Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consolidation, Secularisation, and Diminishing Returns

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
American Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design in the Evangelical Market

Part of the book series: Christianities in the Trans-Atlantic World ((CTAW))

Abstract

By examining the financial health of anti-evolution organisations, Huskinson makes literal use of the market model of evangelicalism by determining the financial success of different organisational strategies. The chapter demonstrates that this “sector” of the evangelical market has been steadily consolidating towards fewer, larger organisations, and with geographically focused results towards the south-eastern United States. Huskinson considers multiple contributing factors to the diminishing returns of anti-evolution movements, including the accelerated rate of secularisation of the United States in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the cumulative effect of judicial decisions unfavourable to the promotion of creation science in the public sphere, and the difficulty of policing the consumption of “deviant” information in a technological age of open access to information. Arguing from financial datasets, this chapter examines unique fundraising strategies, as well as the financial considerations regarding new creation science theme attractions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The RATE project was a joint ICR/CRS research program (with additional financial assistance from AiG) aimed at opposing the radiometric evidence for an old earth. ICR’s work on the project included speaking tours in churches around the country. See http://www.icr.org/article/recapping-2005-at-icr/.

  2. 2.

    Available concept artwork for the museum dates back to 2011 (see http://wiki.creation.org/File:ICRMOEH.jpg), and an article by CEO Henry M. Morris III dated August 2016 states that ICR had been quietly participating in specialised fundraising for the past five years (see Henry M. Morris III, “Complete the Doing,” Acts and Facts 45, no. 8 (2016): 5). An earlier article by Morris from September 2015 stated that ICR had been hesitant to begin building the centre for “several years” as the funds seemed “out of reach” (see Henry M. Morris III, “Go for It!” Acts and Facts 44, no. 9 (2015): 7).

  3. 3.

    The planned facility would be equipped with interactive exhibits, a 3D planetarium, and an outdoor park. See http://www.icr.org/discoverycenter/.

  4. 4.

    Henry M. Morris III, “Complete the Doing,” Acts & Facts 45, no. 8 (2016): 7.

  5. 5.

    Edward Rothstein, “Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs,” New York Times (New York, NY), May 24, 2007.

  6. 6.

    Laurie Goodstein, “A Noah’s Ark in Kentucky, Dinosaurs Included,” New York Times (New York, NY), June 26, 2016.

  7. 7.

    Interesting, however, is the absence of John D. Morris as President from the most recent publically available tax filings. John Morris had originally taken over for Henry M. Morris II (of Morris and Whitcomb) after his death, but had not proven a good fit to direct ICR, and Morris III took over as CEO with John remaining President. See Randall J. Stephens and Karl W. Giberson, The Anointed: Evangelical Truth in a Secular Age (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 38. The most recent filings make no mention of a salary paid to any office of president, but does include the addition of Henry M. Morris IV as “Director of Donor Relations.” Whether Morris IV is being groomed as heir apparent remains to be seen, but his new office may hold some responsibility for ICR’s uptick in contributions.

  8. 8.

    James Pilcher, “Will Kentucky Replica of Noah’s Ark Float Tourists’ Boats?” USA Today (McLean, VA), November 13, 2015.

  9. 9.

    AiG originally applied for and received approval for the tax incentives, valued at $18 million, but was then turned down by the board, citing the Ark Encounter’s religious nature and the necessity to maintain the separation between church and state. The decision was overturned in January 2016 by a US District Court, and the board, which had been restocked with new members by the Governor of Kentucky, approved the incentive. See Tom Luftus, “Ark Park tax incentives worth up to $18M approved,” Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), April 26, 2016, https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-governor/2016/04/26/ark-park-tax-incentives-worth-up-18m-approved/83540204/.

  10. 10.

    See “America’s Changing Religious Landscape,” Pew Research Center, May 12, 2015, http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/RLS-08-26-full-report.pdf.

  11. 11.

    See Wade Clark Roof, A Generation of Seekers (Sydney: Harper Collins, 1994).

