can to help them.105

Here, “mutual acquaintance and recognition”106 is employed via a prominent anti-creationist who, at that time, had been featured in mass media reporting multiple times. The symbolic capital regime is transgressed only once by the National Center for Science Education in its letter when, at the end, various prizes (Darwin pins, books) are offered as rewards for donations. Interestingly, books do not come  Scott 2013.  Ibid., p. 2. 106  Bourdieu 2002, p. 286. 104 105

6.4  Capital and Power in the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field

115

from the National Center for Science Education itself, but are donated by the authors or publishers. The kinds of capital mentioned in the letter of the Institute for Creation Research are more varied. They refer to published and planned books (objectified cultural), additions to the staff and their scientific credentials (embodied cultural), the circulation and international distribution of the institute’s publications, and even the annual publication expenses (economic). Important aspects of the history of the creationist/anti-creationist conflict, as related in the first chapters of this book, can be described as problems of capital transformation. This can be clearly seen when looking at the early history and institutional consolidation of anti-creationism. In Bourdieu’s language, the question was how the extraordinarily high objectified, embodied and institutionalized cultural capital of scientists interested in the acceptance of evolutionary theory can be used to assure its validity in social spheres other than science, where other (cultural, economic and social) kinds of capital have a detrimental effect. This reformulation leads into the next important aspect of field theory, namely, the question of power.

6.4.2  Power In Sect. 4.2.2, we saw that there are areas of the United States educational system that are not thoroughly legally regulated, which creates a relatively unregulated social space where non-state groups can fight for symbolic recognition. The professional creationist and anti-creationist groups are among those who engage in these decades-old Culture Wars.107 Regardless of what kind of capital plays a role in this struggle, it is clear that all relationships between the groups are power relations. Every active group, regardless of the coalitions it might enter into, is ultimately concerned with asserting its own position regarding the reference question, and the social/moral consequences linked to it. This is in line with Max Weber’s basic definition of power, since every group strives to increase the “probability” to be “in a position to carry out its own will despite resistance.”108 The motives of the groups to carry out their will are closely linked with their belief in the value of the game as it was analyzed earlier.109 This is because their view that taking a stand in the controversy surrounding creationism is somehow legitimate and necessary entails the wish that the position they take becomes dominant. No group aims merely to receive a participation trophy. If power motives are what drive the conflict, then further questions must be answered. Weber saw clearly that to simply identify power relations, as such, says little about what characterizes a social relationship. “The concept of power is sociologically amorphous. All conceivable qualities of a person and all conceivable combinations of circumstances may put him in a position to impose his will in a given  Hunter 1991.  Weber 1978, p. 53. 109  See Sect. 6.3.2. 107 108

116

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict

situation.“110 This means that it is necessary to distinguish different forms of power in order to state more precisely what kinds of relations result from them. This will lead to a refined understanding of how the field works, and how the actions of the involved groups correspond to their ideas.111 Weber offers a hint on how to proceed with this kind of analysis, because he adds to his definition of power as the probability of will enforcement the supplement: “regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.”112 So what is the basis for the power of the groups engaging in the controversy surrounding creationism, and what kind of power do they employ to enforce their claims? In order to answer this, a more fundamental question must be addressed first, namely, what kind of order are the groups placed in? Weber distinguishes two “types of legitimate order”, convention and law. An order is based on convention “so far as its validity is externally guaranteed by the probability that deviation from it within a given social group will result in a relatively general and practically significant reaction of disapproval,” whereas an order based on law will treat deviation through “physical or psychological coercion […] applied by a staff of people in order to bring out compliance or avenge violation.”113 It is possible when looking at the history of the conflict to give a clear answer as to whether the primary means of power is legal coercion or conventional disapproval. Although courts played a crucial role at various points in this history, influencing strategies and devaluating entire creationist paradigms, they remain at the margins of the conflict. None of the groups that make up the field possess means of legal enforcement or coercion themselves, and judicial decisions do not represent positions in the conflict. A judge does not decide a case at his own discretion, but after hearing opinions that stem from the field. Decisions such as Kitzmiller v. Dover or Epperson v. Arkansas are at least, in part, the result of the prior history of the field, the outcome of which cannot be determined in advance (and, hence, worth taking part in). In other words, the relationship between the creationist and anti-­ ­ creationist groups is predominantly conventional, because their means of mutual recognition or disapproval are not coercive. It is possible to further analyze the kinds of conventional power the groups possess and make use of in the conflict. For this, Heinrich Popitz’ differentiation of four “anthropological forms of power”114 is useful. The most basic form of power, which actually does not play a role in our conflict, is the power of action, which is based on man’s ability to hurt others physically.115 It hardly serves to establish any long-­ lasting power relationships. This can be better done by using the second form, which is instrumental power. It is “the ability to give and take, to have at one’s disposal  Weber 1978, p. 53.  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. 110 111

6.4  Capital and Power in the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Field

117

rewards and punishments.”116 A special case of instrumental power is authoritative power. It exists where people tie their self-esteem to their ability to comply with moral or behavioral standards. People can exert authoritative power when they use this “need for standards”117 of others to present them with options to behave, while making clear that choosing these options means following the acknowledged inner standards.118 The fourth and final type of power, according to Popitz, is called power of data constitution. Every change of the outside world by people can have consequences for others who have to live with this change. For instance, an architect engages in data constitution by planning a building. She exerts power over the people who will live in the building.119 When applied to the history of the creationist/anti-creationist conflict and the forms of action the groups employ, this typology of power makes visible a few noteworthy tendencies. As we saw in Sect. 3.1, the first attempts to institutionalize professional creationism in the United States in the early 1960s were motivated mainly by two independent factors, namely, the educational reform in the wake of the Sputnik Shock, and the increasing influence of Progressive Creationism among American Evangelicals. To the people who would later found the first creationist institutions, both events appeared as claims to power. The new biology textbooks, which were created by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study at the beginning of the 1960s, presented a powerful piece of “data,” the government exerted significant power of data constitution and, consequently, as a decisive power factor. In fact, the conflict between the federal government’s power of data constitution and the instrumental power of some state governments, who prohibited schools in their states to teach evolution, led to judicial resolution of this power struggle in 1968, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government.120 By contrast, Progressive Creationism represents a different kind of power. As an alternative to the “ignoble tradition” of the creationist hyperorthodoxy,121 it contains an appeal to authoritative power, because it claims to deliver a more accurate theological representation of the relationship between god and the world. At the same time, it employs the power of data constitution, because it points to its theological position as being in greater accordance with secular scientific findings than young earth creationism’s. In contrast, Young Earth Creationists often point to the authority of the Scriptural record in order to substantiate its own theories and statements, and to delegitimize competing positions. Answers in Genesis uses the notion of authority in its Statement of Faith in a way that is consistent with Popitz’ analysis: The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the

 Ibid., p. 12.  Ibid., p. 14. 118  Ibid., p. 15. 119  Ibid., pp. 15–16. 120  See Sect. 3.1 121  Ramm 1954, p. 9, see Sect. 3.1.1 116 117

118

6  Theory of the Creationist/Anti-Creationist Conflict supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.122

The Intelligent Design movement almost completely abstains from using this kind of power.123 Instead, it pits data against data, and it accuses its opponents of using other means of power than the power of data constitution. The National Center for Science Education, too, with few exceptions,124 refrains from using other means of power than the power of data constitution. New Atheism frequently refers to ultimate values such as rationality, freedom, and self-responsibility, which its representatives see undermined by religion and, especially, creationism. This means that besides the power of data constitution, New Atheists also make considerable authoritative power claims. There exists an underlying, broad power structure in the creationist/anti-­ creationist field. The more asymmetric the relationship between god and nature is in the groups’ answers to the reference question, that is, the further on the margins of the field they are (New Atheists, Answers in Genesis), the more the groups are inclined to make use of authoritative power claims. The further a group is in the center of the field (Progressive Creationism, Center for Science and Culture, National Center for Science Education), the more they make use of their power of data constitution. This means that views on god and nature seem to come with typical means of enforcement. This connection is further analyzed in the following two chapters.

 Answers in Genesis 2015.  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. 122 123

Part III

Creationist and Anti-Creationist History, Order and Exemplar Constructs

Chapter 7

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

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. Our analysis of the inner workings of the professional creationist/anti-creationist conflict does not entail an evaluation of who is right and who is wrong. However, it is still important to look at the role value judgments play in the conflict itself. These value judgments do not only occur in the form of overt opinions the groups express about themselves, their positions, and the opposing groups and their views. They also occur in the way the groups frame the issues they deal with. The view that evaluations are engrained in the way we view the world was developed over 100  years ago by a number of German neo-Kantian philosophers. They strongly influenced Max Weber’s methodological perspective, which underlies our analysis. Weber was indebted particularly to Heinrich Rickert1 who, as a starting point of his argument, describes reality as infinitely complex in two ways. Every object possesses an infinite number of traits by which it can be analyzed; Rickert calls this “intensive complexity” (“intensive Mannigfaltigkeit”). At the same time, it consists of an infinite number of parts into which it can be dissolved; this is its “extensive complexity” (“extensive Mannigfaltigkeit”). Rickert says that for anything to become an object of knowledge, it is necessary to perform an act of selection from infinity, and this selection is always guided by the application of a value (“Wertbeziehung”).  Rickert 1986.

1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_7

121

122

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

Both Rickert and Weber2 dealt with the question of whether this indispensable application of values means that all cultural objects are always the result of a purely subjective decision and, consequently, all scholarly disciplines dealing with those objects, such as sociology, are resigned to being merely a consensus of such subjective views. So the question of value application directly concerns the question of whether social sciences can also be as “objective” as natural sciences. The way in which Weber tackled this issue was already related above.3 The reason we take it up again now is to emphasize a core assumption that underlies the subsequent analyses. The creation of any mental object in the minds of humans is the result of the application of a value that determines the relevance of some parts of infinite reality. In this and the subsequent two chapters, we will see how the values held by creationist and anti-creationist groups contribute not only to the way in which they evaluate reality, but how they contribute to their construction of parts of reality in the first place. The field model created in the last chapter will serve as a tool to make this Wertbeziehung comprehensible. In Chaps. 7, 8 and 9, select aspects of the historical material provided in part I of this book are analyzed using the theoretical perspective developed in part II. Chapter 7 deals with the history of the conflict. From our theoretical vantage point, sociological analysis of creationist and anti-creationist histories consists in the documentation, synopsis, and analysis of statements from within the field that deal with the history of the conflict. These statements are called history constructs. They can be implicit historical viewpoints or explicit historiographical works that treat individual groups or the conflict in its entirety. They are the result of specific value applications, because the selection the groups draw from the infinite historical material is also a statement of the (positive or negative) evaluations they perform. The core value they try to enforce is the validity of their respective answer to the reference question.4 This means that each case discussed below will show a connection between the way in which the groups answer the reference question, and the way in which they construct the history of the conflict. History constructs are descriptions of the development of the conflict through time. Chapter 8 adds to this an analysis of how they view the current order or structure of the conflict. These views are called order constructs. Since the groups possess a relational illusio,5 it is not surprising that they also create specific visions of the conflict in which they and their opponents are engaged. We will be able to look beyond the differences of the order constructs to see that all groups are connected on a deeper level by their presence and relative position in the field, which generates specific views on the conflict. The analysis of the order constructs leads to the same result as the analysis of history constructs: There is a connection between the  Weber 2012, pp. 100–138.  See Sect. 5.2. 4  See Sect. 6.2. 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. 2 3

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

123

p­ ositions the groups have in the field, that is, between the way in which they answer the reference question, and the way in which they perceive and represent the structure and dynamics of the conflict. Chapter 9 deals with a third kind of mental object the groups create that serves as an item in their conflict, namely, ideal subjects or exemplars. Sometimes the groups make use of invented or, more rarely, real individuals whose thoughts and traits accompany the flow of the argument in creationist or anti-creationist print or video publications. These persons are used to exemplify the effect of specific arguments, for instance when a lonely camper sitting at her camp fire at night asking herself about the meaning of life is gradually convinced of the creationist perspective (see Sect. 9.1). These subjects are exemplary in two ways. They usually eventually adopt the view the group that created them holds, thus making them examples of the positive vision the group has for the entire society. The groups use these persons to enforce, albeit symbolically, their claim to power. But the ideal subjects are also exemplary in that they say something about the value application of the groups. The reasons the persons end up adopting the position of the groups mirror the way the groups see the world. This is why they, too, say something about how the position of a group in the field shapes their outlook on the entire conflict. By showing that the way in which creationists and anti-creationists frame their history, the current order of their conflict, and how their ideas about ideal persons is closely linked to their position in the conflict field, we also show that it is possible to circumvent the methodological problem of creationism research. Although none of the subsequent analyses brings about an “objective” perspective on the social and historical views of the creationists and anti-creationists, they still show that the reality of their conflict is, in part, the result of their subjective constructs. This means that the sociological analysis has proven itself to be sufficiently distinct from evaluations that occur within the field itself.6 The present chapter and the two subsequent chapters will not feature examples for all forms of constructs by all the groups in the field, but will focus on select sources by some groups that provide contrasting examples to support the general point about the correlation between field position and the groups’ statements.

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.

124

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

7.1  History Constructs of Young Earth Creationism The leading Young Earth Creationist groups, Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research, are also historians of the conflict in which they are engaged. The main work in this area is Henry Morris’ History of Modern Creationism.7 As the founding director of the Institute for Creation Research, Morris is one of the most prominent representatives of twentieth century creationism. He also co-authored the seminal work The Genesis Flood.8 His historical work spans a very large period, which makes it a particularly good example of the way in which Young Earth creationists understand their history. The main point of Morris’ account is that the history of creationism is identical with the history of the world which, at its core, is salvation history. At the beginning of the book, Morris provides an overview of the struggle between the principle of creation and the evolutionary principle, which permeates human history. Creationism is not a sort of cultic or fringe movement of these latter days, as its enemies try to represent it. It is the most ancient of all cosmogonies and has been the belief of orthodox Christians, as well as orthodox Jews and Muslims, all down through the centuries. […] On the other hand, the evolutionary philosophy is also very ancient, almost as old as creationism.9

For Morris, evolutionary philosophy is the result of man’s yearning to find the origin of the world and its inhabitants. This philosophical inclination turns from being creationist to being evolutionary „[i]f, for whatever reasons, [people] did not want to believe God’s revelation of special creation“. This means that evolutionism is not an independent philosophical position, and much less a legitimate scientific view, but at its core a conscious decision against god that has dire religious consequences for those who believe in it. Indeed, the struggle between the principles of evolution and creation is not a struggle between god and nature, or between religion and science or secularity, but between religion and religion: „Evolutionism is always the underlying rationale for naturalism and humanism, which lead eventually to atheism and ultimately to Satanism.“10 In this struggle, science is by no means always on the side of evolutionism. Scientists such as Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Bacon, Pascal, and many other famous researchers were creationists.11 In a sense, the fact that the struggle between creation and evolution permeates all of human history dissolves its historicity. This can be seen in how Morris describes the role of Darwin:

 Morris 1984.  Whitcomb and Morris 1961. 9  Morris 1984, pp. 17–18. 10  Ibid., p. 223. 11  Ibid., pp. 21–29. 7 8

7.1  History Constructs of Young Earth Creationism

125

Darwin did not, as his disciples like to claim, bring in an age of scientific enlightenment. He merely revived ancient paganism, clothing it in apparently sophisticated modern apparel, but underneath there was still the same old pantheistic materialism of antiquity.12

While the historical process brings about change on the surface of things, the underlying ideological substance stays the same. For Morris, this is also applies to his own work and to the entire creationism revival. After the seemingly complete triumph of evolutionism after the Scopes Trial in 1925, only a few remaining creationists continued their work and upheld the true philosophy, which laid the foundation for the „truly significant creationist revival in the 1960s and 1970s.“13 During the second half of the twentieth century, a principle had gained traction again that actually existed since the beginning of humanity. This revival is all the more significant, since the dominance of evolutionism since the nineteenth century had proven its devastating effects time and again. Under the headline “One Hundred Years of Darwinism”, Morris recites the societal effects that, in his view, result from the triumph of evolutionism, or that rely on it as a supporting ideology. Among these effects are imperialism, racism, social Darwinism, Marxism, modernism, and the Social Gospel. The latter term refers to a strand of thinking in twentieth century American Protestantism that provided a Christian response to social issues such as poverty, alcohol abuse, racism, and war. In Morris’ view, it is the result of an infiltration of Christian thinking with humanist ideology, because it presupposes the perfectibility of the world through human action, which amounts to a rejection of the idea that humans always depend on god’s grace.14 The history of modern creationism in a more narrow sense, that is, the process of institutionalization of creationist organizations in the course of the twentieth century,15 is presented by Morris as a sequence of events that is, in part, shaped by his own actions. This part of the book does not differ significantly from scholarly accounts if the history of creationism. The most significant difference to secular histories, such as Numbers’ The Creationists, does not lie in the presentation of the facts, but in the religious framing of the argument. God and his will are the ultimate reference points for the explanation of certain developments within the creationist movement. For instance, the book The Genesis Flood, which was published by Morris and his co-author John Whitcomb in 1961, was used by god to catalyze the creationist revival: „[T]he initial draft was finished on a book which the Lord would

 Ibid., p. 19.  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  Ibid., pp. 55–56. 15  See Sect. 3.1. 12 13

126

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

graciously use to catalyze a significant revival of creationism […].“16 Morris comments on the founding members of another early creationist organization: „These were the 18 men whom the Lord used to start the Creation Research Society.“17 After tracing the history of creationism until the present day (1984), Morris deals with anti-creationism in a narrow sense. This movement, too, exists only within the universal metaphysical frame that encompasses all history: Since this conflict is, indeed, intimately involved in the ‘conflict of the ages,’ […], we should not be surprised to find it coming into climactic intensity as we approach the end of this present age.18

After he depicted the history of creationism as a process of intensification and diversification, he alluded to the development of anti-creationism: „But the opposition inevitably will also become stronger and more bitter.“19 While Morris touches upon legal, political, and scientific aspects of the conflict, the spiritual factor is clearly the most important for him: „But this is not a simple question of democracy, or constitutionality, or scientific evidence – all of which would support creation if allowed to speak honestly. This is a spiritual battle, and the battle plans and tactics can only really be understood in spiritual terms.“20 Anti-creationism appears in the media, since creationists are often presented in a way that is „non-factual and distorted, almost always one-sided and often even sarcastic and insulting.“21 Organized anti-creationism is, in Morris’ view, a reaction to the expectable triumph of creationism: [T]he creationist movement continued to grow stronger. Bills requiring a two-model approach in the public schools had been introduced in the legislatures of almost half the states and, since this was clearly what the public wanted, the academic establishment became more and more alarmed.22

Morris does not expect creationism to succeed by legal means in the United States, and 3 years after the publication of his book, he would be vindicated in this view by the Supreme Court ruling concerning Scientific Creationism. But he expects organized anti-creationism to continue to exist in the way it does. It is structured primarily by the Committees of Correspondence, which he characterizes as a “pressure group” that acts each time legislation or educational guidelines favoring creationism are proposed, and by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which fights creationist legislation once it is introduced.23 The convergence of creationism history and world history does not only stretch back to the beginning of time, it also extends to the end of days.  Morris 1984, p. 145.  Ibid., p. 186. 18  Ibid., p. 307. 19  Ibid. 20  Ibid., p. 311. 21  Ibid., p. 317. 22  Ibid. 23  Ibid., p. 324. 16 17

7.1  History Constructs of Young Earth Creationism

127

There is a great battle coming and “if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?” (I Corinthians 14:8). As the prophet Elijah challenged the people of God long ago: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow Him” (I Kings 18:21).24

In this view, creationism, as an expression of orthodox Biblicism, figures as an eschatological quality of humans, whose souls are the object of the apocalyptic endgame. The rise of organized anti-creationism is a sign that the end times are, in fact, near. To Morris, the formation of anti-creationism is „not surprising, in view of the numerous Biblical prophecies concerning the apostasy and growth of organized opposition to God in the last days [this quote is followed by around a dozen eschatological Biblical references].“25 Morris’ final message to the reader is that despite occasional setbacks, especially in the form of court rulings against creationism, he is confident that the creationist movement will ultimately succeed. He supports this view with a section about „Biblical assurances of the final victory of the Creator“.26 The history construct of Young Earth Creationism, as it appears in Morris’ work, confirms the sociological view that the primary conflict level is, indeed, concerned with social and moral questions, and that questions of factual truth or the status of scientific theories is only secondary.27 To Morris, the indicators of evolution being wrong are social evils, such as destructive ideologies and immoral social movements. These evils permeate modern society to the extent that true Christianity, insofar as it rejects evolution, finds itself in fundamental opposition to society. However, looking at his current social environment, Morris somewhat expands his strict dualism of evolutionary and creationist stances. Between both camps, he locates the group of Christians who accept evolution, often without being aware that this acceptance goes against the fundament of their beliefs. We will see this form of qualified dualism also in the order construct of Young Earth Creationism.28 The strong antagonism between evolutionists and creationists Morris contends unites them on a deeper level. Since the history of creationism is identical to the history of the world and salvation history, scientific and religious stances and statements are ultimately the same. The interpretation of the Bible is a “scientific” act, just like the dating of rocks is “religious”, and this is regardless of the intentions of those who perform these actions. This is why, in Popitz’ terminology, the conflict, for Morris, is driven by authoritative power claims. Even if evolutionary biologists claim that the validity of their discipline rests on the power of the data they collect and analyze, they actually ultimately base their claim to authority on their humanist ideology, from which they derive the seeming plausibility of these data. Morris’ views also support the interpretation that the types of capital invested by the groups in the field derive their value from their symbolic significance. Since Morris denies the autonomy of all social systems, because they are merely different arenas where the  Ibid., pp. 331–332.  Ibid., p. 332. 26  Ibid., pp. 333–335. 27  See Sect. 5.1. 28  See Sect. 8.1. 24 25

128

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

same metaphysical struggle between good and evil takes place, he also denies the validity of the types of capital that count in these systems. Regardless of what a twentieth century evolutionary biologist, a nineteenth century social reformer, or a fourth century B.C. philosopher and their respective social environments deem valuable, consciously or not, their statements (or investments of capital) are always, at least in part, expressions of “spiritual capital” in a spiritual struggle. The specific character of this Young Earth history construct will become clearer when it is compared with competing constructs.

