Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Sect. 4.2.
- 2.
- 3.
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.
- 5.
Dawkins 1986.
- 6.
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.
- 10.
Cf. Numbers 2006, pp. 336–337.
- 11.
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 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.
- 22.
Gould 1997.
- 23.
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).
- 27.
Iannaccone and Lutz 1994.
- 28.
Berkman and Plutzer 2005, p. 1.
- 29.
Ibid.
- 30.
Ibid., pp. 1–2.
- 31.
Ibid., p. 2.
- 32.
Ibid., p. 12.
- 33.
Moore and Decker 2009, p. 200.
- 34.
See Sect. 3.1.
- 35.
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).”
- 39.
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.
- 45.
Park 1997, p. 218.
- 46.
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-debate-an-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.
- 51.
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.
- 56.
Ibid., p. 266.
- 57.
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.
- 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.
- 69.
Ibid., p. 293.
- 70.
Personal interview with Eugenie Scott, 14 May 2012 (see appendix).
- 71.
Ibid.
- 72.
Park 1997, p. 296.
- 73.
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
- 78.
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.
- 82.
Cf. Park 1997, pp. 253–254.
- 83.
See Sect. 6.2.
- 84.
On the issue of how to differentiate science from non-science with regard to creationism, see Laudan 1983.
- 85.
Scott 2000a.
- 86.
Gould 1997.
References
Amarasingam, A. (Ed.). (2010). Religion and the new atheism: A critical appraisal. Brill: Leiden.
Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2005). Ten thousand democracies: Politics and public opinion in America’s school districts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Coyne, J. (2011). Accommodationism at Berkeley/NCSE website. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/accommodationism-at-berkeleyncse-website/. Accessed 22 Jan 2018.
Davie, G. (2012). Belief and unbelief: Two sides of a coin. Approaching Religion, 2(1), 3–7.
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. (1995). River out of eden: A Darwinian view of life. New York: Basic Books.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. London: Bantam Press.
Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell. London: Viking Penguin.
Denton, M. (1986). Evolution: A theory in crisis. Adler & Adler: Bethesda.
Eldredge, N. (1982). The monkey business: A scientist looks at creationism. New York: Washington Square Books.
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.
Hess, P. M. J. (2009). God and evolution. https://ncse.com/library-resource/god-evolution. Accessed 22 Jan 2018.
Iannaccone, L., & Lutz, F. W. (1994). The crucible of democracy: The local arena. Journal of Education Policy, 9(5), 39–52.
IRS. (2018). Lobbying. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying. Accessed 24 Jan 2018.
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.
Moore, R., & Decker, M. D. (2009). More than Darwin: The people and places of the evolution-creationism controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Morris, H. (1986). The Paluxy River mystery. http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-mystery/. Accessed 24 Jan 2018.
Moyer, W. (1980). The problem won’t go away. The American Biology Teacher, 42(Heft 4), 234.
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.
Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Park, H.-J. (1997). Anti-creationism in America. Dissertation, University of Melbourne, unpublished manuscript.
Scott, E. (2000a). The creation/evolution continuum. http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum. Accessed 8 Jan 2018.
SpringerLink. (2018). Evolution: Education and outreach. https://link.springer.com/journal/volumesAndIssues/12052. Accessed 24 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.
Weinberg, S., et al. (1980). Creationism in Iowa. Science, 208(Heft 4449), 1208–1301.
Woodward, T. (2003). Doubts about Darwin. A history of intelligent design. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaden, T. (2019). Anti-Creationist Positions, Organizations and Their Actions. In: Creationism and Anti-Creationism in the United States. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99380-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99379-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99380-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)