  12. 12.

    It is also not uncommon for non-profit agencies to accidentally over-report contributions and make amendments later, given the complexities of fiscal-year tax reporting. To compound matters, there is generally a 12–18-month delay between the time non-profits file with the IRS and when the IRS will make the filing available to the public. The data provided here is based upon the most recent filings available at the time of this writing.

  13. 13.

    $2.385 billion dollars in contributions for World Vision, Compassion International, Campus Crusade, and Samaritan’s Purse versus $20.476 million dollars in contributions for Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, Creation Moments, Inc., and Creation Ministries International for fiscal year 2014. Data taken from IRS Form 990s for organisations listed here and Forbes’ “Largest U.S. Charities for 2014” (see http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampbarrett/2014/12/10/the-largest-u-s-charities-for-2014/#3cc607ff5455). The Geoscience Research Institute is not included in these comparisons as it is a “service of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church” and due to its denominational and university affiliations, no IRS Form 990 was available to examine its financial history (see http://grisda.org/about-gri/seventh-day-adventist-church/).

  14. 14.

    At the time of this writing, Answers in Genesis has physical offices in the United States and the United Kingdom, and lists Peru but provides no contact for that office (see https://answersingenesis.org/international/contact/). Creation Ministries International lists physical offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States (see http://creation.com/worldwide-contact-information).

  15. 15.

    Dale Buss, “With ‘Ark Encounter’ Attraction, Builder Ken Ham Invites All Comers – and Controversy,” Forbes (Jersey City, NJ), July 5, 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2016/07/05/in-opening-ambitious-noahs-ark-replica-attraction-builder-ken-ham-tempts-a-storm/#7997caa152b3.

  16. 16.

    While these reports corroborate each other’s findings, it is important to note that they characterise denominational affiliation differently. The Religious Landscape Survey treats self-identifying evangelicals separately, while the American Religious Identity Survey does not separate the evangelical wings of major mainline Protestant denominations, such as Lutherans or Baptists. See Barry Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, American Religious Identity Survey, Summary Report (Hartford: Trinity College, 2009) and “America’s Changing Religious Landscape,” Pew Research Center, May 12, 2015, http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/RLS-08-26-full-report.pdf.

  17. 17.

    Population figures obtained from the United States Census Bureau for years 2007 and 2014 and multiplied by percentage of self-identifying evangelicals in Religious Landscape Survey. See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.html.

  18. 18.

    $1.643 billion dollars in contributions for World Vision, Compassion International, Campus Crusade, and Samaritan’s Purse versus $15.594 million dollars in contributions for Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, Creation Moments, Inc., and Creation Ministries International for fiscal year 2007. Data taken from IRS Form 990s for organisations listed here and Forbes’ “The 200 Largest U.S. Charities,” from 2007 (see https://web.archive.org/web/20071126050026/http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/14/pf_07charities_The-200-Largest-U.S.-Charities_Name.html?).

  19. 19.

    Taken from IRS Form 990 filings for the Discovery Institute for years 2007–2015, available at http://www.ProPublica.org.

  20. 20.

    See years 2006–2012 on Chart 5.4 for AiG. Without major fundraising initiatives geared towards feature projects, AiG’s incoming contributions are not indicative of a high-growth organization. AiG’s niche fundraising environment (in today’s dollars) is more in the region of $7–8 million per year, and this has been the case since 2002. If AiG continues aggressively expanding beyond the Ark Encounter, the evangelical market will likely not support such growth in the creation science sector.

  21. 21.

    Barry Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, American Religious Identity Survey, 18–22.

  22. 22.

    As noted in Chap. 2, footnote 91, at the time this book is being edited for publication ICR has opened its Discovery Center. However, it appears to have attracted far less attention than AiG’s facilities. Finding local news items commenting on its grand opening in September 2018 proved difficult. A three-week old post on its Twitter account showed less than 40 “likes” celebrating the occasion, despite having over 1200 purported “followers” at the time. Preliminary images show what appears to be a facility with no practical differences from AiG’s Creation Museum.

  23. 23.

    See Dierk Herzer and Holger Strulik, “Religiosity and income: a panel cointegration and causality analysis,” Journal of Applied Economics 49, no. 30, (2017): 2922.

  24. 24.

    See Sandra Pedicini, “Visit Orlando: Record 68 million people visited last year,” Orlando Sentinel, May 11, 2017, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-visit-orlando-tourist-numbers-20170511-story.html.

  25. 25.

    Data taken from IRS Form 990s from Foundation for Thought and Ethics for fiscal years 1997–2015, available from http://www.ProPublica.org.

  26. 26.

    “Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design,” Gallup News, May 22, 2017, http://news.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx.

  27. 27.

    “Horizon survey: Britons unconvinced about theory of evolution,” BBC, January 26, 2006, http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/01_january/26/horizon.shtml

  28. 28.

    John Farrell, “New Survey Finds Creationism In Britain Has Been Overstated,” Forbes, January 27, 2015, https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2015/01/27/new-survey-finds-creationism-in-britain-has-been-overstated/#5d4cfa132685.

  29. 29.

    Amy Unsworth, Personal correspondence, 3 September 2018.

  30. 30.

    See Kirk Hadaway and Penny Marler, “How many Americans attend worship each week? An alternative approach to measurement,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (2005): 307–322.

  31. 31.

    Callum Brown, Religion and the Demographic Revolution: Women and Secularization in Canada, Ireland, UK, and USA Since the 1960’s (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012), 125.

  32. 32.

    George F. Bishop, Randall K. Thomas, Jason A. Wood, and Misook Gwon, “Americans’ Scientific Knowledge and Beliefs about Human Evolution in the Year of Darwin,” NCSE 30, no. 3, (2010): 16–18, https://ncse.com/library-resource/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year.

  33. 33.

    Josh Rosenau, “Just How Many Young-Earth Creationists Are There in the U.S.?” NCSE, November 8, 2013, https://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164.

  34. 34.

    “In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low,” Gallup News, May 22, 2017, http://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx.

  35. 35.

    Britt Beemer, Greg Hall, and Ken Ham, Already Compromised: Christian colleges took a test on the state of their faith and the final exam is in, (Green Forest: Master Books, 2011).

  36. 36.

    “Creation Colleges,” Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/colleges/. See also “Tenets of Creation,” Answers in Genesis, updated October 28, 2015, https://answersingenesis.org/colleges/tenets-of-creation/.

  37. 37.

    “Colleges and Universities,” Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/colleges/colleges-and-universities/.

  38. 38.

    Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

  39. 39.

    McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 529 F. Supp. 1255 (1982).

  40. 40.

    Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

  41. 41.

    Webster v. New Lenox School District, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir. 1990).

  42. 42.

    See John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District 37 F. 3rd 517 (1994) and Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997).

  43. 43.

    The World Wide Web had been invented in 1989 at CERN by English scientist Tim Berners-Lee. See Stephanie Sammartino McPherson, Tim Berners-Lee: Inventor of the World Wide Web, (Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books, 2009).

  44. 44.

    See “Founding of NCSE,” NCSE, https://ncse.com/about/history.

  45. 45.

    For example, see Paul Mozur, “China’s Internet Censors Play a Tougher Game of Cat and Mouse,” New York Times (New York, NY), August 3, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/business/china-internet-censorship.html and Chris Hoffman, “5 Ways to Bypass Internet Censorship and Filtering,” How-To Geek, August 2, 2016, https://www.howtogeek.com/167418/5-ways-to-bypass-internet-censorship-and-filtering/.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Juneau, Alaska, USA

    Benjamin L. Huskinson

Authors
  1. Benjamin L. Huskinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Huskinson, B.L. (2020). Consolidation, Secularisation, and Diminishing Returns. In: American Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design in the Evangelical Market. Christianities in the Trans-Atlantic World. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45435-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45435-7_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-45434-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-45435-7

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation