Abstract
Seventy-two Internet documents promoting creationism, intelligent design (I.D.), or evolution were selected for analysis. The primary goal of each of the 72 documents was to present arguments for creationism, I.D., or evolution. We first identified all arguments in these documents. Each argument was then coded in terms of both argument type (appeal to authority, appeal to empirical evidence, appeal to reason, etc.) and argument topic (age of earth, mechanism of descent with modification, etc.). We then provided a quantitative summary of each argument type and topic for each of the three positions. Three clear patterns were revealed by the data. First, websites promoting evolution were characterized by a narrow focus on appeals to empirical evidence, whereas websites promoting creationism and I.D. were quite heterogeneous in regards to argument type. Second, websites promoting evolution relied primarily on a small number of empirical examples (e.g., fossils, biogeography, homology, etc.), while websites promoting creationism and I.D. used a far greater range of arguments. Finally, websites promoting evolution were narrowly focused on the topic of descent with modification. In contrast, websites promoting creationism tackled a broad range of topics, while websites promoting I.D. were narrowly focused on the issue of the existence of God. The current study provides a quantitative summary of a systematic content analysis of argument type and topic across a large number of frequently accessed websites dealing with origins. The analysis we have used may prove fruitful in identifying and understanding argumentation trends in scientific writing and pseudo-scientific writing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Stenger (2006) for a more thorough description of this argument type.
These include Epperson vs. Arkansas; Edwards vs. Aguillard; and Kitzmiller vs. Dover.
The raw data for argument type and topic can be found at https://doi.org/10.15788/M29G6Q.
References
Allmon, W. D. (2011). Why don’t people think evolution is true? Implications for teaching, in and out of the classroom. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(4), 648–665.
Barnes, R. M., & Church, R. A. (2013). Proponents of creationism but not proponents of evolution frame the origins debate in terms of proof. Science & Education, 22, 577–603.
Basel, N., Harms, U., & Prechtl, H. (2013). Analysis of students’ arguments on evolutionary theory. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 192–199.
Basel, N., Harms, U., Prechtl, H., Weiß, T., & Rothgangel, M. (2014). Students’ arguments on the science and religion issue: the example of evolutionary theory and genesis. Journal of Biological Education, 48(4), 179–187.
Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin under the microscope (p. A25). New York: The New York Times.
Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boudry, M. (2013). Loki’s wager and Laudan’s error. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 79–98). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). How not to attack intelligent design creationism: philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism. Foundations of Science, 15(3), 227–244.
Boudry, M., Paglieri, F., & Pigliucci, M. (2015). The fake, the flimsy, and the fallacious: demarcating arguments in real life. Argumentation, 29(4), 431–456.
Campbell, J. A. (1989). The invisible rhetorician: Charles Darwin's “third party” strategy. Rhetorica, 7(1), 55–85.
Campbell, J. A. (1990). Topics, tropes, and tradition: Darwin’s reinvention and subversion of the argument to design. In H. Krips, J. E. McGuire, & T. Melia (Eds.), Science, reason, and rhetoric (pp. 211–235). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Campbell, J. A. (1997). Charles Darwin: rhetorician of science. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 3–18). Mahwah: Hermagoras Press.
Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
Cole, J. R. (2007). Wielding the wedge: keeping anti-evolutionism alive. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists confront creationism: intelligent design and beyond (pp. 110–128). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why evolution is true. New York: Viking.
Davis, P., & Kenyon, D. H. (1993). Of pandas and people (2nd ed.). Dallas: Haughton.
Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution. New York: Free Press.
Discovery Institute (2003). https://www.discovery.org/f/349
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: the contribution of research (pp. 187–206). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
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. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Futuyma, D. J. (1983). Science on trial: the case for evolution. New York: Pantheon Books.
Haarscher, G. (2009). Perelman’s pseudo-argument as applied to the creationism controversy. Argumentation, 23(3), 361–373.
Hodge, M. J. S. (1977). The structure and strategy of Darwin’s long argument. British Journal of the History of Science, 10(3), 237–246.
Institute for Creation Research (2016). http://www.icr.org/
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Johnson, P. E. (1990). Evolution as dogma: the establishment of naturalism. First Things, 6, 15–22.
Johnson, P. E. (1991). Darwin on trial. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
Kampourakis, K. (2014). Understanding evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, A. M., & Lee, E. B. (1939). The fine art of propaganda. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Lyne, J., & Howe, H. F. (1997). “Punctuated equilibria”: rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 53–68). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.
McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: an introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.
McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). San Diego: Academic Press.
Numbers, R. L. (2006). The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design (Expanded ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Numbers, R. L. (2007). Darwinism, creationism, and “intelligent design”. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists confront creationism: intelligent design and beyond (pp. 31–58). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Numbers, R. L. (2011). Clarifying creationism: five common myths. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 33, 129–139.
Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology or evidences of the existence and attributes of the deity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pennock, R. T. (1996). Naturalism, evidence, and creationism: the case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy, 11(4), 543–549.
Pennock, R. T. (2003). Creationism and intelligent design. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 4, 143–163.
Pew Research Center (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-escientists-views-on-science-and-society/ Accessed 27 August 2016.
Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience: reconsidering the demarcation project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rosenhouse, J. (2012). Among the creationists: dispatches from the anti-evolutionist front line. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott, E. C. (2007). Creation science lite: “intelligent design” as the new anti-evolutionism. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists confront creationism: intelligent design and beyond (pp. 59–109). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Scott, E. C. (2009). Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction (2nd ed.). Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2009). Don’t call it “Darwinism”. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(1), 90–94.
Stempien, R., & Coleman, S. (1985). Processes of persuasion: the case of creation science. Review of Religious Research, 27(2), 169–177.
Stenger, V. J. (2006). Is the universe fine-tuned for us? In M. Young & T. Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: a scientific critique of the new creationism (pp. 172–184). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. W. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Walton, D. W. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weaver, R. M. (1997). Dialectic and rhetoric at Dayton, Tennessee. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetoric of science (pp. 107–125). Mahwah: Hermagoras Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barnes, R.M., Church, R.A. & Draznin-Nagy, S. The Nature of the Arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution. Sci & Educ 26, 27–47 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9875-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9875-5