Chapter

Themes and Problems of Creationism Research: A Sociology of Conflict

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

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, 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.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Article
Issues pertaining to the relationship between science and religion, like creationism, Intelligent Design, and New Atheism, are increasingly the focus of social scientific research. This research often does not differentiate clearly between different kinds of social actors. At the most basic level, professional developers and distributors of systems of thought that deal with the relationship between science and religion, and laypeople who take up this knowledge, or parts of it, must be distinguished. Based upon interview material from the large, multinational study Science and Religion: Exploring the Spectrum, we identify five typical dimensions of lay knowledge vis-à-vis professional knowledge: reinterpretation of professional labels; neglect of important parts of knowledge systems; addition of knowledge; lower ascription of relevance; and an individual ethical framing.
Full-text available
Article
Background The board game ACAGATATA simulates how randomness originates biodiversity. An individual (genotype ACAGATATA) produces offspring with a chance of error during DNA replication (mutation) at each generation, showing that random changes in ancestral genotypes may reflect on descendant phenotypes. Methods The game has three steps: (1) construction of a dichotomous diagram by submission of the parental DNA to successive copies in which the chance of mutation is dictated by special roulettes. After three generations, up to eight different DNA sequences could appear; (2) attribution of amino acids series to the eight nucleotide sequences in the third generation, following the genetic code; and (3) analysis of traits in these individuals and scoring of outcomes. To measure ACAGATATA’s effect on learning, undergraduate students answered true-or-false questions before and after the game. Results In the tests, global scores after ACAGATATA were higher than before. Performance increased significantly in ten questions. Questions without direct connection to the game exhibited no significant change in performance. Satisfaction with the game was confirmed by high values in two questions asking the students about the contribution of ACAGATATA to their knowledge on the role of mutation in evolution. Conclusions ACAGATATA is suitable for biology courses concerning genetic information, its expression and molecular evolution, allowing an increase in student performance on these issues. Low cost justifies the adoption of ACAGATATA even by teachers with restricted resources.
Full-text available
Book
Reviewed by Thane Hutcherson Ury 7 cannot look at the universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent design, or indeed of design of any kind, in the details.' Charles Darwin, letter, July 12, 1870. We know a lot more about animals and plants than Darwin did, and still not a single case is known to me of a complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications. I do not believe that such a case will ever be found. If it is . . . I shall cease to believe in Darwinism.' Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 91. Periodically a book is catapulted on the scene that commands the attention of all factions in the creation/ evolution debate. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box is just such a text. Behe, professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has breathed new life into the design argument and articulated an innovative critique of Darwinism which is as sure to fluster Darwinians, as it is to delight Biblical creationists. As with all of history's gadflies, Behe's apologetic is causing quite a stir. When a rigid practitioner of scientific methodology is accused of heresy by his colleagues, there can be assurance of garnering lots of attention in the public square. Since the book first appeared last year, it is enjoying its eighth printing, has been the object of both praise and excoriation in nearly a hundred reviews, and has been hotly debated on radio shows and the internet.
Full-text available
Article
Biological systems exhibit complexity at all levels of organization. It has recently been argued by Michael Behe that at the biochemical level a type of complexity exists -- irreducible complexity -- that cannot possibly have arisen as the result of natural, evolutionary processes, and must instead be the product of (supernatural) intelligent design . Recent work on self-organizing chemical reactions calls into question Behe's analysis of the origins of biochemical complexity. His central interpretative metaphor for biochemical complexity, that of the well-designed mousetrap that ceases to function if critical parts are absent, is undermined by the observation that typical biochemical systems exhibit considerable redundancy and overlap of function. Real biochemical systems, we argue, manifest redundant complexity - a characteristic result of evolutionary processes. (.We would like to thank George Gale for helpful comments, as well as the anonymous referees for Philosophy of Science .)
Full-text available
Article
Recent studies now provide a relatively robust explanation of how moral behavior evolved, perhaps not just in humans. An analysis of current biology textbooks shows that they fail to address this critical topic fully. Here, I survey resources—books, images, and videos—that can guide educators in meeting the challenge of teaching the biology of morality.
Article
Who should decide what children are taught in school? This question lies at the heart of the evolution-creation wars that have become a regular feature of the U.S. political landscape. Ever since the 1925 Scopes ‘monkey trial’ many have argued that the people should decide by majority rule and through political institutions; others variously point to the federal courts, educational experts, or scientists as the ideal arbiter. Berkman and Plutzer illuminate who really controls the nation's classrooms. Based on their innovative survey of 926 high school biology teachers they show that the real power lies with individual educators who make critical decisions in their own classrooms. Broad teacher discretion sometimes leads to excellent instruction in evolution. But the authors also find evidence of strong creationist tendencies in America's public high schools. More generally, they find evidence of a systematic undermining of science and the scientific method in many classrooms.
Book
This publication consists of three main chapters. The first chapter briefly describes the process of evolution, the nature of science, and differences between science and religion. The second chapter examines in greater detail the many different kinds of scientific evidence that support evolution, including evidence from fields as diverse as astronomy, paleontology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics, and anthropology. The third chapter examines several creationist perspectives, including intelligent design, and discusses the scientific and legal reasons against teaching creationist ideas in public school science classes. A selection of frequently asked questions follows the main text. "Additional Readings" include papers referenced in this booklet and other publications about evolution, the nature of science, and religion.
Article
Teachers of biology and related subjects are increasingly meeting objections from students and their parents to the teaching of evolution and the exclusion of what is called the theory of Intelligent Design. This paper attempts to draw together arguments and evidence which may be used by such teachers. Four lessons are drawn from the 1982 judgement against Creation Science in Arkansas for those opposing attempts to introduce the theory of Intelligent Design into school science programs: that a wide definition of science is the most useful; that religion is not the enemy; that science teachers should trust their own expertise; and that alternative theories should not be excluded.
Article
Studies of the relationship between religion and science have traditionally assumed that any conflict that exists is based on epistemology. This assumption is built into the history of Western academic thought, the founding of sociology itself, as well as the common definitions of religion used by social scientists. This assumption has hindered the examination of the relationship between religion and science.We categorize studies of the relationship between science and religion into three groups: the symbolic epistemological conflict studies, the symbolic directional influence studies, and the social-institutional studies.We find that the social-institutional studies, which most closely examine actual public conflicts, do not presume that the conflict is over epistemological claims and offer a more general and fruitful approach to examining the relationship between religion and science.
Chapter
1 IntroductionWho are the Creationists?The History of Creationist Challenges to DarwinismDarwinism as a Moral ProjectWhy this Debate PersistsReligion in Public LifeConclusion Bibliography
Article
When the creationism issue rose to the surface in the late 1970s, an organized opposition to the creationist campaign came from an unexpected source. Local groups of rank and file evolution defenders, led by a retired biology teacher, organized a grassroots network of anti-creationism called the Committees of Correspondence. They basically approached the creationism issue as a political rather than a scientific problem and fought the battle on local fronts, where creationists were heavily engaged in legal campaigns to include their ideas in the public schools. Grassroots anti-creationism was, however, eventually replaced by a centralized national operation with an educational emphasis. In this paper, I will document the development of this neglected part of the creation-evolution controversy and discuss related issues, namely the politics of science that became clearly visible in the course of evolutionists' disputes over anti-creation strategies.
Article
Ich habe die Ehre, hiermit im Namen des Präsidiums den Ersten Deutschen Soziologentag zu eröffnen.
Article
"The exploration of the social conditions that facilitate or retard the search for scientific knowledge has been the major theme of Robert K. Merton's work for forty years. This collection of papers [is] a fascinating overview of this sustained inquiry. . . . There are very few other books in sociology . . . with such meticulous scholarship, or so elegant a style. This collection of papers is, and is likely to remain for a long time, one of the most important books in sociology."—Joseph Ben-David, New York Times Book Review "The novelty of the approach, the erudition and elegance, and the unusual breadth of vision make this volume one of the most important contributions to sociology in general and to the sociology of science in particular. . . . Merton's Sociology of Science is a magisterial summary of the field."—Yehuda Elkana, American Journal of Sociology "Merton's work provides a rich feast for any scientist concerned for a genuine understanding of his own professional self. And Merton's industry, integrity, and humility are permanent witnesses to that ethos which he has done so much to define and support."—J. R. Ravetz, American Scientist "The essays not only exhibit a diverse and penetrating analysis and a deal of historical and contemporary examples, with concrete numerical data, but also make genuinely good reading because of the wit, the liveliness and the rich learning with which Merton writes."—Philip Morrison, Scientific American "Merton's impact on sociology as a whole has been large, and his impact on the sociology of science has been so momentous that the title of the book is apt, because Merton's writings represent modern sociology of science more than any other single writer."—Richard McClintock, Contemporary Sociology
Article
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Melbourne, 1997. Includes bibliographical references (p. 349-368). Photocopy.
Article
This article explores in some detail the historical circumstances of the emergence of the dual categories "science" and "religion" with a view to showing their direct relevance for contemporary discussions of the science-religion relation. To a degree both categories distort what it is they claim to represent, and such distortions inevitably carry over into discussions of their relationship. Consideration of the historically conditioned nature of "science" and of "religion" brings to light a number of unspoken assumptions in some mainstream science-religion discussions and highlights the need for serious revision of common approaches to this issue.
Scientists confront creationism
  • L R Godfrey
Evolution abroad: Creationism evolves in science classrooms around the globe
  • K Harmon
A reducibly complex mousetrap
  • J H Mcdonald
Is evolution a religion
  • T Mitchell
  • M White
An evolving controversy: The struggle to teach science in science classes
  • M Berkman
  • E Plutzer
Darwin’s transparent box: The biochemical evidence for evolution
  • D Ussery
Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives
  • R T Pennock
God’s own scientists: Creationists in a secular world
  • C P Toumey
  • CP Toumey
Grand designs and facile analogies: Exposing Behe’s mousetrap and Dembski’s arrow
  • M Young
Intelligent design. Illusions of an informed public
  • G F Bishop
  • GF Bishop
The illusion of public opinion: Fact and artifact in American public opinion polls
  • G F Bishop
  • GF Bishop
The design revolution. Answering the toughest questions about intelligent design
  • W A Dembski
  • WA Dembski
The nature of nature: Examining the role of naturalism in science
  • B L Gordon
  • Dembski
Scientists confront creationism: Intelligent design and beyond
  • A J Petto
  • Godfrey
Not in our classrooms: Why intelligent design is wrong for our schools
  • E C Scott
  • G Branch
  • EC Scott
Logic and math turn to smoke and mirrors: William Dembski’s “design inference
  • W Elsberry
Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science
  • J H Evans
  • JH Evans
Creationism in twentieth-century America: A ten-volume anthology of documents
  • R Numbers
But is it science?: The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy
  • R T Pennock
The once and future intelligent design
  • E C Scott
  • EC Scott
The Mullerian two-step: Add a part, make it necessary, or, why Behe’s “Irreducible complexity” is silly
  • D Theobald
Irreducible complexity demystified
  • P Dunkelberg