7.2  History Construct of New Atheism The history construct of New Atheism resembles that of Young Earth Creationism in some respects. It is also based on a dualism which, in turn, is based on a specific generalization. Just as Henry Morris sees the history of the world as a continuous struggle between two principles, creation and evolution, so representatives of New Atheism regard the history of the world as structured by the struggle between religion/superstition/irrationality and science/skepticism/rationality. Just as Young Earth Creationism perceives the creationist/anti-creationist conflict as merely one of many instances of a general struggle, so New Atheism sees creationism as merely one, albeit important, example of a more general antagonism. It is not easily possible to derive a history construct from the publications of New Atheism, because references to history are scattered across numerous texts, and are not systematically developed. However, this situation makes it easier to analyze this history construct as part of what happens in the field, because references to history are directly embedded in arguments that refer to ongoing controversies in the field. For instance, Richard Dawkins occasionally refers to the history of the United States in his anti-theistic work The God Delusion. According to him, the tradition of atheism is more deeply engrained in the history of the United States than commonly assumed: It is conventional to assume that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic were deists. No doubt many of them were, although it has been argued that the greatest of them might have been atheists.29

This quote is remarkable because of two things: Why is Dawkins, who is British, referring to the history of the United States in order to make the case for the historical depth of atheism, and why does he qualify the alleged atheists according to their “greatness”? The first point is explained by Dawkins shortly after the above quote: „The religious views of the Founding Fathers are of great interest to propagandists of today’s American right, anxious to push their version of history.“30 Dawkins’ argument is, then, merely a counterargument against a competing, theistic 29 30

 Dawkins 2006, p. 60.  Ibid., p. 61.

7.2  History Construct of New Atheism

129

i­ nterpretation of the religious or salvation history of the United States. This competing interpretation, which regards seemingly secular history as actually religious history, underlies the creationist historical account, and was developed by members of the New Christian Right in collaboration with creationists.31 The conservative Christian historical account of the history of the United States is part of the reason why Dawkins emphasizes the greatness of presumably atheist figures in its history. This is because conservative accounts, such as Tim LaHaye’s The Battle for the Mind, draw a close link between atheism, amorality, and anti-Americanism.32 This connection exists even today in the minds of many Americans, and it leads to atheists being among the least trusted groups in public polls.33 The normative precariousness atheists find themselves in motivates them to try to counter anti-atheist stereotypes in many ways, and part of New Atheism’s program is the improvement of this situation.34 The means by which New Atheists try to establish a historical counter-­narrative are, as we already saw, by emphasizing the positive role atheists played in history, but also by attempting to criticize the view that religion has had many positive impacts throughout history. Engaging in the former activity, Dawkins seeks to dispel the view that atheism has been a reason for many crimes throughout history. For instance, while Dawkins does not dispute that Stalin was an atheist, he contends that his crimes cannot be explained by his atheism. The other historical person that usually figures in these kinds of arguments, Hitler, was not even an atheist, but often referred to Christian beliefs in his speeches.35 The latter argument is also an example for how New Atheists emphasize how religion has had a negative societal influence. While they see many examples for the negative influence of atheism as questionable or outright wrong, they see many examples for the detrimental role of religion: Imagine with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine, no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7,36 no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/ Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ killers’, no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’, no honour killings’, no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (‘God wants you to give till it hurts’).

 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  LaHaye 1980, p. 59, 86–87 et passim. Cf. Kaden 2018. 33  Gervais et al. 2011, Swan and Heesacker 2012. 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  Dawkins 2006, pp. 272–278. 36  Islamist terrorist attacks in London on July 7, 2005. 31

130

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

Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing one inch of it.37

The third stratagem of New Atheism as it relates to history is to describe counterfactual non-religiosity. New Atheists paint pictures of how the past would have unfolded if religion had not played the role they contend, and what direction the future could take without it. Sam Harris, at the end of his book The End of Faith, provides a telling example of this strategy: There is no telling what our world would now be like had some great kingdom of Reason emerged at the time of the Crusades and pacified the credulous multitudes of Europe and the Middle East. We might have had modern democracy and the Internet by the year 1600.38

However, New Atheists do not cast every aspect of every religion in a negative light. But the instances where their assessment of some part of religious history is positive serve to emphasize how negative other aspects are when compared to this. For instance, Harris characterizes Islamic history as follows: Of course, like every religion, Islam has had its moments. Muslim scholars invented algebra, translated the writings of Plato and Aristotle, and made important contributions to a variety of nascent sciences at a time when European Christians were luxuriating in the most abysmal ignorance. It was only through the Muslim conquest of Spain that classical Greek texts found their way into Latin translation and seeded the Renaissance in western Europe.39

In sum, New Atheism selects historical events which are usually seen as negative, and attributes them to religion (9/11), or it argues against atheism being a negative historical force (Stalin). It also selects historical events which are usually seen as positive, and attributes them to atheism (Founding Fathers). The aspects of religion that it characterizes as positive are, at second glance, actually scientific achievements (Algebra), or they derive their value from the fact that they enabled scientific developments (translation of Greek texts). Religion is never a positive force in and of itself. By far the most comprehensive tool New Atheists use to reduce historical complexity is to interpret history, and particularly religious history, from the vantage point of natural science. The main discipline that serves this purpose is evolutionary psychology. Dawkins refers to the work of Pascal Boyer, but he also makes use of his own meme theory.40 These theories serve to give evolutionary explanations for religious behavior. For instance, the human brain is the result of a selection process of several hundreds of thousands of years, in the course of which those individuals had a higher chance of survival that reacted more cautiously to potential threats. The unintended consequence of this process is that the resulting brains, as “hyperactive

 Dawkins 2006, p. 1.  Harris 2004, p. 109. 39  Ibid., p. 108. 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). 37 38

7.3  History Construct of the Intelligent Design Movement

131

agent detection devices”, tended to see agents where there were none. From this propensity stems the human tendency to see spirits and ultimately gods.41 Concerning their history constructs, Young Earth Creationism and New Atheism are formal opposites. Both argue from a dualistic perspective on history, and they take the place that is perceived as the opposing position by the other. Both argue that their side represents the actual force of history, which guarantees their superiority. Young Earth Creationism does this by framing evolution from the vantage point of religion, and New Atheism by framing religion from the vantage point of evolution. For Young Earth creationism, all of history, including the history of creationism, is salvation history. For New Atheism, all of history, including the history of creationism, is natural history. These similarities are not surprising given the axial symmetrical positions of both groups in the field. Both positions display a strong predominance of one explanatory factor (god and nature, respectively) in their answer to the reference question. Both are able to reduce the conflict to a dualistic “us vs. them”, because they are able to perceive all groups in the field as adversarial in the same way. The positions of the groups in the field influence the way in which these groups look at history. If this is true, then a group that does not share this formal similarity of being in a “corner” of the field would have to have a very different way of looking at history. One such group is the Intelligent Design movement, which will be the subject of the next section.

7.3  History Construct of the Intelligent Design Movement The source for investigating the history construct of the Intelligent Design movement is Thomas Woodward’s book Doubts about Darwin: A history of Intelligent Design.42 In contrast to the sources of the preceding two sections, the author of this text is not a key figure of this form of creationism. But Woodward is closely linked with the leading Intelligent Design organization, the Center for Science and Culture. According to his own account, he had been a participant in meetings of the movement since the late 1980s.43 Phillip Johnson, one of the main representatives of Intelligent Design,44 has written the foreword to the book, and senior fellows of the center praise the text on the dust cover. This means that the account Woodward gives is most likely not at odds with the view of the Intelligent Design movement itself. In contrast to Young Earth Creationism and New Atheism, Intelligent Design is located not at the margins of the field, but in the middle of it. In its answer to the reference question, Intelligent Design combines natural causes with the actions of god who, in the view of most representatives of Intelligent Design, is identical with the designer. Compared with Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design allows  See Boyer 2002, Dawkins 2006, p. 214.  Woodward 2003. 43  Ibid., p. 10. 44  See Sect. 3.2. 41 42

132

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

for a bigger role for natural processes, and a smaller role for god. Compared with New Atheism, it allows for a bigger role for god, and a smaller role for natural processes. Before we look at the way in which this conflict situation shapes the historical account, it is important to describe the content of the book in question. Woodward’s main theoretical tool is the theory of science as developed by Thomas S. Kuhn.45 Kuhn famously stated that science does not progress continuously, but in the form of paradigm shifts, where old theories encounter a crisis, and are subsequently replaced by a new paradigm that is able to explain the data better. For Woodward, Darwinism is in such a crisis, and Intelligent Design stands ready as the new paradigm to replace it. To Woodward, the eventual outcome of this battle is already clear: Moreover, this “awakening from dogmatic slumber” has acted as the core of a larger historical drama, an implicit paradigm crisis, something destined to culminate in […] the next great paradigm revolution – the overthrow of Darwinism.46

Woodward begins his account with a description of the centennial celebration of the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1959. In the middle of this „season of the triumph of Darwinian orthodoxy“, some (nb: not creationist) “murmurs of dissent”47 already became apparent. In the 1970s, this murmur had already become a “proto-genre” of “nonliteralist antievolutionism”.48 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge’s theory of “punctuated equilibrium” is another sign of the decline of the hegemony of Darwinism. A critical role in the development of the new paradigm was played by biochemist Michael Denton, whose book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis49 became an important reference point for the Intelligent Design movement. Denton emphasized that there are many phenomena that cannot be sufficiently explained within the evolutionary framework, which is why he diagnosed a crisis of the paradigm, which was accelerated by his diagnosis. The area that brought Darwinism to the end of its ability to explain biological phenomena is the biochemical complexity of the cell. It comes as no surprise to Woodward, then, that the massive criticism by Denton was met with a „ferocious counterattack that is reminiscent of the great clashes of world history“by the Darwinist establishment.50 In this situation, Denton’s reputation and credibility was based on his status as a scientist.51 Through his work, Denton inspired the people who would later lead the Intelligent Design movement, particularly Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe. Woodward describes the effect of Denton’s work on Behe as a form of conversion:

 Kuhn 1996.  Woodward 2003, p. 28. 47  Ibid., pp. 33–45. 48  Ibid., pp. 38–39. 49  Denton 1986. 50  Woodward 2003, p. 45. 51  Ibid., p. 50. 45 46

7.3  History Construct of the Intelligent Design Movement

133

[H]e [Behe] had always assumed that Darwinism was true and never thought about the topic very much until he read Denton in 1987. […] At that point, Behe took up Darwinism as his own research hobby, reviewing his own field of biochemistry through Denton’s critical gaze.52

By this time, the critical position established by Denton continued to gain more followers, which is why Woodward titles the next chapter of his book “The Virus Spreads”.53 The late 1990s saw a collaboration of critics „as a revolutionary movement whose main purpose was the toppling of Darwinian domination and the legitimization of intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis.“54 The leading figure of this period was Phillip Johnson. According to Woodward, the importance of his book Darwin on Trial55 to the consolidation of the Intelligent Design movement “can hardly be overstated.” Through this book, Johnson put himself and the movement „between and above the two fundamentalist perspectives, equidistant and critically detached from both religious and Darwinian fundamentalists.“56 Johnson’s first aim was to induce a “falsification crisis” of Darwinism by criticizing its theoretical foundations. This step precedes the establishment of Intelligent Design as an autonomous competing paradigm.57 The “Roaring Nineties” brought about by Johnson’s critique are characterized as “David [taking] on Goliath:”58 Many scientists, among them Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and Jonathan Wells, join the movement, while attacks by the scientific establishment and by organized anti-creationism become more frequent and more intense. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box brought national attention to Intelligent Design, while Dembski’s development of an explanatory filter to detect intelligent design together with Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity formed the fundament of a new paradigm, which goes beyond mere criticism of the existing scientific consensus.59 Woodward writes the history of Intelligent Design as the history of people and publications. However, in the last section of the book, he places “Intelligent Design in Historic Perspective.”60 His main goal here is to show that the history of Intelligent Design confirms it as an autonomous position, and neither a variant of existing forms of creationism nor a new form of it. Woodward argues specifically against views that identify Intelligent Design with creationism: [T]here persists today among many in our better-educated population a severe and malignant distortion of Intelligent Design. This blind spot is evidenced in hostile caricatures in

 Ibid., pp. 62–63.  Ibid., pp. 65–91. 54  Ibid., p. 64. 55  Johnson 1991. 56  Woodward 2003, pp. 93–94. 57  Ibid., p. 130. 58  Ibid., p. 131. 59  Ibid., p. 190. 60  Ibid., pp. 189–210. 52 53

134

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

the media and vitriolic attacks in the universities, which lump Design into biblical creationism and dismiss it as nothing more than “creation science in a cheap tuxedo”.61

Against this position, Woodward insists that Intelligent Design is a “novel story”, which mainly consists in the fact that university professors from “prestigious secular universities” doubt the validity of Darwinism, and that advances in biochemical knowledge increasingly suggest that there is a creative intelligence behind life. In very fundamental ways, I am arguing, this story veers away from the usual theistic evolution story (‘based on the evidence, theistic scientists are now concluding that God worked through evolution’) and from the classic creation science tale (‘scientists are recognizing that Genesis is literally true after all’).62

The references of Intelligent Design’s historian to competing positions on the role of god and nature suggest that a relational interpretation of his historical reconstruction is a suitable analytical approach. Following the analytical scheme developed in Chap. 6, we can ask what kind of selection from the infinite historical material happens in this account. The frequent references to Kuhn’s theory of scientific paradigms create a science-related framework that is mainly concerned with natural phenomena. In addition, Woodward on several occasions denies that the Intelligent Design movement’s motives, arguments and criticisms relate to god or religion.63 Comparing this approach with the two history constructs discussed above, it is striking that it operates with a threefold division of historically relevant reference positions. In this tripartition, Intelligent Design is presented as the good alternative between two bad ones, namely, the Darwinian and the creationist forms of fundamentalism, or the “theistic evolution story” and the “creation science tale”. Looking at its own history, Intelligent Design reflects its own position ‘between’ other ideas, as a ‘third way’ between two fringe positions which it characterizes as extreme. Comparing this position to the position of the movement in the field, it becomes clear that this is no coincidence, but the result of a structural determinism or force. In contrast to both Young Earth Creationism and New Atheism, Intelligent Design is denied the possibility of creating a dualist history construct, because the positions which are in direct competition for power positions in the field give diametrically opposed answers to the reference question. Woodward nonetheless attempts to identify a common root by referring to the fact that both are fringe positions, which is why he labels them both fundamentalist. Like every other statement in the professional creationist/anti-creationist conflict, the book follows the synthetic principle by referring to both reference points that are relevant in the field, god and nature. What is striking, though, is that while Intelligent Design positions itself in the middle between god-only and nature-only positions, Woodward in his account does not give equal standing to both categories  Ibid., p. 195. The phrase that Intelligent Design is „creationism[!] in a cheap tuxedo“ goes back to paleontologist Leonard Krishtalka, see Slevin 2005. 62  Woodward 2003, pp. 195–196. 63  Ibid., pp. 81, 99–100. 61

7.3  History Construct of the Intelligent Design Movement

135

when describing what Intelligent Design is and how it developed. In particular, while he strongly rejects naturalistic atheism, nature-related arguments clearly dominate his account. Woodward writes the history of Intelligent Design as the gradual establishment of a paradigm critical of naturalism against a naturalistic one, and he only occasionally touches upon the question of what (or who) would replace the criticized natural processes posited by Darwinism. In the year Woodward’s book was published, the Intelligent Design movement was still confident that it would soon be able to enter the public school system. Against this strategic backdrop, it is not surprising that theological or general god-related arguments are relatively rare in the movement’s quasi-official account. The stronger emphasis on god’s part in Intelligent Design’s answer to the reference question can be found in the non-public Wedge document.64 Its introduction provides a historical framework that also includes the history of Intelligent Design as it is presented by Woodward. Viewed together, both documents describe the historical position that fits Intelligent Design’s position in the field. The introduction to the Wedge document lays out a historical perspective in three steps, the last of which is expanded on by Woodward in his “official” history. First, the Wedge document characterizes the past as determined by the theological interpretation of humanity. „The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built.“65 In the terminology proposed here, history, in this view, is characterized by attribution of one part of the world (humanity) to god. The second phase of the historical process the Wedge document relates is characterized by a crisis. Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment.

Natural processes replace god as the explanation of humanity, but in the third phase, Intelligent Design steps up to restore the original (and correct) relationship between god and nature as elements of the explanation of the world. “Discovery Institute‘s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.”66 The field theoretical perspective reveals that the identification of three historical forces that explain the process of a movement is an effect of the movement’s position in the field, which is similar to the dualistic histories of Young Earth Creationism and New Atheism. The history of Intelligent Design, like the history of any position or group in the field, can be written with reference to god or with reference to nature. Since Intelligent Design is located in the center of the field, it could be expected that the history construct combines both god and nature in a way that is  See Sect. 3.2.1.  Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998], p. 1. 66  All quotes ibid. 64 65

136

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

different both from New Atheism, in that it emphasizes the role of god, and from Young Earth Creationism, in that it refers to nature or natural processes more than their account. The role of nature-related arguments in Woodward’s history is relatively big, which can be explained by reference to the legal situation and the movement’s educational political aspirations at the time. The picture is completed by the unofficial view of the Wedge document. Taken together, both documents reveal a relatively symmetric or “centrist” position. This analysis sheds light on the issue of how the history construct of Intelligent Design is linked with how the movement is confronted by other groups in the field. Put briefly, Intelligent Design reacts to two different forms of criticism by creating two historical accounts. The groups’ history constructs do not only concern their own past, but also often include the history of other groups and positions in the field. By this, they apply the means of reducing historical complexity (or value attribution) which their position allows for. This means that Intelligent Design finds itself involuntarily a part of history constructs of other groups that describe it as a representative of views that are completely different from how the movement sees itself. These competing historical accounts, as well as the way in which other groups react to them, are strongly influenced by the place they take in the field. This situation can be observed particularly clearly with regard to the Intelligent Design movement, because it finds itself included in historical narratives both of Young Earth Creationism and of anti-creationists, and while both accounts are very different, both have in common that they are incompatible with the way in which Intelligent Design describes its history. In Young Earth Creationism’s account, Intelligent Design is accused of giving natural processes too big a role, and Intelligent Design reacts to this by emphasizing how it includes god in its position. The alternative history of Intelligent Design, as it is written by representatives of nomatic anti-­ creationism, accuses Intelligent Design of giving god too big a role, and Intelligent Design reacts to this by emphasizing how it is actually a scientific paradigm. We will first look at how nomatic anti-creationism creates an alternative interpretation of Intelligent Design. The link between the Creation Science program of the 1980s and the Intelligent Design textbook Of Pandas and People that was found by Nick Matzke in the course of the Kitzmiller trial67 is an example for how a member of an opposing group creates alternative historical narratives where Intelligent Design is depicted as a position that grants god a significantly bigger role in its answer to the reference question than its own official view asserts. In reaction to this kind of criticism, Intelligent Design writes its own history as that of a scientific paradigm critical of naturalism. Based on this relational view, Woodward’s historical account seems to be directed mainly at this alternative interpretation of Intelligent Design. But Intelligent Design is also criticized by those who grant god ultimate authority in their answer to the reference question, that is, by representatives of Young Earth Creationism. The person who frequently engages in this kind of criticism at the largest young earth organization, Answers in Genesis, is Georgia Purdom. She, too, points to links between the contemporary Intelligent Design 67

 See Sect. 3.2.

7.4  Variance and Unity of Creationist/Anti–Creationist History

137

movement and earlier answers to the reference question, thereby creating another alternative history construct of Intelligent Design. Purdom emphasizes the similarities between Intelligent Design and the natural theology of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, particularly with William Paley’s famous watchmaker argument.68 By practically identifying Intelligent Design and natural theology, Purdom attempts to deprive Intelligent Design of its historical legitimacy, because, as she states, Intelligent Design will fail just as natural theology failed: The natural theology movement of the 1800s failed because it did not answer the next logical question: if it is designed, then who designed it? […] [T]he central problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation.69

Like nomatic anti-creationism, Young Earth Creationism attacks Intelligent Design by identifying it with an earlier answer to the reference question which they view as already delegitimized. Both historical counter-narratives can only be understood properly if the field position of those who create them is considered. To say that Intelligent Design separates creation from the creator is a valid argument only for those who are already convinced of the dominant role of the creator in explaining the world. On the other hand, to prove that Intelligent Design has close links to a failed educational political program, as Matzke did, is only relevant to those who have the ambition to enter the public school system. The fact that the Intelligent Design movement, officially as well as covertly, deals with these critical views, means that they regard them as relevant. This situation shows that positions that are located in or near the center of the field are relatively precarious, because those who hold them must make a bigger effort to defend their position vis-à-vis all other positions, while not having the means to reduce the entire conflict in a dualistic manner.

7.4  V  ariance and Unity of Creationist/Anti–Creationist History These examples of creationist and anti-creationist historiography differ profoundly. For one group, the conflict has been in existence for thousands of years, for another group it is only a matter of a few decades. One views it as the struggle of a small group of scientists against religious dishonesty and scientific hubris, another as the triumph of enlightenment over the forces of superstition. But these differences unfold in a way that all groups include the other groups in their conceptual space. This becomes apparent when they situate themselves and other groups historically. A group that is located on the margins of the field looks back on a conflict where its own view has always been contested in similar ways. Looking back, Young Earth Creationism sees positions come and go that attribute nature a bigger role and god 68 69

 Purdom 2010.  Ibid.

138

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

a smaller role in explaining the world than they do. The opposite is true for New Atheism. These groups are able to construe a historical narrative around this basic rift. As a result of this, their history constructs put the emphasis on types of capital and means of power that differ significantly from those constructs that are created by groups in or near the center of the field. A dualist concept of history based on timeless values (faith in god, rationality) views these values as authoritative means of power. In contrast, power relating to data constitution or instrumental power is merely a derivative of authoritative power. Although Henry Morris acknowledges that evolutionary biologists use data to support their case, it is evident to him that their power actually rests on the fact that evolution helps establish a standard for people to live by that is independent from god. Even if evolutionary theory, as Daniel Dennett puts it, is a “universal acid,”70 New Atheism makes clear that this theory, like everything else, is subject to the universal value of critical thinking, and would have to be abandoned if evidence contradicted it.71 The situation is different for groups that are located in or near the center of the creationist/anti-creationist field. Their answers to the reference question do not contain an extreme asymmetry, which is why they cannot write the history of the conflict as just salvation history or natural history. This means they have no legitimate access to exclusive sources of authoritative power and, consequently, they have to justify their position with recourse to power of data constitution or to instrumental means of power. Put differently, a group that accepts neither god nor nature as the sole force that explains the world cannot regard one of those entities as the dominant factor in history without getting into trouble because of this contradiction. From this perspective it becomes clear that the attempts to criticize Intelligent Design by rewriting its history are attempts to delegitimize it within the field. Moreover, the precarious power situation of an intermediate group such as the Intelligent Design movement makes it necessary for them to acquire and transform a variety of types of capital. As shown in Sect. 6.3, all groups in the field must refer to both god and nature in their statements, and they have to appear credible with regard to both areas. They do this by acquiring and presenting different forms of cultural capital. Even if Richard Dawkins rejects theology as nonsense, this criticism is still a ‘theological’ statement. Denouncing evolutionary theory as bogus science requires creationists to at least appear to have scientific credentials and knowledge enabling them to make that claim. These credentials and bits of knowledge are subject to the same criteria of legitimacy as those of the evolutionary biologists they try to refute. This rule of the field (‘nomos’) to always synthesize in some way nature-related and god-related arguments72 is valid for all groups in the field. But groups in or near the center have  Dennett 1995, p. 521.  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  See Sect. 6.3.1. 70 71

7.4  Variance and Unity of Creationist/Anti–Creationist History

139

an increased need to accumulate and transform the kinds of cultural capital necessary to make these kinds of claims, compared to those groups on the margins of the field. This is because they have to defend themselves against criticism from more than one ‘direction,’ and they have to direct their criticism in more than one ‘direction.’ The Intelligent Design movement not only needs to prove its competence as a legitimate player against those who hold a lot of religious capital (such as the hermeneutical and theological expertise of Young Earth creationists), but also against those who, like most anti-creationists, possess a lot of scientific capital. The interdependence of all groups when it comes to their history constructs is an effect of their being located in the same social field, and at the same time it contributes to the continuing existence of the field itself. The same is true for their order constructs, which are discussed in the following chapter.

