What do you think?
Rate this book
Creationist Movement in Modern America
Book by Eve, Raymond A., Harrold, Francis B.
- GenresSociology
246 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1990
10 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 5, 2025
A ‘SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE’ ON THE CREATIONIST MOVEMENT AND ITS ADHERENTS
Sociologist Raymond Eve and anthropologist Francis Harrold wrote in the Preface to this 1991 book, “This is a book about an American social movement. The movement, creationism, is aimed at opposing the scientific theory of evolution. Creationists work to refute evolutionary theory and to restrict its promulgation, especially in public schools. They also seek to complement---or even to supplant---evolution in the schools with ‘scientific creationism,’ which argues that the scientific evidence is actually consistent with the story of the divine creation of the universe and humankind as depicted in Genesis. Creationism… is in several ways an unusual movement. For instance, it is ideological and phenomenological rather than economic in orientation. Creationists… are attempting to have society grant their ideas on the origins and nature of mankind at least the same legitimacy that the scientific consensus accords to evolution. Creation is [also]… the only modern social movement to directly oppose the prestigious scientific establishment with some success.” (Pg. xi)
They continue, “But … the creationist movement nonetheless has a great deal in common with many other social movements, and … can be described and understood from the perspective of the social sciences---especially by using the theory of social movements. Thus, from a social scientific perspective we examine the history of the creationist movement in America, its ideology, the characteristics of its adherents, the organizations and changing tactics they use in their struggle against evolution…. We will also look a bit at the countermovement that has arisen among scientists and educators in response to the successes of creationists.”
They observe, “Creationists … appear to have banded together in response to a strain, specifically the doctrines and policies of ‘secular humanists.’ Creationists see evolution as only one aspect of what they believe to be a creeping and fatal disease in modern society, the philosophy of secular humanism… In their eversion to secular humanism, creationists have often drawn rather heavily on other conservative social movement organizations, especially those within the New Christian Right. This in the creationist movement also develop generalized belief about appropriate movement GOALS and acceptable tactics for their attainment…” (Pg. 9)
They state, “A powerful antievolution movement did emerge in the 1920s, culminating in the passage of laws in several states against the teaching of evolution in public schools… two factors clearly helped bring it about. The first was the growth of public education, especially at the high school level… This process brought large numbers of people who were outside the colleges and seminaries face-to-face with evolution for the first time… many working-class and middle-class parents were sending their children to secondary school. But as they did, they were often shocked to find that their children were receiving instruction (paid for with their own tax dollars!) that seemed to contradict their religious beliefs… The second factor … helped determine WHEN it erupted. This factor was the ‘widespread sense of cultural crisis’ … that afflicted Americans, particularly conservative Christians, after World War I.” (Pg. 20-21)
They note, “While evangelicals constitute the most important bloc of creationists, distinct but related groupings of conservative Protestants also supply the movement with adherents. Several million, for instance, belong to conservative ‘reformed’ or ‘confessional’ groups… conservative confessional Protestants are in most respects doctrinally close to them, and many are creationists… Hunter’s study characterized evangelicals, compared with the general population, as disproportionately white, female, older, and married… They are more often members of the lower and middle-classes… They tend to have less formal education than most other groups.” (Pg. 40-41)
They assert, “for many creationists, it is not enough to ignore the conflict between their religious beliefs and the scientific consensus. They accept the value and authority of science; some are technicians and scientists themselves. Simply rejecting science would contradict a vital aspect of their values and worldview. They resolve this conflict by means of ‘scientific creationism’… which claims that the conflict between science and creationism is only an illusion. For scientific creationists, the correct interpretation of scientific evidence is actually consistent with Genesis… Scientific creationists accept the double-revelation theory popular in the last century. If science appears to show that the book of nature contradicts the book of Scripture… since Scripture is God’s infallible word, it necessarily follows that the mistake is being made by scientists.” (Pg. 50)
They state, “Creationists and their opponents tend to differ not over competing theories within the same intellectual framework, but in their most profound understandings of reality, religion, American society, and the nature of the scientific enterprise. Given these differences, it is extremely unlikely that the creation-science controversy will end with creationists being persuaded that mainstream scientists are correct (or vice versa).” (Pg/ 67)
They argue, “The efforts of scientific creationists have not affected the scientific consensus on evolution because creation scientists do not function in the research tradition of modern science… They use scattershot attacks on the evolutionary consensus based on the notion that evidence that damages evolution is evidence that supports creationism… They do not attempt to develop detailed alternative scientific explanations of the data that they claim to have ‘un-explained’ in their criticisms of the consensus. Yet despite its shortcomings as scientific discourse, the creationism assault on evolution has enjoyed significant success.” (Pg. 92)
They acknowledge, “A full account must explain… why large numbers of educated and well-to-do persons are creationists.” (Pg. 107)
They summarize, “the scientific creationists not only have beliefs with logical coherence, they have managed to make a scientific defense of creationism at least sound plausible. But, scientific creationism has not been able to do an adequate job of explaining observed data and is therefore, in the final analysis, not creditable.” (Pg. 112)
Later, they add, “Creationists react so powerfully against evolutionary theory not simply because they disagree on specific scientific matters but because they perceive that the viability and reproduction of their life-style is undermined by the acceptance of evolution. Their spokesmen argue that acceptance of evolution leads to atheism, secular humanism, communism, sexual immorality, and a host of other evils. But in a fascinating irony, equally deep dreads are provoked by their opponents whenever creationism appears to be growing stronger.” (Pg. 118-119)
They suggest, “Support for the anticreationist countermovement is broad among a host of intellectual and educational organizations, as well as the press and publishing establishments. But it also tends to be shallow. These groups have other tasks and priorities, and they tend to pay attention to creationism only when it becomes ‘news’ and is perceived as a threat. After being roused to action, they forget the matter until the next crisis.” (Pg. 139)
They observe, “many creationists seem to be coming to the conclusion that it is counterproductive for them to be perceived as extremists angrily demanding accommodation for their beliefs… By the same token, many anticreationists have come to realize that denouncing creationists as benighted fanatics is insufficient, as is scientifically refuting creationist claims, and are adding improved science education to their agendas.” (Pg. 170-171)
They summarize, “In summary, while evolutionists often suggest that creationists are crazy, or at least ignorant, such accusations seem unfounded for the most part. For most creationists, the debate of the adequacy or interpretation of the scientific data is ultimately subordinated to the conflict between the worldview that [some] have become socialized to believe in and the worldview created and sustained outside their communities by the forces of modernism and postmodernism. The debate is … a struggle for the means of cultural production by people who often know little of science. In modern society, this struggle for control of the means of cultural reproduction is almost inevitably focused upon the schools and their curricula.” (Pg. 190)
They conclude, “most individuals construct their reality far more on the basis of what they NEED or WISH for it to be than on the basis of science. The creation-evolution controversy is likely to be no different.” (Pg. 193)
The ‘social science’ lens which the authors superimpose on the data seems somewhat ‘artificial,’ at times---at least, when compared to a more straightforward ‘historical’ account. But those interested in social science and cultural anthropology may find this interpretation to their liking.
Sociologist Raymond Eve and anthropologist Francis Harrold wrote in the Preface to this 1991 book, “This is a book about an American social movement. The movement, creationism, is aimed at opposing the scientific theory of evolution. Creationists work to refute evolutionary theory and to restrict its promulgation, especially in public schools. They also seek to complement---or even to supplant---evolution in the schools with ‘scientific creationism,’ which argues that the scientific evidence is actually consistent with the story of the divine creation of the universe and humankind as depicted in Genesis. Creationism… is in several ways an unusual movement. For instance, it is ideological and phenomenological rather than economic in orientation. Creationists… are attempting to have society grant their ideas on the origins and nature of mankind at least the same legitimacy that the scientific consensus accords to evolution. Creation is [also]… the only modern social movement to directly oppose the prestigious scientific establishment with some success.” (Pg. xi)
They continue, “But … the creationist movement nonetheless has a great deal in common with many other social movements, and … can be described and understood from the perspective of the social sciences---especially by using the theory of social movements. Thus, from a social scientific perspective we examine the history of the creationist movement in America, its ideology, the characteristics of its adherents, the organizations and changing tactics they use in their struggle against evolution…. We will also look a bit at the countermovement that has arisen among scientists and educators in response to the successes of creationists.”
They observe, “Creationists … appear to have banded together in response to a strain, specifically the doctrines and policies of ‘secular humanists.’ Creationists see evolution as only one aspect of what they believe to be a creeping and fatal disease in modern society, the philosophy of secular humanism… In their eversion to secular humanism, creationists have often drawn rather heavily on other conservative social movement organizations, especially those within the New Christian Right. This in the creationist movement also develop generalized belief about appropriate movement GOALS and acceptable tactics for their attainment…” (Pg. 9)
They state, “A powerful antievolution movement did emerge in the 1920s, culminating in the passage of laws in several states against the teaching of evolution in public schools… two factors clearly helped bring it about. The first was the growth of public education, especially at the high school level… This process brought large numbers of people who were outside the colleges and seminaries face-to-face with evolution for the first time… many working-class and middle-class parents were sending their children to secondary school. But as they did, they were often shocked to find that their children were receiving instruction (paid for with their own tax dollars!) that seemed to contradict their religious beliefs… The second factor … helped determine WHEN it erupted. This factor was the ‘widespread sense of cultural crisis’ … that afflicted Americans, particularly conservative Christians, after World War I.” (Pg. 20-21)
They note, “While evangelicals constitute the most important bloc of creationists, distinct but related groupings of conservative Protestants also supply the movement with adherents. Several million, for instance, belong to conservative ‘reformed’ or ‘confessional’ groups… conservative confessional Protestants are in most respects doctrinally close to them, and many are creationists… Hunter’s study characterized evangelicals, compared with the general population, as disproportionately white, female, older, and married… They are more often members of the lower and middle-classes… They tend to have less formal education than most other groups.” (Pg. 40-41)
They assert, “for many creationists, it is not enough to ignore the conflict between their religious beliefs and the scientific consensus. They accept the value and authority of science; some are technicians and scientists themselves. Simply rejecting science would contradict a vital aspect of their values and worldview. They resolve this conflict by means of ‘scientific creationism’… which claims that the conflict between science and creationism is only an illusion. For scientific creationists, the correct interpretation of scientific evidence is actually consistent with Genesis… Scientific creationists accept the double-revelation theory popular in the last century. If science appears to show that the book of nature contradicts the book of Scripture… since Scripture is God’s infallible word, it necessarily follows that the mistake is being made by scientists.” (Pg. 50)
They state, “Creationists and their opponents tend to differ not over competing theories within the same intellectual framework, but in their most profound understandings of reality, religion, American society, and the nature of the scientific enterprise. Given these differences, it is extremely unlikely that the creation-science controversy will end with creationists being persuaded that mainstream scientists are correct (or vice versa).” (Pg/ 67)
They argue, “The efforts of scientific creationists have not affected the scientific consensus on evolution because creation scientists do not function in the research tradition of modern science… They use scattershot attacks on the evolutionary consensus based on the notion that evidence that damages evolution is evidence that supports creationism… They do not attempt to develop detailed alternative scientific explanations of the data that they claim to have ‘un-explained’ in their criticisms of the consensus. Yet despite its shortcomings as scientific discourse, the creationism assault on evolution has enjoyed significant success.” (Pg. 92)
They acknowledge, “A full account must explain… why large numbers of educated and well-to-do persons are creationists.” (Pg. 107)
They summarize, “the scientific creationists not only have beliefs with logical coherence, they have managed to make a scientific defense of creationism at least sound plausible. But, scientific creationism has not been able to do an adequate job of explaining observed data and is therefore, in the final analysis, not creditable.” (Pg. 112)
Later, they add, “Creationists react so powerfully against evolutionary theory not simply because they disagree on specific scientific matters but because they perceive that the viability and reproduction of their life-style is undermined by the acceptance of evolution. Their spokesmen argue that acceptance of evolution leads to atheism, secular humanism, communism, sexual immorality, and a host of other evils. But in a fascinating irony, equally deep dreads are provoked by their opponents whenever creationism appears to be growing stronger.” (Pg. 118-119)
They suggest, “Support for the anticreationist countermovement is broad among a host of intellectual and educational organizations, as well as the press and publishing establishments. But it also tends to be shallow. These groups have other tasks and priorities, and they tend to pay attention to creationism only when it becomes ‘news’ and is perceived as a threat. After being roused to action, they forget the matter until the next crisis.” (Pg. 139)
They observe, “many creationists seem to be coming to the conclusion that it is counterproductive for them to be perceived as extremists angrily demanding accommodation for their beliefs… By the same token, many anticreationists have come to realize that denouncing creationists as benighted fanatics is insufficient, as is scientifically refuting creationist claims, and are adding improved science education to their agendas.” (Pg. 170-171)
They summarize, “In summary, while evolutionists often suggest that creationists are crazy, or at least ignorant, such accusations seem unfounded for the most part. For most creationists, the debate of the adequacy or interpretation of the scientific data is ultimately subordinated to the conflict between the worldview that [some] have become socialized to believe in and the worldview created and sustained outside their communities by the forces of modernism and postmodernism. The debate is … a struggle for the means of cultural production by people who often know little of science. In modern society, this struggle for control of the means of cultural reproduction is almost inevitably focused upon the schools and their curricula.” (Pg. 190)
They conclude, “most individuals construct their reality far more on the basis of what they NEED or WISH for it to be than on the basis of science. The creation-evolution controversy is likely to be no different.” (Pg. 193)
The ‘social science’ lens which the authors superimpose on the data seems somewhat ‘artificial,’ at times---at least, when compared to a more straightforward ‘historical’ account. But those interested in social science and cultural anthropology may find this interpretation to their liking.
March 19, 2014
A fascinating, well-documented, and refreshingly objective treatment of the creationist movement in the united states. Hoping to talk to the author in person in the near future about his work--I find myself traveling a similar road. I find social movements fascinating, particularly those connected to religion, as they are particularly effective at motivating their adherents. In fact, I find religion itself singularly fascinating (though I find some of the forms it takes in practice distinctly unsavory) although, and perhaps because, it seems so mysterious to me. I was raised in the church--I just never really 'got it'.
I am impressed with the predictive power of this book, a hallmark of effective science, and, 94 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, I find it both fascinating and unnerving that this conflict continues, having taken shape (dare I say evolved?) as Intelligent Design with many of the very same arguments largely intact. In a sense, this work also predicts the ascendancy of openly (some might say militantly) atheistic thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens. Whatever side you take, it's a hell of a show. Humans, that is. That's why I love sociology.
I'll have to ask Dr. Eve what he thinks about this Cosmos reboot...
I am impressed with the predictive power of this book, a hallmark of effective science, and, 94 years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, I find it both fascinating and unnerving that this conflict continues, having taken shape (dare I say evolved?) as Intelligent Design with many of the very same arguments largely intact. In a sense, this work also predicts the ascendancy of openly (some might say militantly) atheistic thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens. Whatever side you take, it's a hell of a show. Humans, that is. That's why I love sociology.
I'll have to ask Dr. Eve what he thinks about this Cosmos reboot...
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews