Themes and Problems of Creationism Research

  • Tom Kaden


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.


  1. Allchin, D. (2009). Teaching the evolution of morality: Status and resources. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(4), 629635.Google Scholar
  2. (2005b). Testimony of Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Ontario Canada (Plaintiffs Witness). Accessed 22 Jan 2018.
  3. Behe, M. (2006). Darwin’s black box. The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2012). An evolving controversy: The struggle to teach science in science classes. American Educator, 36(2), 12–40.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, G. F. (2003). Intelligent design. Illusions of an informed public. Public Perspective, 14(3), 5–7.Google Scholar
  7. Bishop, G. F. (2004). The illusion of public opinion: Fact and artifact in American public opinion polls. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Dembski, W. A. (2004). The design revolution. Answering the toughest questions about intelligent design. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dunkelberg, P. (2003). Irreducible complexity demystified. Accessed 23 Jan 2018.
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, J. H. (2011). Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(4), 707–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, J. H., & Evans, M. S. (2008). Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godfrey, L. R. (Ed.). (1984). Scientists confront creationism. New York: W W Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  16. Gordon, B. L., & Dembski, W. A. (Eds.). (2011). The nature of nature: Examining the role of naturalism in science. Wilmington: ISI Books.Google Scholar
  17. Harmon, K. (2011). Evolution abroad: Creationism evolves in science classrooms around the globe. Accessed 22 Jan 2018.
  18. Harrison, P. (2006). ‘Science’ and ‘religion’: Constructing the boundaries. The Journal of Religion, 86(Heft 1), 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison, P. (2015). The territories of science and religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, J. (2014). National study of religion and human origins. Grand Rapids: BioLogos Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Hovind, E. (2011). They’re both religions. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Larson, E. J. (2006). Summer for the gods. The scopes trial and America’s continuing debate over science and religion. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Laudan, L. (1982). Commentary: Science at the bar – Causes for concern. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7, 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mackenzie, J. (2010). How biology teachers can respond to intelligent design. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCalla, A. (2006). The creationist debate. The encounter between the Bible and the historical mind. London/New York: T & T Clark International.Google Scholar
  27. McDonald, J. H. (2011). A reducibly complex mousetrap. Accessed 23 Jan 2018.
  28. Merton, R. K. (1974). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, T., & White, M. (2008). Is evolution a religion? In K. Ham (Hg.), The answers book 2. Green Forest: Master Books.Google Scholar
  30. Morris, H. (1984). History of modern creationism. San Diego: Master Books.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. National Academy of Sciences. (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  33. Numbers, R. (1995). (Hg.). Creationism in twentieth-century America: A ten-volume anthology of documents, 1903–1961. New York, Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Oakes, G. (1990). Weber and Rickert: Concept formation in the cultural sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Park, H.-J. (1997). Anti-creationism in America. Dissertation, University of Melbourne, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  37. Park, H.-J. (2000). The politics of anti-creationism: The committees of correspondence. Journal of the History of Biology, 33, 349–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pennock, R. T. (Ed.). (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  39. Pennock, R. T., & Ruse, M. (Eds.). (2009). But is it science?: The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy. Prometheus Books: Amherst.Google Scholar
  40. Petto, A. J., & Godfrey, L. R. (Eds.). (2007). Scientists confront creationism: Intelligent design and beyond. New York/London: Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  41. Rickert, H. (1986). The limits of concept formation in natural science: A logical introduction to the historical sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rupnow, D., et al. (Eds.). (2008). Pseudowissenschaft: Konzeptionen von Nichtwissenschaftlichkeit in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  43. Ruse, M. (2005b). The evolution-creation struggle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott, E. (2005). Evolution vs. creationism: An introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2006). Not in our classrooms: Why intelligent design is wrong for our schools. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Shanks, N., & Joplin, K. H. (1999). Redundant complexity: A critical analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philosophy of Science, 66(2), 268–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Theobald, D. (2006). The Mullerian two-step: Add a part, make it necessary, or, why Behe’s “Irreducible complexity” is silly. Accessed 23 Jan 2008.
  49. Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and programs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  50. Tönnies, F. (2010). Wege und Ziele der Soziologie. In K. Lichtblau (Ed), Ferdinand Tönnies: Studien zu Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (pp. 185–202). Wiesbaden, VSGoogle Scholar
  51. Toumey, C. P. (1993). Evolution and secular humanism. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 61(2), 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Toumey, C. P. (1994). God’s own scientists: Creationists in a secular world. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. Weber, M. (2012). In H. H. Bruun & S. Whimster (Eds.), Collected methodological writings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Kaden
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of SociologyBayreuth UniversityBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations