What do you think?
Rate this book
The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools
Examines the efforts of creationists to require the teaching of the biblical account of creation in American schools and analyzes the reactions of the scientific community to the controversy
- GenresEducation
242 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 1982
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 4, 2025
A HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE RISE OF THE CREATIONIST MOVEMENT
Sociology professor Dorothy Nelkin wrote in the Preface to this 1982 book, “This study began simply out of curiosity about the creationists as a group of people who represented themselves as scientists while challenging the most sacred assumptions and norms of the scientific establishment … the creationists’ demands, which had seemed so out of step in the 1970s, emerged as an expression of basic and rather widespread criticism of science and its pervasive influence on social values. Thus, the study turned to analyze the creationists' dispute as an expression of this new concern.
“Science is attacked these days from both the left and the right. The disputes described here represent a reaction from a highly conservative population; but interest in local control and increased participation and objection to the dominance of scientific values and the role of expertise will be familiar to people located anywhere along the spectrum of political ideologies. The textbook disputes provide a means of exploring the relationships between science and its public and of examining how the growing criticism of science can bear on public policy.”
She explains in the Introduction, “The creationists entered the policy arena in 1969, when they convinced the California Board of Education to issue new guidelines for its public school biology courses, recommending equal time for the Genesis account of creation. They have since demanded equal time in school boards, textbook commissions, state legislatures, and the courts. Creationists reached the United States Congress in 1975… They have also reached the president of the United States. Seeking fundamentalist votes … Ronald Reagan told reporters that evolution theory has been seriously challenged… By 1980, scientific creationists looked back with enthusiasm on a ‘decade of creation.’ … The creationists also looked back with satisfaction on a decade of considerable public attention… The emergence of scientific creationism as a significant political force is a dramatic expression of the renewed concern with moral and religious values in American society and the related ambivalence toward science.” (Pg. 17-18)
She reports, “The relative quiescence of fundamentalists concerning the teaching of evolution in part reflected the neglect of the subject in biology textbooks after the Scopes trial. A scholarly survey of the content of science textbooks up to 1960 found the influence of antievolutionist sentiment to be persistent… and showed that the teaching of evolution actually declined after 1925. Textbooks published throughout the late 1920s ignored evolutionary biology… By the late 1930s some publishers were tentatively introducing evolution, but most … avoided the topic.” (Pg. 33)
She outlines the major creationist organizations: “The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)… investigates problems bearing upon the relation between Christian faith and science. Most of its … members carefully distinguish themselves from scientific creationists, whom they would prefer to label ‘antievolutionists.’ However… they [also] believe that evolutionary concepts are misleading and have serious moral and social as well as theological implications… [The objective of] The Creation Research Society (CRS)… was ‘to publish research evidence supporting the thesis that the material universe... and man are the result of direct creative acts by a personal God.’ … CRS soon split into several factions. In 1970, several members formed the Creation Science Research Center (CSRC)… CSRC is engaged primarily in its own ‘curriculum reform program’… The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is the research division of Christian Heritage College… The college… has undergraduate and graduate school programs … ICR identifies its own primary activity as research devoted to developing an empirical base for creation theory … and claims to leave political, legal, and lobbying activities to other organizations… Despite the small size of each organization and the obvious advantage of coordination, creationist groups are competitive and highly critical of each other.” (Pg. 77-83)
She notes, “Evolutionists were incredulous that creationists could have any influence… The creationists’ claims of scientific verity were especially embarrassing to biologists. Until recently, scientists have rarely aired their disputes in public… they usually try to avoid public exposés of arguments among themselves… Creationists claim publicly to be scientists, and they adopt the language and forms of science. Yet by seeking external political approval of the validity and justice of their arguments, they ignore the constraints imposed by the norms of the scientific community. As creationists persisted in their efforts… the biologists’ amusement and disdain gave way to defensiveness. They became concerned about external control over the definition of science as it would be taught in the schools… The national Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) organized the political and legal opposition… NABT soon discovered that its own membership included creationists.” (Pg. 156-158)
She concludes, “The battles between evolutionists and creationists continue---today’s expression and the perennial warfare between science and religion… Faith in science persists when it satisfied a social need, but for many people science has lost its credibility, threatening the plausibility of nonrational beliefs, but hardly removing the uncertainties that seem to call for such beliefs. Thus the revival of fundamentalism fills a social void, The creationists are part of this revival… they offer intellectual plausibility as well as salvation and the authority of science as well as the certainty of Scripture. Fusing three venerated traditions of American culture---science, religion, and populist democracy---their influence is likely to persist.” (Pg. 194-195)
More than 40 years old, this book is now somewhat ‘dated,’ but it was (and is) an excellent resource about the development of the creationist movement up until its publication.
Sociology professor Dorothy Nelkin wrote in the Preface to this 1982 book, “This study began simply out of curiosity about the creationists as a group of people who represented themselves as scientists while challenging the most sacred assumptions and norms of the scientific establishment … the creationists’ demands, which had seemed so out of step in the 1970s, emerged as an expression of basic and rather widespread criticism of science and its pervasive influence on social values. Thus, the study turned to analyze the creationists' dispute as an expression of this new concern.
“Science is attacked these days from both the left and the right. The disputes described here represent a reaction from a highly conservative population; but interest in local control and increased participation and objection to the dominance of scientific values and the role of expertise will be familiar to people located anywhere along the spectrum of political ideologies. The textbook disputes provide a means of exploring the relationships between science and its public and of examining how the growing criticism of science can bear on public policy.”
She explains in the Introduction, “The creationists entered the policy arena in 1969, when they convinced the California Board of Education to issue new guidelines for its public school biology courses, recommending equal time for the Genesis account of creation. They have since demanded equal time in school boards, textbook commissions, state legislatures, and the courts. Creationists reached the United States Congress in 1975… They have also reached the president of the United States. Seeking fundamentalist votes … Ronald Reagan told reporters that evolution theory has been seriously challenged… By 1980, scientific creationists looked back with enthusiasm on a ‘decade of creation.’ … The creationists also looked back with satisfaction on a decade of considerable public attention… The emergence of scientific creationism as a significant political force is a dramatic expression of the renewed concern with moral and religious values in American society and the related ambivalence toward science.” (Pg. 17-18)
She reports, “The relative quiescence of fundamentalists concerning the teaching of evolution in part reflected the neglect of the subject in biology textbooks after the Scopes trial. A scholarly survey of the content of science textbooks up to 1960 found the influence of antievolutionist sentiment to be persistent… and showed that the teaching of evolution actually declined after 1925. Textbooks published throughout the late 1920s ignored evolutionary biology… By the late 1930s some publishers were tentatively introducing evolution, but most … avoided the topic.” (Pg. 33)
She outlines the major creationist organizations: “The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)… investigates problems bearing upon the relation between Christian faith and science. Most of its … members carefully distinguish themselves from scientific creationists, whom they would prefer to label ‘antievolutionists.’ However… they [also] believe that evolutionary concepts are misleading and have serious moral and social as well as theological implications… [The objective of] The Creation Research Society (CRS)… was ‘to publish research evidence supporting the thesis that the material universe... and man are the result of direct creative acts by a personal God.’ … CRS soon split into several factions. In 1970, several members formed the Creation Science Research Center (CSRC)… CSRC is engaged primarily in its own ‘curriculum reform program’… The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is the research division of Christian Heritage College… The college… has undergraduate and graduate school programs … ICR identifies its own primary activity as research devoted to developing an empirical base for creation theory … and claims to leave political, legal, and lobbying activities to other organizations… Despite the small size of each organization and the obvious advantage of coordination, creationist groups are competitive and highly critical of each other.” (Pg. 77-83)
She notes, “Evolutionists were incredulous that creationists could have any influence… The creationists’ claims of scientific verity were especially embarrassing to biologists. Until recently, scientists have rarely aired their disputes in public… they usually try to avoid public exposés of arguments among themselves… Creationists claim publicly to be scientists, and they adopt the language and forms of science. Yet by seeking external political approval of the validity and justice of their arguments, they ignore the constraints imposed by the norms of the scientific community. As creationists persisted in their efforts… the biologists’ amusement and disdain gave way to defensiveness. They became concerned about external control over the definition of science as it would be taught in the schools… The national Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) organized the political and legal opposition… NABT soon discovered that its own membership included creationists.” (Pg. 156-158)
She concludes, “The battles between evolutionists and creationists continue---today’s expression and the perennial warfare between science and religion… Faith in science persists when it satisfied a social need, but for many people science has lost its credibility, threatening the plausibility of nonrational beliefs, but hardly removing the uncertainties that seem to call for such beliefs. Thus the revival of fundamentalism fills a social void, The creationists are part of this revival… they offer intellectual plausibility as well as salvation and the authority of science as well as the certainty of Scripture. Fusing three venerated traditions of American culture---science, religion, and populist democracy---their influence is likely to persist.” (Pg. 194-195)
More than 40 years old, this book is now somewhat ‘dated,’ but it was (and is) an excellent resource about the development of the creationist movement up until its publication.
Displaying 1 of 1 review