Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Rhetorical strategies in contemporary responses to science and modernity: legitimizing religion in human origins and climate change controversies
(USC Thesis Other)
Rhetorical strategies in contemporary responses to science and modernity: legitimizing religion in human origins and climate change controversies
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
RHETORICAL STRATEGIES IN CONTEMPORARY RESPONSES TO SCIENCE AND
MODERNITY:
LEGITIMIZING RELIGION IN HUMAN ORIGINS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
CONTROVERSIES
by:
Emma Frances Bloomfield
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(COMMUNICATION)
August, 2016
Copyright 2016 Emma Frances Bloomfield
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project represents the culmination of five years of hard work by many people in its
writing, conceptualizing, and execution. During this long and arduous journey, I was supported
by my faculty advisors and peers, as well as family and friends.
I am indebted to my advisor, Randy Lake, for believing in me from my first semester,
and encouraging me to laugh off my initial difficulties. From the mountains of Alta, Utah to the
castles of Uppsala, Sweden, I know Randy is now a lifelong mentor, colleague, and friend,
wherever life may take me. From him, I learned the importance of brevity, purposeful writing,
and perseverance. I also have a new-found respect for rhetoric, APA formatting, and the power
of a pause. I will keep these lessons with me always, thank you.
I also want to thank Tom Goodnight, Stephen O’Leary, and Tom Hollihan for advising
me in all aspects of the doctoral program. You all served as tremendous sounding boards for my
projects and I always left our meetings with copious notes for new and ongoing projects. Thank
you, Tom, for helping me to see connections between my work and environmental advocacy and
opening my eyes to new ways that scholars can interact with the public. Thank you, Stephen, for
encouraging me to pursue my interest in religion and stay dedicated to my work. Thank you,
Tom, for helping me with my writing and educating me on all that I wanted to know and more
about politics, Burke, and teaching.
Research is only one part of my academic experience. I am also incredibly thankful to
Marcia Dawkins, Alison Trope, Dan Durbin, Gordon Stables, and Josh Kun for helping me hone
my teaching abilities and providing role models for me to learn from and emulate. I’m also
grateful to my colleagues and friends at Annenberg who have comforted me when times have
iii
gotten hard, and celebrated the accomplishments with me along the way. Everyone was an
important part of my experience, but I want to thank especially LeeAnn, Kari, Marcia, Katie,
Nikita, Tisha, Flemming, Leila, Ritesh, Dayna, and all of my amazing cohort members.
My entire time at USC would not have been possible without the support of Sue Hayes
(DMX), who helped me find my voice when I was just a high schooler interested in speech and
debate. Thank you for encouraging me to follow my dream of studying argumentation and public
speaking at college. At Northeastern, I met Richard Katula and Susan Picillo, who were integral
in helping me navigate rhetorical theory and public address. Their teaching prepared me for what
was going to be a difficult graduate education. I am also grateful to Ralf Schlosser, who helped a
rhetorician complete her first IRB application, research experiment, and scholarly publication.
The last group to thank, but certainly not the least, is my incredible family. Mom and
Dad, you truly inspired me to dedicate myself to my goals and achieve greatness in my
schoolwork. I hope I have made you proud in completing this project and becoming the first Dr.
Bloomfield. My brothers, Graeme, Trevor, and Charley helped to keep me grounded during the
process and remember that it is also important to enjoy life, laugh, and make fun of one another.
Paul, I owe so many of my achievements and successes to your unwavering support.
We’ve cried together, we’ve laughed together, we’ve cheered together, we’ve gone through
some of the most challenging times and remained steadfast in our commitments to our degrees
and each other. 2016 is an incredible year, becoming a PhD and becoming your wife – I thank
you with all the love that I possess.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................v
Chapter One:
Addressing the Human Condition through
Stories about Origins and Endings ...................................................................................................1
Chapter Two:
Separators and the Holy War against Science ...............................................................................47
Chapter Three:
Bargainers and the
Revolution of Dissenting Scientists .............................................................................................100
Chapter Four:
Harmonizers and the Unity
between Science and Religion .....................................................................................................158
Chapter Five:
A Comic Corrective and the
Future of Science and Religion Controversies.............................................................................204
References ....................................................................................................................................246
v
ABSTRACT
This dissertation explores the strategies used by religious organizations to legitimize their
identities in response to scientific discourse and modernity. I argue that contemporary religious
groups reconfigure the constellation of scientific and religious knowledge in order to claim space
for faith in controversies over human origins and the environment. I categorize these responses
into three types: 1) separators, 2) bargainers, and 3) harmonizers. This work adds to the growing
literature on religious groups, their re-emerging importance in American life, and the rhetorical
strategies they use to maintain a voice in the public sphere. In Chapter One, I explore the
relationships between science and religion, and human origins and climate change. Influenced
primarily by Kenneth Burke, I argue that separators, bargainers, and harmonizers employ
different rhetorical strategies as coping mechanisms to legitimize religious frameworks in the
face of modernity. In Chapter Two, I analyze the separators, whose discourse is guided by the
metaphor of war that justifies their existence in a hostile world. In Chapter Three, I analyze the
bargainers, whose discourse is guided by the metaphor of revolution that validates their attempts
to change mainstream science. In Chapter Four, I analyze the harmonizers, whose discourse is
guided by the metaphor of harmony that reclaims a natural theology. Chapter Five explores the
implications of each of these strategies and how they reimagine the relationship between science
and religion. I argue that the rhetoric of these groups reflects a deep-seated need for religion as a
resource for living that is amplified as a result of modernity. Controversies over origins and
endings remain ongoing, persistent issues.
1
Chapter One
Addressing the Human Condition through Origins and Endings
Walter Lippmann (1929) argued that a characteristic of the 20
th
century is that humans
“are forever trying to explain it” (p. 217). These words hold true nearly a century later, as
humankind still struggles to make sense of reality, using whatever tools available in the effort. A
contemporary concern is the lasting validity of religion and pre-modern ways of knowing.
Lippmann (1929) specifically addressed the emergence of modernity, which challenged and still
challenges religious ways of knowing. For much of history, religion has been the foundational
epistemology because it configures or juxtaposes temporal, physical life against or within the
divine, supernatural, and otherworldly. Theology, or the study of the relationship between
humans and the spiritual, was once the key philosophical and scientific discipline. Relatively
recently, religion’s place as the dominant explanatory narrative has been dethroned by the
emergence of scientific and empirical standards of information. While religion looks beyond
materiality to “symbolically answer basic human needs and aspirations” (Tole, 1993, p. 8),
science is rooted in it. Scientific standards complicate religious answers to ultimate questions by
placing limits on religion’s epistemic power. At least, science offers an alternative to religious
explanations that questions religion’s exclusive claim to authority. At worst, science upends
religion’s veracity. In the struggle to negotiate humanity’s place in the cosmos, religion and
science were once partners. Eventually, that partnership crumbled and many interpreted them as
epistemically incompatible.
Scientific methodologies were developed, in part, to measure materiality as an aspect of
God’s creation. Natural theology, or the unity of scientific and religious methodologies, gave
2
birth to a modern, empirical revolution, where science was lauded above faith. The growth of
knowledge from scientific endeavors drew lines between science and religion where previously
none existed (Campbell, 1970). Eventually, contradictions and disagreements between religion
and science disrupted the alignment of God’s Word and God’s world. Science offered empirical
methods to test, measure, and evaluate theories about the world that made claims to objectivity
beyond faith (Ferngren, 2002). Instead of finding answers through divinity or the supernatural,
science appealed to the natural, material, and physical world. A marked shift to empiricism
occurred as methodological concerns displaced religious authority. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1999)
argued that other forms of knowledge, such as religion, were overpowered by science, which he
described as a “critical death knell for all speculative theology” (p. 2). Theology and religious
explanations seemed to lack science’s objectivity and reliability, because they relied on human
interpretations of holy texts. Science thus emerged as the new standard for knowledge
accumulation that in some ways supplants and replaces religious explanations.
Science was hardly the death knell for religion, but it has mostly replaced religion as the
dominant ideology of our era (Burke, 1984b). The increasing status of scientific epistemologies
undermines faith, spirituality, and, specifically in the US, Christianity. Concerns over religion’s
status can be heard in many contemporary controversies, from Hobby Lobby to the Defense of
Marriage Act, and from employment discrimination to political campaigns. These recurring
debates over religion and science engage how the story is told, who has authority over that story,
and the implications of their use as guiding frameworks for action in everyday life. These
persistent controversies and the ongoing search for productive narratives reveal unresolved
anxiety and confusion about the meaning of life. Cassirer (1944) noted that in “scrutiniz[ing] the
conditions of his [sic] existence,” a person is “constantly in search of himself [sic]” (p. 20). To
3
understand the story of the universe and the Earth, therefore, is really an exploration of the
individual, identity, and purpose.
This inquiry takes up contemporary iterations of public deliberation over human origins
and climate change, which are the beginnings and endings of humankind’s cosmology. These
are two topics where religious explanations challenge mainstream science and represent ongoing
epistemic anxieties. Furthermore, focusing on these two controversies permits theorizing about
the connectedness of controversies. Human origins, or controversies about creation, signal
beginnings of human life, life in general, and the universe. Climate change issues, or
controversies about the environment, signal endings, the ultimate revelation, and the potential
destruction of life as we know it. Together, these controversies bookend anxieties about human
existence and the universe’s existence. I argue that human origins and climate change debates are
intertwined because they address the same topics of human security and purpose at the beginning
and ending of life.
I conceptualize science and religion as different ways of knowing that make use of
different discursive resources. However, they are not wholly separate epistemic endeavors. It is
difficult to view science without some elements of human intellect, creativity, and symbols.
Scholars have argued that science is a human construction that is always tempered by language
and interpretation (e.g., Burke, 1969; Condit, 1990; Gross, 1994; Weimer, 1977). There are
elements of science that are difficult to separate from the awe and wonder of symbolic and
spiritual thinking. Science, particularly in its predictive forms, relies heavily on shared symbols
and faith to communicate its knowledge. It is also difficult to view religion apart from its
material forms in communal gatherings, physical rituals, and embodiment. Scholars have focused
on the material manifestations of faith and the relationship between the flesh and the Word in
4
scripture (e.g., Bellah, 2011; Bloomfield, 2014; Durkheim, 2008; Ong, 1967). Religion is often
made meaningful and communicable through “the concrete existence” and “the materialization”
of faith (Lippmann, 1929, p. 31). Science and religion both borrow from the domains where the
other is more comfortable, while residing firmly outside of it. As different and competing
resources, people may use parts or all of either or both in order to construct resonate explanatory
narratives.
People construct these narratives that make sense of the relationship macrocosm of the
universe and the microcosm of human life (Berger, 1969). Religion “both transcends and
includes man [sic]” (Berger, 1969, p. 26) in a cosmic, supernatural story. Religion is able to
elucidate the non-physical, the spiritual, and the symbolic while science is confined to material
existence. Interrogating the relationships between these rhetorical forms is valuable. Rather than
formalizing these distinctions, however, I examine the strategies that are employed in collective
narrative building and repair when religious frameworks are challenged. Instead of abandoning
faith, people have made other rhetorical moves to legitimize it.
Secularization, or the idea that religion would eventually fade with increased
industrialization and modernization, was once a popular scholarly thought. But this idea has long
been abandoned, and never fully was adopted, by those who posited that religion, in some form,
will always have a place in society. Émile Durkheim (2008) argued that religion serves an
invaluable and irreplaceable role as a social glue. He further predicted that religion would never
fade, although the form in which it existed might fluctuate (Durkheim, 2008). Kenneth Burke
(1984b) and Lippmann (1929) shared this notion that science could never replace religion fully.
Burke (1984b) noted that different systems of explanation, called “orders of rationalization,”
would never fully replace one another, but instead build upon one another. Lippmann (1929)
5
commented that science displaces faith, but cannot replace it (p. 125). Science, although a
dominant way of knowing, may not erase or substitute fully the comfort that some get from
religion.
Many scholars have noted the comforting and organizational properties of faith, in
particular, in the face of death, uncertainty, and purposelessness. These theorists propose that
religion provides justification for one’s life by infusing purpose into everyday activities (Berger,
1969). Habermas (2006) noted that religion is not only explanatory, but is also “a source of
energy” that “nurtures” a person’s existence (p. 8). In addition to providing inspiration and
motivation, religion also provides comfort against one’s impending end. Susanne Langer (1988)
argued that a common, understandable quality amongst humans is their reluctance to “accept the
idea of death as an inevitable close of their brief earthly careers” (p. 338). Without faith, one’s
death is the final end to the story, with no afterlife, reincarnation, or spiritual existence. Religion
provides hope for a future and guards against the anxieties of death. The comfort that religion
offers is jeopardized, in part, by advances in science and the rise of modernity that uproots the
supernatural and spiritual elements of faith.
Science itself is a cosmology, an explanatory narrative for how the world started and how
it might end. Although science may not provide comfort against death or propose an afterlife, it
does order and categorize existence for the purpose of understanding. All cosmologies, however
unconfirmed, provide comfort by charting a clear path into that unknowable future using
resources that already inspire belief. Contemporary scientific and religious thought provides
consistent, resonate patterns that serve as a foundation for understanding the past, living in the
present, and predicting what the future will hold. Because they are rooted in logic, cosmologies
provide “equipment for living,” that serve as reliant and trustworthy resources for making sense
6
of the world (Burke, 1974, p. 293). Cassirer (1944) called cosmologies “symbol system[s]” that
are constructed representations of reality (p. 43). For Cassirer (1944), science and religion are
symbolic systems, along with art, history, and language that are used to construct, order, and
explain the uncertainties of human existence. Humans, using those systems, “build” a universe
“to articulate and organize, to synthesize and universalize his [sic] human experience” (Cassirer,
1944, p. 278). Each system is made up of different symbols, but each functions to explain reality
and make sense of the world.
In the ebb and flow of religion and science’s dominance, religious symbol systems are
subsumed by scientific ones. In recent decades, religious, specifically Christian, groups various
efforts to negotiate religion’s place in the public sphere. I am interested in how these groups
adjust their narratives to analyze rhetorical strategies for constructing and strengthening
identities. I analyze the responses of literalist Christian groups to threats aimed at their religious
identities. I categorize these responses into three discursive clusters: separators, bargainers, and
harmonizers. Each uses different coping mechanisms and rhetorical strategies to legitimize their
faith in the face of scientific advancement. As Burke (1974) argued, “naming is done, nor for the
sheer glory of the thing, but because of its bearing upon human welfare” (p. 293). Group names
so given “imply a command (what to expect, what to look out for)” in observing and analyzing
their discourse (Burke, 1974, p. 293). The names given here reflect three distinct categories of
human responses, specifically, religious responses to coping with the complicated relationship
between science and religion. Because I am taking an anthropological approach, these patterns
emerge from within my study of the various groups, their discourses, and their artifacts. In
assigning these particular names, I am preparing for a consideration of the characteristics as
emblematic of the groups. Separators cope by distinguishing science and religion as separate
7
ways of knowing and by rejecting scientific claims to truth. Bargainers cope by stretching
conceptions of science to fit their religious worldview, thereby undermining some aspects of
scientific standards and evidence. Harmonizers cope by establishing a transcendent, blended
position that unites science and religion as mutually reinforcing, while ignoring potential
conflicts and contradictions.
The slight differences in language use, tone, and definitions divides these groups despite
their shared Christian faith and religious resources. These groups, which should be united on
their faith, are torn apart by their discursive incompatibilities. Cassirer (1944) wrote that
classification is a normal part of human existence and serves a useful purpose in organizing
reality. By splitting things into categories that are different from one another, things are sorted,
organized, and easily understood. Burke (1969) called joining things, identification, and
separating things, division, essential parts of human communication. Language helps people to
find common ground and shared values in order to create persuasive, holistic narratives, or to
identify with one another. Division is “compensatory” with identification because the presence
of similarities also highlights apparent differences (Burke, 1969, p. 22). In the back-and-forth
process of uniting and thus dividing things is the rhetorical process of consubstantiality, where
people simultaneously recognize that two things are identified with one another while remaining
divided and distinct (Burke, 1969). The process of identification, consubstantiality, and division
is fluid and ongoing as new labels and definitions emerge, creating news classifications to sort
and compare (Burke, 1969). Despite this fluid relationship, there is often a guiding term that is
representative of the narrative’s tone and identity. In this study, the separators’ identity is based
primarily in division, bargainers in consubstantiality, and harmonizers in identification. The
influence of these root concepts is integral to the groups’ explanatory narratives and orientations,
8
which guide their rhetorical choices. These terms enable specific frames, guiding metaphors, and
argumentative structures that further characterize their discourse. These differences create stark
separations between the groups to the point that they address each other as potential enemies and
obstacles to evangelization. The way people mark themselves as identified or separated against
others creates an identity (Burke, 1969; Lake, 1997). Identity, then, is always constructed though
interactions with others and one’s position in relation to them. Comparing these three discursive
types helps to exemplify our understanding of each of them.
The discursive strategies of the separators, bargainers, and harmonizers are coping
responses to challenges against their Christian faith. I do not evaluate the groups’ claims to truth
or accuracy, but instead address the unique ways that they incorporate of science. I disagree with
contemporary approaches to science and religion controversies that view religion, or even
Christianity, as a monolithic force. Doing so overlooks the unique, nuanced strategies of
contemporary religious groups. It is easy to lump religious discourse into a single group: an
enemy to science. But it is far more accurate and rhetorically meaningful to dissect the
differences among religious perspectives and appreciate the unique rhetorical moves being made.
This can be done best by treating each discourse as a coherent explanation of reality that creates
group unity through a common identity. The separators, bargainers, and harmonizers construct
different narratives to fulfill their need for a religious cosmology. These narratives represent
potential compromises and adjustments to negotiate the often separated, and sometimes
competitive, domains of science and religion.
In what follows, I briefly review the relationship between science and religion in order to
establish a context for analysis the religious groups’ discourses. Then I detail the human origins
and climate change controversies which will be the study’s key topics. I then put forth my
9
overarching thesis that rhetorical criticism yields insights about contemporary science and
religion controversies, their enduring character, and the significance of current iterations. Next, I
outline the theoretical and methodological resources of this study, and introduce six exemplars of
separators, bargainers, and harmonizers that will be discussed in future chapters.
Science, Religion, and the Problem of Uncertainty
For the purposes of this inquiry, science and religion are best understood as stories that
help order reality and locate the importance of human life in the universe. In the perpetual
struggle to understand the world, people reach for many resources that evolve in importance and
validity through time. Clifford Geertz (1973) argued that “any chronic failure of one’s
explanatory apparatus . . . tends to lead to a deep disquiet” (p. 101). This disquiet represents a
disruption of an originally understood and valued symbol system that unhinges people from their
“fixed” position in the universe (Lippmann, 1929, p. 71). Jurgen Habermas (2006) argued that
modernity in particular can be linked to “social uncertainty and cultural upheavals” that in turn
cause people to feel “uprooted” in society (p. 1). Even in small doses, modernization can lead to
“nagging doubt” about the viability of religion (Habermas, 2006, p. 2). Science and religion are
constantly struggling for dominance and control, unable to be reconciled in public opinion, the
educational system, or politics, with religious groups unwilling to back down from their status as
a societal foundation. Understanding modernity and recent rumbles of postmodernity is
important to the current conversations on religion’s authority in the public sphere. In a
contemporary society that relies on modernity, empiricism, and science, there appears to be little
room for religion’s version of reality. For many, a lack of religion may lead to uncertainty about
10
the nature of reality and existence. Blumenberg (1987) described uncertainty as “the difficulties
that result from the impossibility of obtaining truth” (p. 430). With competing claims to truth
made by symbols structures such as science and religion, it is clear that the process of searching
for truth is a difficult endeavor.
Modernity embraces Enlightenment ideals and attempts to create consistent, testable
standards to which people can hold truth. Paul Heelas (1998) argued that one characteristic of
modernity is that it highlights “contrasts” and “divisions” between tensions instead of the
plurality of truths characteristic of postmodernity (p. 2). Although secular life and science are not
synonyms, they are deeply related because science often sets standards for secular society. The
era of post-secularism is the renegotiation of the faith’s role in society instead of the
abandonment of it, or moving past secularism. This is largely a comment on scholarly thought
abandoning the secularization thesis, not a reflection of the state of society, which arguably never
went through the predicted secular period, at least in the US. As society attempted to be
“ideologically neutral,” some religious people felt that faith was being excluded or minimized in
favor of a different ideology – secularism (Gedicks, 1992, p. 676). The continued issues in
reconciling faith of secular society indicate that we are perhaps not as “post-” epistemological
and ontological issues as we might think. Habermas (2006) argued that the rise of modernity
prompts “religious certainties” to be questioned (p. 9); the religious cosmology, or metanarrative,
is threatened, but the search to reclaim it has not been abandoned. Although Lyotard (year)
associated postmodernity with the death of the metanarrative, the need for them seems never to
have faded. In this new rhetorical environment, neither science nor religion has been adequately
able to explain reality, prompting new perspectives on their relationship, interconnectedness, and
interdependence, especially in the public sphere.
11
Peter Berger (1970) called organizing frameworks “plausibility structures” that help to
explain reality (p. 44). People construct reliable stories that legitimize patterns that are a part of
human existence. A plausibility structure is “weakened by the simple fact of its involuntary
coexistence with other plausibility structures” (Berger, 1970, p. 44). Lippmann (1929) agreed,
noting, “The existence of many churches in one community weakens the foundation of all of
them” (p. 71). With many choices available, none seem to have strong claims to ultimate truths.
This can lead to “hybrid” discourses and “microdiscourses” that emerge in response to the
decentralization of faith (Heelas, 1998, p. 7). These microdiscourses do not necessarily “denote
discord or disharmony” (Cassirer, 1944, p. 286), but they may be interpreted that way and at
least present challenges to metanarratives. The presence of science as a separate, competing
narrative, and even the emergence of different religious narratives, weakens the exclusive
authority of religion. In responding to contemporary challenges posed by science and modernity,
religious beliefs have fractured and reformed into new groups and configurations. The
emergence of denominations “have come to dominate mainstream religious life” in response to
the strict divisions of modernity (Heelas, 1998, p. 3). The groups that fracture may lose sight of
the previous unity and identify others as enemies and detractors from the original identity. Burke
(1966b) warned that labels can “help us to invent ingenious ways of threatening to destroy
ourselves” (p. 5). Despite similar foundational substances, their differing definitions,
conclusions, and arguments cause rifts within the religious community.
Modernity threatens the epistemic stability of religion, and specifically Christianity,
which contemporary groups are working to reclaim. Burke (1966b) argued:
Religions are so often built antithetically to other persuasions. Negative motivation of
this sort is attested by such steps as the formation of Christianity in opposition to
12
paganism, the formation of Protestant offshoots in opposition to Catholicism, and the
current reinvigoration of churchgoing, if not exactly of religion, in opposition to
communism. So goes the dialectic! (p. 12)
The presence of competing worldviews simultaneously challenges the veracity of any given one,
but also serves as a foil to which groups can highlight their own identities. Between science and
religion and between different religious narratives, stories compete with one another to claim
adherents. I argue that the separators, bargainers, and harmonizers are tantamount to Christian
denominations. The challenges of science have led to another splintering within Christianity,
much like the ones between the Catholics and Protestants. Different versions of the same
narrative link these groups under the same “Christian” umbrella, but also represent fracturing and
disagreement about the interpretation and implementation of those tenets. The divisions between
the groups highlight two important points: 1) the lack of consensus on the correct response to
modernity and 2) the regrouping among Christians of current denominations along these new
definitional lines. In the battle against science and modernity, groups identify as non-
denominational Christian and are welcoming to all who agree with their tenets. Denominational
differences are subsumed by the larger importance of agreeing on human origins and the
environment. Habermas (2006) noted that contemporary religious groups have “undiminished
strength” in their commitment to reviving their faith (p. 2). The moral code and value systems
laden in religion provide motivation behind adamant defenses and sincere adjustments to
epistemologies.
Without the assumption of faith’s value, religious people search for new strategies and
labels to reclaim their identities (Ganiel, Winkler, & Monnot, 2014). Ganiel, Winkler, and
Monnot (2014) proposed that “religion is a common and valid response to the crisis of
13
modernity,” because it attempts to solve uncertainties and provide comfort when systems of
modernity break down (p. 6). Lamine (2014) argued that religion comforts people by “providing
supposedly infallibly true answers to natural and existential questions” regardless of their actual
epistemic value (p. 72). Religion is a coping mechanism that provides safety and explanation to
complicated and challenging issues through its holy texts and leaders. When previous
conceptions of religion are threatened, people seek new labels to ease their displacement and
reclaim their religious identity. Hans Mol (1977) argued that “religious orientations and
organizations develop sophisticated mechanisms to deal with change” to remain “viable” to the
public (p. 21). This dissertation explores three of those rhetorical mechanisms that are present in
science and religion controversies: the separators, the bargainers, and the harmonizers. Mol
(1977) further argued, “Religion always appears to modify or stabilize the differentiations it has
been unable to prevent” (p. 3). Unable to forestall the emergence of science, religious groups
employ various rhetorical techniques to maintain religion’s explanatory power. Those methods
of modification come in many forms.
These tactics are best understood as coping mechanisms, because they provide comfort
and a sense of certainty. A coping mechanism can vary from a cast for a broken bone or
removing oneself from an abusive relationship. The coping mechanisms discussed here are often
done through words alone, creating rhetorical adjustments that are purely for the care of self,
one’s beliefs, and one’s understanding of the world. Rhetorical adjustments create new labels
and alter existing ones in order to put the self at ease. Choices are made to recover, abandon, or
adjust one’s explanatory narrative (Berger, 1969/2011, 1970; Burke, 1984b; Geertz, 1973;
O’Leary 1994; Pepper, 1988). People repair their plausibility structures, or organizing
frameworks, through many different rhetorical strategies and communicative compromises. This
14
repair work could be done by doubling down on existing beliefs, or by shoring up the weakened
foundations by borrowing from other plausibility structures. In other cases, groups may need to
adjust their narratives in more severe ways or create larger compromises with the competing
information. For those who wish to keep religion close despite threats from science can take
solace in Berger’s (1970) assertion that “there are various ways of coping with doubt” (p. 7). For
this study, I categorize potential responses into three categories: rejection (separators),
bargaining (bargainers), and compromise (harmonizers).
It is clear that the relationship between science and religion is constantly under
negotiation. There are many strategies for coping with religion’s new, sometimes unappreciated,
place in society. This inquiry views the science and religion relationship as its own narrative
struggle over the relevance of certain symbol structures. In the groups studied here, I eschew
evaluation of their claims to truth in favor of analyzing their strategies for legitimizing their
Christian narrative. This approach that views science and religion as equally valid narratives
opens up analysis of common communicative patterns that provide comfort and legitimization in
the face of epistemic threats. This approach also illuminates the rhetorical implications of
contemporary controversies over scientific and religious ways of knowing that still dominate
public deliberation.
Contemporary Controversies
This inquiry addresses human origins and climate change controversies because they
reflect the beginning and the ending of the same story. How we came to be and how we will
cease to exist are complementary parts of the story of life and the universe. When taken together
15
instead of apart, these controversies provide added insight into rhetorical coping mechanisms.
Human origins and the environment have dominated popular opinion and scientific thought
repeatedly and enduringly. These are not isolated phenomena. These two controversies direct our
attention towards guiding questions about how the world works and our role in it. Viewing
human origins as the beginning of human’s explanatory narratives is fairly obvious, but the
connection between climate change and endings requires more unpacking. Many of the proposed
consequences of climate change can be linked to apocalyptic images and threats of extinction
(Bloomfield & Lake, 2015). The Earth serves as the home of humanity, whether temporary or
permanent, so is linked to humanity’s fate. Darren Sherkat and Christopher Ellison (2007)
argued that “the importance of nature in the cosmologies and eschatologies of virtually all
religious ensures overlap between religious and environmental structures” (p. 73). Spiritual death
and material death are united in the apocalypse as an ultimate end of human, plant, and animal
life. Whether one refers to the apocalypse as Providence, fate, fortune, destiny, revelation, or
final judgment, human thought slouches towards Bethlehem. Controversies over the
environment, therefore, are conceptualized here as linked to the end times. If the Earth is
destroyed through warming, flooding, and natural disasters, life as we know it will fundamental
change and perhaps even end.
These controversies serve as important in-roads for the negotiation of science and
religion, beginnings and endings, and the human relationships to the cosmos in human thought.
People’s orientations towards life greatly influence where people draw divisions and select
guiding terms. Those conclusions then reinforce existing structures and orientations that conflict
with competing explanations. Before describing the artifacts to be studied, I will explicate brief
histories of the human origins and climate change controversies that frame contemporary
16
iterations of these debates. The history of these controversies will contextualize the emergence of
separators, bargainers, and harmonizers as valid explanatory narratives, and the relative
positioning of each group in relation to Christianity.
Human Origins
Controversies over human origins raise questions about the viability of religious
narratives as an explanation of human life compared to scientific ones. In America, creationism
and intelligent design are two prominent religious alternatives to evolution. Creationists, in
general, believe in literal interpretations of the origin story of Genesis, in which humans were
created by fiat in God’s image. Intelligent design proponents argue that God, or an unnamed
supernatural power or deity, used scientific tools such as natural selection to create life.
Creationism was largely accepted as fact until the emergence of evolutionary theory (Campbell,
1970). Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species produced momentous support for the model of
natural selection. Darwin proposed that natural selection was “as an adequate explanation of the
principal mechanism of organic change” (Campbell, 1970, p. 1, emphasis added). Darwin
provided evidence that present life evolved through adaptation to the environment, without the
need for divine intervention. Natural selection encouraged reconsideration of the human
relationship to the world. Darwin’s theories amended and, for some, replaced the standard
conceptions of the creation myth. Instead of looking upwards at supernatural intervention and
divinity, evolution looked around at the natural world and the material. Darwin did not
specifically exclude the possibility of the divine. He even called his theory natural selection to
imply “foresight, intelligent planning, and craftsmanly skill” in the process (Campbell, 1970, p.
17
9). But, his theories did shrink the role that divinity played and subsequently complicated literal
interpretations of the Bible. Some interpreted his conclusions as disproving religious
conclusions, or at least dealing them a serious blow.
Evolution eventually became the standard in the field of science. Although many
scientists, such as Thomas Huxley, were quick to accept Darwin’s theories, other prominent
scientists claimed that Darwin’s research was “badly flawed” based on the data available at the
time (Campbell, 1970, p. 2). Overall, the “shrillness of the initial opposition” faded quickly, at
least in the scientific community (Campbell, 1970, p. 14). In the years that followed, additional
experiments and material evidence supported natural selection and evolution. The scientific
community now views human origins as the accepted explanation for human origins (Ceccarelli,
2011). Although there is much still to research and clarify about the process, evolution and its
mechanisms are well established in the technical sphere.
Opposition to evolution mostly emerges in contemporary controversies in which
technical issues are repackaged for discussion in the public sphere (Ceccarelli, 2011). In the 20
th
century, the human origins controversy moved into the schools where creationism previously had
been central (Moore, 2000). This can be attributed, in part, to America’s history. America was
founded by religious emigrants from Europe, infusing it with sacrality. The educational system
was heavily influenced by religion and many sought to curtail public acceptance of evolution.
The potential “harmful effects of evolutionary doctrine” turned “public schools into [religion’s]
battleground” for the morality of the youth (Lessl, 1993, p. 97). The lack of faith in evolutionary
theory was seen by some as a removal of religion from the public. Some argue that a scientific
view of origins removes morality from education and may lead to people treating fellow humans
like animals. Often citing Adolph Hitler and social Darwinism, people worry that evolutionary
18
theory will exacerbate class tensions, create selfish humans, undermine values of mercy and
brotherhood, and reduce humankind to animals (Maddux, 2013a, p. 502). However, religion can
counter these evolutionary consequences and guide people in how to act. The inability to rectify
a need for morality and a legal separation between science and religion explains why human
origins controversies continuously emerge in public discussion. Controversies over origins
address what counts as knowledge, who has authority over those decisions, and what is integral
in the education of the youth.
Education standards tipped briefly in favor of creationism in the watershed case John
Thomas Scopes vs the State of Tennessee. In 1925, substitute biology teacher Scopes was
accused of violating the Butler Act that forbade teaching that humans shared common ancestry
with chimpanzees. Even though schools often taught that some animals evolved, it was illegal to
apply evolutionary theory to human origins (Brod, 1965). Prosecutor William Jennings Bryan
argued that to teach human evolution would “undermine faith in supernatural religion” and
threaten “the religious welfare” of children (as quoted in Lessl, 1993, p. 100). In its lasting
effects on religion and faith in education, the Scopes Trial was more moral crusade than forensic
debate.
The courts found Scopes guilty; the trial was a victory for creationism. Many states
subsequently passed anti-evolution laws and removed evolutionary theory from textbooks
(Moore, 2000, p. 17). But, the Scopes Trial contributed to the eventual retreat of fundamentalists
from public activism. Reporters and critics viewed the trial as a creationist failure, in part
because its champion, Bryan, had contradicted himself on the stand (Brod, 1965, p. 224) and
been made a fool by defense attorney Clarence Darrow (Maddux, 2013b, p. 490). Bryan’s death
shortly after the trial left the fundamentalist movement without a figurehead. Despite the
19
immediate anti-evolution effects, in the long-term, the trial influenced the passing of the National
Education Defense Act that re-introduced evolution as the standard in public education (Moore,
1998b, p. 576).
The Scopes Trial was the last nationally acclaimed court case that sided in favor of
creationism. The anti-evolution revolution of the 1920s and 1930s slowed considerably. Despite
an immediate upturn in anti-evolution laws (Moore, 2000), most laws began to roll back the
precedent set in Tennessee. In Epperson v. Arkansas, an Arkansas anti-evolution law was
overturned because it could not “be defended as an act of religious neutrality” (Epperson v.
Arkansas, 1968, para. 21). The suppression of evolution in schools was made federally illegal, a
fact that only 71% of high school biology professors know (Moore, 2004, p. 862). In 1982,
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education concluded that “creation science has no scientific merit
or educational value” (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982, Section IV (D) para. 17).
Despite this firm declaration, additional court cases were brought in defense of
creationism. Edwards v. Aguillard struck down a Louisiana law that required teaching both
evolution and creationism if either was taught. The court referenced McLean and confirmed that
creationism “endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural creator was
responsible for the creation of humankind” (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987, para. 4). Two cases in
1990 and 1994 ruled that schools could prohibit teachers from teaching creationism and require
them to teach evolution (Webster v. New Lenox School District and Peloza v. Capistrano Unified
School District, respectively). More recently, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)
made it illegal to require religiously motivated disclaimers be read before teaching evolution
(Sparr, 2007). These cases upheld a standard of separation. Science and religion were distinct
fields of inquiry and creationism, being religious, was decidedly not scientific. Frederick
20
Gedicks (1995) noted that the Edwards v. Aguillard decision “suggested that evolution is a
matter of objective fact, whereas creationism is a matter of subjective belief” (p. 33). Only facts
could be taught in the classroom, and the courts decided that evolution alone could make claims
to objectivity (Bloomfield, 2015). Science and religion are, for legal purposes, incompatible
epistemologies. For many creationists, the battle then shifted from the courts to the public
schools themselves.
Randy Moore (2000) proposed that “as many as half of the high school students in the US
get an education shaped by creationist influences” (p. 19). Creationists are elected to school
boards, run for public office, and even receive tenure. The Texas School Board recently selected
six known evolution-deniers to its textbook panel, which still holds clout in determining textbook
content nationwide (Rich, 2013). Colleges have also been under scrutiny for hiring creationists.
Bryan College fired faculty that did not pledge belief in a statement of faith about the historical
existence of Adam and Eve (Flaherty, 2014). Ball State University recently awarded tenure to a
creationist in its physics program that was previously denied tenure at Iowa State University
(Coyne, 2013). Legal decisions have not silenced creationism in education. Controversies still
emerge in all levels of education around the country over the content of origins science. Issues of
human origins are ongoing despite scientific consensus (Ceccarelli, 2011). A majority of the
global community (Duffy, 2011) and the American public (Henderson, 2013) believe in divine
origins of modern human life. Although these numbers have declined in recent years, religious
explanations of origins remain dominant. Moore (1998a) argued that “it is hard to imagine any
other issue for which there is such a difference between laypeople and experts” (p. 486). The
separation between technical knowledge and public understanding, in part, perpetuates the
human origins controversy. Recent iterations of the human origins controversy extend beyond
21
the classroom. Casey Kelly and Kristen Hoerl (2012) argued that non-profit creationism
advocacy groups are becoming more prominent. They argued, “Creationists have sought out
other venues [besides the courts] in which they might establish themselves as legitimate
stakeholders in a public controversy over scientific theory” (Kelly & Hoerl, 2012, p. 124).
Creationist groups continue to grow in number, size, and funding (Charity Navigator, 2014a,
2014b, 2015). Creationism has found renewed life in non-profit advocacy that renegotiates space
for religious voices outside legally monitored courtrooms and public classrooms.
In the human origins controversy, the courts have solidified the boundaries between the
fields, resulting in the opening up of new battlegrounds for human origins controversies. The
human origins controversy in many ways reinforces the binary of science and religion as
mutually exclusive epistemologies. Intelligent design has emerged as a third point in this
dichotomy that includes some aspects of science and marries them to religious belief. This
position has not been an accepted middle ground, however, and often draws disdain from both
evolution and creationist adherents (Bloomfield, 2015). In addition to the emergence of
intelligent design, creationist narratives have fractured into various interpretations of Genesis.
Controversies over human origins envelop issues of morality, identity, existence, meaning, and
explanations of where, how, and why life began.
Climate Change
A similar divide between science and religion often appears in environmental
controversies. Instead of looking at origins, however, environmental issues focus on endings.
Science and religion both make predictions about the future. Oftentimes, these interpretations are
22
contradictory or incompatible. One fundamental reason for this is that a pure, material science
sees no world beyond this one. Religion, however, offers another, more permanent world,
making our current world temporary. Religious adherents, particularly Christians, frequently
oppose environmentalism as potentially incompatible with humans’ spiritual duties (White,
1967). Viewing the Earth as a temporary home and promoting humans as dominant over nature
are only two of the elements of Christianity that Lynn White Jr. (1967) blames for environmental
degradation. A focus on the material may seem to supersede the more important, spiritual
elements of humanity. Humans are made in God’s image, so they are considered the most
important of God’s creatures.
Christians often embrace the “dominion mandate” that gives humans the power over
nature, animals, and the Earth (Wilkinson, 2012). Genesis 1:28 reads, “And God blessed them,
and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth” (emphasis added). This quotation is often used to justify exploitation
of, or at the least control over, the environment (Wilkinson, 2012). White (1967) outlined the
troubled relationship between religion and the environment. He argued that Christianity “not
only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man
exploit nature for his proper ends” (White, 1967, p. 1205). White (1967) argued that the shift
from pagan animism to monotheism sundered humanity from its interdependent relationship with
nature. This separation is based on the “Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence
save to serve man” (White, 1967, p. 1207). Many scholars have addressed the relationship
between religion and the environment as an iteration of the science and religion divide.
23
Science was once used as a tool in the religious exploration and exploitation of the
environment (White, 1967). But now, science studies the consequences of such actions and
advocates changing humanity’s approach to the environment. Climate change and a warming
planet threaten life as it currently exists; unmitigated consequences will be “catastrophic and
manifold” (Zhao, Leiserowitz, Maibach, & Roser-Renouf, 2011, p. 713). The 2012
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that the earth will meet the
“severe” prediction of warming four degrees Celsius over the next century. Scientists predict that
rising temperatures will lead to more intense and frequent weather events (Sellnow & Seeger,
2014), starvation (Schmidhuber & Tubiello, 2007), and even governmental instability and
collapse (Guertl, 2012). Scientific predictions are not optimistic about prevention as we move
closer to irreversible “tipping points” (Russill, 2008, p. 144). Despite scientific evidence and the
potential risks, public opinion about climate change mitigation remains stagnant. The Pew
Research Center (2013) reported that only 28% of Americans rank “dealing with global
warming” anywhere on a list of political priorities. The Yale Project on Climate Change
Communication similarly reported that only 13% of the public is “alarmed” by climate change,
while a majority of people (70%) experience “uncertainty regarding the reality, danger, and
causes of climate change” (Roser-Renouf, Stenhouse, Rolfe-Redding, Maibach, & Leiserowitz,
2014, p. 4). There is scientific consensus on climate change’s existence and its threats to
humanity, but this technical certainty does not seem to influence public opinion (Doran &
Zimmerman, 2009). Religious ties, public figures, and political affiliation appear to have a
stronger effect on the minds of the public.
Some Christians view science as a competing epistemic source that must be accepted or
rejected monolithically. They may conflate a focus on the environment with other scientific (and
24
perceived anti-religious) debates (Wilkinson, 2012). Brian McCammack (2007) argued that
evangelicals, in particular, are likely to reject environmentalism because they conceive of it as a
part of the “nearly religious significance science has taken on in contemporary culture” (p. 653).
In combining climate change with issues such as human origins, evangelicals may reject
environmentalism out of hand because of its association with other religious controversies
(McCammack, 2007). Frequent church attendees, along with conservatives, are more likely to
reject science as an authority (Gauchat, 2012), and thus disregard climate change warnings.
Political affiliations heighten this religious skepticism. Lawrence Prelli and Terri Winters (2009)
argued that the “incongruity” of religion and the environment is, in part, explained by religious
people being “theologically and politically conservative” (p. 204). Some conservatives link
“climate mitigation to communism or socialism,” two quintessential enemies of the American
conservative (Wilkinson, 2012, p. 104).
Gordon Gauchat (2012) argued that science has a “legitimacy problem” where the public
has “a general disenchantment with the potential of science and technology to identify and solve
society’s fundamental challenges” such as “moral issues” (p. 752). Similar to the human origins
debate, the environmental debate evokes issues of morality and ethics. Religious non-profit
organizations sometimes argue that science is a distracting, immoral force. For example, the
Heartland Institute (HI) is a conservative non-profit that floods the public sphere with climate
skepticism. The HI argued that climate advocates “could be tried for crimes against humanity,
for the diseases and death their policies cause and perpetuate” (Driessen, 2014, para. 10).
Conservative non-profits often emphasize protecting human life over the environment by
advocating for free market economic and energy policies. This is a coping mechanism that
protects their economic priorities by sacrificing environmental protection. Peter Jacques, Riley
25
Dunlap, and Mark Freeman (2008) found that conservative think tanks directly funded or
sponsored 92% of books promoting environmental skepticism. Groups such as the HI produce
magazines, news blogs, and online resources to flood the public sphere with skeptical
information, furthering the gap between scientific knowledge and the perception of scientific
knowledge in the public sphere.
In addition to prominent organizations, key figures in religion and politics have
influenced the environmental controversy. These figureheads are influential in changing the
course of public argument and influencing followers (Crowley, 2007; Moen, 1994). For example,
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) often references his traditional Christian values and is one of the
loudest denialist voices in Congress; he is now chairman of the Committee on Environment and
Public Works (Inhofe, n.d.). Televangelist Jerry Falwell famously compared the environmental
movement to a tool of Satan (Hagerty, 2007, para. 5). Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian
Broadcasting Network and host of The 700 Club, often makes strong statements against climate
change. Although now a “climate convert” (Wilkinson, 2012, p. 83), Robertson once worried
that focusing on climate change would divert attention from more important moral issues and
“destroy America” (Tashman, 2014, para. 1). As a foil to many of these speakers, Pope Francis
has emerged as a voice that combines a concern for the environment with religious values. His
statements in Laudato Si, for example, emphasize the interconnectedness of life and a moral duty
to protect the poor and the environment (Francis, 2015).
Christians often believe in God’s ultimate power over nature. Some view
environmentalism tantamount to abandoning God’s plan (Wilkinson, 2012). Forestalling climate
change sins against God’s will by simultaneously forestalling the coming apocalypse (Barker &
Bearce, 2013). For premillenialists, the apocalypse is a joyous event that will rapture all
26
believers back to Heaven before the tribulations. Mitigating climate change both challenges
God’s authority and delays Christ’s return. Religious beliefs about morality and eschatology
contribute to political and public gridlock (Bloomfield & Lake, 2015). Reservations about God’s
plan and the economic impact on the poor can provide enough hesitation to stop funding climate
research, imposing regulations, and launching international solutions. Former President George
W. Bush, a conservative and evangelical, removed the US permanently from the Kyoto Protocol
and was president during the failure of the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (Besel, 2012).
Many conservative, Christian think tanks popularized and continuously refer to ClimateGate, the
2009 leak of emails from the Climate Research Unit regarding data for the next IPCC report.
ClimateGate undermined scientific authority and political expediency by taking email snippets
out of context (Bricker, 2013). Multiple inquiry committees cleared the IPCC of any
manipulation or unethical conduct, but the event still has far-reaching effects (Bricker, 2013).
Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) cited the ClimateGate incident when cutting funding for the
National Science Foundation’s (NSF) environmental research initiatives (“Witnesses Highlight
Flawed Processes Used to Generate Climate Change Science, Inform Policy,” 2011).
Think tanks, public opinion, and key figures construct a dichotomy between religion and
the environment through creating balances. One is morally, economically, and religiously
motivated or one is environmentally, scientifically, and suspiciously motivated. The environment
is a pressing issue because climate change questions the stability, reliability, and future of
humanity. Environmental scientists and their data point to irreversible consequences which do
not include the possibility of divine intervention and salvation. Whereas Christians have the
reassurance of God’s mercy, climate science advocates for immediate and decisive action. The
climate change controversy taps into concerns about how the material world signals the safety
27
and wellbeing of humanity. A scientific conceptualization of climate change removes the
spiritual element of apocalypticism; change must happen on the physical level to forestall
catastrophe. Uncertainty about the future encourages people to choose between religious
predictions or scientific models to justify actions in the present. Even those who are concerned
with environmental protection are often confused about the most efficacious policies to support
or actions to take (Wilkinson, 2012). Controversies over climate change also share confusion
over appropriate actions in the public sphere and are subject to cyclical re-imaginings of the role
of scientific knowledge.
Both controversies address concerns over the purpose and meaning of life. The evolution
and creation debate focuses on how life began and the climate change debate focuses on how life
may end. They both address how life is made meaningful through the guiding, explanatory
narrative of religion and science. Both controversies reflect a perceived divide between science
and religion. The persistence of the science and religion divide speaks to recurring epistemic
challenges that have yet to be adequately addressed. These controversies reflect deep-seated
differences between the two as epistemic fields and lasting anxieties over the true explanation.
Religion’s role is perpetually constructed in modernity as a separate and competing epistemology
to scientific orthodoxy that struggles to maintain influence in a changing environment. Although
these controversies have been studied in depth separately, their combination and how they
together address cultural uncertainties and preoccupations with science and religion has not. On
their own, each controversy merits study because it addresses significant cultural anxieties.
Studying them in partnership reveals the ongoing rhetorical significance of the struggle between
religion and science and the interconnectedness of controversies.
28
Thesis
Human origins and climate change controversies are symptomatic of a larger cultural
moment that is preoccupied with the meaning of life and a challenging future. Goodnight (2005)
argued that scientific controversies are uniquely important because they bring “into contention
the vulnerabilities of culture to its own tenuous interface with the natural world” (p. 26).
Scientific controversies address issues of epistemology, ontology, axiology, and the fragile
nature of all life. When the past and future are uncertain, people yearn for guidance for coping
with challenges in the present. There is a cultural need for a coherent story about the “rhythm of
life,” that for many people neither science nor religion alone can adequately capture (Langer,
1988, p. 349).
I argue that separators, bargainers, and harmonizers are responding to the same, specific
rhetorical situation. These groups address the entire cosmological narrative and speak to the
cultural anxieties of modernity that jeopardize previous ways of understanding and unhinge
religiosity as valid reasoning. Groups that are making space for both science and religion beg
scholarly inquiry about explanatory discourses and modern iterations of longstanding rhetorical
resources. The groups covered in this dissertation make rhetorical attempts at the larger
relationship of science and religion by addressing human origins and climate change. The
differences between these narratives illuminate how even shared rhetorical resources can result
in fragmentation and incompatibility. All six groups are doing analogous work by responding to
the same problematic with the same resources, albeit in different ways.
Contemporary changes to overarching frameworks and explanatory narratives have
rhetorical implications for recurring controversies over origins, education, politics, and the
29
environment. In the fracturing, I name three prominent narratives have emerged: the separators,
the bargainers, and the harmonizers. Cassirer (1944) argued that “it is understandable” to
respond to new worldviews negatively with “a reaction of doubt and fear” (p. 30). This reaction
best characterizes the separators, who reject a scientific worldview. For separators, trying to hold
science and religion together “jeopardize[es] their existence as pious persons” (Habermas, 2006,
p. 8). Instead, they separate them into different worldviews. The Bible, faith, and Christianity are
their primary motivators. Separators believe in God’s ultimate control and power over all
circumstances and situation. The agent, God, overpowers other aspects of the story (Burke,
1969). Because separators emphasize their faith over science and view the two as incompatible,
they reject dominant scientific beliefs such as natural selection, the age of the universe, and
disastrous consequences of climate change. Harkening back to the mind/body dualism and early
political thought, the separators’ discourse is marked by giving science and religion autonomy
over separate epistemic domains and viewing them in conflict.
Some groups bargain with science and borrow aspects of its standards, methods, and
assumptions to support their faith. Bargainers draw a distinction between scientific methods and
science as monolithic force. Bargainers use some tenets of scientific methodologies to provide
support for their beliefs that are aligned with the Bible. Bargainers come to terms with scientific
discoveries that can challenge religious perspectives by incorporating some aspects of scientific
theory and evidence into their framework. They may publish articles and create studies based on
scientific principles, but they ultimately challenge the scientific orthodoxy by redefining it.
Bargainers only incorporate some aspects of science as “true” science and consider mainstream
science to be largely mistaken. The bargainers see science and religion in conflict insofar as they
seek to overthrow contemporary scientific discourse to align with their definitions of science.
30
Other groups transcend the divide between science and religion and view both as
complementary explanations of life. Harmonizers adopt mainstream scientific ideas and blend
them as completely compatible with Christian narratives. Harmonizers reconfigure this
relationship by creating a new position in the constellation of epistemologies. This position
engages in transcendent rhetoric, but fails to achieve a full comic corrective, which will be
expanded upon in Chapter Four. Lippmann (1929) argued that “the difficulty of reconciling
popular religion with science is far deeper than that or reconciling Genesis with Darwin, or any
statement of fact in the Bible with any discovery by scientists” (p. 124). To reconcile science and
religion is to reshape the entire conception of life and the cosmos. Instead of valorizing the
apparent divide and separation of science and religion often felt in contemporary, polarized times
(Norris & Inglehart, 2011), harmonizers borrow from both scientific and religious
epistemologies to explain the origins of life and its potential ending. Harmonizers strive to create
a new metanarrative for the postmodern era. Harmonizers see themselves as aligned with
mainstream science in most topics, so do not seek to overthrow or challenge scientific truths.
Instead, harmonizers wish to enlighten Christians and non-believers alike to their brand of
Christianity that accepts fully the workings of modern science.
These three contemporary responses imply the lasting importance of explanatory
narratives, the unique problems that emerge in addressing origins and endings, and the role of
rhetoric in addressing controversies between science and religion. Studying these particular
controversies helps us understand the informative value of narratives in rhetorical, public sphere,
and controversy studies. They will never truly disappear, but will constantly be reimagined and
renegotiated by the public. There is no one way to respond to the challenges of modernity and
religious groups are engaging in multiple strategies to confirm their faith.
31
Because these groups are all religious, and specifically, Christian, the separators,
bargainers, and harmonizers have access to the same vocabulary and narrative resources. The
similarities of language amongst these groups suggest that the discursive resources for religious
people are binding and meaningful. But, the differences between their interpretations of the Bible
and the vocabulary they use reveal how much power rhetorical and narrative nuances have over
group identity. Despite shared resources, vocabularies, and beliefs, these groups are often
engaged in bitter discussions, debates, and battles over the “truth” of the faith and its relationship
with science. It is not simply the existence of God that comforts people, but the rituals, symbols,
and narratives about God that bring comfort. Differences in worship, ritual, and identity cause
conflicts and wars. A shared religion and deity cannot always overcome variations in
interpretations of beliefs and practices. Burke (1970) argued that these differences are sources of
power. He argued that what one calls something, the words being used “has a kind of power”
that comes from “accurate naming” and thus control over something (Burke, 1970, p. 29). I
explore how those stories and their names for reality intersect, the differences they have, and
how they position themselves within public discourse. Despite the shared resources and
vocabulary, each story is markedly different to the point of incompatibility, causing some groups
to view others skeptically and aggressively.
The groups and many of their members are still searching for the power and control over
naming existence and explaining reality. The sheer number of groups that can be discerned form
the larger Christian label reflects how uncertain people are about the process of blending
religious beliefs with scientific evidence. People are experimenting with potential answers that
fit all elements of life. Top-down discourse from the leaders of these groups encourages new
combinations and understanding of the same religious vocabulary. The combinations that
32
resonate with the public experience immense bottom-up validation from enough donations and
support to function and thrive in such a competitive ideological market.
Although there are many groups to which this study could turn
1
, the three subsequent
chapters focus on two exemplar groups of the three rhetorical patterns. Each chapter features one
creationist group with support from a religious environmental group to provide the opportunity
to delve deeper into the patterns among organizations, their missions, and their arguments.
Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the Cornwall Alliance (CA) represent the separators, the Institute
for Creation Research (ICR) and the Acton Institute (AI) represent the bargainers, and Reasons
to Believe (RTB) and the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) represent the harmonizers.
AIG, ICR, and RTB focus on human origins and identify themselves as creationist groups. The
CA, the AI, and the EEN focus on the environment and identify themselves as religious
environmental groups. Next, I will outline the importance of considering these group discourses
as explanatory narratives and how I analyze those stories through rhetorical criticism and
participant-observation.
Communication and Stories
The primary modes of inquiry to address the groups listed above are rhetorical criticism,
specifically dramatism, and participant observation. In what follows, I will outline the theoretical
and methodological supports for interpreting contemporary controversies as narratives for the
1
No fewer than one dozen creationist groups were considered for focal discussion in this dissertation. For
example, see http://creation.com/creationist-organizations-in-the-usa for a list of operating creationist groups in
the US.
33
purpose of analysis. This inquiry will make use of Burkean methodologies and theoretical
conceptualizations, including: identification and division, casuistic stretching, labeling and
naming, dramatic frames, the pentad, and cluster-agon analysis. To add in discourse analysis, I
also invoke the Toulmin model as a method of understanding argument forms and logical
structures (Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984). Furthermore, I engage material rhetorics of space,
place, and participant-observation in my site visits. Before describing my methods in more detail,
I turn to the relationship between rhetoric, stories, and communication.
Humans have an “ontological need” to make sense of the world around them, and thus
seek stories to provide such explanations (Bormann, Cragan, & Shields, 2001, p. 274). One of
the most lasting needs of the human mind is theodicy, or the need for justification and validation
of one's situation and the events of life (Weber, 2002). O’Leary (1993) argued that “the
unbearable tension created in the believer’s mind by the apparent contradiction between faith and
experience, between belief in salvation and the fact of suffering, cries out for resolution” (p. 387,
emphasis in original). Stories help answer these questions and provide explanations for the
problems of uncertainty, why bad things happen to good people, and what we should do with our
limited time. People seek connection and identification with others to avoid the state of anomie
or isolation (Durkheim, 2008). Berger (1970) called anomie “a state of being ‘order-less’” and
“the most fundamental terror” (p. 53). Stories, such as religious ones, provide roles for people to
play and the comfort of a logical, rational course of action against the “terror” of purposeless
chaos.
Walter Fisher (1984) argued that stories provide coherence and meaning in life. He
defined narration broadly as “symbolic actions – words and/or deeds – that have sequence and
meaning for those who live, create, and interpret them” (Fisher, 1984, p. 2). Storytelling has a
34
chronology or sequence, beginnings and endings, and people who believe and experience it.
Because there is a chronology, stories contain a type of narrative “rationality,” or internal logic
that provides a sense of determinism or at least a logical progression. Burke (1969) similarly
argued that people view life as a drama. Life has action and people are motivated by underlying
and consistent beliefs. How stories and dramas unfold provide insight into the story-teller, the
audience, and the story’s rhetorical situation. Fisher (1984) connected the narrative paradigm to
dramatism:
Symbols are created and communicated ultimately as stories meant to give order to
human experience and to induce others to dwell in them to establish ways of living in
common, in communities in which there is sanction for the story that constitutes one’s
life. (p. 7)
Narratives exist in the shared construction of meaning that links communities together. The
strength and tenability of these stories is what binds humans to one another and to reality. As
Fisher (1989) noted, people “dwell” in stories by taking them up and basing their lives and
actions by its rules and conditions (p. 7). One’s overarching narrative or dramatic orientation
largely affects subsequent actions and beliefs. Burke (1984a) argued that an individual creates a
“notion of the universe or history, and shapes attitudes in keeping” (p. 3). In viewing
contemporary discourse through a narrative approach, I focus my analysis on the stories that
guide human relationships, action, and beliefs in making sense of the role of religion in
contemporary life.
Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1967), argued that all of material, physical reality is
socially constructed through relationships, communication, and shared knowledge. The material
and symbolic worlds are linked inextricably because reality is not meaningful without its
35
symbolic conception. In other words, reality is made through the process of institutionalization in
societies that must occur through and within material bodies (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Those
bodies, however, are made meaningful by their organization and interactions through symbols.
Bernard Brock (1985) argued that Burke would agree with this conception, because Burke
believed that reality formed based on people’s labeling, naming, and reaction to events. Society’s
shared rituals and beliefs become the foundation for what is considered real or reality by the
group. Berger and Luckmann (1967) conceptualize reality not as a fixed state, but a negotiated
and constructed dynamic of both the material and the symbolic. This process is often mediated
through stories and enables an approach that does not carry the epistemic burden of proving
science correct or the best source of knowledge.
Narrative theory and dramatism frame science and religion controversies as
interconnected stories with similar purposes. The enduring manifestation of these controversies
points to how the past and the future remain meaningful narrative events that bookend humanity
and the universe. Science has the explanatory power over the here and now, and with theories of
origins and the environment, science can replace religious explanations to the beginning and
ending of humanity’s tale. All of life is mediated through the use of language. Gadamer (1999)
argued that “there has always been as opposition between books and life” (p. 19). Each
interpretive act requires a specific framework to ensure a compatible or even shared
understanding. Every story is rhetorical because it begs belief in order to animate it and thus
must persuade others of its truth or value. There is present an underlying persuasive element that
aims to gain adherence in order for the story to encompass a resonance with reality. The presence
of other believers in the story is a way for a story to be legitimized for others. Edward Karshner
(2011) argued that stories provide people with “a shared experience” that allows “the truth of
36
rhetorical texts to be experienced, understood, and expressed” (p. 55). Stories, therefore, are both
rhetorical and argumentative. Although I am not considering the truth of these stories, their
arguments and relative resonance serve as useful standards for comparing and contrasting.
Competing claims to truth by both science and religion encourage the creation of
alternative modes of participation and discourse. These alternatives can serve as powerful forms
of dissensus against emerging hegemonies. But in doing this, they also serve to undermine the
scientific orthodoxy and destabilize standards of knowledge. Exploring science and religion as
concurrent master narratives provides insight into the lasting questions of origins and endings
that guide contemporary thought and action. Lippmann (1929) argued that religion “can bring the
whole of a man into adjustment with the whole of his relevant experience” (p. 8). Science,
although itself an explanatory narrative, does not align nicely with traditional story elements,
making it less narratively resonate than religious narratives (Bloomfield, 2015).
O’Leary (1993) argued that people “view historical events as parts of a cosmic pattern”
(p. 387), which similar to Fisher’s (1989) musings on the importance of chronology. The past is
made meaningful by its construction and treatment in the present and the future is contextualized
by present action. Science and religion offer us cosmologies, or stories about the beginnings of
all life. Burke (1969) defined cosmology as “a reduction of the world to the dimension of words;
it is the world in terms of words” (p. 96). Separators, bargainers, harmonizers, and scientists all
search for evidence, religious and scientific, that supports the framework of their cosmology.
Stephen Toulmin (1985) argued that one’s acceptance of arguments “depends not on the quality
of reasoning, but on how your own attitude to the world already compares with that of the
author” (p. 79). One’s guiding orientation towards life influences acceptance of certain
arguments and how well they resonate. Fisher (1987) called this aspect a story’s narrative
37
fidelity, or how a story resonates with the audience’s understanding of reality. Fisher (1987) also
outlined narrative probability, or the likelihood of a story unfolding as it does given the internal
conditions. Narrative probability connects a story’s beginning and ending, by outlining a logical
structure that all events in a story follow, so the whole makes sense.
As the most important framing points of the narratives, beginnings and endings must
make sense with one another. Otherwise, the validity of the story as a whole is suspect. Both
Langer and Burke argued for the importance of beginnings and endings. Burke (1969) argued
that the beginning of life is a master narrative or “representative anecdote” that provides a
framework for future actions by defining a starting point. Believing in certain origin stories
changes how people interpret other situations and their role within them. Beginnings and endings
are important parts of a story’s form, which is the creation and satisfaction of appetites (Burke,
1931). Burke (1966b) argued, “A perfect ending should promise something” that it then fulfills
with the completion of the story (p. 21). Langer (1988) called this appetite a “building up of a
tension” that must subsequently be released to achieve “resolution of the tension” (p. 106).
Forms prepare the audience to expect a certain result or next step. The form is complete when it
delivers on the unspoken promise and reaches its logical end. Knowing one's beginnings is to
also know one’s potential endings, because the ending “flow[s] from the beginning” (Burke,
1969, p. 338). Acting in alignment with a perceived form elicits “a sense of perfection” (Hyde &
McSpiritt, 2007, p. 155). To be separate from one’s origins or to be rent from a coherent
narrative is to lose one’s sense of piety, appropriateness, and order (Burke, 1984b). Piety is an
attempt “to fit experiences together into a unified whole,” where the perceived beginning,
predicted ending, and terrifying present make sense together (Burke, 1984b, p. 75). Mol (1977)
argued that religion itself is “the sacralization of identity” that seeks to create and establish an
38
order based on a particular identity (p. 1). Acting in accordance with that identity maintains and
legitimizes the order, which provides security and continuity (Burke, 1984b; Mol, 1977).
If beginnings initiate an informative framework, one’s beliefs about endings fulfill it.
Endings provide a teleological and cathartic release that validates one’s actions and beliefs. An
eschatology can provide protection from potentially destructive ends and guidelines to follow.
These perceptions can propose how the world will end, and also when. Placing a time on one’s
ending creates urgency to perform certain actions, either to forestall or quicken an individual or
universal ending (Barker & Bearce, 2013; O’Leary, 1993). Beliefs about the end times are
“situated by the rhetor within the cosmic drama” (O’Leary, 1993, p. 386). Berger (1970) argued
that “human existence is always oriented towards the future” to fulfill present actions (p. 61).
Langer (1988) said that “The Past, being in the mode of memory, is closed, inalienable, and
irreparable,” but its “data” are constantly open to interpretation and the production of knowledge
(p. 311). Contemporary theories of human origins look towards the past, but ultimately make
arguments about the present. Similarly, the unknown future encourages a reconsideration of our
present explanations and action in preparation for potential, impending doom. By studying the
past and imagining the future, Langer (1988) argued that we can better understand the “ever-
changing, yet ever-present ‘Now’” (p. 310).
Rhetorical Criticism
A key component of this study is the naming and labeling of groups based on their
discursive similarities and difference. These names connote the groups’ relationships with others
and their approach to science and religion controversies. A name is the foundational unit for
39
identification, because “names shape our relations with our fellows. . . . They suggest how you
shall be for or against” (Burke, 1969, p. 4). Terms that are opposed to one another provide
insight into the enemies of each group’s narrative. Identifying the enemies and heroes in a story
creates narrative cohesion and deeper understanding of its guiding principles. This inquiry is
particularly interested in what happens when these principles are challenged, and new identities
and divisions are formed.
Following from guiding terms of identification, division, and consubstantiality are
dramatic frames. These frames are overarching narrative orientations that determine
interpretations of actions. More details about how the frames align with groups will be provided
later. Here, it should be sufficient to say that these frames carry with them certain characteristics
that are indicative of other aspects of their discourse. Attributing different frames to each
category reveals incompatibilities and nuances between the groups’ rhetoric. In the “forming and
reforming of congregations,” groups occupy different attitudes towards their position in the
larger narrative (Burke, 1984a, p. i). In other words, frames are “more or less organized
system[s] of meanings by which a thinking [person] gauges the historical situation and adopts a
role with relation to it” (Burke, 1984a, p. 5). Burke (1984a) categorized frames based on
dramatic genres, including comic, tragic, burlesque, satire, epic, among others. Each frame
embodies its own treatment towards enemies and where “they draw the lines of battle” (Burke,
1984a, p. 20). In identifying friends and foes, frames also propose appropriate actions and
treatment of the others in the narrative.
A cluster-agon analysis focuses on how discursive key terms tend to cluster together and
separate themselves from others. “God terms” or terms that guide the overarching rhetorical
tone, cluster with other terms that are deemed important and value. These god terms are agonistic
40
to other “devil” terms and are treated as opposites within the discourse. For the groups at hand,
the clustering of certain terms and the separation of others defines their worldview and
cosmological rhetoric. A cluster-agon analysis lends itself to the understanding of how concepts,
values, and ideas are constructed as important. One way to cluster ideas is through metaphor,
which linguistically and syntactically links words together. Metaphors unite concepts commonly
perceived as dissimilar or separate in order to add information and nuance to our understanding
of terms. For the groups in question, each views the current state of society, the modernist,
scientific public as unique situations. The separators view their existence as a part of an ongoing
war against faith. The bargainers view their existence as part of a revolution that attempts to
overthrow science. The harmonizers view their existence as enacting harmony among science,
religion, Christians, and secularists. These guiding metaphors bring together potentially
“paradoxical and chaotic” associations, such as the present attitudes towards religion as
simultaneously war-like, revolution-like, and harmony-like (Brock, 1985, p. 96). Metaphors
move between the realms of the symbolic and the material, because they employ a rhetorical
device to ascribe qualities to the physical, material reality or our conceptions of it. John Fritch
and Karla Leeper (1993) argued that metaphors are more than ornamental, rhetorical devices;
“metaphors work to generate perspectives about the meaning of words and the meaning of
reality” (p. 193). Metaphors concretize important figurative relationships that define perspectives
towards life.
I analyze the discourse of these three groups and compare their narrative elements,
clustering, identification, labeling, and casuistry in order to learn more about their rhetorical
nuances will help scholars of rhetorical criticism understand contemporary negotiations of the
science and religion relationship. Although these groups all have established God terms, guiding
41
metaphors, and frameworks, they vary greatly in their execution of religious values in a secular,
scientific world. The symbolic and discursive communication of these three groups happens in
online spaces, their many publications, and speaking engagements. They also engage in material
rhetoric to garner membership, spread their narrative, and make sense of reality. If words about
God are really words about the organization of religious thought, then how these groups organize
their faith represents their interpretation of reality (Burke, 1970).
Participant-Observation
This inquiry embraces the unity of the material and the spiritual in its methodology. I
agree with many prominent theorists that rhetoric should collapse the discreet categories of
discursive and non-discursive (e.g., Blair, 2001; Blair & Michel, 2000; Dickinson, 1997;
Dickinson, Ott, & Aoki, 2006; LaClau & Mouffe, 1985). Ancient Greek rhetoric incorporated the
material and symbolic in the art of persuasion, identification, and understanding. Rhetoric,
primarily concerned with words and deeds, always encompassed language and action in
persuasive events. The “material turn,” in contemporary rhetoric then, is a linguistic move to
reignite and refocus the relationship between the material and the symbolic artifacts of study. In
comparison to a rhetorical focus on speeches, especially of those in power, and ideological
criticism, material rhetoric encourages the exploration of other symbolic forms. Kenneth Zagacki
and Victoria Gallagher (2009) argued,
The move from symbolicity to materiality involves a shift from examining
representations (what does a text or artifact mean/what are the persuader’s goals) to
42
examining enactments (what does a text or artifact do/what are the consequences beyond
that of the persuader’s goals). (p. 172)
This inquiry wishes to explore not only the official discourse of each group, but the enactment of
the discourse of its members, combining linguistic and material symbolic expressions.
Carole Blair (2001) noted, “Resistance to these changes and the positions that motivate
them certainly is present and vocal” (p. 271). And with good measure. Some concern has been
voiced against the increased interdisciplinary methodologies where there is “blurring and
crossing of boundaries” (Blair, 2001, p. 272). Scholars have attempted to marry traditional
rhetorical criticism with the methodology of other fields that study experience or make claims
that rhetoric is somehow lacking in critical power. For example, Michael Middleton, Samantha
Senda-Cook, and Danielle Endres (2011) argued that scholars should take up rhetorical field
methods and combine performance literature and ethnographic tools in criticism. From studying
public protests, landscapes, and memorials (to name a few), scholars are incorporating the
physical materiality of symbols into rhetorical criticism. The blending of materiality and
language in this study’s methodology complements contemporary theorizing about the critical
power of rhetorical artifacts. In this inquiry, I engage participant-observation and material
rhetorics as dual analytical tools to understand these groups’ narratives, member participation,
and events.
To complement the groups’ official publications and online resources, I observed and
took notes during physical meetings, interviews, site visits, and online classes. For example, I
virtually attended an ICR workshop. I physically visited ICR’s Creation and Earth History
Museum in Santee, California. I also attended the AMP (Apologetics, Mission, Partnership)
Conference, run by RTB, attended RTB chapter meetings, and took an RTB online course called
43
Astronomy and Design. Due to its location, Kentucky, I was unable to attend AIG’s Creation
Museum, but did have at my disposal articles detailing the site for comparative purposes (e.g.,
Hege, 2014; Kelly & Hoerl, 2012; Lynch, 2013). For all groups, I analyzed discourse of
members on social media, discussion boards, and letters to editors as an attempt to marry the
official discourse with group enactment and engagement.
It is important for the critical rhetorician to be aware of their own positionality when
entering an observational space. Particularly when faith is the topic of discussion, the faith (or
lack thereof) of the critic can provide opportunities for both added insight and potential problems
(Bloomfield, 2014; Ganiel & Mitchell, 2006). Being reflexive of personal perspectives,
especially on issues of faith, has become a primary task of the participant-observer and
ethnographer. As a non-religious researcher, I approach the rhetoric of these groups with full
awareness of and attentiveness to my potential biases. Alignment with the faith being studied
may privilege certain types of insights and understanding, but an outsider status may also
provide a “valid account” with additional insights not noticeable to the insider (Ganiel &
Mitchell, 2006, p. 5). Because this study is not concerned with evaluating the accuracy of stories,
I believe that my personal opinions about human origins and the environment played a minimal
role in my analysis. I analyzed each group’s discourse with an appreciation towards their coping
mechanisms and the uniqueness of their explanatory narratives. To do this, I invoked narrative
standards of how these stories resonate with audiences and members as a meaningful insight into
important, communicative patterns. Exploring the writings, publications, interviews, and
interactions of these groups combined the symbolic and material resources of these groups. I
jumped full-force into the morass to understand the many complicated and nuanced intricacies of
the Christian narrative and its implications for rhetorical coping strategies.
44
Chapter Outline
The following chapters delve into prominent case studies of separators, bargainers, and
harmonizers, respectively. Separators, such as AIG and the CA, separate science and religion
into distinct epistemic domains. Bargainers, such as ICR and the AI, bargain with modernity and
stretch their faith to incorporate some elements of science. Harmonizers, such as RTB and the
EEN, unite science and religion in a transcendent rhetoric where the two support one another. Of
particular interest are how the groups conceptualize and represent the relationship between
science and religion and how that rhetoric illuminates their understanding of the position of
human life. Artifacts for analysis include online resources, published work, interviews with
members, public debates, and participant-observation at events and conferences. Group
discourses are broken down into three categories, which build upon one another into a distinct
pattern. Guiding terms influence an orienting frame, which outlines responses to enemies and
appropriate metaphors, which affect argument patterns. These characteristics reveal the
differences between these categories and highlight the incompatibilities of groups that greatly
overlap.
Chapter Two analyzes the separators. It focuses on AIG, its mission statements,
publications, and debates with other groups. AIG conceptualizes science and religion as separate,
epistemic domains and aims to spread Christianity through a deeper understanding of literal
creationism. My analysis of AIG is supported by the work of the CA, a religiously motivated
environmental group that also separates science from religion. Both groups conceptualize
science, evolution and environmentalism, respectively, as threats to the goals and purpose of
45
faith. Science and religion are opponents that compete for epistemic resources. Through
exploring the discourses of these groups, I offer an insight into the rhetorical patterns of
separators that includes the emphasis of 1) division, 2) the melodramatic frame, 3) the metaphor
of war, and 4) competing argument claims.
Chapter Three analyzes the bargainers. It focuses on ICR, its publication Acts & Facts, its
missionary events, and the Creation and Earth History Museum. ICR is supported by the AI’s
rhetoric. ICR and the AI’s discourse conceptualize some aspects of science as working to support
the Bible. Although billing itself as a scientific, research group, ICR separates its science from
“mainstream” or “orthodox” science that challenges biblical inerrancy. For example, ICR offers
alternative research and interpretations of carbon-14 dating and the genetic similarities between
humans and chimpanzees. ICR borrows elements of scientific thought and methodology in order
to challenge mainstream science’s conclusions. This discourse is supported by the AI. The AI
offers economics as a competing scientific discourse that may overthrow the damaging effects of
unbridled environmentalism. The bargainers emphasize 1) casuistic stretching, 2) the tragicomic
frame, 3) the metaphor of revolution, and 4) competing argument grounds.
Chapter Four explores the harmonizers. This chapter includes analysis of RTB and the
EEN’s materials such as online publications and blogs, events, and interviews. Both groups share
a focus on a transcendent, encompassing narrative that unites science and religion without regard
for incompatibilities. For RTB, science and religion are dual revelations of God and provide
reciprocal support for the truth of the other. For the EEN, science serves as the grounding for
religious action towards the environment. The harmonizers share an emphasis on 1)
identification, 2) transcendence upwards, 3) the metaphor of harmony, and 4) competing
argument warrants.
46
Chapter Five focuses on the implications of the group’s shared discursive resources and
proposes the potential universality of coping mechanisms and identity legitimization. This
chapter elucidates how controversies over origins and endings renegotiate the science and
religion divide, challenge scholarly thought about the public and post-secularism, and inform
rhetorical theory. I argue that the fracturing of the Christian narrative reflects a deep-seated need
for the reconfiguration of science and religion as resources for living. Rhetorical critics can
expand their understanding of contemporary controversies of science and religion by looking at
the existing relationships between these two co-existing phenomena and unpacking the nuances
of religious discourse. Instead of eschewing contemporary groups as simply compromises or new
iterations of religious strategy, this inquiry looks towards what they reveal about pervasive
cultural anxieties over origins and endings. The perpetual irony is that the uniquely human
quality of language creates more questions in interpreting reality than it can answer (Burke,
1969). The responses of separators, bargainers, and harmonizers reconfigure ways of knowing to
create new master narratives to ease the perpetual anxieties of the past, present, and future.
47
Chapter Two
Separators and the Holy War against Science
In response to modernity, separators place science and religion in distinct domains to
protect religious autonomy and purity. Their coping strategy relies on science and religion being
separate, epistemic resources from which people can address life’s questions. Separators
legitimize religion as an epistemology that does not need science to explain reality and reject
science’s authority. The separators’ rhetoric claims equal space for religion as a challenge the
lauded place of science. To cope with a weakened environment for their faith system, separators
directly challenge science in a discursive war for dominance in the public sphere. Separators
make room for religion by providing resources that science cannot provide, such as absolute
certainty and historical evidence. Separators emphasize the need for the anchoring power
religion in a modern, relativistic world. They rhetorically raise the stakes of this battle to validate
their passionate, and often aggressive, statements and actions
Separators, like the bargainers and harmonizers, rely on facets of both modernity and
postmodernity to legitimize their narrative. In response to the reigning power of science’s
metanarrative, separators acknowledge their position as a competing epistemology trying to
replace science. Without the plurality of postmodernity, separators might fail to establish their
continuing presence in the public sphere. Separators believe that their narrative is the Truth, but
must cling to the relativism and the fragmentation of norms that they denounce to validate their
claims to public representation. While separators may borrow from modernity and
postmodernity, they see no opportunity for borrowing between faith and mainstream, atheistic
science. The separation between science and religion is not a neutral, amicable one. Science and
48
religion are viewed as having insurmountable incompatibilities. Separators compete to establish
the truth of the Christian narrative against a formidable, but ultimately incorrect, scientific
alternative. This search for truth is tied inextricably to “the establishment of power” and the
dominance of science in the public sphere (Turner, 1990, p. 5). Separators are legitimized by the
battle against the scientific orthodoxy. Religious, and specifically Christian, ways of knowing are
thus validated and guaranteed public consideration. Separators use the term science to describe
the mainstream scientific orthodoxy that is dominated by academia, atheism, naturalism, and
materialism. Separators also use the term science to describe a methodology that can be used by
both those who are religious and non-religious. The scientific worldview is flawed, but science
as a shared resource can sometimes benefit the creationist cause, as is more apparent in the
discourse of the bargainers. “Science” as an anti-religious monolith is the primary opponent to
the fundamentalist Christian worldview.
The two exemplar separators are Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the Cornwall Alliance
(CA). Both groups engage in aggressive and defensive discourse to legitimize their existence.
The world is hostile to religion and calls for soldiers to defend it. In establishing boundaries
between science and religion, separators identify “others” that are enemies to their cause (Burke,
1969). Those enemies are defined as groups and ideologies that threaten the goals of AIG and the
CA and literal interpretations of the Bible. Mainstream science, with its materialist and atheistic
tendencies, is an obvious enemy. But, the separators also identify fellow Christians as enemies,
especially those who challenge literal interpretations of the Bible and try to compromise with
science. The separators tend to position these enemies as the aggressors. The guiding metaphor
of war and conflict justifies their strict treatment of dissenters and the fervor in which they
support their cause. Both AIG and the CA challenge the consequences of a materialist worldview
49
and argue that faith alone is powerful enough to explain reality and guide decision-making. Both
groups eschew mainstream scientific conclusions because they have negative effects on culture
and laud Christianity as the solution to the world’s current ills.
Both AIG and the CA engage in a war metaphor against clearly established enemies and
demonize compromise as a betrayal of their faith. Even Christians with slightly different
interpretations of the Bible are framed as enemies. Separators argue that there are social
consequences to losing the battle over origins and the environment. They are on a moral crusade,
a holy mandate, to eradicate their enemy and restore morality to humanity and vulnerable
populations. For AIG, materialism, atheism, and evolution threaten the youth. For CA,
naturalism, atheism, and environmentalism threaten the poor. The youth and the poor must be
protected, so separators have emerged to defend them. AIG and the CA start with faith as the
foundation of their conclusions, and engage in hermeneutics so that reality fits with their
interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is the starting point and orientation through which all other
information is filtered.
In this chapter, I introduce the history of the science and religion divide as context for the
war discourse of the separators as a guiding narrative. After exploring these similarities, I
describe the basic ideologies and teachings of AIG and CA and analyze their rhetorical
fragments through three underlying characteristics that emerge from their emphasis on division:
1) the melodramatic frame, 2) the metaphor of war, and 3) competing argument claims. I
conclude by examining the implications of the discourse of separators in public discourse. As a
unique response to the problems of modernity, separators navigate the incorporation of aspects of
modernity and postmodernity in legitimizing their religious voice. Separators adjust their rhetoric
to undermine science’s dominance, inflate the importance of faith, and construct a holy war that
50
necessitates immediate and powerful action. The discourse of separators supports the
characterization that modernity is a polarizing force that reinvigorates religious voices and anti-
science rhetoric.
Answers in Genesis
In 1994, Ken Ham founded Creation Science Ministries, which was eventually renamed
AIG (2015a). AIG is a creationist group that advocates a biblical and Christian worldview and
warns against the dangers of a secular worldview. Unlike ICR’s research focus, AIG emphasized
communicating information about creationism to the lay person. AIG employs a team of teaching
ministry staff to spread AIG’s message throughout the US. AIG publishes Answers Magazine to
explain creationism to the lay person and started Answers Research Journal in 2008 for more
scientifically focused audiences. AIG also sells homeschooling kits to supplement or replace
public schooling. Ham and his associates oftentimes participate in public debates, such as the
highly viewed debate with science personality, Bill Nye in February 2004 (Bloomfield, 2015).
Charity Navigator (2014a) reports that AIG generates more than $27 million annual revenue with
more than $9 million coming from donations.
AIG (2014a) is “dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the
gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. . . regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science,
and the age of the earth” (para. 1). As its name suggests, AIG advocates that all of life’s answers
can be found in the first book of the Bible. AIG (2015b) advises that Christians should “not
compromise with the secular religion of the day” and wishes instead to separate the two
51
worldviews (para. 1). AIG references Matthew 12:30
2
to position secularism and science as
enemies to faith. AIG is an exemplar separator group because it advocates distinguishing science
and religion as distinct worldviews.
AIG advocates young-earth creationism or “recent creation” (Spencer, 2009, para. 1).
The recent creation perspective considers the Bible inerrant, a literal record of history that
“describ[es] real historical events and real people” (Spencer, 2009, para. 2). AIG argues that
statements in the Bible are meant to be read normally, not figuratively or metaphorically. While
separators, bargainers, and harmonizers would all describe themselves as literal creationists, AIG
advocates reading the Bible in its natural language. This leads them to estimate the age of the
Earth through ancestry listed in the Bible at “only a few thousand years old,” oftentimes cited as
a range from 6-10,000 years (Answers in Genesis, 2012, para. 1). Modern scientific estimates
place the age of the Earth closer to 14 billion years, which doesn’t “align with the Bible. . . .
Clearly, 6,000 is a far cry from 13,700,000,000 – these are incompatible teachings” (Patterson,
2015, para. 2). Along with the biblical timeline, AIG also teaches that Noah’s Flood is a
historical event that explains fossil layers. Indeed, all Bible stories are a record of history. As I
will discuss in more detail, AIG considers the Bible an all-or-nothing document, where rejection
of one story may lead to rejection of the whole narrative. It is thus important for the historical
timeline presented in the Bible to be true, because this gives credence to the Bible’s other
teachings and statements.
AIG has multiple channels of outreach and evangelization such as a website, books and
magazines, events, and lectures about the importance of human origins. AIG reports that its
2
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
52
website receives “one million web visitors every month,” and its magazine, Answers, has
thousands of monthly subscribers (Ham, 2015a, para. 62). AIG publishes a wide variety of books
and articles aimed at the layman level of technicality. Answers issues are archived on AIG’s
website for public viewing and mail subscriptions can be purchased monthly or annually. AIG
also publishes materials targeted at children for home-schooling purposes such as I really, really,
really like fossils! The book is aimed at children aged five through twelve; its online description
reads:
the media teaches children that fossils prove evolution. That’s not true! This book of
fossil facts teaches kids how fossils are made, where to find fossils, and what can be
learned from fossils. All from a biblical perspective! Excellent for early grade school and
other young explorers. (Carter, 2014, para. 1)
AIG offers creationism-friendly materials for parents to teach science at home as an alternative
to the evolution-based science taught in the public school system.
In addition to its online and paper publications, AIG built a museum, the Creation
Museum, as a creationist alternative to science museums. The Creation Museum has received
nearly 2 million visitors since it opened in 2007 (Schwartz, 2014, para. 3). Similar to the
children’s book, the Creation Museum reinterprets evidence traditionally viewed as proof of
evolution. Kelly and Hoerl (2012) and John Lynch (2013) argued that the Creation Museum
promotes continued discussion on established scientific principles. Using the physical structure
and space associated with truth and authority, AIG reclaims a space to challenge the scientific
worldview with a biblical perspective. AIG (2015a) is currently building another interactive
attraction based on Noah’s Ark called the Ark Encounter. It has met some funding challenges
53
due to AIG’s religious affiliations, but is on schedule to be completed in the summer of 2016
(AIG, 2015a).
AIG is by far the largest, most profitable, and most well-known of the groups to be
discussed in this dissertation. Their large funding pool and wide media reach begs the question
about the legitimacy of the separator narrative in comparison to more progressive iterations of
the science and religion relationship. Because stretching or altering symbols systems is difficult,
the separators may have capitalized on the ease and protection offered by rejection of scientific
discovery. AIG’s coping mechanism to the threats of science is the construction of a
melodramatic war that justifies their existence and defensive actions.
The Cornwall Alliance
Started in 2005 as the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, the CA is a conservative
evangelical group that advocates for caution on environmental protection. This group reflects
traditional alignments of conservatism with religious adherents. Conservatives and people of
faith tend to doubt science as an authority, to trivialize environmental protection, and to support
neoliberal economic policies (Gauchat, 2012). The CA argues that current scientific policies will
be ultimately damaging the environment and human life. Instead, they turn to the Bible for
advice on environmental activism and economic policy.
Groups such as the CA argue against intervention in the environment and instead laud the
role of humans as the pinnacle of creation. The CA directly challenges an emerging facet of
Christianity, creation care, which promotes religiously-motivated protection of the environment.
54
The CA tries to reclaim a biblical understanding of the environment that eschews intervention
and scientific alarmism. The CA’s mission statement is:
We seek to magnify the glory of God in creation, the wisdom of His truth in
environmental stewardship, the kindness of His mercy in lifting the needy out of poverty,
and the wonders of His grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Cornwall Alliance, 2014c,
para. 2)
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner is the founder of the CA, has a PhD in Scottish History, and publishes
most of the information on the CA’s website. Their slogan is “for the stewardship of creation,”
which shares vocabulary with the “creation care” movement that advocates for environmental
protection (Cornwall Alliance, 2014a, para. 1). How the CA defines stewardship, however, leads
to different conclusions about appropriate environmental action.
The CA publishes articles, hosts events, provides consulting and lecture services, and
educates the public about the dangers of the environmental movement. Included among their
publications are moral declarations, open letters, and responses to what the CA considers
scientifically-biased news articles. These articles are aimed at the layperson and mostly address
values, Christian doctrine, and policy advocacy. Similar to AIG, the CA seeks to validate the
Christian perspective and advocate for religious expression and inclusion in popular discourse
about the environment. They believe that they have the correct interpretation of scripture, which
should be the foundation of environmental policy. The CA is thus also influenced by postmodern
thought in that the organization legitimizes itself as a competing voice against mainstream
science and Christian environmentalists.
55
Melodrama and Division
In order to understand the division that underpins the separators’ discourse, I will briefly
describe its historical roots. Although once combined in natural theology, landmark events, such
as the excommunication of Galileo, contributed to the shift of science and religion from partners
into opponents. Famous examples are not wholly explanatory (Russell, 2002), but science’s
development did prompt the reconsideration of the human relationship to the natural world. For
example, Galileo’s research supported a Copernican view that the Earth was not the center of the
universe. His measurements and the exploration of space were sanctioned by the Church, but his
theories about the Earth’s orbit and heliocentrism was considered, at the time, heretical.
Heliocentrism challenged the teachings of the Catholic Church at the time and biblical phrases
such as 1 Chronicles 16:30
3
. Historical instances of science and religion’s conflicts serve as focal
points to understand how the relationship between science and religion has ebbed and flowed
throughout time. They also serve as grounding points for the following theoretical exploration of
the relationship between science and religion. As science developed into its own, self-sustaining
epistemology, the Bible was no longer the only legitimate authority. Scientific observations
challenged the Bible’s ability to serve as an exhaustive and inerrant source of information.
Immanuel Kant (2010) also supported this oppositional view of science and religion
where the realms of reason and faith, mapped onto science and religion, were separate and
irreconcilable. Reason and faith are a priori categories through which humans know, learn, and
understand. The realm of reason includes the material world, observational knowledge,
3
Tremble before him, all the Earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
56
rationality, and logic. The realm of faith transcends reality and looks beyond experiences to
justify action and belief. For Kant, science and religion were reduced to an exaggerated form.
Religion and science excluded the material and the spiritual, respectively, and were “inherently
conflicting domains of human knowledge with mutually exclusive explanations for how the
world works” (Evans, 2012, p. 337). Because of their exclusivity, people should not be logically
capable of embracing both without undergoing cognitive dissonance (Clements, 1990). Although
both fields were once two compatible ways of understanding the world, they have been since
constructed as incompatible opponents.
The Kantian separation was extended by John Rawls as foundation for his work on
political and religious identities. Science is often conflated with secularism or “neutrality” (Lessl,
2007, p. 130). Rawls (1988) advocated for excluding religious justifications from public
decisions and elevating the secular and neutral voices. Citizens must separate personal, religious
beliefs from public and political selves (Schultze, 2010, p. 194). Rawls’s “curtain” draws a clear
distinction between beliefs and public presentation (Schultze, 2010, p. 194). The public sphere
and the state are the realms of secularism and universal values; religious appeals to scripture do
not belong (Rawls, 1988). A Rawlsian view of religion amplifies the epistemic divide where
science and religion battle for control in politics and education. This “war metaphor” can harm
the ability for both science and religion to work together by reinforcing norms of separation and
competition (Levinson, 2006, p. 423). Berger (1970) acknowledged that “however valid the
actual conflict” between science and religion is, “there is no doubt that such a conflict has been
profoundly believed to exist” (p. 30). The belief in this conflict drives the separators to place
science and religion in distinct, epistemic realms.
57
Polarized into opponents, opposites, and competing groups, the relationship between
science and religion echoes a melodramatic frame. One of Burke’s (1984a) dramatic
perspectives, melodrama, embraces “the realm of competition and rivalry” in polarizing enemies
and establishing clear divides between good and evil (Schwarze, 2006, p. 241). AIG and the CA
embrace the appearance of conflict as a guiding orientation toward the relationship between
science and religion, thus spurring the use of language consistent with war influences. The
historic controversy over the relationship between science and religion has emerged anew with
increased fervor. Harkening back to traditional divides, separators advocate for the exclusive
truth of their faith, which legitimates the religious narrative. Their perception of a perpetually
threatened faith justifies a prompt, urgent, and fervent reaction to defend it. The separators
consider science and religion to be incompatible worldviews that battle for attention,
prominence, and truth. Separators claim that Christianity must continually struggle against
science to reclaim its rightful place in the public sphere. The Christian narrative has been
overcome by scientific interpretations of history and must fight back. Separators consider the
empowerment of science as an epistemic monolith to be a direct threat to the viability of
Christianity and the moral state of humanity. AIG and the CA fear the consequences of a world
without Christianity as the reigning standard, and specifically, their brand of Christianity. Steven
Schwarze (2006) argued that melodramas attribute “moral gravity and pathos” to the conflict
between polarized sides, empowering “muted voices [to] be heard loud and clear” (pp. 239, 252).
They envision themselves as empowered soldiers, bent on defending Christianity from external
and internal attacks.
Even though the separators share the Christian faith with other groups in this study, they
view any compromises to their guiding principles as a betrayal of the faith. Schwarze (2006)
58
argued that groups engaging in melodrama “often view compromise as an underlying cause of,
not a solution to” moral dilemmas (p. 251). For the separators, compromising Christians
contribute to the strength of villainous forces that challenges the true creationist and religious
environmental narrative. AIG considers the age of the Earth an integral part of doctrine, an
essential element of the Christian faith. True Christians believe in a young Earth, and those who
do not have been influenced by insidious forces that attempt to turn people from God. For the
CA, faith in God’s creation is an essential element of Christianity, where to move to protect the
environment is to doubt God’s plan. Both AIG and the CA’s guiding principles rest on trust of
God. Do you trust that God wrote that He created the Earth in six days, as He wrote? Do you
trust that God said that the Earth was created perfectly for human life, as He wrote? Those who
deny these doctrines, even self-professed Christians, are not truly Christian. AIG and the CA
advocate uncompromising belief systems where even slight differences are tantamount to heresy.
Separators advocate a melodramatic narrative where clear, prominent, polarized enemies
must be destroyed instead of rehabilitated (Burke, 1984a). The separators thus invoke a
philosophy similar to that of the Manicheans, where they are heightened conceptions of pure
good and evil. Edward Appel (2008) associated Manichaeism with melodrama because one of its
components is “hyperbolized, binary” conceptions of good and evil (p. 180). Manichaeism
focuses on “two absolutes – the primeval and antagonistic principles of light and darkness and of
good and evil” (Pavry, 1937, p. 164). These “two warring kingdoms” of good and evil
established the primary conflict of the narrative and outlined specific actions and beliefs of the
Manichaeism piety (Pavry, 1937, p. 164). Melodrama and Manichaeism share a polarized
conflict between hero and villain.
59
In addition to a villain, melodramas also identify a hero and a victim (Appel, 2008). For
the separators, the villains are clearly identified as scientists, modernists, and compromising
Christians. These evil forces threaten the morality of society, where all people, especially the
vulnerable youth and poor, are victims to undue influences. The separators’ followers are the
heroes that seek to redeem society through vanquishing the villain. In naming mainstream
scientists, atheists, and environmentalists as enemies, separators “have the choice of either
attacking or cringing;” these are the only options provided when “call[ing] a man [sic] a villain”
(Burke, 1984a, p. 4). Their orientation is thus towards destroying and sacrificing those villains
and seeing the world “in moral blacks and whites” (Appel, 2008, p. 178).
Burke (1984a) argued that how people treat the wrongdoers in a narrative is indicative of
its overall genre and other discursive components. While tragedy also identifies an enemy to be
sacrificed, a tragic frame connotes acceptance of evil as a natural part of the human condition. In
other words, “tragedy focuses on conflicts within individuals” while melodrama is “staged
around conflicts between individuals” (Schwarze, 2006, p. 243). Separators characterize science
and modernity as the vicious oppressors that try to destroy religious truth and ways of knowing,
instead of victims of a shared human flaw. In his discussions of environmental controversy,
Schwarze (2006) argued, “melodrama clarifies conflict through polarization” and is indicative of
“systemic failure” due to the power of the overarching villain (pp. 244, 247). Melodrama is thus
appealing because of “its clarity and simplicity in assigning wrong predominantly to one side”
(Desilet & Appel, 2011, p. 348). Schwarze (2006) specifically posited that melodrama “puts the
inaccuracy of scientific language on display and highlights its potential moral blindspots” due to
its emphasis on ethos, the individual, and character (p. 251). Separators, both environment and
human origins-focused, use melodrama to highlight the lack of morality present in the scientific,
60
modernist villain. Guided by melodrama, Manichaeism, and the historical conflict between
science and religion, the separators engage “simple solutions” to their problems: starting a war
(Schwarze, 2006, p. 241).
Metaphor of War
War is the key narrative component of a melodrama, which George Lakoff (1991)
described as a hero going on “an arduous heroic journey” until “the moral balance is restored”
(p. 26). In his further description of war, Lakoff (1991) argued that the heroes of the story
“cannot negotiate with villains; they must defeat them” (p. 27). The heroes in war resort to
violence because language and diplomacy cannot solve the problems. The framework of
melodrama, which inspires the use of war terminology and metaphors, provides only one
solution to restore “the moral balance” by destroying the villain (Lakoff, 1991, p. 26). To
convince members and the general public of their narrative, the separators must set up a
dangerous, evil environment that threatens the Christian faith. Once establishing the enemies’
attacks, they position themselves as the defenders of their faith and the heroes of the narrative.
Finally, they outline the victims and the potential moral consequences should the battle fail.
These components construct the metaphor of war, cast science and compromising Christians as
enemies, and justify AIG and the CA in their protection of the youth, poor, and future
generations.
Describing a hostile environment. Genesis “is the most-attacked book of the Bible,”
according to AIG (AIG, n.d.-c, para. 1). Ham (2012) called secularist attacks and evolutionist
61
propaganda “more and more aggressive” towards Christianity and creationism, which is framed
as a call for all followers to act (para. 22). AIG argues that there are always challengers to God’s
Word. Ham (2007) argued, the “battle against God’s Word has manifested itself in every era”
(para. 7). Attacks on faith are perennial threats that require a powerful, maintained institution to
defend Christianity. Indeed, “modern issues like the age of dinosaurs or carbon dating are merely
new manifestations of age-old attacks on God’s Word” (Ham, 2007, para. 8). AIG paints
Christians as a persecuted minority that has repeatedly needed to defend itself. These recurring
“attacks” challenge the legitimacy of The Bible as providing accurate explanations of reality.
AIG author Mark Coppenger (2014) called the war against Christianity a “longstanding crusade”
(para. 4). Ham (2013b) demonized present attempts to characterize religious people as “‘child
abusers,’ ‘intolerant,’ and ‘judgmental’” (para. 4).
Ham (2013b) characterized contemporary time, noting, “increasingly, orthodox
Christians are being looked on as the enemy in America” (para. 3-4). Defending the Christian
faith even results in loss of life. Lacey (2016) argued, “The killing of Christians simply because
of their belief and their refusal to deny Christ and convert to a different religion has been
recorded countless times” (para. 9). AIG presents Christians as perpetually “the people of the
narrow way, a perennial minority” that battles the looming, scientific threat (Coppenger, 2014,
para. 8). AIG is David fighting against the Goliath of modernity that undermines the authority
and inerrancy of the Bible, which is a common melodramatic trope (Schwarze, 2006). AIG
frequently set science and religion against each other as worldviews in conflict. In an online AIG
article, Purdom (2010) called human origins controversy a “war of the worldviews” (para. 1). On
an informational page posted on AIG’s (2009a) website, “the creation/evolution controversy” is
described as “pitting two worldviews – one materialist, the other supernaturalist – against each
62
other” (para. 12). AIG publishes a book titled War of the Worldviews where the war Christians
are fighting is a “culture war” (Ham et al., 2005, para. 1). Ham et al. (2005) noted:
We witness the battles and skirmishes of this war in our schools, our courts and our
homes. All around us are casualties of this warfare—Christians taken captive by an
evolutionary philosophy. The idea of the big bang and millions of years has duped many
Christians and its effects include a deficient gospel and subjective morality. (para. 2)
AIG refers to “battles,” “skirmishes,” “war,” and the many locations in which they occur. The
Christian worldview is the target of these attacks, suffers casualties, and is taken captive from the
insidious evolutionary influence. In reading AIG’s publications and ascribing to their mission,
people “will find ammunition for the war,” to take up the battle and fight for “a return to true
biblical authority” (Ham et al., 2005, para. 4).
AIG clearly draws the battle lines between the competing worldviews of science and
religion. Anyone who does not defend the Bible is against AIG’s cause and Christianity.
Standing up to mainstream science is a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. Ham
(2013b) noted that all Christians should defend the Bible “regardless of how the culture may
mock and attack us” (para. 22). Ham (2015b) argued that there is “no doubt we are in a war – a
fight for the minds of a generation” (para. 22). Ham (2012) argued, “I guess we shouldn’t be all
that surprised when the secular world does all it can to attack the Bible” (para. 1). It comes as no
surprise because AIG considers the two worlds of science and religion, secular and Christian,
good and evil, to be an insurmountable binary. Science and secularism works hard to eradicate
Christianity, just as AIG works tirelessly to remove scientific influence from education and the
public.
63
AIG identifies the dominance of evolution in science education and scientific standards
as a threat to Christianity. Specifically, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was an “anti-biblical
message” that left “destructive consequences in its wake” (Ham, 2015a, para. 39). Darwin’s
theories directly compete with the Bible over the truth of humanity’s origins. Academia is
repeatedly identified by AIG as a breeding ground for anti-Christian thought. AIG argues that the
academia is “intent on destroying [one’s] faith” (Comfort, 2011, para. 1). In summarizing a poll
of creationist academics, Jerry Bergman (1995) argued, “almost all felt that they had faced
serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often” and “all,
without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously
impede or terminate an academic career” (para. 1). AIG argues that the persecution of Christian
thought happens frequently in academia and silences potential challenges to the scientific
orthodoxy. In 2011, Ham with two colleagues, Greg Hall and Britt Beemer, wrote Already
Compromised: Christian Colleges Took a Test on the State of their Faith and the Final Exam is
In about the compromises that professors are forced to make in academia. The authors argued,
“many ‘Christian’ colleges are going the way of Yale, Harvard and Princeton,” universities that
AIG sees as beacons of atheistic thought (Ham, Hall, & Beemer, 2011, para. 2).
Although many scientists may argue that the secular worldview is neutral to issues of
faith, Ham (2015b) argued, “there is no neutral position here. If the education system is not for
Christ, then it is against Him” (para. 38). The academic community is an enemy of Christianity
that threatens AIG’s mission, despite their claims to neutrality. Separators might agree with
Burke’s (1984a) statement “you may use many words which seem neutral, but in actuality
possess hidden weighting” (p. 237). To not include religious language or to claim neutrality is
equivalent to being anti-religious and thus worthy of scorn. In claiming to be neutral, science
64
places itself above religion as a source of truth and ignores its own interpretative elements
(Burke, 1969b; Condit, 1990). AIG writer Mitchell (2011) argued, “Science today is exalted as
the source of infallible truth, but it remains as susceptible to error now as ever” (para. 5).
Mitchell (2011) attacked modernity and science’s claim to absolute truth. Science may have
influence in the academic community and other recognized authorities, but separators do not
value those authorities. Instead, Mitchell argues that it is the Bible that holds the ultimate truth
about reality. Science’s claim to absolute truth and modern standards of knowledge are
undermined as deceptive and disingenuous.
The CA shares this focus on war terminology and finding many battlegrounds for their
faith. The CA describes itself operating “in a world permeated by an environmental movement
whose worldview, theology, and ethics are overwhelmingly anti-Christian” (Cornwall Alliance,
2014b, para. 3). In an open letter to Pope Francis, the CA (2015a) argued, “Much of the debate
over environmental stewardship is rooted in a clash of worldviews, with conflicting doctrines of
God, creation, humanity, sin, and salvation” (para. 2). The religious and naturalistic worldviews
battle over human activity’s impact on the environment and the appropriate response. Beisner
(2013) called the present discourse about the environment an “enormous controversy raging
among [scientists] over such fundamental questions” about carbon dioxide and its effects on the
environment (para. 6). The CA (2013) argued that “science, and technology are more a threat to
the environment than a blessing to humanity and nature” (para 2), so must be removed from
society. While the CA agrees that there are climatic changes, they highlight perceived
disagreements about the specifics about climate change and the consequences of those changes.
The CA directly opposes climate change mitigation and wrote, “We call on political leaders to
adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise
65
out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global
temperature” (Cornwall Alliance, 2009, para. 12). For the CA, to follow science is to sin against
“the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression” (Cornwall Alliance,
2009, para. 9). Blocking carbon regulations usurps protecting the environment as a moral
mandate.
The CA also challenges the scientific conclusions of academic institutions and journals.
Ceccarelli (2011) argued that it is a tactic of manufacturing controversy to “describe academic
practices like peer review and tenure as mechanisms for an orthodoxy to suppress those who
have a dissenting view” (p. 198). For example, Beisner (2014a) argued that research coming
from mainstream scientific journals should be suspect. He noted, “peer review has been
irretrievably compromised” because “a scientific orthodoxy took over” (Beisner, 2014a, para.
28). The peer review process has been tainted by a worldview that is unkind and antagonistic
towards alternative viewpoints. Beisner (2014) argued that “dissenting scientists . . . were cowed
into silence” by the predominant, naturalistic worldview (para. 8). Scientists that embrace a
Christian and biblical worldview are isolated from the mainstream scientific community and find
it difficult to publish. This leaves Christian scientists without validation by the community in
which they seek membership. Similar to AIG’s arguments, the CA frames Christian scientists
and those that deny the consequences of climate change, as a persecuted minority that is
excluded from academia due to bias and discrimination. In arguing that Christianity is true, AIG
and the CA appeal to modernity, established standards, and ultimate truths. But in also
legitimizing alternative narrative viewpoints, the groups appeal to postmodernity, blurred
standards, and the presence of simultaneous truths. The CA also uses the war metaphor to justify
66
its actions online and offline. The CA publishes reports that undermine scientific arguments and
keep the Christian perspective on the environment a topic of public conversation.
In using the war metaphor, separators legitimize their upholding of religious values
against specific enemies. As previously mentioned, naming those enemies is a vital step in
determining action towards those enemies (Burke, 1984a). The war that separators are fighting
must have a concrete, identifiable enemy to validate its legitimacy. Burke (1984a) argued, “This
need of struggle, this physically grounded commandment that the resources of strain be utilized,
can be linked with the human need for justification. One must ‘prove himself right,’ by some
form of practical or esthetic composition” (p. 124). Identifying concrete enemies gives the
actions of AIG and the CA a target on which to focus its attention and attribute evil in the world.
Identifying the villains. Separators emphasize an ongoing battle and war over the truth
of origins and endings and human morality. In fighting this battle, separators establish and
characterize specific, well-defined enemies. Both AIG and the CA construct their enemies as
imminent, insidious forces that directly act to destroy Christianity. Following the war metaphor,
the separators name their enemies in the global battle and advocates appropriate action in
response. These minute differences are exemplified in a joke by Emo Phillips:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! What denomination?”
He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
67
He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern
Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist
Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me too!”
“Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern
Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” I said,
“Die heretic!” And I pushed him over. (as quoted in Cleveland, 2012)
The joke lies in the conflict that appears between religious denominations, despite their
extreme similarities. In some cases, it seems that the smaller the difference, the more vitriolic the
response. For the separators, there are obvious atheist and scientific enemies, but it is the
Christian threat that is the most cutting and damaging to their cause. The separators call out the
other groups, especially the harmonizers, for betraying Christianity and damaging the moral fiber
of America. The war between AIG and its enemies is described as a widening chasm – a huge
gap and separation between worldviews. Ham (2013b) argued, “The increasing anti-Christian
attacks in America should be a warning to the church that the chasm is widening between what is
Christian and what is not” (para. 1). For AIG, those enemies are decidedly non-Christian, even if
they claim to be. Indeed, AIG admitted that “we often get attacked by secularists – and even by
many who call themselves Christian” (Ham, 2013b, para. 23). The targets of AIG’s discourse are
identified both as atheist and supposedly-Christian.
I argue that the rhetorical reasoning behind this thought process of betrayal can be
explained in Burke’s (1984b) ideas of piety and order. Burke (1984b) called piety a “system-
68
builder” through which life experiences become “a unified whole” (p. 75). To be pious is to be in
complete compliance with a defined order, state of reality, and explanatory drama. A piety is not
absolutely true in a cosmic sense, because “it can guide or misguide” (Burke, 1984b, p. 76). But,
individual pieties do represent coherent and demanding “schema[s] of orientation” that serve as
truth in circumstances (Burke, 1984b, p. 76). A slight deviance from the order creates impiety
and guilt equivalent to that of complete disorder and chaos. As the saying goes, one cannot be a
little pregnant; it is an uncompromising identity. Likewise, the Christian identity is pure, holistic
one where transgressions are grounds for confession and penance.
For separators, piety to the faith also requires adherence to the age of the Earth and a trust
in God’s control over creation in addition to a belief in Christ. People who profess to believe in
Christ are not truly Christian if they believe in evolution or partner with mainstream scientists.
Through the separator’s definition of piety, they construct an order for Christian piety that
excludes scientific reasoning. The separator’s standards of piety have implications for
humanity’s ultimate fate and ability to be forgiven at the end of the world. The groups that
separators label as “compromisers” are doing the Devil’s work by drawing Christians to
sympathize with the enemy and distorting God’s Word. Compromisers are more insidious and
untrustworthy because they appear to be friends when they are not. Much like the wolf in sheep’s
clothing,
4
harmonizers pretend to be Christians but instead endanger their faith. Robert Bellah
(1970) argued that this difference in treatment is common in religious discourse. In a discussion
of Christian philosophy, he noted, “Failure to subscribe to these beliefs is to be punished by
banishment; falsely subscribing to them is punishable by death” (Bellah, 1970, p. 218).
4
Matthew 7:15 – Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are
ferocious wolves.
69
Nonbelievers are sent away, while betrayers are subject to a harsher penalty due to their impiety
and violation of the rules and beliefs of the group.
The two core tenets of AIG’s faith is rejection of the “millions of years” myth and
“evolution” (Ham, 2013a, para. 9). AIG often challenges the predictions of scientific models,
specifically their dating methods. Foley (2014) argued, “methods such as tree ring and ice core
dating that are used to give these stable temperature readings are also fraught with unprovable
assumptions. These assumptions reject the eye-witness account of Earth’s history that God has
given us in His Word” (para. 7). AIG argues that observations given by God in the Bible should
not be trumped by flawed dating methods that focus on assumptions and scientific, naturalist
biases. AIG also teaches that the Earth is young and God created humans, animals, and the
environment in their fully formed and advanced states. These tenets of creationism oppose
mainstream scientific definitions of an old Earth and the process of change and natural selection
that created life’s complexity over time. Scientists, academia, and evolution advocates are easily
identified as enemies because they advocate contradictory teachings to AIG.
AIG also views the media as a potential enemy, especially when it becomes a mouthpiece
for secularists. Ham (2015c) asked, “Wouldn’t it be great to see media actually report the news
instead of printing agenda-driven articles that now plague the culture today?” (para. 34). The
news media is in part responsible for the proliferation of scientific messages and the undermining
of Christian values. Entertainment media is also to blame for moral degradation because they
present and glorify alternative family structures. Coppenger (2014) argued, “Those of us who
were ‘baby boomers’ grew up on Father Knows Best and Leave It to Beaver, but now the youth
take their domestic cues from Two and a Half Men and Family Guy” (para 6). Coppenger (2014)
positions the television shows with nuclear family structures in opposition to two contemporary
70
shows, one about a set of a non-married, bachelor brothers and the other a cartoon known for its
sexual themes and irreverence to faith. SpongeBob and The Learning Channel are also a target of
AIG’s ire for containing “subtle and not-so-subtle evolutionary messages” (Ham et al., 2005,
para. 1). The CA (2014e) also demonizes the news media and calls upon them “to resist demands
by climate alarmists” to favor environmentalism in reporting (para. 24).
In creating appropriate responses to secular enemies, AIG and the CA have similar
strategies. Both separators even the playing field by constructing mainstream science as its own
religion. They both argue that science itself needs faith for adherence with no epistemic
authority. If mainstream science is also a faith, then Christianity and science should be given
equal consideration by the public sphere. The fragmented standards of postmodernity allow both
to exist and to compete as equally legitimate origin narratives. Indeed, AIG often fails to
recognize secular groups as performing actual science. Instead, they consider science a
convenient word to hide the religious fervor and insidious motivations behind mainstream
scientific thought.
Don Landis (2007) called evolution a religion that worships “the chaos gods of chance
and mutation” (para. 1). If evolution is a religion, then it does not worship the Bible or the
Christian God, but instead there is On the Origin of Species and Darwin. AIG posits chaos,
change, and mutation as the “gods” of evolution. There is no plan or divine intervention; there is
only “chance, chaos, randomness” (Landis, 2007, para. 2). Johannes van Oort (2009) argued that
randomness is a sin that goes against rule-focused, organized Christian piety (p. 4).
The CA (2014d) echoes this type of characterization, and denies “that the Earth of
anything else is the result of impersonal, blind chance over time” (para. 2). This line of thinking
leads to atheism, under which the CA (2014d) argues that societies cannot “flourish
71
intellectually, morally, aesthetically, and materially” (para. 8). “Atheism, pantheism,
panentheism, animism” are all competing faith orientations to Christianity (Cornwall Alliance,
2014d, para. 8). The environmental movement is itself a “radical religion” and a clear, secular
enemy to the CA’s mission” (Beisner, 2015a, para. 1). Beisner (2010b) argued, “it becomes
increasingly clear that a great deal of what’s been called ‘climate science’ isn’t science at all. It’s
ideological propaganda, often religious . . . masquerading as science” (para. 2).
Environmentalists espouse a competing religion that names itself science to grasp at a legitimacy
that it does not actually have. The environmental religion functions through “climate alarmists”
who seek to undermine the CA’s work (Cornwall Alliance, 2014e, para. 21). The CA (2014e)
argues that they are incorrectly characterized as “‘deniers,’ a pejorative term incompatible with
rational, open, respectful discussion of scientific issues” (para. 21). The CA argues that
environmentalists hide behind the label science to justify their exclusion of religious voices.
In addition to secular enemies, AIG and the CA have enemies within other Christian
groups. Organizations, such as bargainers and harmonizers, may call themselves Christian, but
only those that advocate for the goals of the separators are seen as allies. In the case of human
origins, ICR has similar conclusions to AIG about the age of the universe. ICR operates in a
different space and employs a tragicomic frame, but it shares AIG’s belief in a young Earth and
literal creationism. Although AIG does not identify bargainers, such as ICR, as enemies, the
groups do have fundamentally different goals. AIG characterizes itself as “more layperson-
oriented than ICR” that would distribute the Answers magazine instead of ICR’s research
magazine Acts & Facts (Ham, 2007, para. 14). AIG identifies other Christian groups, such as
RTB, enemies, because they are “Christian leaders who . . . compromised God’s Word” (Ham,
2013a, para. 9). AIG believes that Christians who incorporate science into their faith are
72
compromising and undermining Christianity. AIG advocates that people “need to repent of
compromise and return to the full authority of the Word of God” (Ham, 2013a, para. 11). AIG
argues that any competing authority removes some from God, so all attempts at compromise is a
threat to the holistic narrative. Compromise is a threat to Christianity; AIG identifies it as an
interloper that “has crept into the church” (Ham, 2007, para. 9). Mitchell (2012a) argued that
compromise “encourages people to pick and choose what parts of God’s Word they want to
believe. . . . It is a way to build their faith on an unstable basis, destined to crumble” (para. 7).
AIG advocates that Christians should “not bow to the pressure of compromise” (Ham, 2013b,
para. 29). In being pious to AIG’s model, any variation from strict scientific rejection is betrayal
of God’s Word. Those that are impious Christian are just as much enemies as the evolutionists
and atheists. Competing Christians may seduce AIG’s brand of Christian away from the Truth
with their varying interpretations of the relationship between science and religion.
RTB and BioLogos are both Christian groups that harmonize science and religion with
Christianity. AIG specifically accused BioLogos as “rewriting the word of God” (Ham, 2013a,
para. 16). BioLogos “is really set up to infiltrate the church with compromise teaching” (Ham,
2013a, para. 15). AIG views BioLogos as a disingenuous organization trying to subvert
Christianity. BioLogos and its leaders “promote the blending of Christianity with an atheistic
religion” (Ham, 2013a, para. 21). In fact, AIG calls BioLogos, and other groups’ attempts at
compromise, “absolutely destructive to the church” and “part of the enemy within the church”
(Ham, 2013a, para. 22). Furthermore, Mitchell (2012b) described BioLogos as “an organization
devoted to searching for ways to wed God’s Word with evolution to make it acceptable to
Christians” (para. 5). Mitchell categorizes evolution as unacceptable to Christians, so the work of
BioLogos compromises God’s Word in order to get Christians to believe the two are compatible.
73
Ham (2013a) quipped that “the church itself needs a form of evangelizing” to clean the
church from contamination (para. 22). Compromise “has made the church so weak” that its
influence is wavering in America (Ham, 2007, para. 18). For AIG, competing Christian groups
are Eve’s snake, who lured Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge and be booted from
the Garden of Eden. Ham (2015b) called compromisers “part of the greater Satanic strategy that
had its origin in the Garden of Eden” (para. 11). Ham (2007) argued that “from the beginning,
the battle was over the authority of the Word of God” (para. 6). As established previously, AIG
views contemporary time as a war itself, between Christianity and enemies to it, including
internal threats. AIG believes that other creationist groups compromise the authority of God and
thus commit the same sin as Eve’s snake, to “try to seduce people away from a simple devotion
to Christ and His Word” (Ham, 2007, para. 4). Going against God’s word is a “rebellion” and
Adam’s betrayal “plunged the entire human race into sin” (Ham, 2007, para. 7). AIG is fighting
to stop the present day “snakes” from infiltrating the church. Although these groups are doing
Satan’s work, “our ultimate enemy is not people, but rather an entity whose mission is to destroy
those whom God loves” that work through the compromising of God’s word (Ham, 2015b, para.
22).
Organizations that advocate theistic evolution, evolutionary creationism, or are “friendly
to evolution” are viewed as threats to AIG’s Christian message (Purdom, 2012, para. 11). The
intelligent design movement, which I would largely generalize as discursively compatible with
the harmonizers, also challenges AIG’s teachings. Although AIG admits there are some
appealing arguments that the movement makes about God as a designer, AIG also warns
Christians of its appeal (Lisle & Chaffey, 2012). Jason Lisle and Tim Chaffey (2012) argued,
“Intelligent design arguments would work equally well for the god of Islam or any other god. For
74
that matter, they might lead some to believe that extraterrestrial beings are responsible for life on
earth” (para. 7). Intelligent design groups are often silent on the identity of the “designer” they
describe. Because AIG starts with the Bible, the designer must be the Christian God, and
intelligent design avoids this specific assertion. Intelligent design arguments, therefore, are of
equal use to non-Christian and potentially even non-religious groups. Lisle and Chaffey (2012)
emphasized, “Intelligent design arguments, therefore, cannot be used to prove the existence of
the biblical God” (para. 8). AIG warns that the appeal of the intelligent design movement may
lead Christians to doubt biblical creationism and God’s Word. Although they may share some
argumentative similarities, the vague designer of the intelligent design movement ultimately
undermines Christianity.
AIG believes that harmonizing and competing Christian groups feel the same way about
AIG. Ham (2013b) argued, “I’m sure many people (including Bible-compromising
Christians) . . . would love to see AiG fail” (para. 25). Ham (2013b) groups both scientists and
Christians as “the Enemy” who “tries to marginalize Bible-upholding, evangelistic ministries like
AiG” (para. 25). The “Enemy” is capitalized as one would capitalize the true Christian enemy –
Satan. AIG’s antagonistic groups are all evil influencers that undermine AIG’s goals. Despite
their various institutions and opinions, these compromising Christians are all threats to AIG’s
mission and attack AIG as strongly as the secularists do.
The CA is no kinder in their characterization of Christian enemies, calling them “pseudo-
Christian cults that borrow vocabulary from Christianity but redefine all the terms” (Beisner,
2010a, para. 30). For the CA, Creation care members, or Christian environmentalists, reinterpret
and distort the Bible to their will, and therefore betray God’s Word. The CA also condemns the
compromising of Christian values to come to terms with scientific pressure. Christian
75
organizations, like the EEN, undermine faith in order to compromise with environmentalism. In
a report of their financial history, Beisner (2015b) argued that EEN collects funds from “Left-
wing, pro-abortion, pro-population control, environmentalist foundations” (para. 2). These
causes are counter to the work of the CA and undermine its interpretation of Christian principles.
The CA focuses frequently on the pro-life arguments that creation care members make. Beisner
(2014b) argued that the EEN “threatens [the] pro-life movement” through “environmental
deceit” (para. 1). The CA views the EEN’s associations with pro-choice groups are contradictory
to traditional Christian teachings.
In addition to undermining traditional religious positions, the CA condemns the EEN for
putting donations towards converting evangelicals into eco-warriors. The CA is “up against a
well-funded movement, one that receives millions of dollars from foundations whose agendas
are diametrically opposed to the fundamental Christian ethic of the sanctity of human life” and
the protection of the poor (Beisner, 2015b, para. 11). The CA equates creation care with “an
invasive, hybrid species that overshadows the cross of Jesus Christ . . . [and] share[s] little or
nothing of evangelicals’ theological and spiritual commitment” (Beisner, 2014c, para. 1).
Beisner (2014c) uses an analogy of an invasive plant that is not native or natural to evangelical
thought. Environmentalism is an insidious and invasive weed that dilutes Christianity. Instead of
appealing to traditional conservative values, evangelical environmentalists are “watered and
generously fertilized by Left-wing foundations” (para. 1). The invasive plant metaphor shares
many characteristics with the snake in the Garden of Eden that AIG used to characterize
Christian compromisers. Both look, on the surface, like they belong, but their presence is
dangerous, can proliferate rapidly, and have dire consequences for the order of the entire system.
76
The heroes’ defense. In the battle, AIG is a soldier for Christianity that must defend it
from outside forces, namely science, but also false Christians. AIG’s discourse is peppered with
words about defense, battle, war, and aggression. AIG is “dedicated to enabling Christians to
defend their faith” (AIG, n.d.-c, para. 1). One of the key verses that guides AIG’s mission is
Matthew 12:30: “He who is not with Me is against Me” (AIG, “Worldview,” para. 2). AIG also
invokes Psalm 18:39, “For You have armed me with strength for the battle; You have subdued
under me those who rose up against me” (Ham, 2016, para. 14). These verses are chosen
specifically from many others as guides towards appropriate, pious action. AIG published a book
called The Defender’s Guide for Life’s Toughest Questions, labeling all AIG followers
“defenders” of Christianity (Comfort, 2011). In labeling its followers “defenders,” AIG
characterizes faith as the receiving end of science’s violence. AIG’s opponents are the aggressors
and AIG is fully justified in responding in kind. Defending their faith is a valiant and courageous
action against an oppressive force. The warlike state of affairs is AIG’s justification for their
defensive actions. AIG is not only defensive, but also has “a ferocious faith that refuses to give
up” and will attack its enemies if necessary (Ham, 2015b, para. 23). AIG presents a warring
community to justify its existence against the threat of secularism and atheism.
If the world is in midst of a war, AIG and the CA must take action to fight and eliminate
the enemy. One of the ways in which AIG fights the influence of secularism is through lawsuits.
AIG is in the midst of launching the Ark Encounter, “a one-of-a-kind historically themed
attraction” including a replica of Noah’s Ark and live performances (Answers in Genesis, 2015a,
para. 1). Because of AIG’s exclusionary hiring practices, it has reached several road blocks in
obtaining state tax breaks. AIG predicts that the Ark will bring two million annual visitors,
21,000 new jobs, and $4 billion to Kentucky (Pilcher, 2015). AIG claimed, “state officials
77
discriminated against AIG and the Ark project” due to their religious beliefs (Answers in
Genesis, 2015b, para. 4). AIG attributed this decision in part to “tremendous pressure on state
officials” by “secularist organizations” (Answers in Genesis, 2015b, para. 8). Ham (2015c)
argued that secularists are launching a “propaganda war” to undermine the success of the project
(para. 1). Included as a secular enemy is the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) an
“atheist group that has been spreading misinformation and outright untruths about the Ark
project” (Ham, 2015c, para. 13). Ham (2015c) demonized the FFRF and atheists for their attacks
on AIG’s projects because “they don’t want freedom to Christians to publicly disseminate their
messages – they want to impose their atheistic views on the culture” (para. 31). Because atheist
groups are already launching initiatives to undermine faith, AIG is justified in its counterattacks
and preemptive strikes.
AIG (2015b) called the filling of the lawsuit in the Ark Encounter case a “necessity” for
upholding religious freedom (para. 6). Religious “principles are so important to defend,” and
legal action is one avenue where AIG can fight (Answers in Genesis, 2015b, para. 9). Ham
(2015a) noted that secular influence in government issues “sets a dangerous precedent for all
other religious and minority groups when they are treated as second-class citizens” (para. 85).
The wars that AIG fight are against enemies that undermine AIG’s goals and pose threats to their
message. On their website, in lawsuits, and at speaking arrangements, AIG frames itself as the
defenders of faith against an attacking, discriminatory discourse. AIG defined battlegrounds in
the minds of the public, academia, and its religious attractions.
One of the ways that AIG works to reclaim creationism from evolution is through public
debates and publications, such as one help between Ham and Bill Nye the Science Guy in
February 2014. Schlanger (2014) argued that debate “turned into a fundraising bonanza” for AIG
78
and helped “jumpstart” the Ark Encounter’s construction (para. 1). AIG repeatedly enters the
public sphere to bring legitimacy and credence to creationism, despite its abandonment within
the scientific community (Ceccarelli, 2011). AIG has also published books meant to be direct
responses to scientific publications. For example, Questioning Cosmos: A Guide to Great
Discussions attempts to refute many arguments in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos: A Spacetime
Odyssey television show. Intended to be a “discussion guide” to accompany viewing of the show,
author Mitchell (2014) wrote it “to help counter the impact of Cosmos” and to help readers
“debunk the aggressive evolutionism it teaches” (para. 1- 2). Similar to its homeschool supplies,
AIG’s publications aim at “debunking” established scientific facts. Robert Pennock (2003)
argued that this creationism strategy is equivalent to the false dichotomy fallacy. In other words,
creationists mistake an argument against evolution as an argument for creationism. This assumes
that there are only two options and leaves creationism without positive evidence and
argumentative support.
Victims and moral consequences. For separators, the unwavering basis of morality is
God and the Bible. AIG and the CA worry that when Christianity is removed from the public
sphere, its positive moral foundations will disappear as well. Those most at threat are the youth
and the poor, those vulnerable to outside influences and susceptible to the actions of the Western
world. Without the heroes of the narrative to defeat the villains of evolution, environmentalism,
and compromising Christians, the victims are vulnerable to immorality and chaos. Both AIG and
the CA associate the lack of Christian dominance with the rise of sinful activity and the
abandonment of faith.
79
A common association with atheism and evolution is social Darwinism, or the idea that
humans today should compete for resources like animals. Despite this not being a key
component of Darwin’s theory, nor is relevant to the accuracy of his theories, in the early
application of Darwin’s theories some members of the academic community argued that
humanity would also or should also act like animal ancestors and eliminate weak members of
society. Ideologies like eugenics emerged from social Darwinism, which influenced leaders such
as Adolph Hitler. AIG has published books, such as Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview,
that address the atheism and evolution connection as motivation behind Hitler’s work. AIG and
the CA condemn the rise of atheism and modernity as creating moral degradation in society.
These forces draw people away from Christianity, the moral foundation of humanity, and replace
it with relativism and a lack of respect for the human agent. Although social Darwinism is not a
tenet of modern-day evolution theory or atheism, separators argue that its effects are still widely
felt and encourage society to abandon Christianity.
AIG argues that in abandoning Christianity, society loses its moral foundation. AIG
argued, “As our Creator, God alone has that moral authority” (Mitchell, 2013, para. 8).
Competing claims to authority, such as scientific experts, are viewed skeptically (Gauchat,
2012). AIG fears that a lack of literalism regarding the Bible may lead to immorality and opens
the door to doubt all of God’s teachings. Human origins, therefore, become the lynchpin that
holds together AIG’s creationism teachings with its interpretation of the Bible. Any wiggle room
on these core tenets of Christianity endangers the established order. Using a slippery slope
argument, Purdom (2010) wrote, “If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then
maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the creation week, and maybe God was not a
necessary part of the equation for life after all” (para. 22). AIG places great importance on
80
creationism as the beginning of the true Christian narrative from which all morality stems.
Without that specific beginning, there is no expectation to be fulfilled by Jesus’s resurrection and
His second coming. Burke (1931) would call this expectation a “form” that creates an “appetite”
in the audience that needs to be satisfied (p. 31). The beginning creates a tension, much like a
tightened spring, that must eventually be released (Burke, 1931). AIG categorizes any attempt to
adjust or re-interpret the Bible as a threat to God’s influence. Ham (1998) echoed Purdom’s
concerns and noted, “the door has been opened for this [interpretation] to happen in every area,
including morality” (para. 13). An eagerness to reinterpret Christianity based on scientific
discoveries “is destroying the church in America” (Ham, 1998, para. 13-14). Ham (2011) also
responded to this same concern and wrote, “when we question any part of the Bible, including
the first eleven chapters that answer many of the basic questions above, the authority of the
entire Bible – and the gospel that’s founded upon its authority – is undermined” (para. 9). Any
changes to God’s Word are distortions and contaminations of the Scriptural message.
AIG tries to guard against “the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas” that threatens the youth
of society (AIG, n.d.-c, para. 1). Ham (2013a) argued that “America is becoming increasingly
pagan every day” and that Christianity is in decline (para. 5). Both compromising Christians and
atheism damage the authority of God. Ham (2015b) warned that the current shift away from
God, caused by multiple sources of corruption, “has had horrendous consequences” (para. 11).
These consequences emerge in the political and social issues that dominate the public. Ham
(2013a) argued that the American public “has shaken its fist at God in defiance on such issues as
‘gay’ marriage [and] abortion” (para. 5). Ham (2015b) enumerated these consequences: “In a
world of no absolutes, evolution, sex outside marriage, gay ‘marriage,’ attacks on gender
distinction, humanism, and false religions – children are being tossed to and fro” (para. 39).
81
These are categorized as amoral influences as a result of secularism pervading society. Ham
(2015b) argued, “children are being contaminated as a result of their secular education, the
secular media, and their secular friends” (para. 39). The language of contamination is used to
describe both secular and compromising Christian enemies to AIG’s mission. Outside forces,
such as secularism, “contaminate[s]” everything it touches (Ham, 2013a, para. 8).
AIG paints a pessimistic picture of humanity that must rely on God for its moral
foundations. Only God can provide our moral underpinnings; “everything else is merely human
opinion, imagination, and ideas – subject to fallible thinking” (Purdom, 2012, para. 4). Humans,
on their own with only the natural world at their disposal, are not capable of establishing morals.
AIG advocates that those must come for a supernatural source. When morality comes from an
undefined source, “truth is redefined by being whatever you want it to be” (Landis, 2007, para.
2). Landis (2007) accused “relativistic evolutionary thinking” of being “devastating to morals
and lifestyle” because they lack “the absolutes found in God or His Word” (Landis, 2007, para.
6). Coppenger (2014) described the contemporary consequences of an immoral culture:
Public museums offer smug accounts of evolutionary theory; universities require
religiously oriented groups to open their leadership slots to homosexuals or lose their
campus privileges; and the shocking rise of bestiality has forced state legislatures to
restore the laws again the practice. (para. 6)
AIG lays blame on homosexuality, public museums, and teaching evolution in college for the
increase in moral degradation and bestiality. This rise in immorality is a result of a lack of faith
and the rise of postmodern thought. AIG advocates against non-heteronormative relationships,
because they are seen as violating scripture. Their increased acceptance by the public and recent
legal changes is a clear sign that the nation is losing its moral grounding. Societal shifts
82
ultimately affect the environment where children are raised, a primary target for AIG’s attention
and concern.
Ham and his brother, Steve Ham, published a book called Raising Godly Children in an
Ungodly World: Leaving a Lasting Legacy. Ham and Ham (2008) described it as a “unique
parenting book” filled with “Bible-based practical advice” about raising Christian children (para.
3). In a war that takes prisoners, “secularists . . . are increasingly attempting to capture the minds
of children and teens for secular humanism” (Ham, 2015a, para. 68). AIG is particularly
concerned with youth as the new generations that will carry the Christian faith into the future. In
a book called Already Gone: Why your Kids will Quit Church and What you Can Do to Stop it,
Ham, Britt Beemer, and Todd Hillard (2009) argued, “the next generation is calling it quits on
the traditional church” (para. 1). The term “already,” used in multiple AIG book titles, provides a
sense of urgency. There are already threats to Christianity that have taken hold and it is AIG’s
responsibility to encourage people to fight them and reverse the effects already present. Six years
later, Ham, Jeff Kinley, and Beemer (2015) published Ready to Return: Bringing Back the
Church’s Lost Generation as a follow-up to Already Gone. This book offers hope that Christians
can still regain the youth’s trust and reclaim them from “the pluralism of biblical compromise
and materialistic indoctrination” (Ham, Kinley, & Beemer, 2015, para. 1). AIG’s primary focus
is to “help rescue our children from this evil generation” (Ham, 2013b, para. 21).
The CA also focuses on the moral consequences of atheist, secular, and environmental
advocacy. Those groups are not guided by the Bible, as thus are not capable of moral actions.
The CA (2014d) denied the environmental movement’s argument “that liberty, justice, and
human dignity can be sustained while rejecting Biblical truth and law” (para. 4). The CA argues
that the actions of the environmental movement will lead to extreme consequences for vulnerable
83
populations such as the poor. Whereas the environmental movement encourages urgent action to
stop devastating effects, the CA argues that the movement’s present attempts at protection will
cause such consequences. Those who will be most affected by the environmental movement are
the inhabitants of developing countries. The CA argues that the poor must live with the
weakened economy that the environmental movement will produce, which could destabilize their
future.
Vulnerable populations worldwide will be adversely affected by economic restrictions
and global environmental regulation that will inhibit growth out of poverty. The CA believes that
God has ultimate control over the environment and current reactions are overblown and alarmist.
Not only will reparative environmental action not change the environment, but it will also have
devastating effects on the global economy. The CA advocates that if environmentalists win over
the minds of politicians and people then it is the poor and poverty-stricken that will suffer. AIG
agrees with the CA that many environmentalist actions “will have far-reaching effects on the less
fortunate” (Foley, 2014, para. 13) that tempers their environmental advocacy. AIG’s Alan White
(2013) noted that environmental policies “will almost certainly raise the cost of energy. Higher
energy costs will lower the standard of living for all, particularly the poorest among us” (para. 4).
Restrictions placed on businesses may increase the cost of goods. Both AIG and the CA argue
that these effects may create unstable economies. In “An Evangelical Declaration on Global
Warming,” the CA (2009) argued that current environmental policies will:
destroy jobs and impose trillions of dollars in costs to achieve no net benefits. They could
be implemented only by enormous and dangerous expansion of government control over
private life. Worst of all, by raising energy prices and hindering economic development,
84
they would slow or stop the rise of the world’s poor out of poverty and so condemn
millions to premature death. (para. 1)
The CA, having a conservative political affiliation, views the expansion of government and the
increase of regulation as an imposition on basic freedoms that will disproportionately affect the
poor. Its rhetoric may even be characterized as apocalyptic, the same claim conservatives often
levy against environmental activists (Bloomfield & Lake, 2015). Jennifer Peeples, Pete Bsumek,
Schwarze, and Jen Schneider (2014) argued that to “identify environmentalism as apocalyptic” is
to “mark environmentalism as radical, outside the mainstream, and unreasonable, which clears a
space for industry voices to be perceived as the rational center” (p. 228). Businesses and industry
leaders are rhetorically constructed as neutral parties with the country’s best interests at heart.
The biased, hysterical environmentalists cannot be trusted to make those decisions about the
future of the Earth, which they themselves endanger. In the same breath of denouncing the scare
tactics of apocalypticism, the CA engages this tactic as well. The CA’s apocalypse, however, is
not an environmental one, but an “industrial” one, that decries economic risks to the well-being
of the world (Peeples et al., 2014, p. 229). The CA draws its moral foundations from the Bible
and argues that certain verses (i.e., Proverbs 14:31
5
and Proverbs 21:13
6
) necessitate protection
of the poor and vulnerable as higher priorities over alarmist environment threats. The real threat,
the true apocalypse, does not come from environmental disaster but “economic catastrophe,”
indicating a need for a shift in priorities (Peeples et al., 2014, p. 240).
5
Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
6
Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.
85
Both AIG and the CA blame non-Christian and secular advocates for society’s moral
degradation. The minds of the youth and the well-being of the poor are already and will continue
to be corrupted and threatened by the rise of mainstream science, modernity, and atheism. It is
the responsibility of the separators to defend morality vis-à-vis fighting for the dominance of the
Christian narrative. The Bible provides the moral foundation for humanity rooted in the creation
story and God’s rules for appropriate actions. In addition to providing the moral foothold for
humanity, the Bible also serves as the primary lens through which all of reality is understood.
Trapped in a hostile world, the identified enemies need to be destroyed and challenged in
ordered to protect Christianity. The separators’ melodrama requires the violent defeat and
sacrifice of scientific villains to reestablish the Christian order and its dominance in society. At
stake, for both AIG and the CA, is the future of humanity, its morality, and Christian values. In
many ways, the moral degradation of the public is linked to both groups’ eschatology. Although
not often explicitly stated, the separators’ rhetoric indicates dire consequences and the need for
immediate, urgent action to prevent reaching the point of no return for Christian culture. The
polarization inherent in melodrama creates a heightened sense of urgency and severity that
Schwarze (2006) argued can be a powerful motivator.
Competing Argument Claims
Argument claims are one part of the Toulmin model that represents the argument being
made (Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984). Hample (1978) argued that arguments cannot “proceed
without evidence,” but evidence may not be necessary if the “statement is self-evident” (p. 220).
For most of the separators’ target audience, they do not need proof or evidence to support their
86
belief in the truth of the Bible. The Bible is the ultimate source of authority from which all
subsequent sub-claims about the specifics of biblical adherence are made. Wayne Brockriede and
Douglas Ehninger (1960) commented on this dual characteristic of a claim, noting, “a claim may
stand as the final proposition in an argument, or it may be an intermediate statement which
serves as data for a subsequent inference” (p. 45). For the separators, the claim that the Bible has
the ultimate authority is simultaneously the conclusion they aim to support and support itself for
a reliance on the stories and meaning contained within it. The separators also propose that
choosing religion as an epistemology is correct, moral, and rational. They support this claim by
equating science and religion as choices to be made and empowering the individual to make that
decision, oftentimes regardless of traditionally accepted data or evidence.
Equating claims with worldviews. The separator’s starting point is always the Bible.
This is a worldview that defines the structure and orientation of the arguments. Instead of re-
interpreting the grounds or warrants (as do the bargainers and harmonizers), the separators offer
their own claims rooted firmly in their faith. Their interpretations of evidence, science, and
reality are through the words of scripture. Despite an appeal to “literalism,” the separators also
engage in interpretation of scripture. All readings of scripture are practices in hermeneutics and
the interpretation of symbols. Separators claim that they read the Bible with its intended
meaning, but this is itself an interpretation of the author’s intentions in the language provided,
which has undergone many iterations and translations. These choices deflect the implementation
of potential contradictory statements such as the treatment of the Earth between the domination
87
verse
7
and the Garden of Eden verse
8
(Bloomfield, 2016) and how creationists interpret the
correct meaning of the “day” in Bible verses.
Their “foremost accountability is to God” for all actions and beliefs (Answers in Genesis,
n.d.-a, para. 4). Ham (1998) argued that enemies to AIG’s mission admit “that they start outside
the Bible to (re)interpret the words of Scripture” when people instead should “interpret Scripture
with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside!” (para. 5, 7). To start outside of the Bible is to
undermine the Word of God and compromise His teachings with alternative viewpoints based on
“fallible human opinion” (Ham, 2011, para. 14). To put AIG’s arguments in Toulmin terms, AIG
views all grounds as equal (Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984). But, they make very different
claims based on their worldviews. Whereas AIG will use religious and supernatural warrants,
evolutionists and materialists only allow for warrants without God. AIG’s worldview
necessitates Christianity, where others do not. Although the same evidence exists for everyone,
AIG argues that people all use different “worldviews” as informative lenses to interpret that
information.
Similar to Burke’s (1966b) terministic screens, worldviews shape how people can reach
different conclusions from the same information. Burke (1969a) also argued that these
terministic screens are often based on “Constitutions” that serve as a “basis of decision, is a
calculus of motives” and “a terminology, or set of coordinates, for the analysis of motives” (p.
377). The Bible itself is a “written Constitution” that prescribes certain actions and outlines
consequences for deviating from its rules (Burke, 1969a, p. 377). The Bible is the yardstick by
7
Genesis 1:28, God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue
it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
8
Genesis 2:15, The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
88
which AIG measures the accuracy of explanatory narratives. Answers in Genesis (2015c) argued,
“no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can
be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record” (para. 31). This perspective influences the claims
AIG is capable of making from the available evidence.
The Bible contains hortatorical presumptions about the nature of morality and provides a
starting point for all actions and behavioral choices. AIG argues that choosing an evolutionary
framework is a purposeful decision that denies Christianity and goes against the contract built
into the Bible. Patterson (2015) argued, “to choose natural, evolutionary processes over a
supernatural explanation is merely an arbitrary preference, not a demand of scientific
investigation” (para. 20). Toulmin (1985) echoed a similar sentiment when he argued, “there is
never sufficient reason for choosing one worldview rather than another” (p. 137). The choice
between worldviews perhaps cannot be settled scientifically or in a modern frame that only
acknowledges one worldview. Instead we might return to Fisher’s (1984) ideas of narrative
rationality to evaluate how stories seem more likely and may ring true for people.
For those who ascribe to a religious narrative or feel that the Christian or creationist
worldview rings true, “we have the only true and reasonable starting point – the existence of the
Creator God and His revelation to us” (Patterson, 2015, para. 20). The CA (2014d) agrees and
noted that the Bible “is the sole, absolute, inerrant epistemological basis for mankind for all
knowledge of all things, seen and unseen, and that all claims of truth and moral duty that
contradict it are false and harmful” (para. 3). Other starting points that exclude Bible are
inherently flawed. AIG and the CA use the Bible as their foundation, which all observations and
science must match.
89
Wayne Spencer (2009) argued, “Evolutionists use a different starting point – one that
arbitrarily doesn’t allow supernatural revelation or interaction – to shape their origins science”
(para. 18). For Spencer (2009), an AIG contributor, science that does not seriously consider
supernatural intervention has a different foundation than creationists. Evolutionists start from the
material world and draw conclusions about what happened in the past and use them to predict the
future. Harmonizers use this information as a filter to understand and interpret the Bible. AIG
would categorize this as historical science, where present knowledge supersedes the words of the
Bible. Spencer (2009) further argued, “a problem arises if we first allow arguments saying the
world is old and then try to make the Word of God fit” (para. 10). The problem for AIG is that
the mainstream, scientific evidence does not easily mesh or match biblical statements. This is
especially true if words are taken literally and are not interpreted simply to match reality. Jud
Davis (2012) argued that the verses in Genesis about the creation week “teach chronology in
terms of normal days” (para. 13). As will be discussed in the harmonizers chapter, not all
Christian groups agree with the literal translation of “day” as a normal, 24-hour day.
Ham (2011) argued, “any search for truth must always start with Him, not human
philosophies” (para. 12). The starting point of any argument reveals underlying religious or
atheist tendencies through which it is nearly impossible to overcome (Faust, 2008). Ham (2015b)
dismissed the idea of “trying to prove the Bible with science” and instead said that we should be
“using the Bible to understand science” (para. 45). It is not science that offers the foundation for
moral arguments; it is the words of the first-hand observation of our origins in the Bible that
grounds all other interpretations. For AIG, believing in creationism is not simply a matter of
making a decision and weighing evidence, “it’s a barometer for where people place their trust”
(Spencer, 2009, para. 1). AIG argues that the choice is a clear one: trust should be placed in God.
90
On AIG’s (n.d.-b) informational webpage about the environment, it notes, “global
warming is a complex and emotionally charged issue [and] cannot be ignored” (para. 4). Foley
(2014) argued that there is evidence “that there has been and still is change in the climate,” but
Christians should not accept this information wholeheartedly from scientists without specific,
Bible-focused interpretation. Foley (2014) wrote, “The observational evidence shows that
climate change is real. But how we interpret the data about climate change will be influenced by
our starting point: man’s word or God’s Word” (para. 6). The starting point for one’s
interpretation determines how one approaches the issue of origins and the environment. When it
comes to evolution and climate change, AIG views facts as a matter of worldview; depending on
the explanatory resources, people come to different conclusions using the same evidence. This
postmodern characteristic allows AIG to claim a place in public discussion because the existence
of multiple, competing worldviews begs consideration of all of them. This coping strategy also
undermines science’s claim that it is uniquely able to answer life’s questions.
Weighing scientific and religious claims. Competition between claims lets individuals
choose between the worldviews on a level playing field. The agent is empowered to choose
between science and religion as an explanatory narrative. Creationists believe in the power of
agents, give God control over the future, and doubt humanity’s role in its demise. But
“secularists believe that Earth has existed for billions of years and that Earth’s temperature has
been stable for over 10,000 years” before humanity (Foley, 2014, para. 7). AIG believes that
people should be able to choose between these viewpoints based on their starting point. Foley
(2014) argued, “If you start with man’s assumptions about the past, man must be directly
responsible for recent climate in climate. But starting with the Bible’s history, it’s obvious that
91
man’s recent activity is not directly responsible” (para. 11). One’s starting point reveals an
underlying foundation and bias towards a certain perspective.
At their Creation Museum, AIG proposes that two paleontologists discovering a dinosaur
fossil will reach different conclusions (Kelly & Hoerl, 2012). The display attributes this disparity
to “differences of perspective” that cannot be remedied simply by looking at evidence, or
grounds (Kelly & Hoerl, 2012, p. 128). Because the paleontologists use the same grounds, it is
the claims they draw from those fossils, influenced by their organizing framework, where the
arguments differ. The age of the Earth is an argument integral to AIG’s identity. A young Earth,
completely controlled by God, indicates that people should not be concerned with recent
changes. This is especially true if one considers that humanity is living in the end times and may
even welcome it (Barker & Bearce, 2013). Foley’s article (2014) concluded, “So, should we be
alarmed about climate change? Not at all” (para. 9). Climate change is something that has been
observed in recent history, but it is not a cause for alarm or what M. Jimmie Killingsworth and
Jacqueline Palmer (1995) called, “environmentalist hysteria” (p. 1). The CA (2015a) echoes
these concerns about “alarmism” and dismisses environmentalism as “a political agenda that
pushes policies” that “are contrary to the best science” (para. 1).
Both AIG and the CA place God in control over the environment, which humans cannot
greatly affect or take off course. Foley (2014) noted,
According to the true history book of the universe, we should expect [climate change] as
a consequence of the cataclysmic Flood. Also, Earth—and Earth’s climate—was
designed by the all-knowing, all-wise Creator God. He built an incredible amount of
variety into the DNA of His creatures so that they could survive and thrive as Earth’s
environments change. Surely the God who equipped life to survive on a changing Earth
92
also designed Earth with the necessary features to deal with environmental changes. After
the Flood, God even promised Noah that the climate would remain within acceptable
ranges. (para. 9)
Foley (2014) emphasized the power God has over the Earth to keep it within “acceptable ranges”
of temperature even though there may be small changes and shifts in the environment. The
changes the Earth is experiencing are thus encompassed within natural expectations from God’s
pronouncements. Dennis Ross (2013) argued that Noah’s Flood is a frequent religious resource
for politicians such as Inhofe “to support [climate] science denial” (p. 1). For there to be more
serious changes and threats, then AIG’s picture of an all-powerful and kind God would have to
be redrawn. When humans draw from the Bible first, it necessitates a trust in God and His plan
through which observations of the material world must fit. AIG argues that if humanity starts
with the material world as a basis for observation, people may doubt God’s Word and His
control over the environment.
The CA also trusts in God’s creation. Both groups argue that God would not create a
flawed universe or one that could so easily be affected by human action. The CA (2009) argued,
“Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained
by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting” (para. 2).
The actions of humanity cannot replace or undermine God’s work. In fact, the members of the
CA “deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance”
(Cornwall Alliance, 2009, para. 6). Similar to AIG, the CA places chance agonistic to God’s
ultimate plan. Similar to AIG’s “chaos gods of chance,” the CA undermines its enemies as
worshipping “impersonal, blind chance over time” (Cornwall Alliance, 2014d, para. 2).
93
Environmental groups and the CA define stewardship in a way that reinforces their
interpretations of the Bible. Beisner (2015a) argued, “we must never conflate Biblical earth
stewardship with environmentalism” (para. 2). The CA’s interpretation of stewardship does not
involve environmental protection or advocacy. Instead, their stewardship is based on trust in God
and a respect for the environment as a resource for humans to use. The CA argues that climate
change should only be addressed “from [a] Biblical Worldview perspective” that includes belief
in Genesis (Toombs, 2015, para. 2). The CA echoes this hierarchy over humankind over plants
and animals. Humans are the exalted head of God’s creation and thus have the right to use it for
economic progress and survival. Because the CA observes God in complete control over His
creation, the group does not see a need to address environmental concerns, especially when
human life could be negatively affected. This is a similar hierarchy to the one constructed by the
creation care movement, but the role of humanity at the top is quite different
9
(Bloomfield,
2016). Humanity, as God’s most important creation, is more important to protect. Both AIG and
the CA prioritize human life and morality over the aims of mainstream science.
Based on their assumptions and interpretations, the separators make claims about reality
that compete with scientific ones. While science is lauded as the standard for modernity, AIG’s
Christian narrative tries to supplant science’s authority. AIG and the CA rank the Bible and
God’s authority above all, making Him the super-agent (Burke, 1969) of their organizing
framework. Their narrative also includes many co-agents, individuals, who have the power to
make their own decisions over believing in placing their trust in science or religion. Separators
also emphasize the power of the individual in an agent:act ratio (Burke, 1969a). This ratio aligns
9
The differences between the CA’s hierarchy and the creation care movement’s hierarchy will be discussed in
more detail in Chapter Four.
94
with idealism, where power comes from the individual mind (Burke, 1969a). Because people
have the power to see, interpret, and understand, separators argue that they should do so from a
personal, religious perspective and not from the scientific elite. The emphasis on sight also aligns
with literacy, or the preference for reading scripture over hearing the voices of others. In
response to modernity and the dominance of science, separators empower the individual to
challenge the norm and make their own decisions about authority and truth.
In their discourse, separators privilege the power of observation over other senses and
empower the agent’s control over the scene (Burke, 1969). Coppenger (2014) argued that
teaching humanity ‘to observe all things’ . . . [is] foundational to delivering society from ruin”
(para. 12). AIG does not view observation as a neutral act. Seeing in a particular way, influenced
by a particular worldview, is the mark of a good Christian. Terry Mortensen (2006) argued,
“when the creation is carefully observed and properly interpreted it will be seen to confirm what
God’s Word has revealed” (para. 23). Mortensen (2006) emphasized observation, sight, and the
Word of God as the foundational sources of evidence from which Christians should make
decisions about origins. Walter Ong (1967) argued that in a world of literacy that denies the
invisibility of faith, “one may be tempted to argue, religion finally must go” (p. 10). Instead, it is
clear that in “the more markedly visual world incident to script and print,” the emphasis has
shifted from the spoken word and the priest’s homilies to the personal reading and knowledge of
the written Word (Ong, 1967, p. 10). The Bible contains direct, literal messages for people of
faith to follow while the “evidence doesn’t speak for itself” and thus requires interpretation
(Hodge, 2005, para. 1).
AIG emphasizes the difficulties in extrapolating too far in either direction, into the past or
the future. On its informational page about the age of the Earth, AIG (2012) argued, “no humans
95
have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was
produced” (para. 6). Instead, knowledge of the past and future must come from an omnipotent
observer, namely God. AIG advocates that we should take the word of someone who was
actually there over contemporary scientific theories. It is the direct, written testimony from the
past that must guide our views, not the misguided voices of today. Ong (1967) argued that the
written word has the power to travel unscarred throughout time and is not fleeting and ephemeral
like oral communication. The Bible is the written, first-hand testimony of what the past was truly
was; “it holds words so that they do not escape” (Ong, 1967, p. 93). The once spoken Word of
God was captured forever in the pages of the Bible, a historical record that can inform life today
as it did in the past.
For AIG, atheism’s ignorance is an argumentative resource to be used against
evolutionary teaching. Creationists should ask evolutionists, “Were you there?” to “help the
evolutionist recognize that they are making a historical claim apart from any eyewitness
testimony” (Patterson, 2015, para. 13). Roger Patterson (2015) argued that this line of
questioning should be used to call people to acknowledge that they are placing their trust in one
of two places – the ideas of fallible men or the eyewitness testimony of the perfect Creator God”
(para. 15). AIG publishes the book A Pocket Guide to Atheism: Understanding the Inherent
Problems of a No-God Worldview, which shows a man covering his ears and wearing a blindfold
on the cover (Answers in Genesis, 2014a). AIG presents atheists as willfully blind and deaf to
creationist arguments. Mortensen (2006) argued that “secular” scientists cannot “see the message
[of God] because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian
assumptions” (para. 32). Secularists who promote atheistic science are blind to God’s teachings,
but Christians are empowered with the power of observation and sight.
96
Spencer (2009) argued, “origins issues represent one-time unrepeatable events, and, so,
normal scientific methods from experimental science just do not apply” (para. 16). Because
experimental science relies on a methodology of repeatability, AIG believes that science can
never duplicate the origin of life and thus will forever be unable to comment on it. The power of
the eye to observe and aid in interpretation is more important than listening to the voices of
others. Indeed, listening and hearing alternative voices can only lead to compromise and the
denigration of God’s Word. Good Christians must look at God’s Word as the first and foremost
expert on origins. In privileging observation and sight, AIG focuses on finding and identifying
enemies in the war.
The separators appear simultaneously to empower the agent and doubt the agent’s
reasoning abilities. In some instances, agents are empowered with the ability to observe science
and think for themselves about the correct role of science in society. People should not simply
accept the dominance of science as the only valid truth, but should decide for themselves. Heelas
(1998) argued that it is a characteristic of postmodernity to say that “authority comes to rest with
the person” rather than “authority and legitimacy resting with establishing orders of knowledge”
(p. 4). AIG appeals to this observational power of questioning by the individual to lay doubt on
the scientific orthodoxy.
However, this power should only be directed at mainstream science. Christianity should
not be a target for the critical eye and should be accepted unconditionally. AIG argues that faith
surpasses “human reason” (Ham, 2007, para. 9). Because reason comes from humans, who are
by definition flawed, our reasoning is “fallible” (Ham, 2007, para. 20). Ham (2007) argued that
“human reason has replaced God’s Word” (para. 9). This linguistic structure sets human reason
and God’s Word as separate, competing terms for the same role of guidance in human life. AIG
97
does not think human reasoning should supplant God’s Word, and thus frames it as an inferior
alternative. Ham (2011) argued, “When Christian leaders encourage people to unite around
flawed human interpretations of the Bible . . . rather than Jesus’s own words . . . then we shift
supremacy from Christ to man” (para. 12). Ham (2011) uses language as a hierarchy, where
certain terms have power over others. God’s Word should not be subject to the agent, for God is
the “super-agent” that is the ultimate authority over reality. However, agents are empowered to
be critical and judge the empirical authority of man when they observe science and its role in
society.
Burke (1974) argued that examining how terms are clustered hierarchically helps to
illuminate the underlying motive of the discourse used. The “god” and “devil” terms are the
zenith and nadir of the hierarchy, which identify guiding ideas and enemies. Sonja Foss (1984)
argued that a cluster-agon analysis helps the critic “to locate the conflict or opposition” and “to
discover how the symbols function for the rhetoric” (p. 3). For separators, Christ and the Bible
must always be the foundational terms, and human reasoning and thought is organized beneath
them. A shift in that hierarchy creates vastly different worldviews (Burke, 1966b). Simply put,
“the worldview determines the interpretation” (Patterson, 2015, para. 21). Emphasizing human
reason requires “steer[ing] people away from the authority of the Word of God;” they cannot
peacefully co-exist (Ham, 2007, para. 12). “Human reason was allowed to invade the church and
push aside God’s Word” (Ham, 2007, para. 18). Secularism and mainstream science lauds
human reasoning over the inerrancy of the Bible and thus places themselves against AIG’s
mission and its presumed hierarchy.
The CA also doubts human interpretation and reasoning when it leads away from the
Bible. The CA (2014d) published a set of doctrine that they affirm as accurate interpretations of
98
the Bible that surpass human reasoning about nature and the environment. These tenets construct
part of the CA’s piety, where God is the ultimate, knowledgeable Creator and humans cannot
and should not attempt to overpower or adjust His Word. Indeed, “all claims of truth and moral
duty that contradict [the Bible] are false and harmful” (Cornwall Alliance, 2014d, para. 3). The
CA’s piety rests on God being all-powerful and humanity trusting God in His creation of the
Earth and humanity. In lauding these particular verses, however, the CA deflects and overlooks
other verses that may lend themselves to more protective and nurturing stances towards the
environment.
Conclusion
Separators use their faith and hermeneutics to inform their view of reality, their enemies,
their fight for morality, and the threat to humanity. Reality, the natural environment, and one’s
material surroundings are filtered through a biblical worldview that prescribes certain actions and
behaviors. With the Bible as their starting point, other lenses are viewed as inferior to the
historical accuracy and inerrancy of this supernatural, contractual document that defines the
human relationship with the cosmos. With the Bible, war, melodrama, and morality as their
orientating terminology, the separators respond to the problematic of modernity by separating
science and religion and defending religion’s rightful role.
AIG and the CA represent a particular coping strategy that separates Christianity from the
encroaching domination of modernism, mainstream science, and atheism. Science and religion
are placed in two distinct, epistemic domains that are battling, sometimes violently, for the minds
of the public. The actions of their enemies, both Christian and secular, cannot be forgiven; the
99
enemies must be sacrificed and destroyed to restore the proper role of Christianity. The immense
consequences of modernity necessitate strong and powerful responses. The three connected
themes of melodrama, war, and competing argument claims characterize the discourse of the
separators as firmly influenced by a perspective of division. These themes are prevalent and
guide the rhetoric of the groups and their approach to dealing with scientific dominance.
AIG and the CA share discursive patterns that reveal a particular type of response to the
problem of modernity. In trying to establish a role for religion, AIG and the CA argue that
Christianity is the only source of truth and morality. The separators aim to win back the lauded
status of faith in the face of modern threats. In doing so, the separators find themselves in a bind
between modernity and postmodernity. On one hand, the separators undermine science’s claim to
absolute truth and use postmodernity to maintain a foothold in public spaces. Without an appeal
to the existence of multiple worldviews and disparate interpretations, the separators would be
unable to challenge science. On the other hand, separators believe that they have the sole
ownership of the Truth, where science is a competing and illegitimate explanation of reality. In
so doing, the separators decry relativism, and wish to reclaim the standard of modernity that
argues that there is a definitive truth. The separators move between the spaces of modernity and
postmodernity in a unique rhetorical strategy to legitimize its version of the Christian narrative.
Their coping response is reminiscent of the Kantian separation between reason and faith, where
the two are separate, distinct fields that answer different questions. The separators admit that
science can provide important information, especially about the present, material moment. This
information, however, should not be used to guide moral decisions and does not have exclusive
access to Truth, particularly concerning origins and endings.
100
Chapter Three
Bargainers and the Revolution of Dissenting Scientists
Bargainers are so named because they participate in bargaining between the pressures of
modernity and their faith system. The bargainers’ religious narrative remains intact by stretching
parts of the scientific narrative over the religious foundation. The bargainers share characteristics
with both separators and harmonizers. Bargainers and separators argue for a literal interpretation
of Genesis and argue against mainstream science and its evolutionary, environmental
conclusions. Bargainers and harmonizers incorporate elements of science into their discourse to
support their faith and to legitimize Christianity and argue that science is an important element of
being a Christian. Given the similarities that bargainers share with both groups, their strategies
for coping with science and modernity constitute a unique reaction worthy of investigation. The
bargainers do not eschew science as evil, but instead adopt some aspects of scientific inquiry and
blend it with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Science and religion are not separate, distinct
domains; they are partners in the pursuit of knowledge, as long as the science agrees with what
the Bible says.
Like separators, bargainers start with the Bible and use it to guide their interpretation of
the natural world. This interpretation does not happen in a separate worldview, but from within
the scientific community. Bargainers describe themselves as research institutions that offer
competing scientific explanations informed by faith. Bargainers seek to correct fraudulent
conclusions from scientific data by offering competing data and interpretations. These groups are
not fighting a war; instead, they are revolutionaries opening the eyes of the scientific orthodoxy
to more accurate information about reality. Bargainers do not attempt a holistic unity between
101
mainstream science and faith, like the harmonizers, because they disagree with many of
science’s conclusions about origins, the environment, and proper actions. Bargainers try to shift
dominant scientific thinking towards faith-based science, where the Bile is the starting point and
serves as the basis for claims about origins and endings. In alignment with Thomas Kuhn’s
“scientific revolution,” bargainers seek acceptance of their minority scientific opinion that they
believe with eventually become the scientific standard. Ceccarelli (2011) noted that skeptics
identify themselves “as heroes in an unfolding scientific revolution” where their opinions are
viewed as “heresy” by the scientific mainstream (p. 198). The bargainers’ revolution works
within modern epistemologies to make room for religion as a legitimized way of knowing.
Instead of characterizing the methods, intentions, and morals of scientists as enemies,
bargainers become scientists themselves to change the state of the field. Some theorists have
accused religious research groups as being disingenuous, merely coopting science without
sincere belief (e.g., Condit, 1998; Haarscher, 2009; Pennock, 2003). Guy Haarscher (2009)
applied Chaim Perelman’s concept of pseudo-argument to creationists and argued that they are
not convinced by their own scientific arguments. Haarscher (2009) characterized the term
“creation science” as merely a linguistic strategy “to stress the supposedly scientific aspect of the
doctrine they defended” (p. 365). Creation science is most definitely a linguistic strategy, but I
disagree with Haarscher and other scholars that it is an insincere one. In light of threats to
religious doctrine, it is logical to search for validation in the reigning epistemology, in this case,
a scientific one. Where separators see themselves as enemies to scientific orthodoxy, bargainers
see themselves as a revolutionary faction of the scientific narrative. By adapting scientific
methods, establish “creation science,” hiring scientists and highly educated staff, and performing
scientific research, the bargainers are, in a sense, part of the scientific community. Through
102
exploring the publications of these groups, it is clear that the bargainers appear wholly sincere in
believing that their work is a contribution to science by correcting mistakes in current scientific
literature. Because the bargainers believe the Bible is true, Christianity influences how they
perform their science. They also consider their performance of science to be more accurate than
current evolutionary methods. The bargainers provide an opportunity to analyze a genuine
attempt to stretch scientific principles to make room for religious arguments as a coping and
legitimation strategy.
For the bargainers, contemporary scientists are not villains, but are misguided and need
correcting. Bargainers do not consider science the enemy in a holy war. Instead of seeking to
vanquish opponents, bargainers wish to correct and “set right” those that have misinterpreted
scientific evidence. Their narrative appears to collapse traditional dramatic frame categories,
where not only are there specific, identified enemies that are responsible and must be sacrificed
(tragic), but also there is an attempt to revolutionize and change the field of science from those
who are mistaken (comic). The difference between tragic and comic in separating discursive
responses to modernity may seem trivial. But, the identification of a genre changes the entire
narrative. Scholars have noted that a shift from tragic to comic or comic to tragic transforms all
aspects of a rhetorical moment, including audience reception and message success (e.g., Carlson,
1986; Christiansen & Hanson, 1996). The discourse implies the actions that should be taken
towards those labeled responsible for the narrative disorder or disruption (Burke, 1984a). In this
vein, the shift from the separators’ melodrama to the bargainers’ tragicomedy indicates a
significant change in treatment of enemies and opponents. Furthermore, the bargainers’ collapse
of dramatic frames echoes their collapse of science and religion and the arguments of the
separators and the harmonizers.
103
Bargainers follow many of science’s methodologies and standards of research, but differ
in the evidence that they are willing to accept as grounds for arguments. Bargainers often
selectively pick sources of authority or pieces of evidence that align with their beliefs about
origins and the environment. Bargainers seek out people and data that support their views among
the many in scientific communities that do not. These voices are often representative of a
minority that continues to challenge established scientific facts. The lack of evidence in the
mainstream does not deter the bargainers, however. Instead, the dearth of support only bolsters
their insistence that their position is the rightful one being quashed by contemporary science.
From the bargainer’s perspective, modernity unnecessarily and wrongfully silences dissident
voices that are trying to improve and better the field of science. In this way, bargainers
manufacture controversy by attempting to reignite and reopen settled scientific issues such as
origins and the environment (Ceccarelli, 2011). The ongoing discussion (much like the
separators’ ongoing wars) legitimizes the need for the bargainers to exist and continue to address
human origins and climate change and provide new evidence for scientific consideration.
Bargainers reopen the debate to infuse a new purpose: legitimizing their own explanatory
narratives.
The two exemplar bargainers are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Acton
Institute (AI). ICR focuses on creationism and provides scientific research and interpretation of
existing data to provide support for a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. The AI focuses
on the environment and climate change and provides economic arguments for caution and
hesitancy towards environmental activism. The bargainers reach similar conclusions as the
separators about the age of the Earth and the appropriate beliefs about beginnings and endings.
They differ, however, on the guiding metaphors of the narrative, its genre, and the resources for
104
their arguments. In response to the challenges of science and modernity, bargainers stretch their
understanding of science to incorporate influence from Christian doctrine. Burke (1984a)
conceptualized the process of incorporating new principles into old frameworks with the term
“casuistic stretching” (p. 23). The old framework, religion, can be stretched to encompass new
information, science, or the new information can be adjusted to match the old framework. Either
response act puts great strain on the original narrative. Burke (1984a) argued, “As a given
historical frame nears the point of cracking, strained by the rise of new factors it had not
originally taken into account, its adherents employ its genius casuistically to extend it as far as
possible” (p. 23). To save the original frame, groups engage in various strategies, such as
separating, bargaining, and harmonizing. Adherents seek to keep the original framework under
extensive conditions, for it is easier to retain and adjust previous systems than create new ones.
Eventually, this burden may be too great and irreparably fracture old principles. Instead of
stretching old principles to make room for new ones, the bargainers modify and adapt scientific
standards to fit their existing organizing framework.
Casuistry often has a negative connotation of equivocation and immoral reasoning, but
Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin (1988) sough to recover its use as a practical and meaningful
tool in the ethical pursuit of knowledge. In reviewing the text, James Brown (1991) summarized
the situation when casuistry arises: “the experience of the moral tension faced when an
individual or a social body must choose what ‘ought’ to be done in a particular situation where
there is a conflict of basic obligations” (p. 492). In the case of the bargainers, the basic
obligations of the groups are to their Christian faith and the burgeoning power of scientific
institutions. Without changing their warp and woof, the bargainers seek to apply the general
principles of their faith to the specific problems of scientific enterprise. The separators,
105
bargainers, and harmonizers all undergo a form of casuistry, but the bargainers uniquely
represent the push and pull of casuistry, where ethical standards are made to fit complex
situations. In the cast studies presented here, modernity, and the strength it provides to scientific
ways of knowing, is the primary motivator for the groups to respond and make changes to their
interpretation of faith, science, and the relationship between the two.
Berger (1977a) argued that groups bargain with modernity by creating mediating
structures that allow for people to find comfort, support, and anchoring in a world made unsteady
by modernity’s pluralism. In response to the pressures of modernity and a lack of rigid epistemic
standards, people may re-invest in changing value communities, such as religious organizations,
which must also adapt to modernity (Berger, 1977a). Bargaining and stretching are difficult
discursive processes that require the reworking of definitions and tinkering with existing
standards. Bargainers modify and adapt scientific enterprise, so their religion-friendly methods
can claim some of science’s authority. Christianity remains an infallible truth; it is science that
bends to meet the bargainer’s standards. In short, “sound science” is defined by its alignment
with the groups’ definitions of reality. Similar to the separators, the bargainers start from their
intended conclusion to argue how science should be used and interpreted.
Bargainers argue that there are still legitimate questions about established scientific facts
that religion can answer and provide the truth (Ceccarelli, 2011). By describing themselves as
scientists in search of new information, ICR and the AI attempt to challenge scientific orthodoxy
from within a space of legitimacy and authority on scientific matters. Bargainers are
revolutionary scientists trying to change society’s understanding of science from the misguided
and incorrect elite. Bargainers appeal to scientific standards of openness and falsifiability to
106
revisit creationism and climate change skepticism. They argue that the voice of the minority,
even a slim one informed by religion, should be given equal time and scientific scrutiny.
Bargainers use three rhetorical patterns to support their stretching of science as a
response to modernity: 1) tragicomic frame, 2) metaphor of revolution, and 3) competing
argument grounds. These patterns are present across ICR and the AI and together constitute a
unique coping mechanism that some religious groups use in the face of modernity. The ultimate
source of inerrant information is the Bible, so all of science, nature, and reality must fit in
accordance to its record of history. Instead of accepting scientific orthodoxy (and thus adjusting
their interpretation of the Bible) or waging a war against it, the bargainers construct a semblance
of a middle ground where certain aspects of science are bargained with to construct a suitable
explanation. Bargainers can thus borrow from the legitimacy of science and present themselves
as legitimate conversation partners in the ongoing debate while remaining Christian literalists. I
will first describe ICR and the AI in more detail before examining the three discursive patterns
that distinguish the bargainers from separators and harmonizers. To cope with religion’s fall
from esteem, bargainers find a place for religion to influence science’s conclusions and remain
an important epistemology.
Institute for Creation Research
Founded in 1970, ICR is a religious organization that investigates scientific evidence for
the accuracy of biblical scripture. Their mission statement reads, “For over four decades, the
Institute for Creation Research has equipped believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and
authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all
107
conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework” (Institute for Creation Research, n.d.-g, para.
1). The organization describes itself as having three main purposes: research, education, and
communication. Charity Navigator (2015) reported that ICR generated over $6 million in
revenue, of which nearly all was donations. ICR performs its own experiments and has PhDs and
scientists on staff (e.g., Dr. John Morris, President of ICR, who earned his Doctorate in
Geological Engineering at the University of Oklahoma). Current ICR research initiatives include
the Climate Project and the Cosmos Project, which study changes in temperature and deep space,
respectively. In addition to a research arm, ICR also has a graduate school, the School of Biblical
Apologetics, which teaches the fundamentals of evangelization and the Bible. The school does
not have accreditation and ICR does not seek it, arguing that current accreditation bodies are “not
friendly toward young-earth biblical-creation institutions” (Johnson, n.d., para. 2).
ICR and its publications support three main religious events as evidence for scriptural
truth. First, ICR supports the occurrence of The Great Flood from the story of Noah’s Ark, which
explains fossil stratification and the extinction of many animals and plants. Second, evidence is
given for the age of the Earth in alignment with a 6-10,000-year-old Biblical model instead of
the often estimated 4.5 billion years. Third, ICR supports the idea that animals and plants were
designed in their fully mature forms, without evolving through natural selection. These
arguments are accomplished primarily by proposing alternative interpretations of gathered
scientific evidence, including its own funded research as part of the scientific pool of
information, and encouraging creation-friendly solutions to unsolved scientific inquiries.
Although AIG was formed as an offshoot of ICR, they have distinct approaches to the
science and religion relationship. ICR creates its own scientific discoveries and employs some
scientific methodologies to confirm scripture. ICR is an exemplar of the bargainers, because it
108
negotiates the relationship between science and religion instead of separating them. Furthermore,
ICR does not adopt all scientific tenets or view science and religion as united. Instead, ICR views
the scientific field as anathema to the real science that ICR performs. Although sold to the Light
and Life Foundation in 2008, ICR started and operated the Creation and Earth History Museum
(CEHM) in Santee, California to educate the general public about creationism. My site visit to
this museum enabled a comparison between ICR’s linguistic and nonlinguistic representations of
their Christian narrative. The Light and Life Foundation focuses on ministry and healthcare for
children, and has kept the museum in alignment with ICR’s mission (Light and Life Foundation,
2015).
ICR’s primary publication is the monthly magazine Acts and Facts (AF) that outlines
how science verifies Christian doctrine, God, and creationism. It has published thousands of
articles since its first issue nearly 40 years ago outlining. ICR has also publishes the “That’s a
Fact” web series, featuring short, one-two minute animated clips explaining flaws in evolution
science and the strength of creationism arguments. The first episode was posted in August of
2012, and now there are over 20 episodes online. This information is housed both on ICR’s
website and the recently launched ICR mobile app. ICR uses various communication
technologies to spread its research to different constituents. ICR provides alternative information
to traditional scientific publications to reignite belief and confidence in Christianity to answer
life’s questions such as origins and endings.
109
The Acton Institute
The AI (2015b) was founded in 1990 as the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and
Liberty, named after Lord John Acton. Their current president is co-founder Reverend Robert A.
Sirico who wrote Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Their
mission is “to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and
sustained by religious principles” (Acton Institute, 2015a, para. 1). The AI primarily focuses on
economic research and how free market policies, influenced by faith, are the foundations for a
functioning democracy. The AI uses Judeo-Christian values to guide their economic research and
perspective toward sound public policy. The AI addresses many diverse topics such as political
campaigns, world leaders, taxes, and culture. One of the AI’s primary focuses is the
environment. The AI has published many articles about climate change policies, competing
religious environmental groups, and the potential effects of mainstream environmentalism.
Instead of activism, the AI cautions against environmental policy changes. The AI argues for a
laissez-faire attitude to protecting the environment and doubts anthropogenic global warming.
The AI often publishes articles on religious environmental voices, such as Pope Francis. With the
publication of Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si and the climate talks in Paris, the AI has focused
greatly on the role of faith in guiding economic policy. The AI describes its own mission as
stewardship; the only correct interpretation of stewardship that will help the economy, the poor,
and the environment. Other definitions of stewardship may undermine markets, endanger lives,
and go against God’s wishes. The AI prioritizes its brand of stewardship, which will be discussed
in more detail later, over environmental policies that could potentially threaten free markets and
the global economy.
110
In addition to publishing articles online, the AI also publishes books, a quarterly journal
called Religion & Liberty, and a blog called the “Acton Powerblog.” These publications are
written by members of the AI and guest authors and cover a variety of topics. The AI spreads its
scholarship online and through talks. The AI funds student scholarships and hosts events, such as
Acton University (AU). Although boasting the name of a collegiate institution, AU is a
conference that consists of a four day lecture-series that integrates religious teachings with
economics. The conference is geared towards laypeople, students, faith leaders, and teachers
(Action Institute, 2015c).
The AI shares some board members with the CA, but operates as a separate, research
institution aimed at halting current climate change policies. The borrowing of staff between the
separators and bargainers can easily be explained by their shared conclusions. Both AIG and ICR
advocate for a literal creationist narrative while the CA and the AI argue against environmental
activism. Similar to the CA, the AI argues that current environmental policies will negatively
affect the economy and the poor. The methods, rhetoric, and discursive patterns are different,
however. Instead of villainizing or demonizing environmentalists, however, the AI wishes to
engage liberal policy makers and modern scientists in discussion over the best economic policies.
The AI argues that scientists are unduly influenced by environmentalists and should instead be
more concerned about sound economic science. The AI responds to environmental science by
producing its own research and interpreting existing evidence to better fit a conservative,
Christian narrative. Its research is based on ten core principles (Acton Institute, 2015d). The first
core principle is that all people were “created in the image of God” (Acton Institute, 2015d, para.
3). The AI’s beliefs about origins and creationism directly affect their beliefs about the
environment and endings. The AI’s also lists “priority of culture” as a core principle. The AI
111
(2015d) argues that “liberty flourishes in a society supported by a moral culture that embraces
the truth about the transcendent origin and destiny of the human person” (para. 12). Economic
policies, including those about the environment, are inextricably linked to one’s ideas about
origins and destiny, where humans came from and their future existence.
Tragicomic Frame and Metaphor of Revolution
ICR and the AI forgo the metaphor of war in favor of revolution. Their language is
sometimes aggressive or belligerent towards identified opponents, but it is not as polarized or
dramatic as the separators. Instead, the bargainers characterize their enemies as misguided and in
need of replacement. Unlike the separators, who are waging a moral crusade against their
enemies, the bargainers see redeeming qualities in science, its methodologies, and conclusions.
The bargainers seek to adopt some of those qualities that fit their worldview to reclaim space for
religion. Their response to science is not to vanquish it, but rather to overcome mainstream
scientists in a revolution of “true” science. Bargainers respond to the imposing reign of science
by incorporating some elements of it into their organizing narrative. The bargainers borrow from
science’s esteem and position of power to reinforce the legitimacy of religion. In positioning
themselves as a part of the scientific community, bargainers wish to change the dominant ideas,
not undermine the entire institution. Bargainers consider science as a tool that can provide
support for faith when interpreted correctly. This push and pull relationship is characteristic of
bargaining, where some parts of science are stretched and some are abandoned. The bargainers
do not sacrifice their own understanding of faith; instead, they bargain with the tenets of science
112
so that they fit with their religious worldview. Because of the nuance in the bargainer’s position,
they do not fit easily into any one frame.
Because of the similarities between the bargainers’ discourses with both the tragic and
comic frames, I argue that they are best represented by a factional tragicomic frame. Burke
(1984a) argued that tragic and comic frames are frames of acceptance, because a frame of
acceptance “constructs [a] notion of the universe of history, and shapes attitudes in keeping” and
defines pious actions, beliefs, and relationships (p. 3). Furthermore, frames of acceptance “fix
attitudes that prepare for combat. They draw the lines of battle” (Burke, 1984a, p. 20).
Bargainers may not engage in literal combat as do the separators, but they do create fixed lines
between friend and foe. In addressing science, bargainers attempt to upend it by making changes
in the hierarchy of rational thought. Instead of bowing to the dominance of science and the
perceived corruption of the faith, the bargainers wish to reclaim their specific interpretation of
science as truth.
Bargainers contain tragedy’s notions of sacrifice and internal conflicts while also
containing comedy’s notions of people being mistaken and foolish. Unlike the separators, who
view their opponents as pure, evil villains, the bargainers seek to overthrow from power those
who are mistaken about Christianity. The comic frame is characterized by its insistence that in
conflict, people are “mistaken” instead of malicious (Burke, 1984a, p. 41). The bargainers do
adopt this element of the comic frame and accept a more argumentative and less belligerent
approach to mainstream scientists. Burke (1984a) argued that in comedy, the “emphasis shifts
from crime to stupidity” (p. 41). Mainstream scientists are perhaps not evil in the melodramatic
sense, but bargainers might characterize them as “stupid” in their rejection of the obvious
evidence in science of Christianity’s truth. Desilet and Appel (2011) argued that the logical
113
extension of the comic frame’s tendency to see enemies as “mistaken” is that comic frames “are
thereby prevented from seeing one side as exceptionally and accountably wrong” (p. 346).
Schwarze (2006) agreed and argued that the comic frame “forsakes the divisiveness of the tragic
frame” (p. 242). But, the bargainers clearly do invoke divisiveness through the process of
differentiating between themselves, “true” scientists, and others, “mainstream” scientists.
Quoting Burke, Desilet and Appel (2011) emphasized that factional conflict “attributes the evil,
not to all men [sic], but to some” (p. 348). In identifying clear enemies, the bargainers’ frame
“shifts away from the apparent culpable egalitarianism of the comic frame toward the moral
polarity of factional weighting” more common of the tragic frame (Desilet & Appel, 2011, p.
347).
The bargainers surely do not meet Burke’s (1984a) extensive comic criteria of
transcendence, unity, and universal implications. Instead they embody a factional tragedy that
treats mistakes as requiring sacrifice and an overthrowing of the current order. In combining
these elements, the bargainers appear to operate in a tragicomic frame that has been under
theorized. Smith and Hollihan (2014) offered the definition of “Burkean Serenity Prayer,” where
the tragicomic frame, “accept[s] the things we cannot change,” but also identifies ways that
things can and should be changed (pp. 585-586). The bargainers appear to accept that science is
an institution of power and authority unlikely to be toppled. In accepting these positions,
however, they also acknowledge that they have the power to change and modify what that
institution represents and values. That is, they accept the validity of science as a way of knowing,
but attempt to change its exclusion of religious grounds and evidence. Desilet and Appel (2011)
proposed that sometimes “the comic framer” may have “to adopt rhetorically tragic structurings
of conflict” (p. 356). The bargainers appear to be flipping this dynamic, using a comedic
114
language of mistakes, correction, and education to cover a tragic interpretation of how the order
should be restored – through sacrifice.
For the bargainers, other scientists are enemies that do not recognize the epistemic power
of religion and Christianity. These scientists are fellow researchers that are in need of more
information and a different perspective on evidence and interpretation. Both ICR and the AI
share this revolutionary metaphor, where they believe that the dominant beliefs about origins and
the environment will eventually shift into alignment with Christian doctrine. For this shift to
occur, the bargainers identify particular ideas, theories, and people that are obstacles to said
scientific revolution. Bargainers thus engage in internal conflicts between mainstream science
and their interpretation of science. Although the bargainers’ discourse enables redemption,
forgiveness, and understanding of disparate viewpoints, they also acknowledge the potential for
sacrifice by the mainstream scientists they perceive as mistaken. Separators want to destroy the
influence of mainstream science, but bargainers wish to rehabilitate society and scientists to
embrace religion once more. The discourse of the bargainers encourages religious people to
accept science into their explanation of reality while also enticing those who may have left their
faith to reenter the fold.
Specifically, as with every revolution, most of the proponents of the current system are
simply mis/uninformed, and need only be persuaded to come around to the “right” way of
thinking. In identifying who is uninformed, the bargainers separate themselves from other
members of scientific community. These opponents must be vanquished, either by changing their
mind, shutting them out of the conversation, or removing them from power. The bargainers hope
to create a scientific revolution whereby their scientific conclusions replace the standards of
evolution and environmentalism. Kuhn (1962) argued that science develops through a
115
“piecemeal” process, by which new information and evidence replaces or expands upon existing
knowledge (p. 2). In his description of scientific revolutions, Kuhn (1962) argues that science’s
simultaneously arbitrariness and rigidness create the conditions for shifts in known information
and methodologies. The bargainers position themselves as revolutionaries who are attempting to
institute “a new set of commitments, a new basis for the practice of science” in order to “shift”
current scientific standards (Kuhn, 1962, p. 6). By substituting their own evidence, the bargainers
seek to highlight “anomalies that subvert the existing tradition of scientific practice” so that
science “can no longer evade” the truth of their brand of creationism (Kuhn, 1962, p. 6). The
bargainers, therefore, do not need to start a war or engage in violence; they only need create
“competition between segments of the scientific community,” which could result in the
“adoption of another” scientific standard (Kuhn, 1962, p. 8). The bargainers use language of
revolution and also separate themselves from the mainstream scientists they accuse of quashing
the bargainers’ uprising.
Starting a revolution. ICR and the AI’s mission is to adjust mainstream scientific
thought to reject the overarching control of materialist explanations. Their language is not war-
like, but rests in areas of logic and reasoning to create new conclusions about the role of science
and religion. In starting a revolution, the bargainers establish the tenets that need to be changed
and the institutions that challenge the process.
ICR focuses on changes the minds of evolutionary scientists. Nathaniel Jeanson (2013)
argued, “Over the past three years, [ICR] research has been guided by two overall goals –
refuting the Darwinian explanation for the origin of species with science data and investigating
the true origin of species within the parameters of Scripture” (p. 9). Jeanson described ICR’s acts
116
as that of refutation and investigation, two scholarly endeavors that identify an incorrect
statement and seek to correct it. ICR researcher Brian Thomas (2009) characterized the human
origins controversy as a “substantial debate” (para. 10). ICR acknowledges that they work within
a particular framework, that of faith. This framework benefits science because the Bible contains
the only “authoritative, certain, objective truth” (Johnson, 2013b, p. 11). ICR (n.d.-a) describes
itself as “unique among scientific research organizations” because of their commitment to “the
absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God” (para. 1). Although they are unique in this
characteristic, ICR (n.d.-d) still considers itself “a leader in scientific research” (para. 1) that
stands among its peers. ICR (n.d.-b) argues that the Bible is the standard for scientific research
because it is “free from error of any sort, scientific and historical” (para. 11). A tenet of the
utmost importance to ICR is the age of the earth. ICR argues that “the weight of the scientific
evidence” agrees with the Bible that “the earth is only a few thousand years old” (Morris, 1995,
para. 2).
ICR writer Henry Morris III (2013a) said this about nonbelievers: “Some we are to
patiently disciple. Some we are to urgently rescue” (p. 7). One of ICR’s (n.d.-d) three branches is
education, in order to educate the public about “biblical authority and creation science” (para. 3).
ICR’s focus on scientific research is balanced by an interest in evangelization and Christian
apologetics. Nonbelievers are embraced as potential targets for ministry and redemption. The AI
also focuses on education and argues that one of its core missions is making the moral imperative
of environmental stewardship “explicit and clear” (Ballor, 2007, para. 10). The information that
the AI disseminates must be easy to understand, so others can learn about their messages. This
information is aimed at the public and other environmental scholars in an attempt to change their
minds about their conceptions of climate change. For example, Kishore Jayabalan (2015) called
117
for the “reeducation” of Pope Francis to open him up to capitalism and free markets as a solution
to the environment (para. 1). Similar to the scientists that have been led astray by evolution and
materialism, the AI describes Pope Francis as a wayward religious leader. People who have been
misguided simply need to be placed back on the right path, not destroyed or eliminated.
Research is only one part of ICR’s work. They also offer multiple ways of disseminating
that information for educational purposes. At their Creation and Earth History Museum (CEHM),
ICR targets two audiences, those who do not find science and religion compatible, and those that
deny the creationist narrative. It is not likely for non-Christians to attend the museum, but the
museum certainly addresses a potential audience that ascribes to evolution. This museum adopts
aspects of scientific communication to ignite revolutionary thinking about existing evidence. In
an introductory display labeled, “Science and Religion,” the CEHM argued, “Religion and
science are not separate spheres of study, as some say,” directly addressing the arguments of
separators that try to distinguish science from religion. Instead, the CEHM argues, “true science
supports the Biblical worldview. There are many facts of science revealed I the Bible and no
proven scientific errors.” In its museum, ICR furthers the idea that true science and Christianity
are completely compatible, but “science does not support false religions (e.g., atheism,
evolutionism, pantheism, humanism, etc.).” The next display read, “Many people (even
Christians!) think Creationism is only a peripheral question . . . and therefore they either try to
accommodate evolution or (even worse) to ignore the whole issue.” The display described both
of these options as “dangerous errors” in reasoning about the importance of origins. The CEHM
serves as an evangelization tool to introduce children and to further educate adults about the
proper way to reinterpret and understand the creationist narrative.
118
The AI shares ICR’s focus on evangelization. Phillips (2010) argued that all Christians
should remember, “Care for the poor, while a real good in and of itself, also serves the
furtherance of the gospel” (para. 4). He argued that “using social ministry to win a favorable
hearing for the gospel” is a “traditional evangelical strategy” (Phillips, 2010, para. 6). The
policies of the AI thus serve multiple purposes, including evangelization and promoting certain
economic policies. Jayabalan (2015) argued, “doing good unto others means saving their souls,
often from their own waywardness, and speaking to them about Jesus Christ Lord and Savior”
(para. 3). Because both science and economics have been dominated by non-Christian
interpretations, ICR and the AI work to correct the mistakes and educate people on the true
explanations of reality by displacing mainstream science with their own interpretations. The
scientists that have been influenced by Darwinism and environmentalism are mistaken and must
be sacrificed, figuratively, so the true ideas of Christianity can flourish again. The AI
characterizes the actions of environmental evangelicals as a “debate” about the “proper response
to the challenges and questions of climate change” (Ballor, 2007, para. 1). There is no war
amongst the faithful, only disagreement and differences of interpretation that lead people in
opposing directions.
In a policy brief, the AI argued, “Much of the environmental harm inflicted on nature in
the past few centuries has stemmed from human ignorance, not malice or even greed” (Beers et
al., n.d., para. 62). The AI argues that people are not inherently evil and have not intentionally
caused harm to the environment. Instead, they have been ignorant of their effects and need more
information in order to make better decisions. Similar to ICR, the AI sees science and economics
as “tools that allow us to respond to the multifaceted problems we face” (Beers et al., n.d., para.
62). But, “science alone is insufficient for resolving these matters,” and must be aided by faith
119
(Beers et al., n.d., para. 63). The AI thus uses faith to guide its economic policies and argues that
environmentalists should do the same in order to come to the best solutions. Mainstream
scientists who side with environmentalists are not evil, but have been distracted by the
environmental message and as a result endanger humanity’s future. The AI proposes an
economic, free market response to perceived environmental problems, while environmentalists
advocate policy changes that call for emissions caps and restrictions on businesses. Benjamin
Phillips (2010) argued that the environmental harmonizer, the EEN “have called for action to
prevent [anthropogenic global warming]” at the expense of other Christian commitments (para.
1). For example, “the public-policy response to global warming proposed by some evangelicals
makes actually helping the global poor more difficult” (Phillips, 2010, para. 5). Christians that
support restrictive policies are thus working against the AI’s initiatives and other commitments
of the Christian “social ministry” (Phillips, 2010, para. 3). The AI conceptualizes policies to help
the environment and the poor as a zero sum game: “All of this [environmental advocacy]
involves material costs, resources devoted to this advocacy that might also be used elsewhere”
(Ballor, 2015, para. 5). To prioritize the environment, then, is to choose against the poor and
other humans in need. For example, the AI condemned certain environmental groups for
ignoring Christianity’s “broad mandate that includes many issues other than climate change,
including abortion” in favor of the environment (Ballor, 2015, para. 5). As will be discussed in
more detail later, the AI’s hierarchy of humanity over all non-human life is integral to its
definition of stewardship.
In starting a revolution, the bargainers use language that is aggressive, but not violent
towards its enemies. They identify those that stand in their way, bifurcating the scientific
community into those that are against their brand of creationism and those that support it. The
120
bargainers establish themselves as a dissenting opinion within the larger scientific community, so
the struggle for truth is an internal, institutional one. The bargainers solidify this identity through
labeling groups and individuals as separate from “real” science, creating a true scientific identity
distinct from the mainstream one. Bargainers, thus, appeal to aspects of Kuhn’s scientific
revolution in promoting themselves as the minority that will eventually become the standard
operation in science.
Creating a dissenting identity. Bargainers use the metaphor of revolution to change the
minds of their opponents. In labeling their opponents, both ICR and the AI discursively separate
their brand of scientific interpretation from what is considered a “mainstream” interpretation.
ICR clearly distinguishes between scientists and “Darwinists.” Scientists use accurate and sound
science to lend support for the Bible and the creation story. Darwinists, however, have been
seduced by secularism, have misinterpreted evidence, and have been tricked to believe in
macroevolution. ICR repeatedly specifies mainstream scientists as “secular scientists” or
“secularists,” indicating that parts of science are inaccurately secular. ICR also refers to
secularists as “naturalists” who deny that life “was specially and supernaturally created by the
Creator” (Institute for Creation Research, n.d.-b, para. 2). These groups, secular and scientific,
that go against ICR’s beliefs are described as “anti-science” (Dao, 2011, para. 9). Instead of
acknowledging the organizing creation of God, secular scientists “discount miracles and Genesis
history” (Institute for Creation Research, n.d.-c, para. 1) in favor of a “mechanistic, atheistic
scenario for the origin of life” (Gish, 2007, para. 1). Scientists are also sometimes referred to as
“evolutionists” or “Darwinists,” a description that implies how they are wedded to the theory of
evolution and Darwin’s work as a defining characteristic of their identity. In an article about the
121
sun, Jason Lisle (2013a) used the terms, “secularists” and “secular astronomers” to describe
estimates of the sun’s age (p. 12). Jake Hebert (2013) described mainstream scientists as
“evolutionists,” “secular researchers,” and “skeptics” (p. 20). These terms are used to
differentiate the true scientists in ICR’s ranks from the scientists who are unduly influenced by
atheism, evolution, and naturalism.
In responding to the problems that modernity poses, ICR also condemns postmodernity.
While separators must deal in postmodern spaces to legitimize their religious narrative, the
bargainers condemn postmodernity as the source of alternative authoritative texts to the Bible.
Johnson (2013b) described postmoderns, or people who ascribe to postmodernity, as having a
“subjective attitude about truth” and being “ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of
God” (p. 10). Because the bargainers view themselves as a part of scientific truth and knowledge,
postmodernity threatens their position of power. “Postmoderns invent counterfeit truths, such as
theistic or atheistic evolution mythologies” that challenge biblical truth (Johnson, 2013b, p. 11).
Instead of viewing their own narrative as a religious challenge to a scientific narrative, ICR
positions itself as a part of modernity receiving challenges from the subjective interpretation of
evolutionary scientists. ICR’s relationship with modernity and postmodernity approaches
paradox. For example, Morris III (2012) condemned postmodernism and modernism as “united
in their opposition to the concept of a transcendent Creator God” (para. 16). If modernity is
equated with mainstream science, perhaps ICR sees itself in the space between modernity and
the relativism of postmodernity. Much like the bargainer’s relationship to the separators and the
harmonizers, bargainers make use of elements of both in creating a unique rhetorical pattern.
The AI also identifies naturalists and environmentalists as enemies because they propose
competing values and priorities. In discussing Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si, Samuel
122
Gregg (2015) characterized the AI’s opponents as “increasingly atheistic and anti-Catholic”
(para. 16). This trend in environmentalism is why Gregg found Francis’s partnership with
environmentalism problematic. Jayabalan (2015) added, “environmentalists have done [much] to
spin the encyclical in their preferred direction,” especially in light of upcoming Paris talks about
the environment (para. 2). The AI characterizes environmentalists as influencing environmental
policies to support their political agenda, but their actions are not described as evil. The
environmentalist’s lack of faith and understanding of economic theory leads them to misinterpret
their “good intensions” as “morally good ends,” when they are not (Jensen, 2015, para. 6, 3).
The AI often conflates environmental policies with liberal economic policies. Jayabalan
(2015) argued, “liberalism presents difficulties for serious Christians regardless of their political
preferences” (para. 5). Jayabalan (2015) justified this statement by arguing that Christianity
requires engagement with those less fortunate while liberalism advocates a shift in focus away
from those priorities. Furthermore, the AI argues that the “anti-growth environmentalist agenda”
will threaten economic empowerment of the poor (Beisner et al., n.d., para. 24). The AI fears
partisanship influence in environmental policies; if scientists are concerned about politics, then
they can miss the economic element. The AI specifically warns against political involvement in
religious matters and quoted Calvin Van Reken in saying, “we ought to resist the temptation to
use the institution church as a mouthpiece for our political convictions” (as quoted in Ballor,
2015, para. 7). Instead, the AI promotes a “transpolitical, non-partisan way” of looking at the
environment that overcomes these political tensions (Jayabalan, 2015, para. 14). The AI takes a
somewhat comic approach by attempting to transcend differences and problems through faith.
Their approach, however, is colored by the factional aspect of tragedy that only supports a
particular brand of economic stewardship.
123
ICR also identifies specific enemies from within the Christian community. In an article
about “compromised” Christians, Morris (2013) described an unnamed individual as a “‘semi-
creationist’ who advocates his special melding of mainstream science with a self-described
‘literal’ view of Scripture” (p. 14). Although I cannot be certain, it would not be a farfetched
guess to say that Morris is talking about RTB’s Hugh Ross. ICR has discussed Ross in other
articles and has argued that Ross’s works “take away from the Bible’s credibility by insisting
that science has proven the Bible to be incorrect” (Morris III, 2013a, p. 6, emphasis in original).
Furthermore, Morris III (2013a) argued that groups like RTB “undermin[e] the basic premise
that God is truthful, accurate, and clear in His revelation to us” and profess “overt denial” of ICR
tenets such as a young earth and Noah’s Flood (p. 6). Although ICR and RTB incorporate
science into their religious narrative, each group “approaches science and the interpretation of
the scientific data” very differently based on their “Biblical/theological interpretation” of which
only ICR has the most “accurate Biblical/scientific approach” (Stambaugh, 1991, para. 26).
Similar to my own characterization of RTB’s discourse, ICR notes that “various groups
began proposing compromises to try to ‘harmonize’ the creation account with evolutionary
science” (Morris III, 2013a, p. 6). AIG and ICR both eschew compromise as a negative
characteristic of Christian groups. The compromising attempts of others are irrational.
Bargainers adopt science to the extent that it supports the literalism of the Bible, but they do not
attempt the type of complete unity that harmonizers do. In another article that directly names
Ross, ICR accuses him of “stretch[ing] Scripture – as if he has a license to do so – to make the
ideas seem to fit together” (Morris, 2013, p. 14). Morris III (2012) addressed these groups again
when he wrote, “some would suggest that the words of the text [Bible] should be interpreted
and/or ‘filtered’ by various extra-biblical methods and standards” (para. 11). Morris III accuses
124
harmonizers of incorporating scientific and evolutionary influences into a literal definition of the
Bible. Indeed, he characterizes their discourse as “a hybridization of naturalistic science and
biblical revelation,” instead of using science as a tool to support biblical literalism (Morris III,
2012, para. 18). The difference appears slight, but the level to which science is incorporated in
the bargainers and harmonizers’ discourse determines the conclusions the groups reach. As will
be discussed in more detail later, the bargainers and harmonizers argument starting point leads
them to incompatible creationist narratives.
Instead of abandoning biblical truth like atheists and secularists, compromising Christians
adjust God’s word to match science. ICR’s discourse reflects this in the previously quoted
characterizations of “semi-creationist” and “self-described ‘literal’ view of Scripture” (Morris,
2013, p. 14). ICR views harmonizers as undermining the Bible by compromising too much with
mainstream science. Johnson (2013a) summarized this position:
The Genesis record conflicts and is unresolvable with the evolutionary depiction of
human origins. Despite strained attempts by theistic evolutionist harmonizers to blend
Scripture and Darwinism, the bottom line is Genesis and evolution cannot both be true.
(p. 19)
ICR views the Bible and evolution as completely incompatible, so the harmonizer’s conclusions
are illogical and false. ICR stretches science to fit its hermeneutics, while harmonizers are
accused of stretching the Bible to fit mainstream science.
The AI finds common ground with groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention and
our separator, the CA, as having “rejected the theory of anthropogenic global warming and
catastrophic climate change predictions” (Phillips, 2010, para. 1). The AI also doubts the human
contribution to global warming and questions how devastating any effects will be. Indeed, the AI
125
argues, “some benefit is to be expected – indeed, has already occurred – because of enhanced
atmospheric CO2,” such as plant growth and farming productivity (Beisner et al., n.d., para. 66).
The lead author on this AI report is Beisner, the current president of the CA. He is on the AI
advisory board and the two groups agree on many biblical interpretations and for hesitancy
towards policies that impede business in favor of environmental protection. But, their discursive
patterns and their relative incorporation of science and economics into their organizing narrative
distinguish the AI from the CA in policy focus.
The AI identifies some members of the Christian community as opponents. Namely, the
AI describes the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) as “antithetical to the concerns of
economics” and argues that its Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) misinterprets Christian
stewardship (Ballor, 2006, para. 2). The AI views the EEN as favoring environmentalism over
economics, which more natural pairs with stewardship (Ballor, 2006). For the AI, economics is
the area of science that will most benefit current actions towards the environment. Ballor (2006)
described economic arguments as the highest justification for decision-making, noting:
“economics helps us rightly order our stewardship” (para. 8). Environmentalism has taken
advantage of the current situation and swayed scientists away from economically-friendly
policies. In order to restore order, the AI has to figuratively destroy the emphasis that
environmentalism plays in contemporary science. Eventually, environmentalism will be replaced
and overthrown by the AI’s approach to stewardship. Ray Nothstine (2015) argued that present-
day conservative Christians are not unlike how Christ himself was “on the wrong side of history”
against the faith of the Roman Empire (para. 6). With time and more research, the AI asserts that
they will be brought back into orthodoxy and replace the current environmental focus with
conservative Christianity.
126
One of the defining characteristics of the bargainers’ discourse is their distinct
combination of tragic and comic elements in a factional tragicomic frame that focuses on
revolutionizing scientific orthodoxy instead of waging a war against it. The bargainers share
many of the same conclusions about origins and the environment with the separators, but their
treatment of mainstream science and tone of their discourse is markedly different. In addition to
this difference, the next two sections will explore the bargainers’ rhetorical strategies for
stretching science to fit their narrative of reality, what they borrow and what they modify.
Bargainers do not reject science completely, although they reject many of mainstream science’s
conclusions. Instead, bargainers incorporate some elements of scientific methodologies, theories,
and experts to legitimize their religious worldview. This borrowing and bargaining does not
affect their interpretation of the Bible, but instead undermines certain standards of science. The
following sections will show how the bargainers’ attempt to be a part of scientific orthodoxy
while revolutionizing it. Their response to the threat of modernity involves shielding themselves
within scientific standards. This act of stretching, however, blurs the definition of scientific
inquiry in order to make room for Christianity. The next section analyzes the complicated and
nuanced relationship that bargainers have with science, including the aspects they borrow and
aspects they modify and why.
Relationship with Science
Bargainers propose alternative evidence for the truth of the Bible while promoting
themselves as legitimate scientific institutions. I am not concerned here with making evaluative
statements about the science that the bargainers employ, although there is much that could be
127
said, but instead am interested in exploring the adoption of some scientific standards as a
discursive strategy. Further inquiry into the status of creation science is beyond the scope of this
inquiry, but it should suffice to say that the bargainers do not perform a science that mainstream
scientists would recognize as legitimate. I explore the aspects of science that bargainers adopt
and those that they stretch, in a response to modernity and the domination of scientific thought.
Bargainers appeal to theories of scientific revolution, falsification, and repeatability. In these
ways, bargainers do conform to some elements of science and modernity’s standards of
knowledge. In other ways, bargainers stretch them by interpreting their meaning differently than
mainstream scientists, engaging in cherry-picking, and manufacturing controversy. Similar to
how the bargainers accuse other Christians of stretching the Bible, they themselves stretch
science. These characteristics constitute the bargainers’ strategic rhetorical pattern to undermine
mainstream science and to raise Christianity’s standing as part of legitimate scientific inquiry.
Borrowing from science. Ceccarelli (2011) argued that a shared tactic among global
warming and evolution skeptics is “how opposition scientists are recruited” to exploit scientific
standards norms (p. 198). David Michaels calls them “mercenary scientists,” who are hired to
emphasize policy over science and complete a specific agenda (as quoted in Ceccarelli, 2011, p.
197). Even a minority voice that has the veneer of scientific authority can pose a powerful threat
to the public’s understanding of science. Scholars argue that the journalist norm of equal
coverage and unbiased reporting often perpetuates public perceptions of ongoing debates (e.g.,
Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004; Ceccarelli, 2011; Dixon & Clarke, 2012). These groups appeal to
“open-mindedness, freedom of inquiry, and fairness [to] create discursive traps to constrain the
response of mainstream scientists and their allies” (Ceccarelli, 2011, p. 198). Indeed, the
128
bargainers sometimes describe themselves as more scientific than mainstream scientific
institutions because they conform to more perceived scientific standards. Ceccarelli (2011)
argued that those who manufacture scientific controversy paint mainstream science as
“dogmatically unscientific and opposed to democratic values” as a strategy to borrow their
legitimacy while undermining their intended meanings (p. 198). By appealing to the minority of
legitimate scientific voices that agree with them and adopting scientific standards that allow for
alternate viewpoints, bargainers create the conditions for scientific revolution.
In their magazine, Acts & Facts, ICR shares space between religious and scientific
information. Acts & Facts articles vary between scientific articles about new discoveries and also
articles that explain biblical passages, evangelization, and being a “good Christian.” ICR
seamlessly transitions between the two in the same publication. For example, the September
2013 issue includes articles on “Endocrine system evolution” and “Amazing animal eyes” along
with a stewardship article about “Seasonal giving opportunities,” and a personal reflection called,
“Determined to disciple” (Institute for Creation Research, 2013). ICR gives equal space and
recognition to science and evangelization as parts of the Christian identity that are all rooted in
the words of the Bible. The balance within the publication is mirrored in the articles themselves.
ICR’s scientific articles frequently open with statistics and explanations of evidence and end
with a move to a Bible passage or verse. In the same issue, Lisle (2013b) opened his piece about
Venus describing its movements in orbit, surface temperature, and its rotation. After discussing
many scientific features of Venus, the article closes with this paragraph:
From our perspective on Earth, Venus stands out as a pure white light, superior in
splendor and luminance. Venus is mentioned in Scripture as the “morning star,” where its
129
brilliance is used as a symbol for Christ (Revelation 2:28; 22:16)
10
. None of the other
nighttime stars can compete with Venus, so it is a fitting symbol of the beauty and glory
of our Lord. (p. 12)
This shared space in its magazines and within articles reinforces that science and religion
contribute equally and in the same vein to the pursuit of knowledge. However the science plays
out, ICR always returns to the Bible as its concluding message.
This balance between science and religion is echoed in the CEHM, where displays would
give space to both scientific and religious information as equals. The CEHM sends museum-
goers through the creation of the universe, complete with a dark room where the only lights came
from twinkling overhead lights in the shapes of constellations and the backlit displays about
supernova, quasars, planets, and galaxies. The displays showed both scientific information, such
as diagrams and charts about “The Big Bang Theory” along with “Evidence for a Young
Universe.” Here, the big bang is granted “theory” status, while a young universe has hard and
easily observed “evidence.” Another display in the same room had images of the Hertzsprung-
Russell (H-R) diagram, which details the relationship between the temperature and luminosity of
stars. In the explanation of this graph, the description reads, “The Sun has certainly remained as
a faithful ‘main sequence’ star from the beginning. If all stars were made on the fourth day of
creation as the Bible declares (Genesis 1:14-19)
11
, they are all actually the same age.” This
10
Revelation 2:28 – “I will also give that one the morning star.”
Revelation 22:16 – “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the
Offspring of David, and the bright Morning star.”
11
And God said, "Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve
as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the
earth." And it was so. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern
the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, and to govern the
130
quotation combines scripture with a callback to the scientific explanation of a star’s lifetime and
“main sequence” stars from the earlier image explanation. Unlike mainstream science museums,
ICR includes verses from the Bible as additional context and support for scientific information in
its displays. In sharing space in the museum and pages of their magazines, ICR balances science
and religion as equal epistemological counterparts. This presentation materially shows that
science, at least certain parts of it, and religion, belong together. Unlike the displays at AIG’s
Creation Museum, that separate science and religion into separate sections of displays, scientific
and religious information is blended and weighed equally in the same space.
ICR makes frequent reference to the open, academic community that should always be
willing to listen to the opinions of other scientists. ICR (n.d.-a) describes itself as encouraging
“scholarship, investigation, and careful scrutiny of origins concepts” (para. 4). ICR’s scientists
are part of the larger scientific community that search for new knowledge and information
through research and experimentation. Creationists argue that “ruling out dissenting voices on
the evolution question, even religious ones, amounts to viewpoint discrimination” (Pennock,
2003, p. 156), and instead all views, especially creationism, should be included in the debate.
Creationists use terms such as “balanced treatment” (Pennock, 1996) and “teach the controversy”
(Moore, 2000) in order to equate creationism as a legitimate challenge to evolution worthy of
equal consideration. Pennock (2003) argued that these are common tactics of creationists,
because it levels the playing field by acknowledging both scientific and religious ways of
knowing.
day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening
and there was morning, a fourth day.”
131
ICR is part of the dissenting scientific community that is amassing research to shift the
acceptance of evolution in origins science. ICR appeals to its own flexibility and commitment to
research. Christine Dao (2011) argued, “creation science researchers are willing to examine the
data and, if necessary, move on to more interesting and securely justifiable discoveries,” an
action that evolutionists often are not willing to do (para. 7). Thus, ICR better embodies
scientific principles of open-mindedness when the data do not support prior conclusions. Morris
(n.d.) accused evolutionists of being “adamantly committed to anti-creationism,” closed to
debate, and reluctant to hearing alternative explanations (para. 62). Similar to AIG, ICR accuses
evolutionists of being blind to the vast amounts of evidence that undermines evolution theory
and supports creationism. In their blindness and unwillingness to address dissenting scientific
voices, bargainers characterize mainstream scientists as violating their own standards of open
discussion.
ICR also appeals to tenets of falsification and repeatability. ICR (n.d.-a) characterizes its
own research as having “the real facts of science” where other research fails to meet scientific
standards (para. 1). Evolution is characterized as “stories – the counterfeit history of God’s
creation,” and not scientific fact (Johnson, 2012, para. 16). Evolution was also described as
“pseudoscientific” and “humanistic” (Morris, n.d., para. 84, 66). Morris (n.d.) argued, “belief in
evolution is a remarkable phenomenon” because of its “lack of any observable scientific
evidence” (para. 1). ICR often points to the lack of transitional fossils and that no change
between species or “macroevolution” has ever been observed (Morris, n.d., para. 1). Considering
that “the scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication,”
evolution must be “exclude[d] . . . from the domain of true science” (Morris, n.d., para. 6). In
addition to observation, ICR justifies its condemnation of evolution by appealing to science’s
132
inability to recreate origin conditions. An online information page reads, “science cannot
reproduce the catastrophic processes that shaped our planet’s surface,” which has direct
implications for the age of the Earth and the origins of life (Institute for Creation Research, n.d.-
e, para. 1). Estimates of the earth’s age through C-14 dating do “not come from directly
measurable science; they [come] from measurements that scientists interpreted using their
assumptions about the past” (Thomas, 2015a, para. 3). ICR argues that carbon dating produces
(C-14) estimates in the tens of thousands of years “lose reliability the further back in time they
go” and most fossils are actually dated closer to biblical estimates (Thomas, 2015a, para. 8). The
CEHM had an exhibit about C-14 dating posted in a room shaped to look like a mine deep inside
of the Earth. The museum-goer is surrounded by layers of rock and Earth, material evidence of
their existence, while consuming linguistic information about their relative age.
Because scientists cannot look directly into the past, they make estimates based on their
assumptions, which “distances them from objective answers” (Thomas, 2015a, para. 4).
Mainstream science is characterized as subjective while ICR and creationism meet objective
standards. ICR (n.d.-f) contains an accurate dating device, the Bible, which “presents enough
chronological information to estimate the number of years between Adam . . . and Christ” (para.
1). Carbon dating, and other scientific methods involve estimates and guessing, making them as
subjective alternatives to scripture. ICR lauds research and experimentation as legitimate
methodologies to confirm Biblical truth. Hebert (2013) argued that ICR is “confident that
additional testing will only strengthen the case for a biblically consistent age of the earth” (p.
20). Jeffrey Tomkins (2013) argued, “Scientific discovery increasingly exposes [life’s]
complexity, which utterly defies traditional evolutionary dogma” (p. 16). In his description of his
journey “From Atheist to Creationist,” Jerry Bergman (2015) argued that “Darwinism has been
133
falsified on the basis of science” already, with evidence serving as the root of his “acceptance of
Christianity, biblical reliability, and a young-earth creation worldview” (p. 20). Conversion
between atheism, Darwinian evolution, and naturalism is possible with the pursuit of “true”
science and the Bible.
The AI agrees that the open debate in the scientific community is clouded by the
influence of competing beliefs. Beers et al. (n.d.) argued, “We need the very best and
dispassionate environmental science” to guide current actions, implying that current
environmental science is biased (para. 63). The AI accuses environmentalists and leftists of
having misconstrued scientific inquiry into climate change and having “undermined the quality
of debate over both science and public policy” (Beisner et al., n.d., para. 75). The AI and ICR
share an appeal to the openness of debate that provides them equal footing in scientific spaces, a
postmodern characteristic. Ceccarelli (2011) noted that “the purpose of the manufactured
scientific controversy is to preclude the resolution of an issue in government action,” thereby
halting forward progress (p. 196). This strategy helps the bargainers claim time, attention, and
space to advocate uncertainty and halt progressive environmental action. The AI uses scientific
standards of open debate to continue conversations and propose that issues of climate change and
the environment are still matters of unresolved scientific inquiry.
The AI is confident that future science will confirm their conclusions. Beisner et al. (n.d.)
described the environmental assumption “that as people grow in numbers, wealth, and
technology, the environment is always negatively affected . . . is falsified by hard empirical data”
(para. 38). The AI argues that “highly speculative computer climate models drove the great fears
of global warming,” with actual measurements undercutting estimates of carbon dioxide and
warming (Beisner et al., n.d., para. 60). Beers et al. (n.d.) added that “technologies will continue
134
to provide ways to solve many other problems we currently face” (para. 60). The AI appeals to
the idea of Energy Darwinism
12
, where further innovation will encourage adaptation and richer
solutions to environmental problems without a need for regulation and government intervention.
Beers et al. (n.d.) noted that businesses “have a market incentive in developing innovations
favorable to the environment, such as new technologies that replace older, dirtier, and less
efficient technologies” (para. 68). In the struggle to remain competitive and efficient, businesses
will in a sense regulate themselves through exploring new technologies. Beers et al. (n.d.) further
noted, “human societies require greater development and more innovation, not less,” so
investment in new technologies should be encouraged (para. 60). An investment in these new
technologies confirms the AI’s beliefs that “democracy and markets . . . are the best mechanisms
for the responsible handling of the environment” (Beers et al., n.d., para. 61). By supporting
Energy Darwinism and encouraging reliance on the market, the AI shifts focus away from
regulatory policies and onto free markets as environmental solutions.
The AI also shifts focus away from prioritizing the environment and to focusing on “the
most pressing areas” of Christian concern such as helping the poor, controlling disease, and
improving trade (Ballor, 2006, para. 12). The AI cautions against hasty action, because of a lack
of information and consensus on the proper response to existing information. An AI brief
concluded that “policy makers should be very slow to base their decisions on model predictions”
(Beisner et al., n.d., para. 62). In addition, Beers et al. (n.d.) argued, “we must proceed with great
12
Energy Darwinism (ED) applies Darwin’s theories of natural selection and adaptation to one’s environment to
businesses and companies. ED proposes that businesses will naturally adopt more eco-friendly and energy efficient
policies to adapt to a decreasing supply of cheap energy. Belief in ED often leads to a lack of support for
government regulation, which would be repetitive. For further explanation, see Parkinson (2014)’s discussion of
Citi Group’s “Energy Darwinism” report.
135
caution and prudence” in making “real environmental decisions” (para. 67). The AI encourages
further research and modeling before drastic action is taken to protect the environment. Due to
“the highly uncertain nature of both the theory and the evidence of global warming,” the AI
proposes “to delay action . . . until the matter is much better understood” (Beisner et al., n.d.,
para. 74). The AI perpetuates a focus on whether or not anthropogenic climate change is
happening by positioning itself as a dissenting scientific institution with opposing evidence. If
the science is still undecided, the AI poses a powerful argument for more research. This is only
true, however, if they are persuasive in their claim of being a scientific institution with economic
expertise.
ICR shares many similarities with AI’s position on the environment and argues, “The
hysteria surrounding climate change is a good example of the harm produced by an unbiblical
worldview” (Hebert, 2016, para. 11). Hebert (2016) argued that “climate panic is often tied to an
unbiblical worldview” (para. 9, emphasis added). ICR scientists characterize climate activists as
starting alarm and panic while denying “the greatest climate change event in history,” Noah’s
Flood (Hebert, 2016, para. 9). ICR further argues that mainstream science often overlooks sound
scientific evidence of “warm and cold periods” in the earth’s history, which better explain
current warming patterns (Vardiman, 2008, para. 8). ICR explicitly connects their beliefs in a
young Earth with climate change, arguing that the effects of global warming “must be much less
if one accepts a young earth” than an evolutionary time scale (Vardiman, 2008, para. 7). ICR’s
position on global warming and endings is thus linked to its conceptualization of earth’s origins
and age of the earth. ICR agrees with the AI that only God is powerful enough to affect the
136
weather and has “promised us a relatively stable climate
13
,” making the environmental
movement an exaggeration at best and “full-blown paganism” at worst (Hebert, 2016, para. 9,
10). In order to undermine environmental science and climatology, ICR uses many of the same
discursive patterns and rhetorical strategies of stretching science. Vardiman (2008) argued,
“Major weaknesses have developed in the logic that carbon dioxide causes global warming”
(para. 1). Recent issues of Acts & Facts have devoted many articles to the biblical implications
of climate change and the “increasing number of evangelical Christians” getting involved in
environmental activism (Hebert, 2016, para. 1).
To give voice to its interpretations of origins, “ICR actively participates in conferences,
seminars, and other events to communicate the scientific evidence that shows the authority and
accuracy of Scripture” (p. 18). Part of this authority comes from ICR’s museum, the CEHM,
which takes on the appearance of a scientific institution to confer status on scientific and
religious evidence for creationism. At the CEHM, ICR presents a series of rooms filled with
information and immersive environments that borrow from scientific museum exhibits and
presentational tools. Museum-goers were privy to a physical journey through the 6 days of the
creation story and important biblical events such as Noah’s Flood and the Tower of Babel. Live
animals served as stand-ins for the creatures that were created on Day Six in the Genesis story.
Museum-goers could look at a scale model of Noah’s Ark and follow the math for how such a
vessel could hold 50,000 animals and still float. This room was filled with straw, the walls were
wooden and protruded from the physical structure, and painted waves lapped the top of the
ceiling – we were in the Ark, subject to Noah’s ship-building skill to survive. Museum-goers
13
Genesis 8:22 – As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and
night will never cease.
137
shared this space with a hip-high figurine of a small triceratops in a cage, as well as a painting on
the wall with more animals, serving as physical and visual evidence of how much space each
animal might have needed. The CEHM also gives biblical events such as Noah’s Flood and the
Tower of Babel, equal weight with historical events such as Egyptian hieroglyphics, Roman
society, Greek architecture, the Ice Age, and the formation of the Grand Canyon, which all
engage museum-goers in immersive spaces.
ICR and the AI adopt some facets of science, such as its methodologies, standards, and
reasoning. Indeed, the bargainers use scientific standards of open conversation and respecting
minority views as an inroads into validating themselves scientifically. Bargainers see themselves
as being the valid scientific and economic authority that will eventually overthrow current
scientific orthodoxy. Science is a tool that bargainers can use to provide legitimacy to their
narrative without adopting its conclusions, but they do not agree wholeheartedly with science’s
conclusions. Instead of adopting mainstream science completely, bargainers stretch science’s
definitions, conclusions, and implications to meet preexisting standards of religious adherence.
Although a part of science, bargainers portray themselves dissenting, minority opinions that seek
to overthrow the current scientific order.
Modifying science. In borrowing from science, ICR and the AI do not accept science
holistically and completely. The borrowing and bargaining process tempers and modifies
science, its definition, and its methodologies. To overthrow the current order, bargainers offer
alternative explanations and ways to incorporate science into their discourse. I have already
discussed how bargainers appeal to current scientific standards, such as open debate, scientific
methodologies, and the search for additional knowledge. But, these appeals are also implemented
138
with an intentional distortion and interpretation of science to support their specific ideals. Both
ICR and the AI redefine and modify scientific standards so their actions and beliefs can fit within
those definitions.
ICR and the AI redefine science as a method of inquiry that is rooted in scripture and thus
cannot conflict with creationism. Mainstream science that supports evolution as an explanation
of life cannot be called real science. ICR and the AI consider themselves scientific institutions
and stewardship institutions and distinguish themselves from competing scientific groups.
Bargainers are unique in their response to science by altering some definitions and aspects of
scientific inquiry to make room for biblical interpretation. Analyzing definitions or terminologies
is integral in understanding a discourse’s motivations. Similar to how ICR redefines what gets to
count as “science,” The AI redefines what stewardship means through their selection and
emphasis of certain biblical verses. Beisner et al. (2015) argued that the AI engages in “proper
environmental stewardship,” defined as putting “human needs above non-human needs when the
two are in conflict” (para. 7). Unlike the harmonizers, who are accused of equalizing the value of
all life, the AI follows a strict hierarchy of stewardship. In the Bible, “God gave men and women
superiority and priority over all other earthly creatures,” and with that superiority the right to
dominion over nature (Beisner et al., 2015, para. 7). ICR (n.d.-b) agrees with this hierarchy and
notes that people are required to “subdue the earth” as part of the “Edenic-Noahic Commission”
that places humans above all animals and the earth (para. 13). The “Great Commission,” which
both groups define as a call to evangelize, the Edenic-Noahic Commission are sacred callings
from God.
ICR sometimes engages in the logical fallacies of false dichotomy and argument from
ignorance. Pennock (2013) argued that the tactic of false dichotomy is common among
139
creationists, who argue that evidence against evolution is positive evidence for creationism. In
near verbatim of the logical fallacy, Morris (n.d.) wrote, “negative evidences against evolution
are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation” (para. 33). ICR argues that
when evolution falters as an explanation, creationism’s case is automatically bolstered. Thomas
(2009) argued, “if life could not have evolved, it must have been created” (para. 10). These
rhetorical moves shift the burden of proof onto science not only to argue that evolution is true,
but also to deny that creationism is not a viable alternative. When evidence emerges that appears
to contradict current evolutionary thought or calls for a reconsideration of evolutionary
mechanisms, creationist groups, such as ICR, extrapolate that the entirety of evolutionary theory
is flawed. This is sometimes called the fallacy of composition or the synecdochic fallacy, where
characteristics of a part is applied to the whole. ICR advocates that a lack of transitional forms
and repeatability in evolutionary theory is evidence for its specific brand of the Christian creation
story (Morris, n.d.). ICR also concludes that because mainstream science cannot currently
answer all questions about origins, they are incapable of ever doing so. These arguments from
ignorance include Morris’s (n.d.) statement, “there is no known way by which life could have
arisen naturalistically” (para. 16). He thus concluded that evolution “is not a fact of science” and
that evolutionary theory can never explain life’s origins (Morris, n.d., para. 32). ICR does not
consider alternatives, such as other creation stories or other mechanisms besides evolution, but
constructs creationism and evolution as either/or binaries. This construction echoes the factional
nature of tragedies, where one side is right and the other is wrong. There is no room for
compromise or transcendence between the different factions when guilt is so easily assigned.
ICR often relies on countering specific articles instead of larger evolutionary or
environmental theories. For example, in the previously mentioned Big Bang article, Thomas
140
(2015b) cites five scientific articles published in 2015 that question naturalistic cosmology. Of
the five, Thomas (2015b) wrote one of them himself in another issue of Acts & Facts. Three of
them were written by his colleague, Jake Hebert, an ICR writer also cited in this inquiry. The
fifth article is from a reputable scientific news source, Discovery News, an offshoot of the
Discovery Channel, which summarizes an article from the Royal Astronomical Society. In the
Discovery News article, Ian O’Neill (2015) emphasized the discovery of gamma ray structures as
making us rethink what we know about the cosmological principle, or the expectation that matter
in the universe is organized consistently. Thomas (2015b) dutifully cited O’Neill’s speculations
on the implications of new cosmology as challenging previous assumptions. He concluded that
the Big Bang Theory and all of mainstream science is being questioned by these new discoveries.
What Thomas (2015b) left out of his interpretation of O’Neill’s article, however, is that scientists
are also finding structures in space that are much older than previous estimates, some being “an
unprecedented 5 billion light-years across” (O’Neill, 2015, para. 7). O’Neill and the original
article provide support for the old age of the universe and do not mention any theoretical changes
to the Big Bang. Thomas (2015b) interpreted the quotation about this discovery expanding
current conceptions of the cosmological principle as upending the entirety of the Big Bang
theory. This article is representative of ICR’s tactic to exaggerate quotations from scientific
articles that change, adapt, or expand current scientific theories as evidence of complete
inaccuracy.
The AI creates strict definitions of stewardship and environmental advocacy. The AI
argues, “we desperately need an authentic democratic deliberation on the environment” before
any “real environmental decisions” can be made (Beers et al., n.d., para. 67, emphasis added).
Beers et al. (n.d.) implied that authentic democratic deliberation has not yet occurred, but the AI
141
is the group that can provide it. Current conversations fall short of the AI’s standard of “sound
environmental stewardship” that is “wiser and more biblical than that of mainstream
environmentalism” (Beisner et al., n.d., para. 4). Placing mainstream environmentalism in
opposition to the AI’s work implies that mainstream science is unsound in its position towards
the environment. Correct environmental actions must be “biblically sound” (Beisner et al., n.d.,
para. 11). An action is biblically sound when it matches the teachings of scripture and resonates
with predetermined Christian values. The idea of “soundness” was repeated in the AI’s focus on
environment: the AI’s work was described as “sound science rooted in a value structure that
emphasizes honesty and openness to debate and evidence” (Beisner et al., n.d., para. 75). The AI
accuses environmentalists as having “derided the motives of scientists and others who questioned
that conclusion [of scientific consensus]” (Beisner et al., n.d., para. 75). Indeed, the AI advocates
that “the science of climate change is not decided” (Snow, 2015, para. 14). By using vocabulary
such as “sound” and “unsound,” the AI evokes ideas of unsteady and fragmented foundations
upon which current environmental science stands. Any actions must meet the standards of sound
religion and science, both as defined by the AI. The AI undermines the current understanding of
climate science by reinterpreting whether mainstream science is sound science at all.
ICR engages in other examples of stretching science by cherry-picking evidence and
experts. For example, Humphreys (2005) wrote an article outlining 14 reasons to support a
young earth. The article included many citations from a variety of publications. Of the 31 articles
cited, 12 articles are from other issues of Acts & Facts or from the proceedings of ICR’s
conferences. Of the 19 other articles from scientific publications, 14 of were published more than
10 years before the article publication date, including seven articles from the 1970s and the
oldest from 1960 (more than 40 years out of date). The quality of these articles is not in question.
142
The publication dates are important, however, to show that ICR may not be participating in
cutting edge science with the most accurate information available, if they have to go back
decades in recognized scientific publications to find quotations from articles that support their
arguments. Furthermore, these quotations are oftentimes taken out of context or do not
accurately represent the intention of the article. For example, Humphreys (2005) cited a 1995
article from Nature which described the unexpected and currently unexplainable rapid de-
magnetization of the Earth’s magnetic field. After this attention-grabbing introduction, the
authors propose six, as-yet unconfirmed but possible, hypotheses that could explain the rapid de-
magnetization without appealing to faith (Coe, Prévot, & Camps, 1995). Humphreys (2005),
however, used the phrasing of the unexplained de-magnetization to indicate science’s
incompetence in providing knowledge about magnetization.
The AI also engages in cherry-picking, specifically of experts. Cherry-picking is a
technique that isolates the few experts in the minority of the scientific community that agree with
a particular opinion, against accepted mainstream conclusions. Cherry-picking, then, subverts
traditional understandings of authority as validated and supported by a larger, expert community.
Instead, the experts that the AI pull on are credited and have expertise, but challenge commonly
accepted knowledge. For example, the AI frequently cites Roy Spencer, “senior scientist at
NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center” and known climate change skeptic (Beisner et al., n.d.,
para. 60). Spencer is a legitimate scientist, but is also member of a slim minority of practicing
scientists that still doubt anthropogenic global warming. The AI provides scientific legitimacy
for its claim through appealing to the margins, such as Spencer. The AI commonly referred to
their “Global Warming Petition” that has been signed by “more than 17,000 basic and applied
American scientists” (Beisner at al., n.d., para. 81). The AI strategically uses the raw number of
143
signatories rather than discussing the percentage to increase the appearance of dissent. Nearly
20,000 scientists sounds like a fair number of dissenters, but this number must be compared to
the oft reported 97%-98% of all scientists who support anthropogenic climate change (e.g.,
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Bray, 2010; Cook et al., 2013; Doran &
Zimmerman, 2009). NASA lists the current American scientific societies and institutions that
collectively have made statements endorsing anthropogenic climate change, including the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society,
the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(Shaftel, Jackson, & Tenenbaum, 2015). In cherry-picking experts, the AI firmly sets itself in the
minority of scientists with comparatively little support in the scientific communities for its
conclusions. This strategy lends the AI some credibility, because they can claim the legitimacy
of some active climate scientists. This strategy’s success may be limited in scope, however,
when the AI is compared to the larger and more widely recognized scientific bodies.
ICR and the AI participate in borrowing and stretching, processes through which they
negotiate the meaning, definitions, and standards of scientific inquiry. In adopting some of the
standards wholeheartedly and altering others, bargainers make a concerted effort to be a part of a
scientific institution that they wish to revolutionize from the inside. Instead of warring against
science and attacking it from the outside, the bargainers work hard to establish themselves as
legitimate, but competing, scientific enterprises. In defining themselves as part of “science,” the
bargainers work to equate evolution and environmentalism with unsound, poorly supported, and
potentially harmful science. The bargainers thus create factions and competing perspectives
under the umbrella of science. Bargainers take a tragicomic approach to other scientific and
Christian institutions by which they use the language of comedy and discussion, but employ
144
tragic tactics of creating factions and encouraging sacrifice. In the bargainers’ narratives, they
have achieved true science through the influences of the Bible.
Competing Argument Grounds
The differing conclusions between bargainers and mainstream science can be attributed,
in part, to their argumentative grounds. Similar to separators, bargainers start with the Bible to
make their arguments about reality. Unlike separators, bargainers attempt to make scientific
claims using a biblical starting point. The Bible is an argumentative resource that the bargainers
use to support their foray into scientific spaces. Both ICR and the AI propose their own
alternative, scientific narratives to explain human origins and climate change that challenge
traditional, mainstream conclusions. These opinions are informed explicitly and completely by
biblical literalism. Any scientific conclusions that do not align with the Bible must be regarded
as faulty or inaccurate. Indeed, alignment with the Bible is the only guarantee of accuracy.
Bargainers appeal to tenets of science and scientific warrants in their arguments, but alter
standards of evidence and arguments grounds by starting with the Bible and using its weight as
equal to other scientific resources. This strategy gives the bargainers the veneer of scientific
legitimacy while ensuring that their research will support biblical principles.
Institute for Creation Research. ICR (n.d.-d) argues that “all origins research must
begin with a premise,” so evolutionary science itself comes from a particular worldview that
eschews religious ideas, which is thus no different from their religious premise (para. 2). ICR
(n.d.-b) starts with the Bible as the foundation for its core principles, so “all theories of origins or
145
development that [contradict the Bible] in any form are false” (para. 12). The Bible provides
grounds, in addition to scientific ones, from which to argue. Vernon Cupps (2014) summarized
ICR’s views succinctly: “science should be viewed through the window of the Bible rather than
the Bible interpreted through the window of science” (para. 5). The latter form of hermeneutics
is characteristic of the harmonizers and here is placed in stark contrast to the bargainers. For
example, in the CEHM, the very first display on the museum tour proposes three questions:
“What is the meaning of life?”, “Where did I come from?”, and “What happens after I die?”
Museum-goers are primed to be thinking of biblical and philosophical questions as they explore
the rest of the museum’s evidence for creationism. Those questions, that define one’s worldview,
are provided as the appropriate frame from which to view the creation story and the resulting
position of the museum-goer within the narrative, instead of traditional information-gathering
from scientific museums.
ICR characterizes evolutionary discourse as ignoring these important questions and
instead deriving its truth from materialism and naturalism. Randy Guliuzza (2015) argued that
evolutionists are susceptible to “interpretive blunders” in order to maintain compliance with their
naturalism (para. 11). Evolutionists have a “theory-driven need to envision nonexistent things” to
validate their worldview from current evidence (Guliuzza, 2015, para. 25). Guliuzza (2015)
further argued that evolutionists “see what they want to see; they see a past they believe has
happened, and that desire drives their vision” (para. 26). ICR believes that no scientists interpret
evidence without a bias or starting point. Materialism and atheism are the foundations of
evolution, which discounts supernatural and divine influences. Jeffrey Tomkins (2013) argued
that “scientists who possess an evolutionary mindset are always viewing the genome as the
146
product of chance random processes” (p. 9). Evolutionary scientists are thus biased against
understanding or “seeing” evidence for creationism in their work.
With an orientation that is anti-supernatural or anti-religious, evolutionary scientists
construct a terministic screen that excludes creationism as a viable option (Burke, 1966b). For
Burke (1966b), a terministic screen “directs the attention into some channels rather than others”
(p. 45). Placing attention on naturalism over supernaturalism, for example, closes people to
understanding other interpretations and rhetorically functions as a “deflection” some aspects of
reality (Burke, 1969, p. 59). ICR argues that scientists who close themselves to the possibility of
God fail to explore all possibilities simply because their biases prevent them; they deflect
religious possibilities in favor of their own materialism. While on my site visit to the CEHM, I
observed a tour guide describing the biases of mainstream scientists. A chaperone of one of the
children on the tour asked the guide why scientists overlook the overwhelming evidence for
creationism. The guide responded, “It’s the way [scientists] think, so when they see something
that goes against their point of view, they think, ‘well, this can’t be.’” The tour guide used
mainstream scientists’ perspective and bias towards their particular worldview as evidence for
their ignoring of creationist-friendly evidence.
Although the group recognizes the bias within mainstream scientists, ICR does not
consider its own Christian starting point a bias that unduly affects its science. In fact, true science
can only be done from within a Christian framework. ICR often refers to the biblical
underpinnings of the Enlightenment and contemporary scientific thinkers. Morris (2008) argued,
“One of the most serious fallacies of modern thought is the widespread notion that biblical
Christianity is in conflict with true science” (para. 1). ICR’s particular brand of science is
compatible with Christianity and does not conflict. ICR points to the Bible as the birth place of
147
modern science and argues that “the development of science and technology was specifically
commissioned in God’s primeval mandate to Adam and Eve” (Morris, 2008, para. 3). In spite of
the unity created in their appeals to the scientific process, ICR sees contemporary science as
abandoning its religious roots and thus forgoing its divine connection to the pursuit of
knowledge.
ICR also points to the fact that the universe is ordered and consistent, which enables
science to have reliable measures. David Coppedge (2009) argued, “For science to succeed, it
needs a philosophical anchor for the belief that the world is rational and can be understood,” and
the Bible “provides that anchor” (para. 6). Because ICR attributes these characteristics to God,
God is ultimately responsible for the performance off science. Cupps (2014) agreed stating, “in
order to do science, one must assume that the universe is orderly, stable, and rational, but this
assumption does not make any sense in a pagan or evolutionary worldview” (para. 4). It is only
through a supernatural order with a divine Creator that scientists can rely on an ordered universe.
Lisle (2014) suggested that even “peer review is a Christian principle” because Christianity
teaches that “God alone is above criticism” (para. 5, 8). ICR thus posits the Bible and
Christianity as the foundation for all of science in addition to their own creationist beliefs. For
science to start at any other underlying assumption is to eschew the basics of reliability,
consistency, and order.
ICR often accuses scientists of practicing material bias, which unduly influences the
science they are able to do. Evolutionary scientists are “limited to natural phenomena and human
interplay” which are “unsatisfactory” explanations of life (Morris III, 2012, para. 15). All of
science’s conclusions, therefore, stem from this flawed underlying assumption (Cupps, 2014).
Jeanson (2014) argued that scientists have long accepted Darwin’s theories based on faith
148
without having “direct evidence” (para. 1). Mainstream scientists are influenced by Darwin’s
theories of human origins, but also theories of the universe’s origins. For example, Cupps (2014)
argued that some physicists credit quantum fluctuations with the emergence of the first particles.
Hebert (2012) argued that these contemporary theories are “based upon an interpretation of the
data through the filter of the Big Bang model” (para. 10, emphasis in original). ICR accuses
mainstream scientists of having “an a priori commitment to the Big Bang,” so their science
always results in confirmation of naturalistic origins (Hebert, 2012, para. 10). Cupps (2014)
called these assertions “philosophical speculation” but not “scientific fact” (para. 9, emphasis in
original). Science is “verifiable or falsifiable” and should not express a “stubborn dependence on
naturalism alone” (Cupps, 2014, para. 11). In a recent article about the homo naledi skeleton,
Tim Clarey (2015) questioned how scientists assembled the many bones discovered. He
wondered, “Did they use the imaginings of their expectations . . . to put the pieces together?”
(Clarey, 2015, para. 5). ICR calls scientist’s ideas “preconceived” in instances where evolution is
assumed to be true when analyzing new data and discoveries (Thomas, 2013a, p. 17).
ICR characterizes atheistic scientists as unfairly excluding certain interpretations and
explanations from mainstream science. ICR also accuses climate scientists of this materialist
bias. Thomas (2013b) wondered:
How can so many intelligent scientists with access to the same data come to such
different conclusions? Perhaps their climate prediction models rely more on what they
wish to include rather than acknowledging that their best efforts are up against designs
that transcend human understanding. (para. 9, emphasis in original)
ICR emphasizes that evolutionary thought does not come from the Bible, but instead comes from
the musings, imaginations, and wishes of scientists to conform to their preconceived ideas. In the
149
CEHM, there was an interactive display that encouraged children to stick their hand into a
picture of a human and a monkey. Through the use of a series of mirrors, the children (and one
researcher) could not touch the image, and one’s hand passed harmlessly through the reflection.
The display’s panel noted, “The evolution from man from an ape-like primate is nothing more
than an illusion created from man’s imagination,” that cannot actually be reached or confirmed.
ICR places mainstream scientific knowledge and the Bible in opposition to one another.
Whereas the separators see this opposition as belligerent, the bargainers create a ranked, ordered
system that lauds religion over science. Morris III (2012) characterized belief in evolution or the
accommodation of evolutionary thinking as “the elevation of man’s ‘discoveries’ over and above
the words of God,” inverting ICR’s preferred hierarchy (para. 19). In juxtaposing science and
Christianity as competing origin points that sometimes disagree, the bargainers ask where the
ultimate authority lies: “The Bible or science? The Author of the Bible or the experts in
science?” (Morris III, 2013, para. 14). Where people place this authority indicates whether
science or the Bible will serve as the standard for argument grounds.
In the CEHM, there was a hallway titled “Scientists with Opposing Convictions” that had
pictures of famous scientists and leaders lining opposing walls. All of the people posted on the
walls were considered part of science, although they disagreed fundamentally on the role of faith
in the performance of science. The right side of the hallway featured “Evolutionists” and the left
side of the hallway featured” Creationists,” all of whom were scientists, politicians, and
philosophers. On the “Evolutionist” side were people such as Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.
Charles Darwin’s panel argued that although his book was titled, The Origin of Species, the book
“contained numerous speculative evolutionary [stories], but not a single real example of the
origin of a new species.” Karl Marx’s panel was no less unkind, noting that Marx “became an
150
atheist and (according to some) a Satanist” who attributed Darwin with inspiring “the scientific
foundation for Communism.” The “Evolutionist” thinkers are positioned by their descriptive
panels and located in physical space as oppositional to the “Creationist,” and thus Christian,
thinkers such as the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and Carl Linnaeus. All of the
thinkers presented as associated with scientific thought, but they are positioned to create a choice
between factions within the scientific community. By the time a museum-goer reaches this last
hallway before the exit of the museum exhibits, it is clear which side should be considered the
“true” scientists.