Chapter 8

Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the Order of Their Conflict

In his ethnological research, Claude Lévi-Strauss repeatedly observed that the structure of a group as it appears to an outsider does not need to be identical with its actual constitution. For instance, the Bororo of Brazil live in villages where all huts form a circle around a larger house in the middle. This structure obscures the fact that each hut belongs to one of three social groups that are strictly separated from each other by marriage rules. While at first glance the Bororo seem to live in an egalitarian society, their social classes divide them in a way that is similar to the Indian caste system.1 The creationist and anti-creationist professional groups have concepts of the order they are part of. They sometimes present these concepts in the form of graphics or texts. Some of these concepts are analyzed in this chapter. Following Lévi-­ Strauss, this analysis is based on two presuppositions. The order constructs of different groups do not have to be identical to what an outside observer perceives, nor do they have to be similar to each other. But they can have an effect on the way the order is actually established. We will see that the groups’ perception of the order of which they are part depends on where they are in the field, and that these constructs contribute to the field’s existence.

8.1  Order Construct of Young Earth Creationism Today, Answers in Genesis is the largest creationist organization. The way in which it describes its position in the conflict surrounding creationism is, therefore, guaranteed to gain a high degree of visibility and recognition among those interested in creationism. Since its founding, the group has been using a graphic representation

 Lévi-Strauss 2007.

1

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_8

141

142

8  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the Order of Their Conflict

Fig. 8.1  The problem. Description of the conflict situation by Answers in Genesis

of the social conflict and its own role in it, which is titled The Problem.2 It very clearly shows how a group’s position in the field shapes its understanding of the conflict (Fig. 8.1). The image can be analyzed with regard to its vertical and horizontal structures. Vertically, there is a rift between Christianity and Humanism, which is reminiscent of the ‘Manichean’ dualism of most fundamentalist movements. It is a strong form of simplification of complex social arrangements, and it serves to stabilize the group’s outlook and inner coherence by providing it with a simple formula to describe and evaluate all kinds of phenomena.3 But a closer look at the image reveals that the actual rift is not only between both castles, but that there are self-destructive tendencies in Christianity that undermine its own fundament, rendering them similar to the humanists, because they represent the same threat. This is a reference to those forms of creationism, and to strands of Christianity in general, that doubt the inerrancy of the Bible (shooter pointing the canon at the fundament), or regard it as irrelevant (sleeping shooter), or who even go against other Christians who uphold the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy (shooter pointing at other shooter). What happens on the Christian castle is a comment on historical religious developments in the nineteenth and twentieth century by a group that gradually distinguished itself from other groups (mainline denominations, left wing Evangelicalism, Progressive Creationism) during this time.  Answers in Genesis n.d. A version of the graphic was first published in Ham 1987, p. 108. It also appears in Ham 2008, p. 11. 3  Cf. Almond et al. 2004; Kaden 2014 (in German). 2

8.1  Order Construct of Young Earth Creationism

143

The way Answers in Genesis sees itself as part of this conflict becomes apparent when we look at the horizontal structure of the image. There are three levels. The first contains the fundaments (Evolution and Creation with the qualifications “Man decides ‘Truth’” and “God’s Word is Truth”). On these fundaments rest two castles (Christianity and Humanism) with a number of shooters present in both. Above the Humanism castle are floating balloons with words such as Racism and Abortion written on them. This horizontal structure can be interpreted as an argument in favor of a specific causal relationship. The balloons would not be in their place without being tied to the castle, and the castle would not stand without the fundament. Answers in Genesis is a group within Christianity that attacks the fundament of its opponents. Psalm 11:3 reads „If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?“(Psalm 11:3 KJV.) Reading the image as a form of self-representation of Answers in Genesis, the fundament refers to the group’s conservative religious doctrines, particularly its Biblical inerrantism; the Christian castle represents the Christian churches and congregations in the United States that are the object of theological criticism by Answers in Genesis; and the balloons floating above the Humanism castle represent the social issues that are recognized as problematic by Answers in Genesis and other Christian groups. It is striking that the words written on both fundaments refer to truth. This means that, in the view of the creationist organization, the conflict at its core is about questions of facts or epistemology. The institutions represented by the two castles are built upon conflicting epistemic foundations, which means that their actions can ultimately be explained by their different understandings of truth and facts. In the case of the Humanism castle, the consequences of these actions are depicted as balloons that represent social issues which Answers in Genesis and other Christian groups criticize as immoral (homosexuality, abortion, racism). We saw in Chap. 5 that one of the core questions of social scientific creationism research is whether the conflict surrounding creationism is about facts (epistemological conflict narrative), about the structure of institutions, or about moral issues. This question is mirrored by Answers in Genesis and answered in a specific way: Even though all three aspects play a role, they are in a specific causal relationship that is also an order of relevance. The most basic and most important question is who has the right interpretation of facts. From this disagreement follows the institutional issue of who represents these competing truth claims, and as a consequence of this struggle the question arises of the moral consequences these representations have. This means that the horizontal levels of the image represent layers of an argument, and each layer corresponds to specific ways of enforcing the argument on both sides. The three ways of perceiving the conflict correspond to the three types of power the groups involved in the conflict can use to enforce their viewpoint. The epistemic fundament cannot be supported using data or instrumental power,4 because these forms of power rely on arguments being perceived as valid in the first place. Different understandings of what constitutes a true fact render these kinds of power useless to convince those that hold a different epistemological view. The type of  The analysis of power types follows Heinrich Popitz’ work, which is described in Sect. 6.4.2.

4

144

8  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the Order of Their Conflict

power that corresponds with the epistemic fundaments is authoritative power, as it relates, in the case of Christianity, to god as the “great objectification of normative orders.”5 Nothing but the authority of god guarantees that his word is true, and all institutional and moral power conflicts in the field ultimately point back to the basic difference of whether people accept this authority or not. It is mainly due to the secularization of the United States political system that authoritative power claims cannot be directly enforced.6 This is why other means of power are necessary in order to enforce the authoritative claims to power. The institutions representing these claims exert power “because they can take something from others or give others something, and this enables them to formulate threats and promises that guide the others’ conduct.”7 This means they exert instrumental power in order to enforce the authoritative power claim, that is, in order to ultimately establish their own standards of viewing the world and what is good and bad. The social problems which are represented by the balloons are the object of a struggle where “power of data constitution” plays a core role. The social groups that make up the castles in Answers in Genesis’ image act in different social systems, such as the judicial, political, mass media, and educational spheres. There, they create facts that promote or impede these social evils. This means that in this realm power is exerted by constituting data, but this power is based on the instrumental power of institutions, which in turn is based on the authoritative power of the underlying philosophy. Thus, the layers of an argument can also be interpreted as a ‘causality of power.’ The image can also be interpreted as a justification for why Answers in Genesis is largely absent from many social areas, such as the educational system. Critics of creationism contend that the fact that most scientists reject it means that it is false. Answers in Genesis counters this argument by creating a framework where institutions that make such claims are merely one part of a larger issue. All social systems are ultimately bound to a moral frame of reference. If this is accepted as true, then the fact that secular scientists reject creationism ceases to be an issue of factual truth, and becomes a symptom of a moral deficit. Like Henry Morris in his historical account,8 Answers in Genesis does not deny that science exists as a social undertaking in its own right, and that what scientists say has something to do with their ability to collect and analyze facts. However, there are tight limits to what those facts mean, because science is embedded in a context that has nothing to do with science, but with an existential struggle between worldviews or elements of worldviews, such as the evolutionary principle, Humanism, or the Christian belief in god as the

 Popitz 2017, p. 14.  The notion of secularization is multi-faceted. Following Casanova’s distinction (Casanova 1994), it refers to the separation of religious and political action. This differentiation does not necessarily entail the privatization of religious convictions or the decline of religion altogether (which are the two other dimensions of Casanova’s notion of secularization). 7  Popitz 2017, p. 17. 8  See Sect. 7.1. 5 6

8.1  Order Construct of Young Earth Creationism

145

Fig. 8.2  The solution. The way in which answers in genesis envisions its social goal

creator of the world. Finally, it is possible to use the image to identify the illusio9 on which Answers in Genesis bases its participation in the conflict, that is, to discern its belief in the value of the social game it plays. It is a participant in a war in which it must defend itself (and Christianity) against the aggression of its opponents. This threat also renders legitimate their vision of a positive solution of the conflict. Answers in Genesis depicts this solution in another image (Fig. 8.2). Isaiah 58:12 reads “You shall raise up the foundations of many generations; And you shall be called the Repairer of the Breach.” (Isaiah 58:12 NKJV.) As long as all of Christianity does not accept Creationism as its fundament, there can be no lasting peace in society, because Humanism will continue to attack Christianity as long as it can. Of course, Answers in Genesis does not identify itself with all of Christianity. But the vision it has for Christianity, and particularly the Biblical reference that comments on this vision, renders the organization an avant-garde group within Christianity. It fights for a reformation that will ultimately be embraced by all Christians, and that will lead to a profound remaking of society. This means that this image is also a form of justification for the way in which Answers in Genesis takes part in the conflict.

 See Sect. 6.3.2.

9

146

8  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the Order of Their Conflict

8.2  Order Constructs of Nomatic Anti-Creationism On its website10 and in the book written by its former executive director on creationism,11 the National Center for Science Education presents an image of how it structures the conflict: the Creation/Evolution Continuum (Fig. 8.3). The image is structured by two lines. Along a diagonal line, different creationist and evolution-related positions stretch out between “Special Creation” and “Evolution”. The dotted horizontal line marks the point in the continuum that separates Young Earth from Old Earth positions. It is striking that the National Center for Science Education does not appear in its own order construct, which indicates a blind spot. On the other hand, there might be at least an indirect reference to its own position. In Sect. 4.2 we saw that nomatic anti-creationism has an ambiguous relationship with Theistic Evolution, which it sometimes presents as a theological view that is compatible with its own position. Even though the National Center for Science Education softened its endorsement of Theistic Evolution in reaction to criticism by anti-theistic anti-creationists,12 it is still fair to say that the position of the organization is somewhere between that of Progressive Creation, which posits the supernatural intervention of god, and atheistic evolution, which violates NOMA by extending science to the realm of the metaphysical (philosophical or ontological naturalism).13 Against the backdrop of the history of the conflict, it seems odd that Intelligent Design is not granted the status as an autonomous position in the image. Instead, the National Center for Science Education perceives it as merely as a form of expression of a number of “real” creationist positions, namely, of Young Earth, Gap, and

Fig. 8.3  The creation/evolution continuum by the national center for science education

 Scott 2000a.  Scott 2005, p. 57. 12  See Sect. 4.2.5. 13  See Sect. 5.1.4. 10 11

8.2  Order Constructs of Nomatic Anti-Creationism

147

Progressive Creationism. This is why the term is not listed in its own position, but written in quotation marks across part of the spectrum. This perspective is odd for several reasons. The Intelligent Design movement has formed autonomous institutions since the late 1990s. Its members criticize other creationist positions, among them those that the National Center for Science Education suggests it is part of. It is also criticized by groups representing these other forms of creationism. Finally, the National Center for Science Education has dealt with the movement as a distinct political force at least since the Kitzmiller trial in 2004. As opposed to Flat Eartherism, which is intellectually and institutionally marginalized, Intelligent Design is both a typical set of arguments and a distinct institutional structure, which is why it clearly is a “real” part of the conflict like the other positions mentioned in the image. There is a link between the absence of the National Center for Science Education’s own position and the denial of Intelligent Design as a real position. One aim of the center is to block creationist views from entering the public educational system. This is more difficult to achieve for some versions of creationism than for others. With regard to Young Earth Creationism, the center can point to a number of precedents that render its task relatively easy. This means that Young Earth Creationism has lost most of its risk potential, since creationist political initiatives do not refer to Creation Science or Biblical creationism anymore. The situation is more difficult with regard to Intelligent Design. There is no Supreme Court ruling concerning this variant of creationism, which is why anti-creationist statements against Intelligent Design have a different status than those against Young Earth Creationism. The court rulings against Creation Science release anti-creationism from the need to elaborate further on its rejection of this form of creationism entering the public school system. This is not the case for Intelligent Design. Even after the Kitzmiller ruling, legislative initiatives in a number of states aimed to implement Intelligent Design or arguments critical of evolution that were developed by its representatives.14 This means that to the National Center for Science Education, Intelligent Design is a particularly problematic form of creationism, since it is not yet sufficiently labeled creationist by the relevant social institutions, such as courts. In the terminology of Bourdieu’s capital theory,15 there still is a relatively high chance that Intelligent Design, in contrast to other forms of creationism, can receive recognition (symbolic capital) for the forms of cultural capital it acquires in the form of publications, academic credentials, etc. This difference from other forms of creationism can be observed in the way in which different social groups, some religious, some secular, grant recognition to the output of the movement.16 On the other hand, the  One example for this is Tennessee’s law HB0368, which claims that issues such as evolution, global warming and cloning are controversial, and that teachers are obliged to present the „scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories“. This includes the possibility to make use of Intelligent Design textbooks such as Explore Evolution (Meyer et al. 2007) and Discovering Intelligent Design (Kemper et  al. 2013). An article series about the “Tennessee Monkey Bill” is provided by the National Center for Science Education (n.d.-a). 15  See Sect. 6.4. 16  This kind of “consecration “can take many forms, for instance, positive reviews in secular media (see West 2009) or collaborations with secular scientists (see Stewart 2007). 14

148

8  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the Order of Their Conflict

movement is not burdened by the negative recognition of a Supreme Court decision along the lines of the Kitzmiller ruling. Against this backdrop, the fact that the National Center for Science Education does not recognize Intelligent Design as an independent position appears to be an attempt to diminish its legitimacy, which is similar to other attempts by the center’s members to show links between Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism.17 Another order construct by a member of the National Center for Science Education explains how this strategy against Intelligent Design is linked to the absence of the center in its Creation/Evolution Continuum. This second order construct was sketched by the former director of the center, Eugenie Scott, during an interview where we discussed the development of the conflict in the United States, and the history of the National Center for Science Education in particular. The first of the two images below (Fig.  8.4) shows the original sketch by Scott, which is

Fig. 8.4  Eugenie Scott’s order construct

17

 See Sect. 3.1.1.

8.2  Order Constructs of Nomatic Anti-Creationism

149

Fig. 8.5  Eugenie Scott’s order construct (schematic depiction by the author). From top to bottom, its three layers are the “ideological garden” containing a range of theistic and non-theistic philosophies, the “first soil” level containing all “sorts of human enterprise” such as science and theology, and the “second soil” level representing “critical thinking”, which supports the middle level

schematized for better clarity in Fig. 8.5. This is followed by Scott’s explanation of her sketch which she gave during the interview.18 Eugenie Scott: Here we have flowers. Now, we know from biology that these flowers are in competition with each other, right? They are in competition for sunlight and for nutrients, and for avoiding herbicides [laughs] or whatever. […] Let’s say this is an ideological garden, and you have non-theistic ideologies, theistic ideologies, and they’re in competition with each other. The Catholics are in competition with the Protestants, and the Christians are in competition with the Muslims, or the Hindus, and the theists are in competition with the agnostics and humanists […]. But, just like in the case of organic flowers, we have down here the soil, and comparably with the ideological garden, we have science. Now, the theists claim that science nourishes their view, the atheists claim, the non-theists claim that science nourishes their view. And that is true. The plants are not in competition with the soil. The ideologies are not in competition with science, they’re in competition with each other. And this I think is a clearer way to think about it. [...] But it gets worse than that, because science is only one sort of human enterprise. There is also things like history and there is things like theology. There are fields like the social sciences […], all of which derive from critical thinking. Critical thinking is the soil so to speak that nourishes science, that nourishes history, that nourishes theology, that

 The transcription of the interview glosses over some repetitions and other bumps that are common in non-scripted conversations. Emphasized words are in italics, omissions are marked by the symbol […].

18

150

8  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the Order of Their Conflict

nourishes any kind of intellectual enterprise of that nature. [...] [J]ust like atheism doesn’t own science, science doesn’t own critical thinking. Critical thinking is sort of the foundation for all of these enterprises. And of you want to argue about non-­ theistic philosophies versus theistic religions: fine. Let that argument take place up here [points at the flowers]. Don’t have it take place down here [points to “science”]. Because science is an equal-opportunity way of knowing [laughs] that can nourish both theological as well as non-theological philosophies and when I say “Leave science out of the culture wars”, this is what I’m thinking of. Tom Kaden: Thank you. So where’s the NCSE in this? Is it a flower? Eugenie Scott: No, not at all. No, we’re not an ideology. I hope, NCSE is here [laughs] [adds National Center for Science Education]. NCSE is an enterprise that tries to take advantage of critical thinking, science, and that we, you know, what, and the ideological, the ideological garden up above the others. Tom Kaden: Uh-huh. So it’s all over the place. Eugenie Scott: Yeah, we draw from all of that. But we’re not a descendent of any of them.19 Scott’s sketch is similar to Answers in Genesis’ image The Problem in some respects. Both have three levels: Balloons  – Castle  – Fundament (Answers in Genesis), and Garden – Soil 1 – Soil 2 (Eugenie Scott). Scott’s Garden and the soil directly beneath it, and Answers in Genesis’ castles and their fundaments refer to the same objects. Both point to foundational principles of thought (fundaments and soil) which express themselves in the form of social systems or ideologies (Humanism/Christianity and “ideological flowers”). This means that two leading creationist and anti-creationist groups resemble each other in the way they perceive the conflict. Beyond these resemblances, there are characteristic differences. Compared with Eugenie Scott’s sketch, Answers in Genesis expands their conflict description “above” the two shared levels, adding a level of moral and social consequences (balloons) of the ideological divide. This level is not taken into consideration by the National Center for Science Education. Instead, they add a level “beneath” the two shared levels (“critical thinking”), which serves as a foundation to the foundation. Though these expansions are different, they share a common feature: in contrast to the other two levels, both “critical thinking” and the social evils identified by Answers in Genesis are based on norms. Of course, the selection of social issues Answers in Genesis places in the balloons is guided by their disapproval of these issues. Likewise, Eugenie Scott’s emphasis on critical thinking as the common foundation of science, theology, history (and other social systems and intellectual disciplines) is normative. The analysis of what kinds of power the groups in the field use laid bare the fact that many creationists refer to authoritative power, and these references are the exact opposite of critical thinking, because they allude to something that can never be questioned by critical thinking. This means that Scott’s most foundational level is not actually a description of what is factually going on in the conflict, but a value judgment of what should be the basis of all 19

 Interview of Eugenie Scott by Tom Kaden, 14.05.2012 (see appendix).

8.3 Discussion

151

legitimate positions (and beyond the field). If Scott’s vision were to become true, creationists and others who refer to ultimate authority in order to justify their claims to power would be excluded from the entire discourse. In sum, Scott’s order construct consists of a normative fundament that supports social intellectual spheres or projects, and these in turn feed into all kinds of ideologies. All sorts of empirical linkages between the three levels are possible, but Scott rules out some as illegitimate. She says that critical thinking is not exclusive to science, and science is not exclusively connected with certain theistic or non-theistic ideologies. In a sense, then, Scott’s order construct is the exact opposite, namely, an attempt to criticize and dissolve fixed understandings of order between the levels. In her mind, there is no ‘natural” link between the elements of the levels, and those who insist that there is fail to see how things truly are. Still, the National Center for Science Education, like any other creationist or anti-creationist group, distinguishes between positions it accepts and those that it rejects. When asked for clarification, Scott concedes this, but she places her organization on the margin, “besides” the actual creationist/anti-creationist realm of action. As in the Creation/Evolution Continuum, the center is reluctant to position itself among the groups and positions it deals with on an everyday basis. Based on our analysis, we can understand why this is the case. Applying the logic of Scott’s sketch to the Continuum image, it becomes clear that all positions listed there are distinct connections between the middle and upper level of the sketch. They all represent certain ideas of how science and belief go together, and they all exclude, explicitly or not, other ways of linking the two. In Scott’s mind, this fixed link between any “sort of human enterprise” and any “ideological flower” is illegitimate. This bad way of establishing fixed links is not only valid for all creationist positions, as well as for Theistic Evolution, it is also practiced by scientific atheism, which links science and a particular ideology from the vantage point of science by claiming that the scientific method can decide which ideology is true, and which ideologies cannot be true. If the National Center for Science Education placed itself in either of those two order constructs, it would counteract its goal to dissolve fixed links. Put in practical terms, it would go against its aim to dissolve the field by arguing against the positions of all other groups that populate it. This means that both graphic representations of the conflict by the National Center for Science Education are complex depictions of the NOMA principle.

8.3  Discussion Our analysis of the way in which the groups describe their conflict can help us understand their perspective. Bourdieu’s theory helps sociologists distance themselves from what happens in the field, and to take a bird’s eye view of the conflict, which enables them to discern what mechanisms and strategies have been and are currently used to shape the creationist/anti-creationist landscape. But the field also enables us to put ourselves in the shoes of particular groups, and to try to see their

152

8  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Views on the Order of Their Conflict

social environment the way they do. In other words, we can re-enter the field and describe what we see from any particular perspective. This approach enables us to see that the order constructs discussed in this chapter are maps the groups draw to orient themselves in the field. At the same time, there is an argument for the soundness of the concept if the attempt to rephrase the groups’ own positions in a way that is acceptable and coherent is successful. If we interpret the order constructs of the groups as maps that describe the conflict as they see it, we can understand why they are structured the way they are. When we looked at Answers in Genesis’ image The Problem, we saw that it is based on an overarching dualism between Humanism and Christianity. But this is not the only conflict discernible in the image, and maybe not even the one that is most pressing for Answers in Genesis. This is because there is dissent among Christians regarding the importance of the conflict with Humanism, as well as the proper means to engage in this conflict. When we try to see the social world from the vantage point of Answers in Genesis as a key player in the field, we can see why this twofold conflict exists, and why The Problem is structured the way it is. Answers in Genesis perceives opposition to its own view about how the world was created by god as coming from the same “direction”, that being where nature is granted a bigger role than Answers in Genesis finds acceptable. This is what such diverse groups as Old Earth Creationists, Theistic Evolutionists, New Atheists and Intelligent Design proponents have in common, and Answers in Genesis grants supreme importance to this commonality. Still, the group is able to perceive some groups as closer to it, and others as farther away. Some groups, such as Old Earth Creationists, see natural processes at work where Answers in Genesis sees only god. But they do not deny god’s existence. This is not the case for the New Atheists, who deny that god exists, and argue for a naturalistic explanation of religion. When looking around in the field, Answers in Genesis perceives its competition as similar and different at the same time. Both aspects went into its social map, which would have been drawn differently if other groups were part of Answers in Genesis’ social life as a combatant in the creation/evolution controversy. The extent to which the social place of a group shapes its “worldview” can be seen via a comparison with the National Center for Science Education’s order constructs. They have the same function, and they also depend on the place the group has in the field. The crucial structural difference between the two groups is that the National Center for Science Education, when looking around the field, perceives opposition to its own view not from one direction, but from many sides. The views of the opponents of NOMA do not all perceive the same aspect of the reference question differently than the National Center for Science Education. Instead, the group is confronted with creationists who grant god an overwhelming authority in explaining the world, and with anti-theistic groups that violate the center’s view from a completely different direction by granting nature autonomy not only about the “realm of nature”, but also about spiritual and religious matters. Both camps violate NOMA, but they do so in opposite ways.

8.3 Discussion

153

The National Center for Science Education must draw a more complex map in order to capture this complex structure of opposition, and the fact that it must always “look around” a full 360 degrees in order to capture the entirety of its adversaries. This is why the Creation/Evolution Continuum is virtually free of dualistic terms. It is the result of the National Center for Science Education “looking around” in the field. The diagonal line that structures the Continuum is identical with the view the group has when it starts looking at the lower left corner of the field turning right until it reaches the upper right corner. When compared with how Answers in Genesis distinguishes between opponents that are closer to its own position (dissenting Christians on the castle) and those that are farther away (humanists on the other castle), it is striking how similar all groups or positions are presented in the Creation/ Evolution Continuum. The reason for this is that the National Center for Science Education argues against the establishment of fixed links between scientific views and worldviews. NOMA is opposed to all other positions based on the conviction that science and religion occupy logically different planes. This is why the group does not pick and choose in its social map between those groups that are closer and those that are farther away. They all make the same mistake, regardless of whether they are “scientific” creationists or “scientific” atheists. While they appear fundamentally different at first glance, the order constructs of creationist and anti-creationist groups are based on their common situation as players in the same field. They are the result of similar operations of those groups, namely, of them “looking around” in their social environment. The field model can also explain why this common situation leads to the differences in the outcome of the groups’ social perception. The analysis thus leads to more than just an abstract way of understanding the mechanisms at work, but it also enables us to take the view of the groups themselves, and to see their social reality the way they do.

Chapter 9

Creationist and Anti-Creationist Exemplar Constructs

Some creationist and anti-creationist publications feature ideal or exemplary persons. These persons are often fictitious literary creations, but sometimes they are real people1 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.2 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.3 1  An example of a creationist output that only makes use of real people is the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Frankowski 2008), which aims to show how scientists sympathetic with Intelligent Design are systematically discriminated against at their home academic institutions by the Darwinist establishment. 2  Morris (1984), pp. 45–78; Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture [1998], p. 1; cf. Evans and Evans 2010. 3  See Sect. 5.1.3.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_9

155

156

9  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Exemplar Constructs

9.1  T  he Camper Wendy in Men in White (Young Earth Creationism) The short (23 min) film Men in White4 was produced by Answers in Genesis in 2007 to be shown in the Creation Museum’s own special effects cinema.5 Wendy is a young camper who is present in the theatre as an animated life-size doll. She sits next to her camp fire and looks at the screen with her back to the audience. The scene she and the audience see on the screen is the nocturnal Monument Valley (see Fig. 9.1). The audience can see Wendy throughout the film and since they sit behind her on their seats, they have her perspective. The viewers are also made part of what happens on the screen by a number of special effects. The seats vibrate during scenes that involve shocks. During scenes with rapid movement, wind blows through the movie theater, and when the film depicts the Genesis flood, water drizzles from the ceiling.6 This synesthetic dimension must be taken into consideration when viewing the DVD version of the film, because it was originally created only to be viewed at the Creation Museum. The film begins with a brief scene of the desolate Monument Valley with the crackling camp fire as the only sound. Wendy asks herself three questions. „Does anybody even know I’m here? Is there any meaning? Did God create all this or did we just invent God?” After each question, the camp fire produces smoke signals that

Fig. 9.1  Wendy the camper at the campfire with Monument Valley at night in the background (screenshot)

 Answers in Genesis 2007.  See Sect. 3.1.2. 6  This is an important aspect of the „hyperreal“ depiction of religious and particularly Biblical content which characterizes the presentation of creationism in the Creation Museum. See Kelly and Hoerl 2012. 4 5

9.1  The Camper Wendy in Men in White (Young Earth Creationism)

157

mirror an aspect of Wendy’s thought. During the first question, it depicts a question mark, the second is accompanied by the word “why”, and during the third, the word “god” appears. After this, two angels – the Men in White – appear that guide the viewer through the movie’s points, which serve to stir Wendy’s thinking in a particular direction. Throughout the film, the communication setting is complex. What the angels say can be regarded as an answer to Wendy’s questions, and they sometimes speak to her directly. But Wendy only speaks again near the end of the movie, and she does not directly refer to anything the angels say. There is no direct communication between the angels and Wendy. Still, her final monologue indicates that the angels’ points have made an impact on her thinking, stirring her away from naturalistic skepticism. In addition, there are other speakers who appear during the film, such as Wendy’s biology professor who attempts to indoctrinate her with his anti-religious evolutionary ideology. The angels also break the fourth wall by addressing the viewer directly, talking about Wendy in the third person. You folks are living in an age where God’s word is being ignored. […] People like Wendy are being taught that life is just an accident. […] Just think how it could change her life if Wendy found out that there really is purpose and meaning to her existence.

The angels first try to make Wendy aware of the beauty and complexity of god’s creation. When Wendy appears unconvinced, one of the angels assumes that she is not listening to them. When Wendy continues her inner monologue by saying “Life is probably just a big accident, a predictable result of an infinite number of matter-­ antimatter asymmetric collisions,” the other angel responds: „Oh, she’s listening, Mike. Just not to you. The problem is she can’t stop listening to the voices of her culture.” The film then continues with a depiction of those cultural voices, among them Wendy’s biology professor, a journalist, and a scientist. While the communication situation is complex, it still displays a basic dualist structure. The angels act as god’s voice, and the “cultural voices” form a coherent secular opposition against this godly message. At the same time, these two voices are present in Wendy’s head, and act out a fight over her spirit, soul, and worldview. In line with the creationist conviction that evolution and creation are worldviews, the conflict is presented as an inner struggle that demands a personal decision. In all this, Answers in Genesis does not neglect the epistemic, or fact-related, dimension of the conflict. As a response to Wendy’s skepticism, the angels retell the Biblical first chapters of Genesis until the end of the flood, when god makes a rainbow appear as a symbol of his new covenant with mankind (Gen 9:13). After this, Wendy is heard asking herself: „The rainbow, how pretty. Isn’t it supposed to stand for something?“ One of the angels responds: „Yes, yes, yes, yes, Wendy. It’s in the Bible, it’s all in the Bible. When you start to look at the world through the perspective the Bible gives, then all kinds of things start to make sense.” This scene is followed by a lengthy discussion that the angels, dressed as students, have with Wendy’s biology professor about the age of the earth, dating methods, and criticism of evolutionary theory. At the end of this, Wendy remains undecided: “Evolution or creation, I don’t know. I guess there could be a God. But

158

9  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Exemplar Constructs

I don’t want people to think I’m stupid.” In their response, the angels touch upon her indecision, but they address the audience directly: Angel 1: Hey folks, life isn’t meaningless. The universe isn’t random and the future isn’t void ‘cause you have hope through Jesus Christ. Angel 2: If people dismiss the record of Genesis and God’s act of creation, then they can pretend God doesn’t exist, that God never existed. Angel 1: No, he exists, trust us, but who’s gonna trust a couple of angels. Angel 2: Well it’d be better people would listen to God’s word. God hadn’t sent Mike and me down to talk to humans in a long, long time. He’s talking through His word all the time. People can’t hear us, but they can hear you, and they might actually listen to you. Angel 1: It’s up to you to study God’s word. Learn as much as you can. Now, some of you should be teaching this truth. – Some of you should start listening. Angel 2: The answers are available, if you really want ‘em. After this final speech, the angels ascend back to heaven and the film ends. Wendy can be regarded as an exemplary person that represents one of Answers in Genesis’ core audiences and its raison d’être. To win over people like Wendy to the cause of creationism is a principle means to reform society in the creationists’ sense. This representativeness of Wendy even leads to the angels taking her thoughts for the audience’s. They address the audience when they respond to a question Wendy asked. In a way, Wendy and the angels are talking past each other, but Answers in Genesis sees Wendy’s mind as similar to that of the audience it envisages. Overall, Wendy appears as passive, ideologically undecided, and dependent on outside guidance. She continues to display these traits until the very end of the movie. Wendy is clearly influenced by the knowledge of secular science, which she interprets in an anti-religious way. In a situation where she thinks about the meaning of the cosmos and the existence of god, she refers to her knowledge about the origin of life and the age of the universe. She perceives creation and evolution as two opposed principles, and in this she is in agreement with how Young Earth Creationism views the world, as we saw in their history and order constructs. The view that creation and evolution are universal ideologies that cannot be further substantiated is closely linked with Wendy’s indecision. For everyone who is not firmly attached to one view or the other, all worldly knowledge from all kinds of disciplines is ultimately uncertain. As long as there is no decision for one fundament or the other, every factual statement is only a vague indicator, and can always be reinterpreted. This is what the angels attempt when they refer to the rainbow and many other aspects of science. This means that questions of fact are important, but they are not the ultimate criterion that decides the conflict, since they are always subject to ideological interpretation. What counts is how one answers the general question about the meaning of life, which is asked by Wendy at the beginning, and answered by the angels near the end of the movie. In the language of neo-­ Kantianism,7 this general question of meaning is the question of what value  See Chap. 7.

7

9.2  The Student Jay and Other Students in the TrueU Series (Intelligent Design)

159

a­ pplications are reasonable and right. In Men in White, the epistemic question (What is true?) is embedded in the moral question (What is good?). The institutional question (Who speaks?) also depends on the moral question, because representatives of secular institutions such as journalists, teachers, and scientists are revealed by the angels to be agents of a relativistic worldview. Wendy is a morally sensitive person who is integrated in secular institutions, but not (yet) convinced of the ideology they transmit. When placed in the historic struggle between evolutionism and creationism,8 she does not stand firmly on the side of evolutionism. Also, she does not accept Humanism without question.9 She can still be won over to the Biblical worldview. She might be convinced of this through criticism of particular scientific truth claims, such as the theory of the naturalistic origin of life. But the goal of Answers in Genesis to influence the worldview of people like Wendy is only partially pursued through references to facts and data.10 This is because the way in which data are interpreted is, in Answers in Genesis’ view, always dependent upon an appeal to Wendy’s “need for standards”11 and, for Answers in Genesis, the Bible provides the ultimate standard by which to measure everything that can be said about the world. Before the angels speak to an undecided Wendy, an unidentified speaker recites a quote from the Bible: „For the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead, so that men are without excuse.”12 In this case, Answers in Genesis perceives the conflict first and foremost as moral, with facts and their interpretation being of only secondary importance. Consequently, they emphasize authoritative means of power, and the facts they cite to convince Wendy are also only of secondary importance as, in their view, they can only convince her once she has accepted Biblical authority. Answers in Genesis uses Wendy to create a vision of the plausibility of this order of relevance. The following example stems from the Intelligent Design movement, and it displays characteristic differences.

9.2  T  he Student Jay and Other Students in the TrueU Series (Intelligent Design) In Sect. 6.4.1, we discussed the capital structure of the creationist/anti-creationist conflict field. It became apparent that the objectified cultural capital (that is, the material output of the groups) is not exclusively “scientific” or “religious”, but always amalgamated. This means that the scientific qualification of an individual  See Sect. 7.1.  See Sect. 8.1. 10  See Sect. 6.4.2. 11  Popitz 2017, p. 14; see Chap. 6. 12  Romans 1:20. 8 9

160

9  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Exemplar Constructs

player is constantly cited in order to support their position on religious matters, and that the legitimacy of a dogmatic statement (such as the inerrancy of the Bible or the belief in a personal creator god) is permanently used to support science-related statements. “Science” and “religion” are always intertwined in the actions of the groups that participate in the conflict (this is what I called the “synthetic principle”, the foundational rule or nomos of the field). Both are also always intertwined in the forms of capital the groups use to wage this conflict. In Sect. 6.4.1, we used the example of the TrueU DVD series to provide an example of how this capital amalgamation works. In this series, the director of the Center for Science and Culture, Stephen C.  Meyer, simultaneously acts as a scientific teacher, an apologist for Christianity, and as a shepherd of the souls of young people. He uses his nature-­ related knowledge to answer the questions Does God Exist (DVD 1) and Is the Bible Reliable? (DVD 2) affirmatively, employing biological and archeological expertise. Before both DVDs were published, a video advertising the series was uploaded to YouTube, which depicts the situation of young people at public colleges. It is entitled The Toughest Test in College, and uses the student Jay, as well as some other students, to point out a range of problems young Christians can encounter when entering institutions of higher education.13 The film aims to be as realistic as possible, which situates it somewhere between literary fiction and realistic documentary. The depicted scenes are said to be based on real events, and Jay comments on minor differences to what actually happened when he reenacts episodes of him entering college. While Wendy’s integration in the public educational system is portrayed in a profoundly negative light, Jay’s and the other students’ situation is depicted much more positively. While it is clear that Wendy is a student, she is not called that in Men in White. In contrast, Jay and the other young people are referred to as students, and are characterized by their recollections of college situations. While Wendy passively suffers from the anti-religious dogma she encounters at school, the students created by the Intelligent Design movement are active parts of the public educational system. Consequently, the problems they encounter are to a greater extent tailored towards their social roles. Their reproductions cover all conflict levels, as identified by Evans and Evans,14 as they talk about conflicts surrounding facts and their interpretation, but also about issues of morality and institutional integration. At the beginning of the film, a collage shows several professors making factual statements that are at odds with the Christian worldview as it is championed by Jay and Focus on the Family. One professor refers to Richard Dawkins’ statement that “[i]t is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”15 He comments that he is inclined to agree with Dawkins. Another teacher shows the amazed students a mouse, telling them that this is “one of your  Focus on the Family 2008.  Evans and Evans 2008. 15  Dawkins 1989a. 13 14

9.2  The Student Jay and Other Students in the TrueU Series (Intelligent Design)

161

closest relatives”. In these instances, statements presented as factually true are rejected or called into question by Jay. To maintain one’s religious convictions under these circumstances is the “Toughest Test in College”. But similar problems occur on the moral level. Jay and other students report activities on campus that are at odds with their Christian moral convictions. These concern mostly sex, alcohol, and drug use. As a consequence, some students feel isolated, because they would not participate in this immoral behavior. None of the students report having given in to the anti-Christian culture, but were successful in maintaining their convictions despite the immense pressure to conform. The film presents the institutional conflict dimension separately. One student, Emily Brooker, recalls having been assigned group work as part of a course in Social Work, in which she had to argue in favor of homosexuals’ right to adopt children. When she asked for a different assignment, she was summoned to a faculty committee hearing, and had to sign a contract obligating her to cooperate in the course of her studies at Missouri State University. After her studies ended, she sued the university, which led to the university’s director apologizing, and one professor being dismissed. Del Tackett, who created the TrueU series as part of Focus on the Family’s Truth Project, comments on this episode: I really believe that a high school student going into this environment – if they are prepared, and if they approach it with the wisdom and the winsomeness that, I think, God has called us to – that they can not only survive, but they can be a redeeming and reforming force that could have huge impact on the professors and on the students that they are engaging in that environment.

The angels in Men in White recommend that Wendy withdraw and protect herself against the assaults of the secular culture. By contrast, the creators of The Toughest Test in College see the possibility of an active religious transformation of the secular space. Indeed, the ability of Answers in Genesis to put forward such an active and engaged ideal subject is limited because of legal constraints. There could be no Emily Brooker successfully representing a Young Earth position. In the case of Intelligent Design, the question of whether its claims can be asserted legally in public educational institutions has still not been definitively answered. The content of its program does not collide with the norms set by the educational system in as stark a way as Young Earth Creationism. Consequently, Emily Brooker proudly reports that she attained her diploma despite her difficulties. She accepts the diploma as a form of objectified cultural capital, which renders the position of the institution granting it fundamentally legitimate. Just like Men in White, The Toughest Test in College shows how the abilities of the people represented agree with the conflict situation of the group that creates them. The person advocating Intelligent Design in the public sphere is much more active, and shows a lot more initiative, than the person who withdraws (or, as is the case for Wendy, still has to be convinced to withdraw) from the public sphere as a result of their biblical inerrantism. In contrast, the students in The Toughest Test in College can assert themselves autonomously at all levels of conflict. While Wendy, in the eyes of the angels, blindly follows an ideology whose relativity she does not seem to be aware of, Jay and his fellow students are not passive victims of secular-

162

9  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Exemplar Constructs

ism and, consequently, they do not have to adopt a stance of fundamental opposition towards it. They are active parts in a cultural battle, and part of the very system that is portrayed exclusively as a dangerous environment by Young Earth Creationism. As a consequence, their means of action are much more multi-faceted than the angels’ suggestion to Wendy that she listen more to god’s word. They can organize together, and even take legal action against worldview-based paternalism. The final analysis of a groups’ exemplar construct displays the same link to the group’s field position.

9.3  T  he College Student Angela Rawlett in The Evolution Dialogues (Nomatic Anti–Creationism) In the creationist/anti-creationist conflict field, the position of nomatic anti-­ creationism is much more complex than the position of Young Earth Creationism, whose perception of itself and of its opponents can be reduced to a dualistic us-vs.them. In contrast, the groups that represent NOMA cannot characterize their opponents as similar and, consequently, it is hard for them to portray themselves as being opposed to them in one way, but must address each with separate arguments. We already saw how this situation can be traced in statements that deal with the order of the conflict.16 The same increased complexity can be expected where the groups make use of subjects whose situation is supposed to exemplify the conflict situation. At the same time, the fact that groups representing NOMA and groups representing Intelligent Design take quite similar positions in the conflict field,17 suggests that the ideal subjects they construe might share structural similarities as well. The book that features the exemplary subject Angela Rawlett is The Evolution Dialogues: Science, Christianity, and the Quest for Understanding, which was published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2006.18 The book is a joint statement by various groups representing nomatic anti-creationism. It was issued by a national educational institution, and among the advisors who oversaw its production were Eugenie C. Scott, who at the time directed the National Center for Science Education, and the cell biologist Kenneth Miller, who is an active anti-creationist, author of Finding Darwin’s God, and a longstanding participant in creation/evolution debates.19 Angela Rawlett’s story serves as the framework for the argument made in the book. She is a religious college student from a rural background who has just commenced her studies in biology, and is confronted with various views pertaining to the relationship between science and religion. This set Section 8.2.  See Chap. 6. To reiterate the point made there, this structural similarity does not mean that both positions are comparable regarding their content, or regarding the status of their views as scientific or religious. 18  Baker 2006. 19  Cf. the list of individuals and organizations that participated in the making of the book in Baker 2006, pp. 5–7. 16 17

9.3  The College Student Angela Rawlett in The Evolution Dialogues (Nomatic…

163

ting allows for the presentation of clear-cut positions toward the reference problem of how god and nature relate. These positions have a particular influence on Angela’s thinking, and she relates to them in an exemplary way. At the beginning of the first chapter, Angela is confronted with two contradictory positions. In a course on anatomy, she works together with a student who mocks the cross she wears on a necklace. “You’re one of those capital ‘C’ Christians, huh?”, he said, smirking. “You believe all that stuff about the Garden of Eden and the 6 days of creation? I’ll bet you think megalodon was washed away in Noah’s Flood instead of going extinct.“.20

After the course, Angela reflects on this comment: There was a familiar ring to them, she realized. Her father gives her grief like that, but of a different sort. […] She had mentioned that the cow is a close relative of the whale […]. “What nonsense you speak!” her father had replied. “Honestly, Angela, I don’t know why you would believe that. We know where the whale came from. God put it there, in the water.”21

Both positions are indeed similar in a way. Both refer to causal explanations of parts of the world (the megalodon and the whale) either through natural processes (extinction of the megalodon and the evolutionary development of the whale) or through the direct intervention of god (the Genesis flood and god’s creation). Both positions have in common that they view the two causal explanations as mutually exclusive. An explanation that relies on natural processes rules out god’s action, and vice versa. Moreover, both views are presented in a confrontational or polemical way. Both are represented by persons who are part of Angela’s primary or secondary socialization. This has the effect that, on her subjective level, the conflict between these extreme positions regarding the reference question appears as a conflict of loyalty. Angela’s first reaction to this tension is to try to avoid the issue altogether. She asks to skip the biology course that teaches evolution. Her academic teacher and the university chaplain convince her to take the course, and both argue in favor of a nomatic position. After Angela has learned about the evolutionary mechanisms, she approaches her teacher and asks how god could have used such cruel means to create life. Speaking as a scientist, I cannot answer the question of why we live in an imperfect world where death and destruction coexist with life and beauty. […] I can only attempt to figure out what happens in this world and how nature produces the results it does.22

The magisterium of science is separated in this statement from the realm of “why” questions. This constitutes a rejection not only of theists, who want to take the “results of nature” from the realm of science and instead make them the result of god’s activity, but also of anti-theists who aim to make statements about why nature is the way it is based on scientific knowledge. The university chaplain sup Baker 2006, pp. 10–11.  Ibid. 22  Baker 2006, p. 112. 20 21

164

9  Creationist and Anti-Creationist Exemplar Constructs

ports this nomatic view from the vantage point of religion. When Angela asks him how an evolutionary explanation of religion can go together with belief in god, he answers: There may be a plausible explanation of religion as a product of cultural development. […] But so what if we are able to explain how the love of God is mediated in the evolved brain? What does it say about the truth of that love? […] Maybe it happened like that.23

This view alludes to the position of Theistic Evolution, which identifies the natural evolutionary process with god’s will. But the decisive word in the chaplain’s statement is “maybe,” since it guarantees the stability of the NOMA position as advocated by a representative of religion. The world of natural processes does not provide conclusive evidence for the activity of god or his intention. This means that a theistic interpretation of nature is possible, but it is removed from scientific explanations of the world to the extent that science can proceed completely autonomously. In the course of the term, Angela’s fear of dealing with issues that potentially threaten her beliefs is gradually replaced by a confident stance towards scientific theories and their religious implications. At the end of the book, Angela draws a conclusion: The study of evolution keeps drawing bigger and bigger question marks next to the word of God in my brain. But I don’t mind that anymore. I kind of like the thinking that the questions make me do.24

This stance can be regarded as the subjective version of the institutional NOMA position. Angela’s attitude guarantees the autonomy of science, as well as its inability to threaten religious worldviews. The book shows again the affinity between NOMA and Theistic Evolution. Angela Rawlett is by far the most autonomous among the subjects analyzed in this chapter. She is emancipated from exclusivist worldviews like creationism and anti-theism that threatened to hamper her curiosity. Moreover, gaining more knowledge is presented as a factor that stabilizes her view instead of calling it into question. Just as in Wendy’s case, this process is the result of the application of specific kinds of capital, and the effect of specific kinds of power. The exclusivist positions Angela encounters, such as those held by her fellow student and by her father, are based on authoritative sources of power (rationality and the Bible, respectively). By contrast, her professor and the chaplain avoid references of this kind. Instead, they display an assessing attitude towards a variety of (theological and scientific) data. As a participant in the conflict surrounding creationism in the United States, NOMA and groups advocating it stand for the institutional separation of science and religion. This separation is mirrored in Angela’s ability to endure the tension of both spheres, and even see it as a chance to attain a clearer understanding of her own worldview. In contrast to the other exemplar constructs, the account offered by nomatic anti-creationism includes a utopian resolution of the conflict. 23 24

 Ibid.  Ebd., S. 152.

9.4 Discussion

165

9.4  Discussion Wendy, Jay and his fellow students, and Angela are subjects created by professional creationist and anti-creationist groups. They are young people who find themselves in a situation of worldview conflict that results from being part of the public educational system. This similarity points to the fact that all groups acknowledge the fact that the American educational sector lacks regulation that would preclude these conflicts.25 This is the external factor that guarantees their shared illusio, that is, their drive to participate in the conflict in the first place.26 We saw that there is a link between the ways in which the groups answer the reference question, and the ways their exemplary subjects mirror the conflict field, the definition of the problem, and possible or preferred ways of resolving the conflict. The exemplar constructs also reveal the limits of the groups’ ability to enforce their positions in a legitimate way. They all aspire to complete symbolic dominance,27 but they have to rely on different types of capital, whose symbolic recognition they pursue. Since they are predominantly focused on the public educational system, legal questions are of particular importance to the attainment of legitimacy. Wendy needs to be convinced of a position that is not legal to represent in public curricula since Edwards v. Aguillard.28 By contrast, Angela is deals with (and eventually accepts) views that are not legally contestable in the American educational system. Finally Jay and Emily are in a legal grey zone. Since Kitzmiller v. Dover, Intelligent Design has been deprived of some of its legitimacy, but a Supreme Court decision that would provide definitive legal status has still not occurred. These fundamental differences of the legal status of the positions have an effect on how the exemplary subjects are constructed, and what kind of decision they have to make according to their creators. The rule seems to be that legal illegitimacy leads to groups portraying the educational system as particularly illegitimate or problematic. When the position a group takes is legally barred from entering the schools and universities, the group will portray what happens in that sphere as particularly bad and illegitimate. If the group’s position is legal, the educational system that allows its representation is portrayed as legitimate. Intelligent Design takes an uncertain position in this regard, which is mirrored in the mix of acceptance and resistance displayed by Jay and Emily. Although negative images of atheistic and anti-Christian professors, as well as immoral behavior permeate Jay’s account, the film ends with a legal victory. In this, there is the possibility of an eventual legal legitimation of Intelligent Design, which has long been denied Young Earth Creationism, and which does not need to be pursued by NOMA.

 See Sect. 4.2.2.  See Sect. 6.3.2. 27  See Sect. 6.4. 28  See Sect. 3.1. 25 26

Chapter 10

Conclusion

When I started writing this book, I had a lot of questions about creationism in the United States, and I think that by the time I finished my research, I was able to give some possible answers. I had been somewhat dissatisfied with theories that see creationism as part or even as a mere symptom of a broader political or religious resurgence, because I felt that these do not sufficiently explain why the conflict developed exactly the way it did. When I reviewed the history of the conflict, I found there to be several mutual adaptations of creationists and of their opponents to each other. Most importantly, I found that these mutual adaptations led to splits on the creationist as well as on the anti-creationist side. So rather than speaking of a broad conflict between two sides, it appeared to me that there is a whole range of different groups, and each is in some conflict with all others for various reasons. All groups perceive their activity as a reaction to an attack. As long as creationists had the hope of gaining or maintaining access to the public educational system, they concealed the religious foundations of their views ever more thoroughly. The dynamic that drove this process has been mainly induced by court decisions. As each effort failed, tactics were modified to whatever extent they felt necessary to possibly prevail in future decisions. The anti-creationists, too, react to crises, which they identify as the increased public activity of creationists, such as the Creation Science initiative of the 1970s and 1980s. The activities of anti-creationists are also strongly influenced by court decisions, which they try to influence in a way that is positive for them. They make use of these decisions in their everyday work. Some anti-creationists also pushed the religious or worldview-related aspects of their activities to the background, as long as they hoped to gain influence in the realm of public education. As a means to argue in favor of their position, they make use of the NOMA view, which states that science and religion are mutually independent realms of knowledge and social endeavor. That is why I termed this form of anti-creationism “nomatic.” Anti-­ creationists who do not participate in the educational political and legal dimensions of the conflict display their worldview or religious stance more clearly. At present, there is a second, anti-theistic form of anti-creationism that exists alongside nomatic © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_10

167

168

10 Conclusion

anti-creationism. Since the early 2000s, the foremost representative of this group was New Atheism. After 1987, both creationism and anti-creationism split into a strand that openly represents its worldview and a strand that pushes religious or worldview questions to the background. After Scientific Creationism failed to provide Young Earth Creationism access to the public school system, it went “Back to Genesis,” while the budding Intelligent Design movement undertook an even more thorough concealment of its religious views. Around the same time, internal disputes in the course of the institutionalization of anti-creationism led to the expulsion of humanism and atheism through the adoption of the NOMA principle. But the anti-theistic anti-creationism, which was separated in the course of this process, did not cease to exist as an active player in the conflict. On the contrary, it was precisely around that time that it became particularly prominent in the works of Richard Dawkins and the activity of the American Humanist Association. Since the late 1990s, and partly in reaction to the rise of Intelligent Design, it regained public recognition as New Atheism. While my analysis of the conflict’s history led me to appreciate more clearly its complexity and the interconnectedness of the involved groups, I still wanted to know more about how their interaction works. This is why I moved beyond the pure historical perspective and developed a sociological concept that is based on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social fields. I used it to answer the question of why the conflict developed the way it did. I found that what all professional groups that engage in this conflict have in common is that they provide answers to the same reference question, but their answers differ considerably. This question concerns the role god and nature play in the explanation of the origin and development of the world. “Creationism” is the name for such answers that contain a high proportion of god and a low proportion of nature. New Atheism answers the reference question in the diametrically opposed way, granting natural processes overwhelming importance in explaining the world. Theistic Evolutionism sees both as not mutually exclusive, but combines them in the sense that god used or allowed for natural processes. Nomatic anti-creationism posits categorically different spheres of the world for the influence of both. This approach of identifying and relating the relevant conflict positions is useful for sociological analysis, since it avoids the use of the concepts of science and religion, which are used as means by the groups to wage their conflict (Chap. 5). By applying some theoretical notions developed by Bourdieu, I was able to make visible key structures and mechanisms of the field that give the conflict its specific character. Consciously or not, all groups subject themselves to the rule that their statements refer implicitly or explicitly to the role of nature and to the role of god in the origin and development of the world. I called this the “synthetic principle”. It is what is common to all participating groups, and their different ways of relating to it clarify their antagonism and, thereby, create and uphold the conflict. In this conflict, the groups employ different kinds of capital. While they frequently make use of cultural capital that stems from the fields of science and religion (and occasionally from other fields), they do not (or only rarely) seek to apply

10 Conclusion

169

it in those fields. Instead, they amalgamate both capital types, which is another way in which the synthetic principle works. They do this in order to gain symbolic recognition for their capital. For Bourdieu, this symbolic recognition is, in fact, another type of capital (symbolic capital). It is the main currency of the field. The field is not completely autonomous, because the groups that grant symbolic recognition to the groups’ efforts are largely outside the field. Still, the conflict derives its dynamics in large part from the constant mutual observation and adaptation of the groups to one another, which renders their actions self-referential in multiple ways. In the last part, I wanted to show that my theory can, indeed, lead to new interpretations and insights into the inner workings of American creationism and anti-­ creationism. In these chapters, I looked at select statements by various creationist and anti-creationist groups, the aim being to show how they are structured by the groups’ presence in the field, that is, by the presence of all other groups. The broader point of this analysis was to show that to really understand creationism and anti-­ creationism, it is necessary to look at the social world of the professional groups, and try to see it from their vantage point. I looked at the history constructs of the groups in Chap. 7. I asked, what link is there between the way in which they perceive the history of the conflict and their position in the field? In Chap. 8, I asked the same question with regard to the order constructs of the groups, which are represented in images they produce. Finally, Chap. 9 looked at constructs of exemplary persons, which the groups use to make clear what the conflict is about for the individual. In all three chapters we could see that the field concept helps make visible the extent to which creationist and anti-­ creationist statements are dependent upon the relative position of the groups making them. I was able to make sense of these statements without forming an opinion as to whether they are scientific or religious at all, which increases the chances of understanding each position in its own right. Research on creationism can make use of this concept and apply it to other national and transnational contexts. My initial question of why American creationism developed the way it did has found a precise answer. Based on judicial and educational policy factors, professional creationism developed alongside professional anti-creationism, and both are intertwined to the extent that one can regard their conflict as, in part, autonomous. Besides their religious, scientific, and political goals, the groups by now possess a principle of communication (their nomos), specific means of communication (symbolic capital), and a justification for their participation in the conflict that derives, in part, from the other groups’ presence (illusio). All of these elements are specific to their social situation.

 ppendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott A (14 May 2012)

Tom Kaden: So, what I’m interested in is several things. The first thing would be, prior to your involvement in the creation/evolution debate, were there any situations in your life prior to that, where you think that you’ve been kind of drawn to that topic. Eugenie Scott: Well, when I was teaching physical anthropology at the University of Kentucky I would encounter students who rejected evolution, for their religious views precluded their accepting evolution, and they would tell me they don’t believe in evolution, the phrase that’s most commonly used in English. But previous to that, when I was actually teaching evolution and bringing it on so to speak I don’t recall ever having dealt with the issue, no. That wasn’t really until when I was a graduate student at the University of Missouri, being a TA, a teaching assistant for classes. Yes, I ran into them, but previous to that, no. I do remember one reference in my comparative anatomy classes and undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee where somebody – I was talking with the TA and there had been a news item about something having to do with creationism. That would probably have been in the mid-1960s, so I’m not sure what it would have been, but there might have been a news item or maybe a student said something, I don’t know. But for some reason the issue came up, and I remember the teaching assistant saying something like: “It’s just referring to the animals that were spread out on the dissection table, that comparative anatomy just so shows evolution. I mean, what could possibly be the explanation for all of the similarity between fish and amphibia and mammal other than evolution.” She just couldn’t imagine why anybody would reject evolution. And that’s the earliest reference that I can think of, so pretty late in life when I was a college student. Tom Kaden: And as a graduate student in Missouri, when you yourself were a TA, how did this play out? Were students approaching you with their own theories? Eugenie Scott: I don’t remember, really. I’m sorry Tom Kaden: That’s no problem.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5

171

172

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

Eugenie Scott: That was so long ago and I wasn’t paying very – I think I was just sort of surprised that anybody would reject evolution. Tom Kaden: Alright. Eugenie Scott: But I don’t remember how I handled it. Tom Kaden: And later when you were a physical anthropologist in Kentucky? Eugenie Scott: Then I did have to deal with it more, because I was responsible for the class. And I remember, I did something like the creation/evolution continuum exercise, that’s sort of where I first got the idea, just sort of showing students that – Well of course that was probably around the time when creationism blew up in Lexington, so that might not have actually been earlier than being kind of thrust on the stage, so to speak. But I think before the Lexington school board controversy I think I would have just pointed out to students: “Well, there are people who are religious and who also accept evolution, the idea of theistic evolution.” I probably would have told them about that, but I hadn’t really thought about it a lot and I think most college professors haven’t thought about how to deal with this issue. It just seems so obvious to them. “Why can’t you see it?” I mean they don’t really understand the processes necessary for a person’s thinking to change over like that. And I suspect I was in that same category. Tom Kaden: So this controversy, the school board in Lexington was then the starting point – Eugenie Scott: Definitely. Tom Kaden: For your involvement. Tell me about what happened there. Eugenie Scott: Well I can also refer you to some other information on this, because I’ve written about it, but what happened in Lexington was a citizen’s group proposed to the Lexington board of education that this new science of creation science be introduced in the Lexington schools. This was in 1980, so this is before McLean, it’s before Edwards, it’s before any of the legal decisions, so this was totally all up in the air, and there were lots of places around the country like Lexington where this was going on. But of course I didn’t know about them, I just knew this was going on in my back yard. And of course the university faculty just had a feeling that was “This is terrible”. Teachers didn’t want to teach it either, and what happened was up on campus, with the scientists, I was about the only person who really knew what creation science was, because I’ve been collecting the literature for 10 years. And so I became sort of a central figure in the fight against creation science in the curriculum in Lexington. So that involved helping my fellow scientists understand what the creationist position was. I had all this literature that I could hand out. There was one meeting I remember where I’ve gone through all my Acts & Facts and had divided them up into stacks, and I gave this stack to the astronomers, and this stack to the biologists, and this stack to the physicists or the geologists, and this stack to the anthropologists, and they all went home and wrote their chapters for this big white paper that we prepared for the school board as to why this was not good education, this is not science, what they say is wrong, we shouldn’t be teaching it to our kids. But of course the issue that was probably paramount on their minds is teaching. If we turn down the creationists, are we being anti-religious? So one of the really important things

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

173

that I learned in the Lexington controversy is that it’s necessary to educate the religious community. And I was asked to give a talk to the Lexington Alliance of Religious Leaders, LARL is what they called it, and LARL was basically a social group. They met once a month for lunch, and they would have a speaker, and it was just across the board. But given the fact that there is lots and lots of churches in the Lexington-Fayette county area, there must have been a couple hundred members of this group. So I was invited to speak for their luncheon. And I came in with all my transparencies and told them what creation science was, and I think that was the turning point. I mean I was invited largely because the rabbi in town and some of the Presbyterians knew what creation science – they figured this wasn’t a good idea. So I brought it in a talk about this. And it became very clear to the LARL members that creation science was really biblical literalism. And if they let the biblical literalism be taught Monday through Friday they had to straighten out the kids on Sunday. So we ended up with the Catholics and the mainstream Protestants on our side and so we had a coalition of scientists, teachers, mainstream clergy, civil liberties, anti-church-state, or church-state separation proponents, parents. And that’s where I learned how to handle these controversies. But I learned it kind of at a dead run. It’s like building a plane while you’re flying it. I mean I had to learn how to do this as I was doing it, and I didn’t know anything about community organizing I didn’t know anything about politics, but I learned fast. So we put together a coalition which managed to speak to the issues that the school board needed to hear about. And frankly I think it was the fact that the religious community was split that allowed their five members – two were for, two were against, and there was a swing voter. And I think it was the fact that the religious community – some were for it, some were against it. That allowed them to make a decision. Because if the religion community was perceived to be entirely for it there’s no way the scientists could have won. But yes, that was my first real involvement with creation science. Tom Kaden: You mentioned that at the time when this happened you had already been collecting the literature like Acts & Facts for several years. Why were you interested in that? Eugenie Scott: As a graduate student, one of my professors at Missouri gave me a copy of Acts & Facts and said: “Here, this is creation science.” And that just was fascinating to me because as I was studying to be a scientist this was supposed to be science, and boy, was it different. And so I kind of got interested in creation science as a sort of a philosophy of science issue, but also because of the evolution certainly. And their ideas were so zany, it was fascinating. So I got on the mailing list, and I received the monthly Acts & Facts, and I would periodically pick up other things, and students would give me stuff, and over the years I just amassed this bundle of information. And so when the Lexington situation hit I was well-suited to help arm my fellow scientists as to what the arguments were and, and what needed to be countered. Tom Kaden: I see. You mentioned that at the time of this Lexington controversy similar thing had happened basically all over the country.

174

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

Eugenie Scott: Yeah, in the late seventies and early eighties was the time of the equal time laws equal time for creation science and so this legislation was popping up all over, and there were other communities like Lexington that were having these discussions about whether we should add this to the curriculum. This was a real grass roots movement on the part of the creationists, and obviously the counter had to be a grass roots movement. The big science organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and AAAS and AIBS and all the rest, they were very concerned about these issues. But remember, this is pre-­ internet, this is 1978, 79, 80, 81. And it wasn’t so easy, it’s a lot easier today. You can take your database, you can pull out all the people in Nebraska, send a memo to all the people in Nebraska saying: “We have this problem in Lincoln, can you help? Here are your talking points.” “Write the letters to the editor, here are the people you write.” You couldn’t do that top-level grass roots organizing, so to speak, back then, which is why NCSE was formed. Because it was realized that these are grass roots problems are local problems, and they’re political problems, and the big science organization don’t do that. That’s not their specialty. That’s not why they were organized. They were organized to serve the members of the professional association or advance the interests of cell biologists or the field of cell biology. And not to fight local legislatures that are passing goofy laws. So you need people in that state, you need people in Nebraska. The problem is happening in Nebraska, wouldn’t matter if the whole National Academy of Sciences marched down the street in Oklahoma. If you get one local biology teacher to go to the school board, that’s going to be more effective. Because that guy has got a vote as opposed to all the people marching down the street from outside. So because they are political issues, and all politics is local, the old expression. That’s why NCSE was organized. Tom Kaden: As I read, you went through like an intermediate stage of the Committees of Correspondence. I picture it as an intermediate stage between not organized at all and being centrally organized. Eugenie Scott: Yeah, the people who were concerned about this issue, including me, back in 1980–81 were corresponding with each other. In fact the term “Committees of Correspondence” was invented by one of the founders of this whole movement who – come on, Genie. I can picture him. Argh. He was the former head of NABT, his name will come into my brain any moment. Tom Kaden: I can find out. Eugenie Scott: Yeah, well, it’s – did you read Hee-Joo Park’s dissertation? Tom Kaden: Not yet, I read an article. Eugenie Scott: Okay, it might be useful to read. I mean that gives you a lot of background on NCSE. Tom Kaden: Yes. Eugenie Scott: But anyhow, where were we? There were a lot of these Lexington kinds of problems. In fact because of the Lexington issue, and the fact that my name was in the paper, and educators knew about me they put me in touch with the NABT guy. Wayne Moyer. And Wayne Moyer in turn put me in touch with Stan Weinberg who was this retired biology teacher who was kind of central to

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

175

organizing a response. And Stan was getting the scientists and the teachers together, he had contacts with the AIBS and with National Academy and of course with NABT and NSTA. And trying to bring these groups together to focus on how do we deal with grass roots problems, how do we deal with this legislation, and how do we deal with situation like Lexington? And this was in 1980– 1981. So in 81 the community started getting organized, and Wayne Moyer called these various groups in the states the “Committees of Correspondence”. That term comes from the American Revolutionary War. In the colonial days there were these groups that were formed in the states, but before they were states really, to communicate information about the British. The British are coming, the British are coming! And so it’s the same sort of thing now in 1981. We were sharing information among one another, what kinds of arguments work best at a school board level, and how do you deal with the issue of the second law of thermodynamics, like that. So Stan Weinberg published the memos of the Committees of Correspondence, have you seen those? Tom Kaden: No I haven’t Eugenie Scott: Oh geez. Well, that’s okay, you’re not doing your dissertation on NCSE, so. But Stan would send out this little 4–12 page newsletter depending every month “The Memo to the Committees of Correspondence.” “Here’s what the people in Iowa are doing”, “Here’s what the people in Kentucky are doing.” And also the addresses and contact information for all these people. Well, then Stan realized that for this to really work, because he was retired, and he was putting a lot of time and energy in it, but he was just one person, that he needed to raise some money from private foundations so that a real staff could be hired and it wouldn’t just be this one guy working out of Iowa. So he started knocking on the doors of foundations and managed after a couple of years to put together 250.000, most of it from the Carnegie Corporation. And the board of directors at that point – by then NCSE had been incorporated, we were incorporated in 2003. I’m sorry – in 1983. And then in 1986 he got the money and the board of directors conducted a search to find an executive director for what they incorporated as the National Center for Science Education. And then I was hired in the fall of 86, so the period between 81 and when I was hired is sort of that period where the NCSE board, basically coped as best they could, but they did put out a newsletter. Stan Weinberg’s memorandum to the Committees of Correspondence ceased publication in 83 and at that point the first Creation/Evolution newsletter began to be published. And the Creation/Evolution newsletter has morphed in its name over the decades. The Creation/Evolution newsletter then became NCSE Reports, that became Reports of the NCSE. Anyway I’d have to look at all the changes that took place in order to tell you when they took place. And also there’d been sort of a parallel but coordinated effort by the American Humanist Association to publish a little journal that would deal specifically with the scientific arguments, and that was Creation/Evolution. Creation/Evolution initially was published by the AHA and we took it over, I’d have to look it up to see exactly when, sometime in the ‘90s. Because AHA really needed to spend time on other issues. This was just one issue, but it was taking a lot of time, and since

176

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

this was our issue it made sense for us to buy it from them. And there was quite an overlap, of course, because if you only subscribe to the Creation/Evolution newsletter that was one amount, if you only subscribe to Creation/Evolution journal, that was another amount, if you subscribe to both, then it would cost more, but it would still be less than subscribing to the two separately. And most people who are interested in the topic would want to get both, so when we got the mailing list for Creation/Evolution, we compared that with our extant newsletter list, and we did add some new members that way. So that was the interregnum period before the opening of the national office. Tom Kaden: At the time when you applied for the position of the newly-found NCSE, you were still in Kentucky? Eugenie Scott: No, I was out here. Tom Kaden: Ah, you were already here. What did you do here? Eugenie Scott: I didn’t get tenure at Kentucky. But I acquired a post-doc at UC San Francisco in medical anthropology. So we left Kentucky and moved out here, Charlie and I. Carrie was born here, in Cal-Berkeley. And I finished the postdoc, and I took a two-year job at the University of Colorado. In 84 through 86. And Carrie and I went to Colorado. Charlie by that time had gotten a good job with Wells Fargo, so he stayed here and we did a commuting marriage for 2 years, which nobody wanted to do for very long. After the two-year contract was up with Colorado I came back here, Carrie and I came back here permanently, and I was looking for a job in the summer of 86. There weren’t any physical anthropology jobs around and we had decided that we would stay in the Bay Area. That I would not look for a physical anthropology job outside, enough of this commuter marriage stuff. This is where Charlie’s family lived, this is where our daughter could have a grandma. We decided that this is where we were going to settle down. So what am I going to do? Then this job was advertised, that summer, and I thought, well, I’m, I’m smart enough to learn how to run a small business, which is what a non-profit is and I know the controversy, goodness knows, and I know the science, and I’m pretty good at dealing with the press, because I had all that experience in Lexington. So I applied for the job, and the board apparently decided that that was true that I did have those skills, and so they hired me. Tom Kaden: Were you at that time still involved actively in dealing with the conflict? Eugenie Scott: No. I of course was very involved with the group of people who became the NCSE board back in 1980 and 81, and as the head of the Kentucky Committee of Correspondence, as it were, I received the newsletter, so they were all kind of in my peripheral vision. When I went to Colorado for that 2 years, from 84 to 86, there actually was a little flare-up that happened in a neighboring community to Boulder, Colorado, a little city called Longmont, Colorado. And basically it was another one of these “Gee, we should be teaching creation science” kinds of issues. So I managed to get some scientists from Boulder, the university, to come with me. I was working with some people there in Longmont. And basically testify to why this was not science, and why it was very bad

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

177

e­ ducationally to teach this sort of thing. And basically it was a, I kind of felt sorry for the guy, in a way. It was a citizen who was just all fired up about creation science and had read the antievolution literature but obviously didn’t know very much science. And so you bring a couple of science professors there and they just refute everything the guy was saying. He felt kind of bad about that, but the Longmont school board decided not to institute the policy, so that was a success. But that was really the only issue that I was involved in between leaving Lexington and taking this job on. So I did keep it fresh a little bit, but no, other than that, nothing. And I hadn’t really been corresponding with Stan Weinberg and Jack Friedman, and those guys. Because I was looking for a job, I had a new baby, I just had other things that I was doing. But it was kind of nice seeing all these guys again. Although there obviously were new people on the board, there were people I didn’t know on the board of directors when I was hired. But apparently I interviewed well enough so that they decided to hire me after all. Tom Kaden: So the NCSE started, as I read, basically started out in the basement of your home. Eugenie Scott: Just a few feet from here . Tom Kaden: Ah. Eugenie Scott: The house didn’t look like this. This whole apartment from about that door on was not here. We built this for my mother-in-law, when she became old, but sort of where your bedroom is now it was finished. I mean it had sheetrock on it and everything but it was just part of the basement there. Didn’t have the extra wall, it was just open to the – I mean there’s the laundry room there and that’s a separate area, but other than that it was just an open space. And I put a desk, I had this, I had a three-year-old. If I worked at home, I wouldn’t have to put here in child care for as long a stretch, and she had pre-school for half a day, but the other half of the day she could play, and I could listen for her upstairs. So it didn’t matter really, because there is only one and eventually two people who were working for NCSE. And it’s not like we had a lot of street traffic. I mean even today people don’t exactly come to the shop very often. So it worked out fine. We did everything through the telephone and mail, so it could have been in a treehouse for all anybody could care. So yeah, we started off in the basement. And after 2 years we just outgrew it. I mean, by that time I had added my third employee, and I was full-time and I had two part-time employees. And it was just, we had too much stuff, we just outgrew the space. So we moved downtown to a real office. In downtown Berkeley at the corner of Shattuck and Dwight. And we were there for two more years. Then we outgrew that. And so we moved to an office down in San Pablo about Dwight and San Pablo. And 2  years later we outgrew that, and we moved to another office over in Gillman and Sixth Street. And we outgrew that in a couple of years, and moved to an office in El Cerrito, and Carney Street, and we stayed there for about 6 years. That was enough space, it was cheap. It was enough space also. But eventually we outgrew it, and moved to the place where we are now. Tom Kaden: I see. And this place certainly seems cramped already.

178

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

Eugenie Scott: It was even more cramped when we had two more employees. Yeah, it’s not ideal. We have expanded the back room there where Charles and Eric are, and where the Mac is for the graphics and stuff. Those three sites didn’t exist, that room used to be our library and storage area. And then we contracted with the landlord to have the back over there because he was only using the front part of the building. And that helped a whole lot because it enabled us to have three more seats. So that is very good. Tom Kaden: Going back to the earliest days of the NCSE I can imagine it’s perhaps a little complicated to position oneself as now the official national organization of anti-creationism, and to make yourself known. So how did you go about it? Eugenie Scott: Well it was slow. I mean people  – remember, this was also pre-­ internet. So basically the kind of publicity that you would get would pretty much have to be through the newspapers. Because obviously we couldn’t afford television, but any kind of – we really would hunger for the radio or TV or newspaper interviews, because that was how we got the word out that we existed. You couldn’t just put up a web site back in those days, there wasn’t such a thing. But of course once the internet came around then, that made things much, much more efficient. But we would get referrals, so to speak, the members of NCSE around the country would call us or send us clippings or faxes stuff, to inform us of something that was going on and then we get on the phone and try to find the teacher or the parent who was having the problem. No, it was a lot slower going in the early days. We’re a whole lot more efficient and effective now. Yeah, part of it is just people finding out that we’re there and we’re capable of helping. Tom Kaden: So basically the first task would have been to find to find enough members and enough financial support? Eugenie Scott: Correct. I had that 250.000, although by the time it was a bit less than that, it was probably, 230.000 or something by the time. And I stretched that into a couple of years easily. We didn’t have very much staff, I was keeping costs down by having it in the office, certainly. But at that time a fax machine cost a couple of thousand dollars, I mean, computers cost a couple, well, still cost a couple thousand dollars. But so there definitely were expenses for setting up, but there was writing the newsletter, we also had these task forces that were composed of volunteers, members who were supposed to be doing projects of various sorts and part of my job was supervising these task forces. And we had one task force, for example, on teacher training, and each of the tasks forces were given ten thousand dollars to expend. That task force decided to use its money to bring people together to write a grant proposal to get money from the National Science Foundation to hold a series of workshops on evolution and the nature of science. And so I was working with them on that. And another of the task forces was the audiovisuals task force, and they decided to use their money to hire a script writer to – it was totally risky and turned out to be a really bad idea, but that’s what they decided to do – hire a script writer and propose a television program, write a pilot a treatment, as it’s called, and so I had to supervise that, and there were all these other things, so I was keeping very busy. But also each of these task forces was composed of people who also were helping to spread the word

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

179

that NCSE exists and how it was operating and so forth. It was a slow process though, it took us several years. Probably the real turning point, quite frankly, of getting us on the map was I guess late nineties, half-page article on NCSE that came out in the Sunday New York Times. That was huge. I mean all of a sudden we were on the map of an incredibly large number of people because the New York Times has a remarkable reach. And that helped us both financially as well as with a bump-up of new members, too. Tom Kaden: How did that article come about? Eugenie Scott: Because my name cropped up, NCSE’s name cropped up in newspaper articles having to do with the Kansas. But plus, the Kansas board of education controversy, evolution wars one and two as they call them in Kansas, because it was 2000 and 2004 I think it was; the evolution wars in Kansas did get national attention. I had pointed out that the state of Illinois had dropped evolution from its science standards 2 years before Kansas did. But Kansas doesn’t have Dorothy and Toto, the Wizard of Oz. Kansas has the iconography, the sort of the symbolism of middle America and so when Kansas does something that’s kind of out there like that, it’s going to get the attention even though neighboring Illinois did the same thing but without the iconography. That was my hypothesis anyway. But there had been little incidents all over the country. There had been a flare-up over in Pennsylvania. That’s in the early nineties, ninety-three, four, something like that. Where I had worked with the ACLU guy there, Vic Walczak who ended up being on the Dover team many years later. But so my name was in the papers hither and yon. But the thing is, all these reporters had me in their rolodex. “Who do I call for creation and evolution?” They had NCSE. So when the Kansas evolution wars hit the national press these reporters all looked in their rolodexes and called me. So I ended up getting a lot more coverage because of this national level flare-up. Tom Kaden: And the immediate consequences of the article being published in the New York Times were the people calling you and wanting to become members. Eugenie Scott: We got more members, and what’s even more wonderful is that a lot of family foundations started sending me money. And I would get, five thousand dollars, even twenty-five hundred, we’ll take it. For us that’s a big donation. And just because they heard about us from the New York Times article. And some big foundations also heard about us through that article and called us up and said “Hey, you do interesting stuff, let’s talk.” That’s very good. Tom Kaden: I haven’t heard about it working this way around, the foundation called you. Eugenie Scott: Yeah, that’s pretty unusual. But it’s a good thing, because I’m terrible about fundraising. And so thank goodness they did. Tom Kaden: I can imagine that with the NCSE getting more attention from the media, getting more members, also creationist organization start to become attentive to the NCSE. Eugenie Scott: Yeah, every, any publicity is good publicity, as the saying goes. That’s true. They would know about us, there were a couple of big issues that got national or at least major regional coverage. And one was in southern California,

180

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

not that far from the ICR. And in fact one of the ICR employees lived in this community. And was a school board member or something, so, when I was sort of lurking around the edges and advising the local people, and it was clear that ICR was not alone in its efforts to influence the decision there. So it’s Vista, California was the name of that community. Tom Kaden: When was that? Eugenie Scott: Oh, Vista, I don’t know. Mid-nineties. Ninety-four, five, six, something like that. Tom Kaden: I mean, this is more of a broader question that I’m trying to get at, is if I were in the shoes of a guy from the ICR who tries to put out policy efforts in certain states, and I had this organization, or this, this woman who would frequently pop up and ruin the show. I probably would try to do something about it, would try to discredit the organization. Eugenie Scott: the ICR doesn’t really engage in a lot of local activism. I mean they do in the sense that they go out and they do workshops and they inspire the locals and they get their literature out but I don’t know how much actual guidance they give people at the grassroots like we do. They certainly are broadcasting their seed to any fertile soil upon which it might land but I don’t think they’re out there exactly keeping the seeds away. But there’s no question that we’re an annoyance. I’m sure they would love to see these school policies pass and when we fought them they doubtless are displeased with that .and you’ll find when you look in their Acts & Facts, when they talk about these things, when they talk about us at all, it’s to try to frame NCSE as an atheist organization. That’s the worst thing you can say about anybody from their standpoint of course, which of course is silly. I’ve never been accused by them of being deceitful or immoral. There have never been any personal attacks. I suspect the fact that if you say “Well that’s an atheist organization”, that’s going to be enough for their followers, that’s discrediting sufficiently. Tom Kaden: But how about an organization then that tries to, tries harder to implement specific policies? Eugenie Scott: Well, one example might be the Discovery Institute. In Florida a couple of years ago, where there was an AFA law an Academic Freedom Act that was making its way through the legislature. And the DI was there in spades, I mean they were advising the legislators, they held a big rally at the football stadium there – they didn’t fill the football stadium, but they got a couple thousand people. They were writing op-eds, I mean they definitely were working. Obviously we were. helping to advise the Florida Citizens for Science group, which is the sort of modern-­ day equivalent of a Committee of Correspondence. And in that sense I thinkthe Discovery Institute is more our evil twin than, than is the ICR.  Because the Discovery Institute actually does something. Not on as big a scale as we do. We are really trying to cultivate these local interest groups. I don’t think the DI does that. I think the DI is more of an adviser. They target more top-down. So they’ll work with the legislators in Florida, they revised the legislation that the original Academic Freedom Act legislation that the Alabamans came up with, and got rid

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

181

of the “alternative theories” kind of wording as I was saying in, in my talk Friday. “Alternative theories” is too obviously creationism, right? And so they got rid of that wording, and made it sound more benign. I mean they’re clever. I mean they know the legal issues. There are so many lawyers working for the DI. So I think the DI is more our counterpoint in terms of working at the grass-roots. Tom Kaden: I found that the current strategy by the Discovery Institute seems to be policy-wise to skip creationist argumentation or contents, even their own contents entirely, and just talk about academic freedom. To me this seems like creationism getting ever more subtle and getting ever more difficult to treat then also. Where can that possibly lead? Wouldn’t creationism at some point be really indistinguishable from critical thinking? Eugenie Scott: Well, you need to distinguish what they’re saying to the public and what they believe. Let’s just take the Intelligent Design guys because they’re a little more subtle along the lines you’re talking. I mean after all the ICR is still pushing Young Earth Creationism, they have not wavered, so let’s go to the Discovery Institute guys, the ID crowd. The thing that most disturbs them about – well, back up, Genie. There’s a broad array of people who call themselves “Intelligent Design proponents”, okay? Including some Young Earth Creationists, who just sort of “Okay, I am an IDer as well!”, and a fair number of Old Earth Creationists. By Old Earth Creationists I mean people who believe in special creation but who believe, like as in Progressive Creation, that God creates consecutively over time. And so the fossil record is accurate, it just reflects the separate creations as opposed to an evolutionary tree. And you also have people who probably are theistic evolutionists but whose religion is really, really conservative, and they just want to have a very big role for God in shaping life. So you got this big group of people. The one thing they all agree on is they don’t like materialist philosophy. One of the things that Phillip Johnson did was shift the focus of ID specifically against science as a materialist enterprise. And that includes both methodological materialism as well as philosophical materialism. The thing that they’re really against is philosophical materialism, atheism, etc. And they believe that philosophical and methodological materialism are inextricably linked. So by attacking methodological materialism you will therefore weaken philosophical materialism. Now what’s the best way to attack methodological naturalism? By attacking evolution because that’s the one topic that people really get excited about, and that’s the one that has the most direct consequences for their religious views. I mean I always point out that evolution is no more methodologically naturalistic than cell division. We all do that kind of science the same way. But one of the confusions the ID crowd has, and actually that’s a confusion that’s fairly general to a lot of members of the conservative Christian public, is that because you can explain something through natural causes, therefore you are also making the claim that only natural causes exist. Which is philosophical naturalism. And that’s just wrong. But this is why they keep attacking methodological naturalism. Alright, so the one thing that all ID proponents can agree upon is that science needs to be changed into something that is less materialist, because that will leave room for their theistic views. Their view is that

182

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

there’s sort of normal science and you just find methodological naturalism can be used for that. But then there is origin science. This is different. And they fancy it up with philosophy of science sounding claims of: “These are separate events, individual events, you can’t study them the way you study.” Which is bullshit, I mean, that’s just dumb. Philosophers of science will tell you that, silly. But nonetheless, they carve out origin science, by which they mean evolution and origin of life. As if this something you have to treat differently. And’you have to, using their words, expand methodological naturalism to allow in the occasional miracle to allow in the occasional intelligence, as they put it. But that’s really miracle mongering, it really is. When the Intelligent Design people like Behe or Dembski or any of them talk about irreducible complexity, about the bacterial flagellum or the blood-clotting cascade or whatever being irreducibly complex what they’re saying is that you can’t explain this through natural causes, you have to have intelligence. In other words, God has to go in and ‘zap’. So that’s special creation, okay? So it’s really a creationist argument at heart. But what they would present to the public is this idea of – the way they market this idea the public is to paint the mainstream science as being dogmatic as being close-minded. When I called the lawyer at the conference Friday on using pejorative terms like evolution-only” that’s a term that the Intelligent Design people developed. We would say “science only”. You should teach only science in the schools. But of course that’s our marketing, right? Their marketing is “evolution-­only” because they want us to sound dogmatic. When you say “only” that means you’re restricting somebody. And their argument is that we are closing the door to Intelligent Design because of our atheist presuppositions. That’s really their position. So I think I’m probably wandering off the track here from what you had originally asked me. Tom Kaden: Oh, it’s really interesting. The link between methodological naturalism and an atheist philosophy that the Intelligent Design people propose, it seems to me kind of mirrored by frequent statements of Intelligent Design proponents in the fields of theology. So people like Bill Dembski, he writes a book “The End of Christianity”, where he basically uses his own, and his colleagues’. scientific arguments to create an argument for theodicy, to explain the theodicy problem. And also there is Stephen Meyer, who does a DVD seminar with Focus on the Family where he talks about “Is the Bible reliable?” So I don’t know if you can answer this, but I would be interested in your take on this. It seems to me that the Intelligent Design guys undermine their own strategy by doing that. Eugenie Scott: Interesting. I’ve not paid any attention to their – I can’t really say no attention, to the theological writings so I would not know how to react, but that’s fascinating, and maybe I should pay more attention to the theology. Tom Kaden: I mean this could be used as an argument in favor of the NCSE’s position. Eugenie Scott: Well, or at least to show that they are not being consistent in their views. I mean, if they’re saying one thing in the science realm, and another thing in the theological realm, what do they really believe?

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

183

Tom Kaden: Yeah. And I guess sometimes the NCSE would have a similar problem. Or would have to be cautious not to present itself as, in fact, an atheist organization. Eugenie Scott: Oh yeah, we’re, we work very hard to avoid that. And I have a lot of problems with that. Because we deal with the evolution side, so a lot of people’s knee-jerk reaction is “Oh, therefore you must be an atheist organization.” What I try to point out to people is that our members range all over the place. We’ve got evangelical Christians all the way through every religious denomination you can think of in Christianity, to agnostics and atheists, and Unitarians, and all kinds of combinations. Our staff over the years has included people who are theists as well as people who are atheists. Personally I think Nina’s a little new-agey, but, so that’s something else, yeah? We don’t have any test for belief when we hire somebody. Our board of directors includes people who are theists, people who atheists, we’ve had Mormons, Jews, Unitarians, we’ve had all kinds of people on our board of directors. And in fact the very first meeting of the board of directors that I had, which was the day I was hired, they basically interviewed candidates all day, we had dinner, they told me I got the job, and then we sat down and had our first meeting. It was on November 15 1986. So at our very first board meeting I remember when the board was sort of laying out what they expected me to do. I remember Fred Edwords who at the time was the director of the American Humanist Association, and the editor of Creation/Evolution journal, and somebody who had been very active for years in this controversy. I remember Fred saying that it’s very important that NCSE be religiously neutral. You need to make it very clear you are not a humanist organization, you’re not an atheist organization, you’re not a religious organization, you are religiously neutral. You stand for science and science education. And those were my marching orders for my first day of work. And obviously something that I firmly believe in, too. You don’t have to be an atheist to want good science to be taught in your schools. Tom Kaden: I’m under the impression that being religiously neutral is a really hard thing. Eugenie Scott: It is a hard thing. Tom Kaden: And on the – Eugenie Scott: Well, that isn’t hard. Convincing people you are religiously neutral is hard. Tom Kaden: Yeah, perhaps even to convince me that you are religiously neutral, because I mean on the homepage of the NCSE you find texts by Peter Hess that basically advocate the NOMA principle. Eugenie Scott: Well we’ve been called on that and criticized for that, and we have actually rewritten the sections that are on the religion part of the science and religion part. To try to make them more descriptive rather than proscriptive. I mean the standard meme out there is that science and religion are in conflict. Christians are against evolution. That is the standard meme. Our position is that that’s inaccurate. That is just empirically inaccurate because there happens to be this wide range of views within Christianity. We can tell you about that wider range of views, we can tell you about, inform you of the NOMA principle, of

184

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

theistic evolution, that it’s out there. By letting you know that it’s out there doesn’t mean we’re advocating it. But it is important that people know they have more than one choice. Because it’s frankly that dichotomous view that you got to choose between creation on one side or evolution on the other side that’s largely at the root of the problem that we have. Religious people can make an accommodation if they know that it did exist, so our goal is to get evolution taught. One of the things that will help get evolution taught is if there’s less religious resistance to it. Letting people know that there are options within Christianity – that’s the majority faith here of course, so that’s why I’m focusing on Christianity – letting people know that there are options within. Christianity will allow more of them, I believe – I think I can show that empirically – to let evolution be taught. Tom Kaden: You mentioned that prior to your current takes on that issue you were indeed advocating – Eugenie Scott: We didn’t think we were but we got called on it. I think Jerry Coyne wrote a brisk critique, and so we went – Tom Kaden: Publically, or? Eugenie Scott: Yeah, on his blog. This was a couple of years ago. And so we went back and reread those passages and we reedited them so that it sounded, I mean, they didn’t seem to us that we were advocating, but if somebody else thinks we are then we should make it less so because it’s what people hear that is more important than what you say. Any teacher knows that. So we did revise those pages, and took out things that might have been interpreted as advocacy. I mean my personal view is I’m not religious. I don’t accept the Christian view of things. But someone who is Christian needs to, as one theologian told me, have a faith that is coherent with what we know of the natural world. So I’m thinking if you are a Christian it makes a lot of sense to look at the various forms of theistic evolution so that you can accept what science tells us about the nature of the world, and simultaneously still accept your most important religious precepts. A six thousand year old earth is not really a strong religious precept for most Christians. Tom Kaden: This premise or goal of the NCSE to appear or to in fact be religiously neutral, it’s certainly important to address religious persons and to show them that there are other options than maybe a religious view that compromises science. But also there are many scientists who in fact advocate for atheism and make it seem that their atheist view is a direct result or can somehow be derived out of scientific knowledge. Eugenie Scott: I would even say it’s stronger than derived, I would say that some scientists – I don’t think it’s many, but anyway, there are some very noisy scientists who are claiming that science and evolution compel an atheist view. That that is the only logical and rational outcome of understanding the science. If you really understand science, if you really understand evolution, you have to just chuck your faith. And it seems to me that is misusing science. And I prefer that science per se not get dragged into the culture wars. Actually I have a little

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

185

d­ iagram that I should show you, that kind of explains a bit more fully. Can I borrow your pad and a pencil? Tom Kaden: Yeah. Eugenie Scott: Alright. Look over my shoulder. Here we have flowers, okay? We have a bunch of flowers. Tom Kaden: They look beautiful. Eugenie Scott: Aren’t they great? Aren’t you glad I’m such a wonderful artist? Here we have flowers. Now, we know from biology that these flowers are in competition with each other, right? They are in competition for sunlight and for nutrients, and for avoiding herbicides or whatever. They’re in competition with each other. Let’s say this is an ideological garden. Alright, and you have nontheistic ideologies, and you have theistic ideologies, and they’re in competition with each other. The Catholics are in competition with the Protestants, and the Christians are in competition with the Muslims or the Hindus, and the theists are in competition with the agnostics and humanists, there’s competition that goes on, okay? But just like in the case of organic flowers we have down here the soil, and comparably with the ideological garden we have science. Now the theists claim that science nourishes their view, the atheists claim, the non-theists claim that science nourishes their view. And that is true. The plants are not in competition with the soil. Okay? The ideologies are not in competition with science, they’re in competition with each other. And this I think is a clearer way to think about it. Now what some of the atheist scientists that you were just mentioning will claim is that this arrow is extremely strong, this is science compelling their point of view. Henry Morris says the same thing. Henry Morris says: If you really understand science, it proves the earth is young and it proves that Jesus loves you, and that’s the same, it’s the same overly strong claim. Now I can go on to tell you why I believe that science cannot compel these views. That science is dependent upon testing. Testing is dependent upon controlling variables, holding constant variables. If there is a God, there’s no way you can compel God to do what you want him to do. You cannot hold constant God’s efforts. You can’t put him in a test tube, you can’t keep him out of one. God is unconstrained. Therefore you cannot perform science using God as a variable. So you have to just leave God out. Science has to be religiously neutral, science has to operate as if only natural causes are taking place because the only tools we have to test our arguments, the only tools we have to test our theories are tools that have to do with the natural world. So because of this we have no theometer, right? We have no way of constant God’s efforts. So therefore we have to just act as if God doesn’t interfere when we do science. Now if I’m a theist I believe that God can interfere. But if I really think very hard about this I really don’t want God to interfere. If I’m going to do science you have to act as an economy of miracles. That there are very few miracles, maybe the resurrection or something like that. But God doesn’t go on and fool around so the water is H3O tomorrow, as opposed to H2O. Okay? So God doesn’t fool around. There are laws of nature, there are regularities, and we can understand them, okay. But it gets worse than that. Because science is only one sort of human enterprise, there is also sciences, there are a lot of enterprises.

186

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

All of which derive from critical thinking. Critical thinking is the soil so to speak that nourishes science, that nourishes history, that nourishes theology, that nourishes any kind of intellectual enterprise of that nature. A lot of the scientists that I seem to be on the other side of believe that science owns critical thinking. That critical thinking is only this arrow so to speak. But they’re wrong, because critical thinking is basic to a lot of human intellectual enterprises. So just like atheism doesn’t own science, science doesn’t own critical thinking. Critical thinking is sort of the foundation for all of these enterprises. And if you want to argue about non theistic philosophies versus theistic religions: fine. Let that argument take place up here. Don’t have it take place down here. Because science is an equal-­opportunity way of knowing that can nourish both theological as well as non-theological philosophies and when I say “Leave science out of the culture wars”, this is what I’m thinking of. Back to you. Tom Kaden: Thank you. So where’s the NCSE in this? Eugenie Scott: Oh, NCSE? Tom Kaden: Is it a flower? Eugenie Scott: No, not at all. No, we’re not an ideology. NCSE – that’s a wonderful question, I’ve never thought about that – I hope NCSE is here. NCSE is an enterprise that tries to take advantage of critical thinking, science and the ideological garden up above the others. Tom Kaden: So it’s all over the place. Eugenie Scott: Yeah, we draw from all of that. We draw from all. But we’re not a descendent of any of them, so to speak. Tom Kaden: I see. But I can imagine you find yourselves constantly or sometimes in the position that people, for example scientists who have this view that science speaks for non-theism try to get you in the boat – Eugenie Scott: Oh, absolutely. Not just try to recruit us but beat us over the head when we don’t. I mean if you google: “Eugenie Scott” and “accommodationist” you’ll get all sorts of hits. Accommodationist, an accommodationism is becoming sort of a pejorative term among the atheist scientists who criticize us. And an accommodationist is somebody who, well, there’s a number of definitions, but roughly what they mean is somebody who cooperates with religious people even though we don’t accept the religious views. And why this should be a pejorative, I don’t know, but that’s the way they look at it. These are clearly people who have never been to a school board meeting and received positive outcome. I mean something that I learned back in Lexington is – I was sitting next to one of the ministers who was supporting us and who was going to testify at the school board meeting, and we were planning strategy and, and there was an article in the newspaper, something about prayer in school, and I mentioned something about, “Yeah, and then there is prayer in school”, and he said, “Oh I think that’s a great idea.” He’s all for that, and I thought: “Okay, that’s some place where we’re not going to be working together”. But still we had common goals in keeping creation science from being taught in the science classes. And we could cooperate and we could work together, and put on the same harness and pull that plug. If an issue came up

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

187

about prayer in schools obviously we’d be on different sides. That’s just the way it is in politics, you cooperate where you have common goals, and you agree to disagree where you don’t have common goals. And somehow that is something that – well I shouldn’t say that. I mean I shouldn’t say that that’s what the activist atheist scientists don’t understand. The more thoughtful ones, like Richard Dawkins, I believe his position is, “Yes, I understand why to achieve this goal you would cooperate with religious people, with moderate religious people who share this goal.” But he has a higher goal, as it were. He wants to rid people of supernatural beliefs in total and he is under the impression, which I think is wrong, that people with moderate beliefs legitimize the people with more conservative, more dangerous beliefs. Because he really does believe that, that there are many religious beliefs that are just positively dangerous, and he’s right. There are some crazy ideas out there that hurt people. But they’re not being held by Quakers, okay? But he believes that cooperating with Quakers just legitimizes the crazies. Which I disagree with. So therefore to cooperate with religious people to achieve the smaller goal of getting evolution taught might have to just be set aside in service of this larger goal of ridding the world of superstition. That’s their view. Tom Kaden: When you were just describing the NCSE’s moderate, pragmatic position. Eugenie Scott: We’re very pragmatic. Tom Kaden: I was reminded of what you said earlier that the Discovery Institute is probably the evil twin of the NCSE, because they kind of do the same thing don’t they? They have a stripped-down mere creation approach to try to have lots of political leverage. Eugenie Scott: Well, yeah, I mean, being pragmatic doesn’t make them our evil twin. I used that expression in a joking way to describe how they also work at the grass-roots level. And they also advise local people to support their point of view. I wasn’t thinking of it so much that they’re dissembling in terms of their total overall view which I think is a different issue, and certainly a pragmatic issue. But in their case the pragmatism is more along the lines of „We won’t reveal our full agenda because we’ll get more done with this stripped-down agenda. “That’s not what we do. We don’t have a full agenda of trying to promote atheism or theism. Kind of what you see is what you get. And we just want evolution to be taught, that’s our narrow agenda but that’s all our agenda is. We’re not presenting that is a narrower agenda to hide a fuller agenda which I think is what they’re doing. Tom Kaden: This is another rather general question. I know that there are many problems with public polling on creationism. If one looks at polls, for example the Gallup Poll, one can get the impression that the situation is rather stagnating. There are constantly lots of people who believe that the earth is young or that humans were created recently. All the efforts of the national science organizations and also of the NCSE don’t seem to have changed very much. How do you see that?

188

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

Eugenie Scott: Well, there’s the question of change, and then there is the question of would things be a lot worse if we weren’t there? Our files, you’ve probably not really looked at but there are several drawers and files of flare-ups over the years. Eric did a little analysis a couple of years ago where he looked at the cases where we had had some involvement and he found that in eighty some percent of the cases where we actually got information to people on the – I mean sometimes an issue will come up, we we’ll just record it as having happened but we actually didn’t work with anybody there, and we didn’t have the time to help, we didn’t have the staff, whatever. But in the cases where we actually did send information, work with people on the grass-roots, rewrite the policy, offer new wording, whatever, we succeeded in 80 plus percent of the time and either a good outcome or a better outcome. They might have passed a policy that we’re not too crazy about but we got it worded so it’s not going to hurt. Those kinds of outcomes. Now, if we hadn’t been there, probably there would be a lot more restriction on the teaching of evolution. The textbooks wouldn’t nearly have as much evolution in them as they have because it’s us and the science community that are really leaned on the publishers, but especially getting people aware at the national level. When the national science education standards came out in the early 90’s, 94 or whatever it was, and they became very influential at the state level and in influencing the state level people to include evolution in the state standards which had a big trickle-down effect in getting the textbook publishers to include evolution. I mean in one sense there is so much more evolution being taught now. If the percentage of anti-evolution has almost stayed the same, that’s a success, okay? But the poll data are hard to interpret. I think there’s probably more acceptance of evolution we can’t take credit for. We’re only dealing with a subset of public school education. What’s much more important in influencing the attitudes toward evolution is how evolution is treated in the general society. If you have movies like “Expelled” that’s going to do a lot of harm, but you have at the same time all these nature channels on television which are showing unqualified presentations of evolution. Evolution is just assumed, on these channels like National Geographic or the Discovery Channel, and other nature channels. That probably in the long run is going to have more to do with increasing the acceptance of evolution than what we do in schools, oddly enough. Just because it reaches such a huge percentage of the population. And television reaches a huge percentage of the population in a way that is very memorable, because people do remember what they see. They might not remember the details but they remember the kind of the context, the gist of it. Tom Kaden: I was wondering, given the fact that you kind of have to say basically the same things all over again for years, and given the fact that it would probably be harmful to the cause of the NCSE if you got impatient, and accused people of being stupid, how do you cope with that personally? I imagine it to be really frustrating to basically go to places and do interviews and say the same basic things all over again. Eugenie Scott: Many years ago we had a board member who was a lovely woman, she actually didn’t last as a board member for very long, she had some illnesses

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

189

and she couldn’t give us the attention, that she needed to do so she got off the board. But she left us with this wonderful observation that really is so true which I tell myself regularly. She said „We’re educating a parade“, and when you think about it that’s exactly what’s happening. That is why you have to say the same thing over and over. If you’re saying the same thing over and over to the same person, that gets frustrating, okay? Because that person should know by God because you’ve told him already. But if it’s a new part of the parade who hasn’t heard about this. Then you need to say it again. And the other thing that I tell my staff is when you find a good way to say something don’t feel like you have to change it for the next part of the parade, because that part of the parade hasn’t heard it yet. So if you’ve got a good way of crisply getting a point across, by all means, keep using it. And if you get tired of saying it try to think in terms of an actor because an actor doesn’t get sick of Hamlet, right? And you don’t have to say “to be or – maybe something else” „not to be“. But what an actor wants to do is say it even better the next time, an actor is always trying to improve his performance. Well, to the extent that we have to deal with the press we have to deal with that new chunk of the parade that just came by. How can you get your message across even better? In my talks, in my public lectures of which I’ve given God knows how many I do have to make some of the same points, the pillars of creationism for example. If you kind of understand that basic outline then it’s really useful because everything else I say the rest of that lecture, anything else you read in the newspapers or something you can probably put in one of those categories and then know how to deal with it. So I’ll repeat that a lot but there’s new examples that I can give of it. There may be a more efficient way of saying it, so it always takes me three or 4 h to write a talk, even if the basic material is material I’ve talked about before, because I want to make it fresh, I want to come up with new examples, better examples. So no, I don’t get bored, I don’t get frustrated because there’s always a new way of doing it, and it’s a new part of the parade. Tom Kaden: I see. Well, given that the arguments that you have to make against creationism change over time because creationism changes over time, do you have an a presumption on how the entire thing is going to develop in the near future? Eugenie Scott: Where creationism is going to go? That’s like that question that was asked at the conference on Friday. I think creationism evolves largely in response to pressures from the legal environment, which is why we have the “academic freedom” acts as the creationism du jour. I think it’s going to be very difficult for them to come up with an agentless form of creationism. They tried it with Intelligent Design but that implies a designer, that implies an agent, and that’s what shut them down in Dover. Years ago Wendell Bird derived something called Abrupt Appearance Theory which is pretty darn good in terms of an agentless form of creationism. This was the view that didn’t have an agent is just the evidence for the universe and living things and the earth and the whole shooting match. The evidence for the abrupt appearance of things in their present form. That was actually really smart because it didn’t imply religion, it was dopey

190

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

s­cience, obviously, and of course maybe one of the reasons why Abrupt Appearance Theory didn’t go anywhere. This was something he proposed in his two volume book, it was taken from Teilhard de Chardin’s book. Not “The Emergence of Man Reconsidered” but something reconsidered. I was trying to remember what Teilhard’s title was, but anyway Tom Kaden: Wendell Bird was the one who wrote the Public School Guidelines. Eugenie Scott: Correct. Tom Kaden: But you were talking about – Eugenie Scott: And this is the later book. He also wrote a book between the passage of the Louisiana Bill and the actual Supreme Court decision called the, I think I want to say „The emergeance of,Man Reconsidered“ but that’s not it, it’s Teilhard de Chardin’s major work. Which he cites and then reconsiders it, and basically it’s his brief for the Supreme Court, that’s what it is. And in that book he proposes Abrupt Appearance Theory as having nothing to do with religion so therefore it’s perfectly legal to teach. I think maybe the reason why that didn’t catch on is that it does require positive evidence for abrupt appearance, and of course the whole Two Model Approach is disproving evolution, thus proving creationism. And just disproving evolution maybe would prove Abrupt Appearance Theory, but people are going to be looking for some positive evidence for this, not just the negative, that isn’t going to fly. And he learned that from McLean. The McLean judge referred to the “contrived dualism” of “evidence against evolution is evidence for creationism”. So nobody really picked up on Wendell Bird’s Abrupt Appearance Theory, instead Intelligent Design developed. And of course Abrupt Appearance Theory is much more of a creation science derived meme because in its initial format it applied pretty much to the 6 day creation poof. Now I’m sure you could revise that to progressive creationism in which you – I can design so much better creationism than they could. So anyway, they have to come up with something that doesn’t have an agent because it’s the agent that gets you the religious problem in our courts. And so I think that’s what they have to come up with. Tom Kaden: So these would certainly be forms of creationism, hypothetical forms of creationism that could cause trouble in public schools and that could be subject to scrutiny by the NCSE. But apart from that realm of public education you have still the forms of creationism like Biblical Literalism, like even creation science arguments, that were expelled from this realm of public education quite a while ago but they still exist and they still are popular. In a way the organizations thrive. So speculating on the future of creationism of this landscape, I was thinking in Dover a similar thing happened to Intelligent Design as has happened to Creation Science in the 80s. It was an approach to get into public schools and the reason it was exposed as basically religious and the whole thing was done with, basically. I mean, of course Intelligent Design is not yet dead but to me it appears as if Creation Science basically retreated in its former habitat. Eugenie Scott: It retreated from trying to be imposed by law or regulations in the public schools. It’s given up on the public schools. There’s a Supreme Court

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

191

decision, they’re not going to go there anymore. Intelligent Design, having a smaller advocacy base in one sense – there are far fewer Intelligent Design organizations than Creation Science organizations  – they have obviously been thwarted at Dover but they didn’t want Dover. I mean, the Discovery Institute did not want the Dover case. They didn’t want the policy to mention Intelligent Design. By the time in Dover they had already flipped over to the idea of just teaching the denigration of evolution, just evidence against evolution, that was their position, teaching all the views, full range of views. Tom Kaden: So they wouldn’t be able to retreat in – Eugenie Scott: Well there’s not a lot to retreat from. I mean they’re not retreating, well. Since they didn’t – okay, back up. In the 90’s they wrote a number of white papers and some articles in law journals where they argued that it was legal to teach Intelligent Design, and then they changed their mind in the early 2000’s. And by 2002, in the Ohio school board controversy, they withdrew from the position of promoting Intelligent Design and shifted to promoting anti-evolutionism. So in a sense they’ve already made that withdrawal. But they were never as active. There’s what goes on at the ICR and the Discovery Institute level, and then there is what goes on at the grass-roots. And the DI may be quite crystal-­ clear about their “we’re not creationists, we’ve got nothing to do with creationism, we’re strictly scientific, and it is an intellectual pursuit,” and all of this. That’s not how it’s viewed on the grass-roots. People at the bottom mix up the two regularly. We get policies that call for the teaching of Intelligent Design, and yet if you look at the content it’s 6 Day Creationism, right? That’s the sort of thing that would give the DI hives if they heard about it but on the grass-roots people freely co- confuse the two, and in one sense they’ve got a clear vision of what’s going on I guess because obviously ID really is at heart a creationist position. So you do get some of these grass-roots, school board level or individual teacher kinds of things where ID is still being promoted but it’s not being promoted by the Discovery Institute. The DI is not out there, trying to get these policies for teaching ID in the public schools, but they are certainly pushing these Academic Freedom Acts. Tom Kaden: I see. I guess my last question would be what do you think may be the future of your organization and anti-creationism in general? Eugenie Scott: Well, I think that anti-creationism is going to continue. We haven’t solved the problem yet. Society hasn’t solved the problem yet. It’s going to change, there’s going to be something new. But I think NCSE taking on the climate change issue is going to be very good for us. I think it’s inspiring to the staff, it gives us a new focus and some new ideas to think about, so I think climate change is such a great topic for us because there’s so many parallels between anti-climate change and anti-evolution. It’ll really give us the chance to do some new thinking and it may shed light on new solutions for the evolution issue. I mean it can work in both directions. I think our knowledge of anti-evolutionism can help inform the struggle, if you will, to oppose the climate change deniers but we may also learn something about their experiences as well.

192

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

Tom Kaden: To me it seems, touching on the climate change issue that the structure of this opposition to climate science pretty much resembles the structure of anti-evolution. Eugenie Scott: It is, but it has a different ideological base. Tom Kaden: Can you explain that? Eugenie Scott: Oh yeah. Well, the ideological base of anti-evolutionism is religion. Clear. The ideological base for opposing the teaching of climate change is only a tiny amount of that is religious, the vast majority of the opposition comes from political conservatives, and economic conservatives. The argument is that climate change is just a ploy to try to increase the power of big government, to tell us what kind of cars to drive, and how much energy we should use, and impose on our individual liberties. Individual liberty is a big deal with Americans. Then there’s the economic argument that climate change is just a ploy to try to put constraints on capitalism and to inhibit the economic engine of American success, carbon taxes and the rest of that. As a way of inhibiting American individual liberty. Give me your pad again. I think the way we look at it is, we have here religious conservatives and we have here political conservatives and here we have the religious right, okay? Now, we’re going to draw that twice, because we have – I don’t know how big these relative circles should be. And religious right. When we look at something like creation and evolution the religious right is reliably anti-evolutionary, and, generally speaking, so are religious conservatives. Okay. When we look at climate change on the other hand the religious right is reliably anti-climate change. But you draw that box a little bit differently. There are far more political conservatives against this than religious conservatives, a lot of these religious conservatives over here are for creation care, they’re for stewardship theology. And so they understand that the climate’s changing and it’s going to change the planet and we have to do something to help. Some of these political conservatives over here don’t care about evolution at all. It’s not a big deal for them so there’s no real reason to, but the religious right tends to kind of skew that perception. But the opposition to climate change is still ideological, it’s just a political and economic ideology. Tom Kaden: So people who are opposed to this entire idea of climate change based on political or economic reasons, this is a kind of similar odd elective affinity as in the creation-evolution debate, and the NCSE is trying to argue or to at least show views that present a spectrum of views among which there are some who don’t – Eugenie Scott: So “republicans for climate change”. I don’t think that’s the name of the organization but there are some in republican groups who recognize that climate change is not a liberal plot, this is something we all have to deal with, and it’s actually Reagan conservatism. And there’s this great website that I have bookmarked, believe me, and I’m sure once we get rolling with climate change we’ll be trying to showcase, again, this dichotomist thinking is very dangerous for either the teaching of evolution or the teaching of climate change. The dichotomist thinking in evolution is: you got to choose between Christianity and science. The dichotomist thinking over climate change is that in order to be a good

Appendix: Interview with Eugenie C. Scott (14 May 2012)

193

republican you have to be against climate change. And we need to break that dichotomy out. Tom Kaden: I could imagine that as opposed to the NCSE being one of the first organizations to tackle anti-evolutionism – Eugenie Scott: Oh yeah, we’re Johnny-come-latelies to climate change. Tom Kaden: You’re not the first ones to – Eugenie Scott: We’re not the first, and we will not be the most important. Again, what we’ve decided to do with climate change is not be a policy organization. We aren’t going to be dealing with the shoulds and odds in terms of should we have carbon tax or should we have some other form of of restriction, cap-and-trade, the kind of the two big issues there. We’re not going to take a position on that. But just like with evolution we believe that we should teach the scientific consensus, which is in the case of evolution: the earth is old, living things have common ancestors, cosmology happened. In the case of climate change you should be teaching the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is the planet is getting warmer, it’s largely based on CO2, and human release of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is very important in this, and probably something should be done. That last part we’re tiptoeing around very carefully, but this is the scientific consensus. Now if that consensus changes, fine. Teachers should be teaching the scientific consensus. That’s what they do at the high-school level, they’re not supposed to be out there developing new theory. They’re supposed to be teaching what the scientific community agrees upon. Now unfortunately just like with evolution there’s pressure against teachers who want to teach that view, and our particular contribution to this issue is helping teachers understand how to counter the arguments, how to make a good position to administrators who maybe want them to soft-pedal it like they want evolution soft-pedaled. Helping parents, know how they can support the teachers, helping the school boards craft the best policies. In other words doing the same thing of climate change that we do for evolution. Tom Kaden: Alright. I guess that’s it. Eugenie Scott: Okay. You have 24 h. If you think of anything else you come back. Tom Kaden: Alright, thank you very much.

References

Allchin, D. (2009). Teaching the evolution of morality: Status and resources. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(4), 629–635. Almond, G. A., Sivan, E., & Scott Appleby, R. (2004). Explaining fundamentalisms. In M. Marty & R. Scott Appleby (Eds.), Fundamentalisms comprehended (pp. 425–444). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Amarasingam, A. (Ed.). (2010). Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal. Brill: Leiden. Answers in Genesis. (n.d.). The problem. https://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/images/ articles/nab2/the-problem.jpg. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. 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. (2018a). The history of answers in genesis through December 2017. https:// answersingenesis.org/about/history/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Answers in Genesis. (2018b). Answers research journal. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/ research-journal/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018. Answers in Genesis. (2018c). Answers VBS. https://answersingenesis.org/vbs/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018. Answers in Genesis. (2018d). Creation museum. https://creationmuseum.org/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018. Answers in Genesis. (2018e). Ark encounter. https://arkencounter.com/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018. Answers in Genesis. (2018f). Arguments to avoid. https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/. 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. Antievolution.org. (2005a). McLean v. Arkansas documentation project. http://www.antievolution. org/projects/mclean/new_site/index.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Antievolution.org. (2005b). Testimony of Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada (Plaintiffs Witness). http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/ new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_ruse.html. Accessed 22 Jan 2018. Armstrong, K. (2000). The battle for God. Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: HarperCollins. Baker, C. (2006). The evolution dialogues: Science, christianity, and the quest for understanding. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 T. Kaden, Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5

195

196

References

Behe, M. (2006). Darwin’s black box. The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: The Free Press. Bio-Complexity. (n.d.). About. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. Biologic Institute. (2018). Archive. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/archive/. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2005). Ten thousand democracies: Politics and public opinion in America’s school districts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2012). An evolving controversy: The struggle to teach science in science classes. American Educator, 36(2), 12–40. Berlinski, D. (2009). The devil’s delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions. New York: Basic Books. Bielo, J. (2018). Ark encounter. The making of a creationist theme park. New York: NYU Press. BioLogos. (n.d.). Our mission. https://biologos.org/about-us. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of science. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. 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. Blancke, S., Hjermitslev, H.  H., & Kjærgaard, P.  C. (Eds.). (2014). Creationism in Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 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. (2010a). ICR concedes defeat over its graduate school. https://ncse.com/news/2010/09/ icr-concedes-defeat-over-its-graduate-school-006160. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Branch, G. (2010b). The latest “intelligent design” journal. https://ncse.com/library-resource/ latest-intelligent-design-journal. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. Casanova, J. (1994). Public religions in the modern world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Center for Science and Culture. (n.d.-a). Frequently asked questions. http://www.intelligentdesign. org/faq.php. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. Center for Science and Culture. (n.d.-b). What is intelligent design?. http://www.intelligentdesign. org/whatisid.php. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. Center for Science and Culture. (n.d.-c). Fellows. http://www.discovery.org/id/about/fellows/. Accessed 17 Jan 2018. Center for Science and Culture. (n.d.-d). Peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design. http://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/. Accessed 17 Jan 2018. Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. (1998). The Wedge. O.O., o.V.

References

197

Chang, K. (2005). In explaining life’s complexity, Darwinists and doubters clash. http://www. nytimes.com/2005/08/22/us/in-explaining-lifes-complexity-darwinists-and-doubters-clash. html. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. 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. Cohen, P. (2007). A split emerges as conservatives discuss Darwin. http://www.nytimes. com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05darwin.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 13 Jan 2018. Comfort, N.  C. (2007). The Panda’s black box. Opening up the intelligent design controversy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Counterbalance. (n.d.). Peter Hess. http://www.counterbalance.org/bio/phess-body.html. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. Coyne, J. (2011). Accommodationism at Berkeley/NCSE website. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/accommodationism-at-berkeleyncse-website/. Accessed 22 Jan 2018. Creation Research Society. (2018). Statement of belief. https://creationresearch.org/statement-ofbelief/. 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. Davie, G. (2012). Belief and unbelief: Two sides of a coin. Approaching Religion, 2(1), 3–7. Davis, P., & Kenyon, D. H. (1993). Of pandas and people: The central question of biological origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: Norton & Company. Dawkins, R. (1989a, April 9). Review of: Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey: Blueprint. Solving the Mystery of Evolution. The New York Times. Dawkins, R. (1989b). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dawkins, R. (1995). River out of eden: A Darwinian view of life. New York: Basic Books. Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. London: Bantam Press. Dembski, W.  A. (1998a). Introduction: Mere creation. In W.  A. Dembski (Ed.), Mere creation. Science, faith & intelligent design (pp. 13–30). Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Dembski, W. A. (1998b). The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dembski, W. A. (2004). The design revolution. Answering the toughest questions about intelligent design. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Dembski, W. A. (2009). The end of christianity: Finding a good god in an evil world. Nashville: B&H Publishing. Dembski, W. A., & Wells, J. (2007). The design of life: Discovering signs of intelligence in biological systems. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics. Dembski, W.  A., & Wells, J.  (2008). How to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist (or not). Wilmington: ISI Books. Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster. Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell. London: Viking Penguin. Denton, M. (1986). Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda: Adler & Adler. DeYoung, D. (2007). Far out claims about astronomy. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ far-out-claims-about-astronomy/. Accessed 22 Jan 2018. Discovery Institute. (n.d.). What we do. http://www.discovery.org/about/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018.

198

References

Discovery Institute Press. (n.d.). Foundation for thought and ethics. http://www.discoveryinstitutepress.com/fte/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018. Discovery Media Productions. (2002). Discovery media products. http://web.archive.org/ web/20030411090843/http:/www.discoverymedia.org/dm_products_page.htm. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. Dockrill, P. (2016). 1 in 3 teachers in US public schools are teaching climate change denial, study finds. http://www.sciencealert.com/1-in-3-teachers-in-us-public-schools-are-teaching-climatechange-denial-study-finds. Accessed 8 Jan 2018. Dorick, L. (2005). Letter to Mark Ryland. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDBdownload.php?id=354. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. Draper, J. W. (1875). History of the conflict between religion and science. London: Henry S. King & Co. Dunkelberg, P. (2003). Irreducible complexity demystified. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2018. Eldredge, N. (1982). The monkey business: A scientist looks at creationism. New York: Washington Square Books. Elsberry, W. (2007). Logic and math turn to smoke and mirrors: William Dembski’s “design inference”. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists confront creationism: Intelligent design and beyond (pp. 250–271). New York/London: Norton & Company. Eterovic, A., & Santos, C. M. D. (2013). Teaching the role of mutation in evolution by means of a board game. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 6(1), 22–31. Evans, J. H. (2011). Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(4), 707–727. Evans, J. H., & Evans, M. S. (2008). Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 87–105. 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. Faulkner, D. (1999). The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross. http://www.icr.org/article/3001 and http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v13/n2/hugh-ross. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. Focus on the Family. (2008). The toughest test in college. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=moVNwKHkTMo. Accessed 22 Jan 2018. 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. Forrest, B. (2001). The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives (pp. 5–53). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Forrest, B. (2007). Understanding the intelligent design creationist movement: Its nature and goals. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. Francis, J. W. (2000). Peering into Darwin’s black box. Origins & Design, 38(1), 18–32. Frankowski, N. (2008). Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Rocky Mountain Pictures: Salt Lake City. 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. Godfrey, L. R. (Ed.). (1984). Scientists confront creationism. New York: W W Norton & Co. Gordon, B.  L., & Dembski, W.  A. (Eds.). (2011). The nature of nature: Examining the role of naturalism in science. Wilmington: ISI Books. Gosse, P. (1857). Omphalos: An attempt to untie the geological knot. London: John van Voorst. Gould, S. J. (1992). Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 276(1), 118. Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping Magisteria. Natural History, 106(2), 16–22. Gould, S.  J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3(2), 115–151.

References

199

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-wissenschaftder-liebe-gott-als-blutruenstiges-ungeheuer-1.879879. Accessed 22 Jan 2018. Haeckel, E. (1934). The riddle of the universe. London: Watts & Co. Ham, K. (1987). The lie: Evolution. San Diego: Master Books. Ham, K. (2006). The ghost of Darwin. Answers Magazine, 1(2), 20–22. Ham, K. (2008). Why is the Christian worldview collapsing in America? In K. Ham (Ed.), The new answers book 2 (pp. 9–14). Green Forest: Master Books. Ham, K. (2009). Evolving tactics. Answers Magazine, 4(1), 82–84. Ham, K., & Beemer, B. (2009). Already gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it. San Diego: Master Books. Ham, K., & Hall, G. (2011). Already compromised: Christian colleges took a test on the state of their faith and the final exam is in. San Diego: Master Books. Ham, K., & Hodge, B. (Eds.). (2011). Begin. A journey through scriptures for seekers and new believers. San Diego: Master Books. Harmon, K. (2011). Evolution abroad: Creationism evolves in science classrooms around the globe. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-education-abroad/. Accessed 22 Jan 2018. Harris, S. (2004). The end of faith. London: Free Press. Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: The Free Press. Harrison, P. (2006). ‘Science’ and ‘religion’: Constructing the boundaries. The Journal of Religion, 86(Heft 1), 81–106. Harrison, P. (2015). The territories of science and religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Helder, M. (2000). No bridge-building Here. Origins & Design, 38(1), 34–35. Henry, H., Dyke, D. J., & Cruze, C. (2008). Evolution as mythology. http://reasons.org/explore/ blogs/todays-new-reason-to-believe/read/tnrtb/2008/05/05/evolution-as-mythology-part1-(of-5)-the-theory-of-evolution-is-a-myth. Accessed 10 Jan 2018. Hess, P.  M. J.  (2009). God and evolution. https://ncse.com/library-resource/god-evolution. Accessed 22 Jan 2018. 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. Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great. New York: Twelve. Hochgeschwender, M. (2007). Amerikanische religion: Evangelikalismus, Pfingstlertum und Fundamentalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag der Weltreligionen. Hovind, E. (2011). They’re both religions. http://creationtoday.org/theyre-both-religions-beginnings-session-1/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. Huffington Post. (2011). Rick Perry knocks evolution again: ‘God is how we got Here’. http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20/rick-perry-evolution-intelligent-design_n_932073.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. 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. Iannaccone, L., & Lutz, F.  W. (1994). The crucible of democracy: The local arena. Journal of Education Policy, 9(5), 39–52. IDEA. (2001). About the IDEA club. A club history, explanation, and philosophy. http://web. archive.org/web/20070206160928/http:/www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/archives/about.shtml. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. Illustra Media. (2015). About. https://web.archive.org/web/20150814180831/http://illustramedia. com/about/. Accessed 18 Jan 2018.

200

References

Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-a). Who we are. http://www.icr.org/who-we-are/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-b). Radio station finder. http://www.icr.org/radio/stationfinder/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-c). Radioisotopes and the age of the earth (RATE). http:// www.icr.org/rate/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-d). ICR research at a glance. http://www.icr.org/research/. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-e). Archive of technical papers articles. http://www.icr.org/ articles/search/?f_typeID=12. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Institute for Creation Research. (1981). 1981–82 General catalog. El Cajon, n.p. Institute for Creation Research. (2012). Introducing ICR’s new director of research: Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Acts & Facts, 41(4), 18. Institute for Creation Research. (2016a). School of biblical apologetics graduate program catalog. http://www.icr.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/SOBA-Graduate-Catalog-AD2016-2018.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Institute for Creation Research. (2016b). Creationist worldview professional certificate program. http://www.icr.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/CW-Catalog-AD2016.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Institute for Creation Research. (2018). Principles of scientific creationism/principles of biblical creationism. http://www.icr.org/tenets. Accessed 24 Jan 2018. IRS. (2018). Lobbying. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying. Accessed 24 Jan 2018. Johnson, P. E. (1991). Darwin on trial. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 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. Johnson, P. E. (2000). The wedge of truth: Splitting foundations of naturalism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. Jones, J.  E. (2005). Memorandum opinion. https://ncse.com/files/pub/legal/kitzmiller/highlights/2005-12-20_Kitzmiller_decision.pdf. Accessed 17 Jan 2018. Justia.com. (n.d.). Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/ federal/us/482/578/. Accessed 15 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. (2014). Fundamentalismus. In T.  M. Schmidt & A.  Pitschmann (Eds.), Religion und Säkularisierung. Ein philosophisches Handbuch (pp. 194–199). Stuttgart: Metzler. 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. (2018). American humanism and sociology of religion. In P.-U.  Merz-Benz & P. Gostmann (Eds.), Humanismus und Soziologie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 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. Kelly, C. R., & Hoerl, K. E. (2012). Genesis in Hyperreality: Legitimizing disingenuous controversy at the creation museum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48, 123–141. Kemper, G., Luskin, C., & Kemper, H. (2013). Discovering intelligent design: A journey into the scientific evidence. Seattle: Discovery Institute Press. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kutschera, U. (2008). Creationism in Germany and its possible cause. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 84–86. LaHaye, T. (1980). The battle for the mind. A subtle warfare. Ada: Revell.

References

201

Larson, E. J. (2006). Summer for the gods. The scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. New York: Basic Books. Laudan, L. (1982). Commentary: Science at the bar – Causes for concern. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7, 16–19. Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In L. Laudan & R. S. Cohen (Eds.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis: Essays in honor of Adolf Grunbaum (pp. 111–127). Boston: D. Reidel. Lehigh University. (n.d.). Michael Behe, Ph.D. https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/Faculty/Behe. html. Accessed 17 Jan 2018. Lévi-Strauss, C. (2007). A world on the wane. Whitefish: Kessinger. 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. Mackenzie, J. (2010). How biology teachers can respond to intelligent design. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(1), 53–67. MacNeill, A. (2008). The “Intelligent Design” movement on college and university campuses is dead. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.de/2008/12/intelligent-design-movement-on-college.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. Marsh, F. L. (1941). Fundamental biology. Lincoln: The author. Matzke, N. (2009). But Isn’t it creationism? The beginnings of “intelligent design” in the midst of the Arkansas and Louisiana litigation. In R. T. Pennock & M. Ruse (Hg.), But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy (pp.  377–413). Amherst: Prometheus Books. McCalla, A. (2006). The creationist debate. The encounter between the Bible and the historical mind. London/New York: T & T Clark International. McDonald, J. H. (2011). A reducibly complex mousetrap. http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap. html. Accessed 23 Jan 2018. Merton, R. K. (1974). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Meyer, S. C. (2009). Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design. London: HarperOne. Meyer, S. C. (2013). Darwin’s doubt: The explosive origin of animal life and the case for intelligent design. New York: HarperOne. Meyer, S. C., Minnich, S., Moneymaker, J., Nelson, P. A., & Seelke, R. (2007). Explore evolution: The arguments for and against neo-Darwinism. London: Hill House Publishers. Miller, K. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god: A Scientist’s search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: Harper Perennial. Mitchell, T., & White, M. (2008). Is evolution a religion? In K. Ham (Hg.), The answers book 2. Green Forest: Master Books. Mooney, C. (2005). The republican war on science. New York: Basic Books. Moore, J. N. (1981). Letter to the editor. Students of Origins Research, 4(1), 7. Moore, R., & Decker, M. D. (2009). More than Darwin: The people and places of the evolution-­ creationism controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Moreland, J.  P. (1994). The creation hypothesis: Scientific evidence for an intelligent designer. InterVarsity: Downers Grove. Morris, H. (1974). Scientific creationism. El Cajon: Master Books. Morris, H. (1984). History of modern creationism. San Diego: Master Books. Morris, H. (1986). The Paluxy River mystery. http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/. Accessed 24 Jan 2018. Morrison, D. (2011). Science denialism: Evolution and climate change. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 31(5), 3.1–3.10. Mortenson, T. (2006). Why shouldn’t Christians accept millions of years? In K. Ham (Hg.), The new answers book I. San Diego: Master Books. Online unter http://www.answersingenesis. org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions. (Zuletzt abgerufen am 27.08.2013.)

202

References

Mortenson, T. (2009). Noah’s flood: Washing away the millions of years. http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/washing-away-moy. (Zuletzt abgerufen am 24.08.2013.) Moyer, W. (1980). The problem won’t go away. The American Biology Teacher, 42(Heft 4), 234. Musgrave, I. (2004). Evolution of the bacterial flagellum. In M. Young & T. Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism (pp. 72–84). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. National Academy of Sciences. (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. National Association of Biology Teachers. (1973). Resolutions of learned societies in the textbook controversy. The American biology teacher, 35(Heft 1), 35–36. National Center for Science Education. (n.d.-a). Tennessee. https://ncse.com/news/tennessee. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. National Center for Science Education. (n.d.-b). Climate change. https://ncse.com/climate. Accessed 24 Jan 2018. National Center for Science Education. (2003). Unlocking the mystery of illustra media. https:// ncse.com/creationism/analysis/unlocking-mystery-illustra-media. Accessed 18 Jan 2018. New World Encyclopedia. (2014). Intelligent design. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ entry/Intelligent_design. Accessed 13 Jan 2018. Numbers, R. (1995). (Hg.). Creationism in twentieth-century America: A ten-volume anthology of documents, 1903–1961. New York, Garland Publishing. Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Oakes, G. (1990). Weber and Rickert: Concept formation in the cultural sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press. Olson, R. (2006). Flock of Dodos: The evolution-intelligent design crcus (Film). Docurama films. Park, H.-J. (1997). Anti-creationism in America. Dissertation, University of Melbourne, unpublished manuscript. Park, H.-J. (2000). The politics of anti-creationism: The committees of correspondence. Journal of the History of Biology, 33, 349–370. Patterson, R. (2006). Evolution exposed: Your evolution answer book for the classroom. Answers in Genesis: Hebron. Pennock, R. T. (Ed.). (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press: Cambridge. Pennock, R. T., & Ruse, M. (Eds.). (2009). But is it science?: The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy. Prometheus Books: Amherst. Peters, T., & Hewlett, M. (2003). Evolution from creation to new creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Petto, A. J., & Godfrey, L. R. (Eds.). (2007). Scientists confront creationism: Intelligent design and beyond. New York/London: Norton & Company. Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Polanyi, M. (1968). Life’s irreducible structure. Science, 160(3834), 1308–1312. Popitz, H. (2017). Phenomena of power: Authority, domination and violence. New York: Columbia University Press. Popper, K. (2005). Unended quest: An intellectual autobiography. London: Taylor & Francis. Price, G. M. C. (1923). The new geology: A textbook for colleges, normal schools, and training schools; and for the general reader. Oakland: Pacific press publishing association. Proctor, J. D. (2004). Resolving multiple visions of nature, science, and religion. Zygon, 39(3), 637–657. Purdom, G. (2008). Feedback: Are there beneficial mutations? http://www.answersingenesis.org/ articles/2008/04/25/feedback-beneficial-mutations. (Zuletzt abgerufen am 24.08.2013.) Purdom, G. (2010). Is the intelligent design movement Christian. https://answersingenesis.org/ intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-movement-christian/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.

References

203

Ramm, B. (1954). The Christian view of science and scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. Rana, F. (2010). Intelligent design: The right conclusion, but the wrong reasons. http://www. reasons.org/articles/intelligent-design-the-right-conclusion-but-the-wrongreasons. (Zuletzt abgerufen am 22.08.2013.) Rational Wiki. (n.d.-a). Lenski affair. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair. Accessed 15 Jan 2018. Rational Wiki. (n.d.-b). BIO-complexity. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. Ratzsch, D. (1998). Design, chance & theistic evolution. In W.  Dembski (Hg.), Mere creation. Science, faith & intelligent design (pp. 289–312). Downers Grove: InterVarsity. Reasons to Believe. (n.d.). Our mission & beliefs. http://reasons.org/about. 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. Ross, H. (1989). The fingerprint of god. Orange: Promise Publishing. Ross, H. (1998). Big bang model refined by fire. In W. Dembski (Hg.), Mere creation. Science, faith & intelligent design (pp. 363–384). Downers Grove: InterVarsity. 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. Ross, M. (2009). God of the gaps. Answers Magazine, 4(1), 60–63. Rothstein, E. (2007). Adam and Eve in the land of dinosaurs. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/ arts/24crea.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2018. Rupnow, D., et al. (Eds.). (2008). Pseudowissenschaft: Konzeptionen von Nichtwissenschaftlichkeit in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main. Ruse, M. (2005a). Darwinism and Christianity: Must they remain at war or is peace possible? In J. D. Proctor (Ed.), Science, religion, and the human experience (pp. 185–204). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ruse, M. (2005b). The evolution-creation struggle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. New York: Ballantine Books. Schröder, W. (1998). Ursprünge des Atheismus. Untersuchungen zur Metaphysik- und Religionskritik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt, Frommann-Holzboog. Scott, E. (2000a). The creation/evolution continuum. http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum. Accessed 8 Jan 2018. Scott, E. C. (2000b). Baylor’s Polanyi center in turmoil. Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 20(4), 9–11. Scott, E. (2005). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press. Scott, E. C. (2006). The once and future intelligent design. In E. C. Scott & G. Branch (Eds.), Not in our classrooms (pp. 1–27). Boston: Beacon Press. Scott, E. C. (2013). Donation letter of the National Center for Science Education. Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2006). Not in our classrooms: Why intelligent design is wrong for our schools. Boston: Beacon Press. Seibert, L. H. (2010). Glaubwürdigkeit als religiöses Vermögen. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 20(1), 89–117. Shanks, N., & Joplin, K. H. (1999). Redundant complexity: A critical analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philosophy of Science, 66(2), 268–282. 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. Smothers, H. (2015). What schools are teaching teens about sex will horrify you. https://splinternews.com/what-schools-are-teaching-teens-about-sex-will-horrify-1793851150. Accessed 8 Jan 2018. Spath, S. (2008). Expert witnesses. https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/expert-witnesses. Accessed 17 Jan 2018.

204

References

Specter, M. (2017). Trump’s dangerous support for conspiracies about autism and vaccines. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/trumps-dangerous-support-for-conspiracies-aboutautism-and-vaccines. Accessed 8 Jan 2018. SpringerLink. (2018). Evolution: Education and outreach. https://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/12052. Accessed 24 Jan 2018. Stenger, V. (2007). God: The failed hypothesis. How science shows that god doesn’t exist. Amherst: Prometheus Books. Stewart, R. B. (Ed.). (2007). Intelligent design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in dialogue. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Sungenis, R., & Bennett, R. J. (2007). Galileo was wrong: The church was right. Port Orange: CAI Publishing. Swan, L. K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Anti-atheist bias in the United States: Testing two critical assumptions. Secularism and Nonreligion, 1, 32–42. Swift, A. (2017). In U.S., belief in creationist view of humans at new low. http://news.gallup.com/ poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx. Accessed 13 Jan 2018. 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 Brights’ Network. (2018). Synopsis. http://www.the-brights.net/movement/synopsis.html. 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/[email protected]/msg31041. html. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. The National Center for Science Education. (1989). Voices for evolution. Berkeley, o. V. The National Center for Science Education. (1992). Reviews of creationist books. Berkeley, o.V. The Talk Origins Archive. (2005). Edwards v. Aguillard: Affidavit of creationist Dean Kenyon. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html. Accessed 16 Jan 2018. Theobald, D. (2006). The Mullerian two-step: Add a part, make it necessary, or, why Behe’s “Irreducible complexity” is silly. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html. Accessed 23 Jan 2008. Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Thorndike, J.  (1999). Epperson v. Arkansas: The evolution-creationism debate. Springfield: Enslow Publishers. Tönnies, F. (2010). Wege und Ziele der Soziologie. In K.  Lichtblau (Ed), Ferdinand Tönnies: Studien zu Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (pp. 185–202). Wiesbaden, VS Toumey, C.  P. (1993). Evolution and secular humanism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 61(2), 275–301. Toumey, C.  P. (1994). God’s own scientists: Creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Trollinger, S. L., & Trollinger, W. V. (2016). Righting America at the creation museum. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 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. Ussery, D. (2004). Darwin’s transparent box: The biochemical evidence for evolution. In M. Young & T.  Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism (pp. 48–57). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Ussher, J. (1650). Annales veteris Testamenti, a Prima Mundi Origine deducti, una cum Rerum Asiaticarum Aegypticarum Chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

References

205

Weber, M. (2012). In H.  H. Bruun & S.  Whimster (Eds.), Collected methodological writings. London: Routledge. Weinberg, S., et al. (1980). Creationism in Iowa. Science, 208(Heft 4449), 1208–1301. Weiner, R. (2011). Bachmann claims HPV vaccine might cause ‘mental retardation’. https://www. washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/michele-bachmann-continues-perry-attack-claimshpv-vaccine-might-cause-mental-retardation/2011/09/13/gIQAbJBcPK_blog.html?utm_ term=.9bf4e1811b4e. Accessed 8 Jan 2018. Wells, J. (2000). Icons of evolution. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. Wells, J. (2006). The politically incorrect guide to Darwinism and intelligent design. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. Welsh, J.  (2011). 13% of H.S.  Biology teachers advocate creationism in class. https://www. livescience.com/11656-13-biology-teachers-advocate-creationism-class.html. Accessed 8 Jan 2018. West, J.  G. (2009). Signature in the cell named one of top books of the year by times literary supplement. https://evolutionnews.org/2009/11/signature_in_the_cell_named_on/. Accessed 19 Jan 2018. Whitcomb, J. C. (2011). Jesus Christ: Our intelligent designer. An evaluation of the intelligent design movement. Waxhaw: Kainos Books. Whitcomb, J.  C., & Morris, H. (1961). The genesis flood. The biblical record and its scientific implications. Philipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing. White, A. D. (1896). A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom (Vol. 2 Vols). London: Macmillan. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge. Woltersdorf, A. (2007). Mit Gott durch Kentucky. http://www.taz.de/!303253/. Accessed 16 Jan 2018. Wood, T. C. (2009). Natural selection – Theory or reality? Answers Magazine, 4(1), 47–50. Woodward, T. (2003). Doubts about Darwin. A history of intelligent design. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Wuthnow, R. (1988). The restructuring of American religion: Society and faith since world war II. Princeton University Press: Princeton. Young, M. (2004). Grand designs and facile analogies: Exposing Behe’s mousetrap and Dembski’s arrow. In M. Young & T. Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism (pp. 20–31). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Young, R. (2012). Shoot the messenger: Carolina’s costly mistake on sea level rise. http://e360. yale.edu/features/north_carolina_costly_mistake_on_climate_change. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.