The Acton Institute. The AI also defines scientific, economic, and environmental
understanding as resting on biblical principles. Beisner et al. (n.d.) argued that environmental
policies should be based on “scientific understanding built on a biblical worldview” (para. 43).
The Bible serves as the foundation from where science emerges. Without that foundation,
science is unrooted and inaccurate. Beers et al. (n.d.) echoed the language of construction in
arguing that “an environmental ethic . . . rests firmly upon the foundation of both sound
reasoning and divine revelation” (para. 5). The construction metaphors are echoed in the Bible,
which frequently makes reference to the importance of foundations in creating the Church. For
example, 1 Corinthians 3:11 reads, “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is
laid, which is Jesus Christ.” The AI shares this commitment to Christianity as a starting point
from which they build their environmental arguments. A strong foundation is important because
151
a structure built atop it can withstand rain, floods, winds, and other challenges and not fall
(Matthew 7:24-25
14
).
The AI’s arguments are built on the foundation of economic freedom, God’s decision-
making abilities, and the inerrancy of the Bible. The AI lauds economics, in particular, as being
an integral aspect of biblical interpretation: “Economic activity [is] an extension of God’s own
wisdom for how man is to relate to his physical surroundings” (Beers et al., n.d., para. 68). A
biblical approach to the environment thus cannot be separated from “the freedom and
responsiveness of markets” that allow for scientific research (Beers et al., n.d., para. 68). Other
environmental and Christian arguments are compared to this foundation. The AI’s work is rooted
in the Bible, which contains theological guidance for “all environmental questions” (Beers et al.,
n.d., para. 2). To stray from this resource is to succumb to the “insufficiency of human reason” as
a subpar substitute, and reorder the hierarchy of accuracy and truth (Beers et al., n.d., para. 3).
The AI makes frequent reference to origins and starting points in outlining their
environmental arguments. Ballor (2006) argued that the terms economics and stewardship come
from a “shared biblical origin” which should encourage people to “see them as united” (para. 7,
para. 8). They are partners in environmental activism because they are linked etymologically. In
further use of the term origin, Beers et al. (n.d.) argued that the AI’s work “derives its
authenticity from its origin, which is Christ himself” (para. 1). The AI is guided by literal
interpretations of verses such as Genesis 2:15
15
. The Bible is an “indispensable point of
14
Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who build his
house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it
did not fall, because it had its foundation of the rock.
15
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
152
departure” from which “deeper understanding of the created order . . . [and] humanity’s value
and place in that created order” (Beers et al., n.d., para 2). The Bible is a foundation, origin, and
argumentative start point that guides all subsequent thought and reasoning.
In talking about beginnings, the AI links them to endings. Beers et al. (n.d.) noted, “Time
is not static or circular. We move through a history that had a beginning and will have an end”
(para. 20). The AI appears to understand the potential apocalyptic implications of environmental
degradation and that “the entire universe progresses along a linear trajectory that moves us closer
and closer to some final end” (Beers et al., n.d., para. 20). Although the AI does not make formal
statements about origins, the group does note that “Scripture tells us that God, through his word,
first created time and space, and then proceeded to make creatures to rule over these realms,”
citing Bible verses in what appears to be an interpretation in line with the separators and ICR’s
young Earth and six days of Genesis (Beers et al., n.d., para. 22). The literal interpretations of
God’s creation is the AI’s foundation for justifying its environmental policies. It naturally
follows that the AI may take a similarly literal interpretation of the rest of the creation story.
The AI acknowledges that there is a “radical differences between a worldview informed
by revelation and one that is not” (Beers et al., n.d., para. 5). Creation care groups such as the
EEN are condemned as falling victim to the environmental agenda “that stands in contradiction
to the Church’s doctrine of God and creation,” because it does not start with the same, literal
Biblical interpretation (Beers et al., n.d., para. 5). The AI accuses these groups, who laud
environmental activism, as betraying their Christian origin and the Bible’s teachings. The
environmental worldview should not be completely abandoned, however. The AI argues that
contemporary environmental policy should “take into account everything that the sciences . . .
are able to tell us about our world” (Beers et al., n.d., para. 56). The information that science
153
provides is only valid if it “integrate[s]” with a biblical interpretation and can be stretched to
match “the normative principles of the moral order” (Beers et al., n.d., para. 56).
Not only does the AI start with the Bible, but it starts also with humanity as the “summit
of God’s creation” (Beers et al., n.d., para. 11). The AI accuses environmentalists and creation
care members of distorting God’s order by raising animals and plant life to the level of humans.
When God created reality, He created humans in His image, making us “consequentially
privileged in our ability to take what God has created and make new things” and “in governance
over his creation (Beers et al., n.d., para. 11, para. 12). Beers et al. (n.d) summarized the AI’s
hierarchy: “where tradeoffs are necessary, human needs must always be given priority” (para.
38). To ignore this teaching “constitutes an offense against God’s original plan for creation” and
abandons “an ordered hierarchy of being” provided to humans by God (Beers et al., n.d, para. 16,
para. 17). Christian and secular environmentalists pervert this order and laud animals and plants
as equal to, or perhaps more important than, human life. Beers et al. (n.d.) argued that some
people “mak[e] idols of nature or creatures that, in doing so, exalts them above our primary
duties toward God” (para. 80). In this way, environmentalists are members of a faith “who
worship the created, but not the creator” (Snow, 2015, para. 5). This perspective is “wrong-
headed and dangerous,” because it goes against God’s intentions and leaves nature “untamed”
(Beers et al., n.d., para. 45). Furthermore, this perspective devalues human life as “a drain on
resources” (Beers et al., n.d., para. 50). The AI does value the environment, but not at the cost of
human life or going against God’s orders.
ICR and the AI share the same argumentative starting point and offer the Bible as
sufficient grounds from which arguments about human origins and the environment should be
made. Their frameworks are rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible as the creator of
154
humanity, the environment, and all of reality. The Bible provides a starting point from which all
of the bargainers’ conclusions are based. Alignment between the Bible and science is the
bargainers’ standard for what counts as “real” science. Science that contradicts a creationist
narrative or questions free market economics goes against the bargainers’ interpretations of the
Bible. To argue from a different starting point is to abandon the Bible and choose a competing
authority.
ICR and the AI alter their definitions of appropriate scientific integrity and policy
endorsement through their biblical foundation. The link between Christian groups and their
biblical starting point may seem tautological. I belabor the point, however, to set up a contrast
between this approach to science and the ensuing discussion of the harmonizers. The
harmonizers also claim to be Christian literalists, but do not start with the Bible. Instead, the
harmonizers are guilty of what Cupps (2014) described as using science to lead one’s
interpretation of the Bible. It is important to note how this process is different from separators
and bargainers. The separators and the bargainers start with the Bible, but bargainers attempt to
use scientific reasoning and the appearance of scientific conclusions. The bargainers substitute
their own scientific evidence and the Bible to create competing grounds, while the separators
create wholly religious arguments. These characteristics, when broken down into their nuances,
create clear differences between the rhetorical patterns of the separators, bargainers, and
harmonizers.
155
Conclusion
ICR and the AI share specific rhetorical patterns in which they stretch scientific standards
and elements of modernity to support Christianity. As bargainers, they appeal to open debate and
view themselves as revolutionists hoping to alter science’s mainstream understanding of origins
and the environment. Bargainers engage in a tragicomic frame which blends a belief that
mainstream science will eventually correct their misconceptions with a reliance on a factional
and sacrificial view of mainstream science. ICR publishes scientific articles and enters the
scientific debate in hopes of legitimizing religious explanations of origins. The AI challenges
environmentally-focused science as the sole influence on policies and offers economics as a
competing resource. Both groups use science as a tool to support their conclusions that are rooted
in the Bible. While the separators eschew science and make enemies of scientific institutions, the
bargainers shield themselves under the guise of science in order to alter orthodoxy from the
inside. Instead of being enemies in a war, bargainers consider themselves fellow scientific
institutions, even if they are dissenting, minority ones. In their minority position, they appeal to
the few others who share their opinion against the Goliath of other scientific groups. By placing
themselves in the scientific community, bargainers pose a legitimate challenge to evolution and
environmentalism. This discursive strategy enables the bargainers to support their hermeneutics
with a particular brand of science.
Members of the scientific community participate in open debate with other scientists,
even when they disagree. Competing scientists are not evil, but have come to different
conclusions based on their starting points and reliance on materialism, atheism, and modernity.
The bargainers start with the Bible and propose that their methods of inquiry and biblical
156
evidence provide additional knowledge to existing scientific research. In claiming to be members
of the scientific community, bargainers manufacture controversy by giving the appearance that
science is unresolved about settled scientific facts (Ceccarelli, 2011). ICR members bargain with
scientific standards in order to challenge evolution by proposing (scientific) creationism as a
valid alternative. Similarly, the AI undermines environmental policies by favoring economic
policies as a better marker of appropriate stewardship. Both ICR and the AI engage in strategies
to halt forward progress on public understanding of mainstream science and public policy.
Bargainers have discursive similarities with the separators and the harmonizers, making
them a sort of middle ground among new denominations. But, they uniquely portray skepticism
of modern science within a tragicomic narrative. The bargainers have, arguably, the most
difficult and nuanced discursive task. In committing to bargaining with science, ICR and the AI
must make specific and justified choices about what counts as science and what does not.
Bargainers try to use both science and religion as postmodern supports for their traditional
Christian values and beliefs. Bargainers do not fully isolate themselves from science nor
completely harmonize with it. They must simultaneously allow for the existence of competing
scientific, materialist, and atheist worldviews and argue for the legitimacy of their own.
Bargainers achieve this balance by bolstering their minority position to a valid part of the
scientific community and promoting continued discussion, or at least the appearance of it, in the
technical sphere. As a coping mechanism against the rise of science, bargainers create an
organizing framework that minimizes science’s legitimate challenges to their Christian loyalties.
Burke (1984) argued, “As a given historical frame nears the point of cracking, strained by the
rise of new factors it had not originally taken into account, its adherents employ its genius
casuistically to extend it as far as possible” (p. 23). Bargainers appear to have stretched science
157
near the point of becoming something wholly unscientific. Instead of stretching Christian
doctrine and hermeneutics, as we will see the harmonizers do, the bargainers undergo great
epistemic stretching and “considerable enterprise” to make room for Christianity in the reigning
scientific orthodoxy (Burke, 1984, p. 184).
158
Chapter Four
Harmonizers and the Unity between Science and Religion
The key difference between bargainers and harmonizers is the extent to which they
incorporate science as a tool and guiding influence. For bargainers, only some aspects of
mainstream scientific methodology and evidence are aligned with their religious goals.
Bargainers pick and choose which aspects of science are correct, based on their biblical
foundation. Harmonizers, however, embrace scientific methodologies and conclusions as tools
that confirm religion, because science is an equal revelation of God that matches His other
revelation, the Bible. In embracing all of science as a field on inquiry, they cannot eschew
opinions that, at first, do not agree with the Bible. Harmonizers do not alter the science they
accept as fact; instead, they modify their biblical hermeneutics to match scientific knowledge.
Instead, the harmonizers’ rhetorical efforts go into melding these new discoveries and the pursuit
of scientific information with modified interpretations of the Bible. In this vein, harmonizers are
not wary of new scientific discoveries, but are open to them and claim commitment to them,
because new information will always be found congruent with contemporary biblical
understanding.
Harmonizers distinguish themselves from scientists who unnecessarily remove God from
their science, concluding that science is wholly compatible with Christianity. This is distinct
from the faith of Deists, who were often scientists that practiced spirituality and believed in the
supernatural without naming or ascribing to a particular God (although many resembled
Christian characteristics). Harmonizes name their God, a Christian one, and find it united with
science. The degree to which science is incorporated creates very different narratives between
159
the harmonizers and the bargainers. Harmonizers accept the scientific orthodoxy and believe that
the existence of these phenomena, such as the Big Bang and climate change, confirm biblical
creation and Christianity. Where the separators and bargainers see conflict and revolution,
harmonizers see unity. The harmonizers, thus, do not engage in a narrative frame where there is
conflict and room for correction. Instead, the harmonizers operate in a frame of transcendence.
Harmonizers are primarily interested in shifting common views of religion and science from
separated to united. Mainstream scientists and non-believers are not enemies or even fools. They
simply have not opened themselves up to the idea of unity. Although harmonizers do see some
room for improvement in scientific theories, specifically in recognizing the Christian God, their
primary goal is bringing the religious faithful into accordance with scientific conclusions and
charting a new path for integration.
Harmonizers transcend the differences between science and religion by accepting
scientific discoveries as their foundation for interpreting the Bible. Science guides their
hermeneutics, instead of their reading of the Bible determining how they understand science. In
this way, harmonizers may seem like allies to the scientific community because they bridge gaps
between religious believers and contemporary science. But, harmonizers sometimes question
some basic scientific tenets and oftentimes insert religion into spaces where it is yet unwanted or
untested. For example, the origins harmonizer, RTB, questions the exclusive natural process of
evolution and scientific conclusions about what came before the Big Bang. Its textbooks,
courses, and publications include religious-based conclusions that may cloud the teachings of
mainstream science education. RTB directly advocates for the Christian creation story as
scientifically valid part of science curricula (albeit happening millions of years after the Big
Bang). The environmental harmonizer, the EEN, also unites science and religion in order to
160
encourage activism and advocacy towards climate change. The EEN incorporates scientific
conclusions about the urgency and severity of environmental protection in their interpretation of
the Bible’s instructions to “tend and keep” the Earth and serve as good stewards over creation.
The EEN aims to insert the Bible into environmental conclusions, but does not appear to alter
scientific conclusions, so its activism in the public sphere appears to have less baggage than
RTB. It could be argued that the EEN supplants scientific ways of knowing that may undermine
scientific authority and complicate scientific information about the environment.
Harmonizers view scientists and mainstream science as supporting religion; the two go
hand-in-hand in discovering God’s works. Their interpretations of these scientific facts, however,
lead them away from the materialism and naturalism associated with the sciences. Harmonizers
hope to integrate scientific discoveries and a focus on the supernatural under a purpose-focused
narrative. In addition to a focus on God as a super-agent in the origins narrative, RTB also places
importance on purpose and the actions of humans. The separators, bargainers, and harmonizers
use strikingly similar vocabulary to express their unique origin narrative. But, the screen through
which harmonizers interpret the Bible and Christian rhetoric is a screen of unity and harmony
where science and religion must agree at all costs. These slight differences, in spite of many
similarities and shared linguistic resources, construct the separators and bargainers as distinct
from the harmonizers. For example, there are many debates between RTB advocates and AIG
and ICR advocates, positioning themselves as focal points opposite and disparate from the
harmonizing ideal.
This chapter will explore the transcendent narratives of the harmonizers and how the
groups and their members largely incorporate scientific discoveries, evidence, and
methodologies in support of the Bible. Science influences both RTB and the EEN’s explanatory
161
narratives. In what follows, I establish the unique rhetorical ecology of the harmonizers that
distinguishes them from other Christian groups tackling issues of science and their faith. First, I
will describe the groups and discuss the transcendent rhetoric involved in uniting science and
religion in a coherent narrative. Then, I will elucidate patterns found in the harmonizers’
rhetoric: 1) transcendence upwards, 2) the metaphor of harmony, and 3) competing argument
warrants. These linguistic patterns are rooted in identification, or finding the similarities and
compatibility of science and religion as epistemic partners while ignoring potential conflicts.
Harmonizers appear to reclaim natural theology, which distinguishes them from separators and
bargainers. This unique response to modernity embraces differences, overcomes conflict, and
unites disparate ways of knowing. As I will later unpack, this transcendent rhetoric is indicative
of Burke’s (1984) “transcendence upwards,” which often sacrifices coherent understanding in
search of compromise and ending conflict (p. 106).
Reasons to Believe
Founded in 1986 by astrophysicists Hugh Ross and Dave Rogstad, RTB performs
ministry work around the country in spreading the word about science and religion’s unity. Ross
and Rogstad met as post-doctoral researchers at CalTech (Rogstad, personal communication,
April 7, 2015). Rogstad (2015) said, “it wasn’t really until Hugh Ross came along that I began to
take more seriously the question of ‘the science’ versus ‘the faith’ issues.” RTB views uniting
science and religion and reclaiming the partnership lost in the abandonment of natural
philosophy as paramount: “this is what we are all about at Reasons to Believe” (Rogstad,
personal communication, April 7, 2015). Charity Navigator (2014b) reported that RTB generates
162
more than $4 million in donations annually. RTB has 46 volunteer chapters around the world
including the US, Canada, and Australia. RTB has four full-time researchers on staff (Ross,
chemist Fazale Rana, theologian Kenneth Samples, and astrophysicist Jeff Zweerink) and hosts
guest writers in astronomy, biology, design, geology, history, education, and physics. RTB labels
itself part of the “progressive creationist movement,” which blends old-earth creationism with
Biblical literalism (Moore, 2007, para. 35). RTB advocates for a dual-revelation model that
unites the scripture with the natural world. Climate change, global warming, and the environment
are linked for RTB to Biblical predictions of the end of the world.
RTB’s (2014b) mission is:
to spread the Christian Gospel by demonstrating that sound reason and scientific research
– including the very latest discoveries – consistently support, rather than erode,
confidence in the truth of the Bible and faith in the personal, transcendent God revealed
in both Scripture and nature. (para. 1)
Their mission statement reflects the unity of the material and the spiritual by emphasizing the
compatibility of nature and scripture. Instead of viewing science and religion as separate
epistemic spheres, RTB believes that science and religion create “one harmonious picture
revealing the identity and character of the Creator. When properly understood, God’s Word
(scripture) and God’s world (nature) – as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the
same God – will never contradict one another” (Reasons to Believe, 2014a, para. 5). Both
science and religion reflect the role that divinity plays in reality. God may express himself
through religion or through science; both are compatible tools that lead to similar truths.
RTB focuses its ministry on publishing research, hosting events, and holding debates in
order to engage the lay person in faith and science. RTB’s target audiences are:
163
the influencers, educators, . . . the pastors and teachers, and leaders in various areas. So,
in a sense we’re kind of a seminary in that we’re trying to train the people who are then
going to reach out and affect and influence others. (Rogstad, personal communication,
April 7, 2015)
RTB is thus not limited to the dissemination of scientific information, but also the equipping of
evangelists who will bring Christians to science and scientists to Christianity. RTB’s resources
span high and low media. On the website, RTB has sections dedicated to controversies such as
the Big Bang, biblical contradictions, stem cells, abortion, religious pluralism, and global
warming. RTB posts articles, blog posts, videos, event summaries, and audio files about these
topics. People can access all of this material online and on RTB’s mobile application. The scope
of materials they make available is extensive. RTB has written and published over 1500 articles
and 26 books and has held more than 150 interviews and 250 events.
RTB organizes its website by level of faith. Upon entering the website, visitors can
choose between “I believe,” “I doubt,” and “I disbelieve” that lead to content tailored to each
perspective. Visitors who click “I believe” can “learn how [RTB] can help you bridge the gap
between faith and everyday life” (Reasons to Believe, 2014c, para. 3). Visitors who click “I
doubt” can “learn how [RTB] can help you meet the challenges that are putting your faith to the
test” (Reasons to Believe, 2014c, para. 4). Visitors who click “I disbelieve” can “see how [RTB
can] shed light on the differences and controversies between Christian and secular beliefs”
(Reasons to Believe, 2014c, para. 5). RTB’s name indicates the compatibility of reason and
rationality and believing in a Christian worldview. Their logo, a cross in the center of a galaxy
spiral also signals their integration of faith and cosmology with a focus on origins. RTB refers to
its ministry as “where science and faith converge” (Reasons to Believe, 2014d, para. 1).
164
Evangelical Environmental Network
The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) was an important pioneer in describing
the creation care movement as an evangelical and Christian mandate. Started in 1993, the EEN
“is a ministry that educates, inspires, and mobilizes Christians in their effort to care for God’s
creation, to be faithful stewards of God’s provision, and to advocate for actions and policies that
honor God and protect the environment” (Evangelical Environmental Network, 2011, para. 1).
The current EEN president is Reverend Mitch Hescox who is a contributor to Sacred Acts: How
Churches are Working to Protect Earth’s Climate and a prominent evangelical speaker. In 2006,
many evangelical leaders in EEN and outside the group came together to create the Evangelical
Climate Initiative (ECI), which outlined goals and purposes for all evangelicals to sign as
agreement with their values. ECI recognizes the “opportunity and [the] responsibility [of
evangelicals] to offer a biblically based moral witness that can help shape public policy in the
most powerful nation on earth, and therefore contribute to the well-being of the entire world”
(“ECI Statement,” n.d., para. 1). Famous religious leaders such as Rick Warren (Author of The
Purpose Driven Life) and Leith Anderson (President of the National Association of Evangelicals)
signed this agreement as a pledge to engage with climate protection. The EEN is a pioneer of the
creation care movement and brought creation care to national attention (Wilkinson, 2012). The
authority that prominent evangelical figures carry can serve as a persuasive force for others to
embody environmental ideals as a primary component of Christianity. Religion creates the
urgency of acting upon the consequences that science predicts.
Members of the EEN mobilize action for environmental protection through appeals to
morality and scripture. For example, the EEN advocates that key phrases in the Bible support the
165
scientific consensus on climate change. Genesis 2:15
16
calls for Adam and Eve to tend to the
Garden of Eden, which the EEN interprets as a synecdoche for nature as a whole. CC advocates
often extend caring for the environment as complementary to caring for humanity. The EEN
(2011) argued that all humans are “called to protect our most vulnerable populations, including
unborn children, from the consequences of climate change, pollution, and overconsumption of
resources” (para. 2). The EEN thus marries the conviction of environmental protection with
concrete legal goals, making changes to local and national government with backing from
religious and scientific resources. Lawrence Prelli and Terri Winters (2009) and Bloomfield
(2016) argued that this emerging group has the potential to create rhetorical in-roads in political
discourse about the environment due to its strategic location straddling two areas of expertise.
Creation care groups simultaneously call upon the authority of the Bible and the accuracy and
predictability of science to provide dual support for communicating environmental risk. Those
unlikely to be persuaded by science or religion may be better convinced by the other, or at least
are offered choices for engagement.
Transcending Science and Religion
Tad Clements (1990) argued that science and religion are not compatible, so any attempt
at uniting them can only lead to cognitive dissonance. Harmonizers overcome this cognitive
dissonance by viewing science and religion as complementary ways of knowing that both
originate from God. Science and religion are completely united, unable to be separated, thus
16
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
166
transcending the apparent conflict by constructing a natural theology. From Ancient Greece to
the birth of modern science, intellectual inquiry married science and faith in natural theology.
Science and religion were epistemic partners in learning more about the reality that God had
created. Gary Ferngren (2002) argued that initial inquiries into religious thought spurred the
scientific revolution by encouraging and promoting curiosity and inquiry. For example, research
into directions, compasses, and the movements of the sun were influenced by the need to know
the direction to pray to Mecca in the Islamic faith (Ferngren, 2002). The most prominent
scientists were priests, educated in both literature and science, to understand the Word, and
natural sciences, to understand the world. For example, the cosmologist who popularized the
concept of what is now known as the Big Bang was Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest. In 1930,
he challenged the orthodoxy of a static universe and concluded that an expanding universe must
have originated from a single, finite point. This scientific theory, now nearly universally
accepted, brought great admiration from both scientists and religious thinkers, who saw the Big
Bang as compatible with both materialist and religious interpretations of the universe.
Burke (1984a) argued that transcendence involves “the adoption of another point of view
from which [positions] cease to be opposites” (p. 336). The opposition between science and
religion disappears through a different perspective on the relationship. Harmonizers argue that
science as epistemological inquiry can only be a boon to religion, because an understanding of
the natural world God created is an understanding of God as well. Under the harmonizer’s
worldview, science once again becomes religion’s handmaiden, and the two work together to
uncover information and bring people to God. Langer (1988) argued that “all categories tend to
have imperfect boundaries” (p. 104). Science and religion operate in the same epistemological
spaces and aim to answer the same questions about origins and endings. Harmonizers view
167
material and supernatural answers to these questions as complementary intellectual endeavors.
Science does not oppose or contradict faith; rather, science and religion, are “two complementary
ways that God reveals himself to humans” (Levinson, 2006, p. 423). The barriers between
science and religion are not natural separations and harmonizers seek to break them down.
For harmonizers, the differences between science and religion are arbitrarily constructed
and opposed to God’s true intentions. Apparent contradictions and difficulties are overcome
simply by ignoring them and collapsing them as parts of the same epistemology. Unlike the
separators and the bargainers, the harmonizers eschew traditional dramatistic frames that focus
on sacrifice and restoring order. For the harmonizers, there is an established order where science
and religion are in unity; people simply have forgotten or not yet realized the truth. Through
transcendence upwards, there is no crime committed and thus no reason for victimage or
mortification to remove pollution. Instead, harmonizers seek to reframe existing knowledge to
account for a lack of agreement with their beliefs. Hugh Duncan (1962) argued that both comedy
and tragedy contain sacrifice and purging in order to establish order. They also “both depict
struggle between good and bad social principles and doom those who threaten it” (Duncan, 1962,
p. 395). The harmonizers do not conceptualize the contemporary era as a struggle between good
and evil or even a struggle between dissenting and majority voices. There is no one who directly
threatens their ideologies and no guilt that requires sacrifice. Burke (1974) argued that the poetic
ideal of transcendence achieves its goals “by attaining a perspective atop all the conflict of
attitude” (p. 148, emphasis in original). Harmonizers do not embrace conflict, and instead aim to
transcend in-fighting and line-drawing through avoidance. Harmonizers see little conflict with
others and seek to raise a new consciousness about the relationship between science and religion.
168
RTB argues that nonbelievers and Christians have “widespread misconception[s]” and
“misperceptions” that differ from RTB’s perceptions of reality (Ross, 2014, pp. 9, 12). In this
sense, RTB does not have enemies or ones that are identified as threats to RTB’s mission. Rana
(2015), noted, “Many nonbelievers do good works, and I deeply admire and applaud the caring
things that they do” (para. 9). RTB describes nonbelievers as moral and good, so they are not a
group that needs to be destroyed or one that is oppressing the “truth” of RTB’s perspective.
Because their opponents are not evil, RTB (2014b) members “do not attack,” but instead
“present research and start a conversation” (para. 3). Even with differing viewpoints that deny
God or come to incompatible conclusions, RTB (2014b) argues that “people deserve respect and
a safe forum for discussing their views” (para. 3). Indeed, Ross (2014) argued that “there is
nothing to fear – for either believer or skeptic – in searching out the truth” (p. 13), there can only
be a better understanding of God’s creation and recognition of the unity of science and religion.
RTB seeks to illuminate the public about science and religion’s unity, making neither an enemy
to the cause. Ross (2014) characterized uniting science and religion as “a return to higher
criticism” that offers “new interpretative approaches” (pp. 208, 209). RTB thus embraces
transcendence upwards as a higher perspective that avoids the struggle and war of other religious
perspectives.
RTB uses metaphors of enlightenment and education to communicate how others should
be treated. Instead of changing the order and sacrificing victims, RTB wishes to shift perceptions
while maintaining the order. Student MA (2015) in RTB’s online course discussion wrote:
I have always tried to keep in mind that our relationship with other believers in Christ is
based on the unity we have on the essentials of the faith and that we are united in Christ.
169
These are of magnitudes of greater importance than the age issue. If we can establish a
meaningful relationship, then we can get to these other issues. (para. 1, emphasis added)
This sentiment was echoed at an RTB Chapter meeting I attended in Southern California. The
visiting RTB scholar was in attendance and noted that whatever label or description of
creationism that organizations hold, we should emphasize the agreement of uniting science and
religion instead of dividing over difference. She spoke in response to a question a chapter
member had about BioLogos (2015), another group that “invites the church and the world to see
the harmony between science and biblical faith” (para. 1). The RTB scholar argued that
BioLogos is “wrong scientifically,” but is correct in its larger mission of uniting science and
religion. When I asked Rogstad (personal communication, April 7, 2015) about potential allies or
partners in RTB’s mission, he said that there are a few in the same space, but “We’re the only
ones that really have a bunch of scientists on board that are writing, reading the journals, the
scientific journals, and writing books and articles about the discoveries that are being made.”
RTB considers itself as standing mostly alone in its mission, although there are other groups
moving in the space of uniting science and religion.
Rogstad (personal communication, April 7, 2015) emphasized that the message of
gracefulness and truth is more important than “winning” a battle or engaging in conflict. He said,
We’re trying to present this truth in a gracious manner. We’re not attacking, we’re not
using ad hominem, we’re not trying to tear down what the other person is saying, we’re
trying to present the truth. (Rogstad, personal communication, April 7, 2015)
RTB advocates sharing their transcendent narrative without engaging in logical fallacies or
aggression towards others. RTB (2014e) argues, “Our approach is to engage people in informed
dialogue about the links between science and faith. We place importance on doing so with
170
gentleness and respect (see 1 Peter 3:16
17
)” (para. 6). The metaphor of enlightenment promotes
learning new information and searching for truth about the relationship of science and faith. RTB
does not wish to overthrow current scientific knowledge, but bring new orientations towards
existing knowledge. In his book, Navigating Genesis, Ross (2014) argued that the search for
compatibility is “a rewarding excursion with surprise discoveries along the way that ultimately
satisfy intellectual curiosity” (p. 13).
The EEN shares this perspective on unity and communication. The EEN embraces
Christian ideals to guide their environmental advocacy. Instead of focusing on the tragic frame
and seeking out people to punish, the EEN (n.d.-a) calls for its members “to affirm the following
principles of biblical faith, and to seek ways of living out these principles in our personal lives,
our churches, and society” (para. 14). The EEN does not conform to White’s (1967) assertions
and instead chart their own path that transcends the differences between Christianity and the
environment. Similar to RTB, the EEN engages in transcendence upwards. For example, the
EEN (n.d.-a) described their stewardship as such: “We invite Christians – individuals,
congregations and organizations – to join with us . . . becoming a covenant people in an ever-
widening circle” (para. 34). In this quotation, the EEN extends an invitation to all Christians,
including separators and bargainers, to become a member of a covenant, a pact or bond, aimed at
including all Christian in environmental activism. Other Christians are not enemies, but instead
potential partners in the environmental cause that need to be reframed. The EEN (n.d.-a)
encourages its members “to listen and work with” others “with an eagerness both to learn from
them and also to share with them our conviction[s]” (para. 35). The EEN views the climate
17
But respond with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously
against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
171
change controversy as an opportunity for discussion and mutual learning instead of a war and
conflict. In this way, its members embrace the rhetoric of unity and harmony in the shared values
and existence of all people in constructing their comic frame.
The framework of transcendence upwards influence the harmonizers’ guiding metaphors,
attitudes towards others, and how they incorporate science. With the overarching goal of
transcendence and the ignoring and avoiding of all conflicts, RTB and the EEN must approach
their opponents directly and react to science differently than the separators and the bargainers.
These differences are further explicated below with examples from both group’s discourses that
align with harmony, unity, compromise, conversation, and transcendence. The metaphor of
harmony and the focus on transcendence comes from their focus on how science and religion are
identified with one another. Identification also emerges in finding similarities between the
harmonizers and other groups such as the separators, bargainers, other harmonizers, and
nonbelievers.
Metaphor of Harmony
The harmonizers’ name comes from a focus on transcendent rhetoric that unites various
ideologies in a unifying whole. In discussing unity and harmony, musical and sound-related
language was frequent in the harmonizers’ discourse. Vannini and Maskul (2006) argued that
“harmony refers to the combination of two or more simultaneous sounds in a manner that is
deemed esthetically pleasing” (p. 6). Where once was disorder and dissonance, harmonizers
combine into a melodious compromise and partnership. Science and religion are united in a way
that is beneficial to both, being stronger together than as separate melodies. The presence of
172
these metaphors can be seen in the language of harmony, unity, integration, and shared
authorship. In response to Berger’s (1977b) claim that secularization creates a society that is
“religiously unmusical” (p. 56), the harmonizers provide a perspective that advocates harmony
and compatibility.
Harmony. There were many RTB references to musical language of harmony and
concordance. In the course lecture, “Building a Testable Creation Model,” science and religion
were described as being “in accord” with one another (RTB, 2015). Student MD (2015b) argued,
“the Bible teaches the basics of Big Bang cosmology and the theory has been demonstrated to be
in accord with reality” (para. 1). Not only are scientific theories and the Bible compatible, but
those processes together also match observations in the physical world. Student HC (2015)
noted, “all the pieces fit together in seemingly perfect harmony” (para. 1). This language echoed
the frequent appearance of harmony in the course textbook. Ross (2001) noted that the world’s
“beauty and harmony, combined with its staggering complexity, left me wondering who or what
could be responsible for it all” (p. 18). Roberts (2015b) argued that science and faith “should
dialogue, harmonize, and even integrate” (para. 15). Ross (2014) argued in his personal
investigation into science, “I saw harmony, consistency, freedom from contradiction, a pervading
beauty, and an elegance of design” (p. 11). The implication being that the harmony apparent in
space and God’s creation should be echoed in our treatment of science and religion.
The contemporary creation care movement also embodies a focus on harmony. Creation
care language often emphasizes the interconnectedness of life as equally important parts of
God’s creation (Bloomfield, 2016). In their “Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation,”
the EEN (n.d.-a) argued, “the creation which God intended is a symphony of individual creatures
173
in harmonious relationship” (para. 17). Creatures, human and animal, are all instruments in
God’s orchestra of life that function and live together in a coherent and beautiful unity. The EEN
emphasizes the integration and cooperation between humans, other animals, and nature which
are all made up of “the same systems of physical, chemical, and biological interconnections”
(Evangelical Environmental Network, n.d.-a, para. 19). Hescox (n.d.) further emphasized the
integration of people and nature by using the body’s circulation as a metaphor: “Small problems
may result in dangerous pollution as water like blood is interconnected” (para. 2). One of the
EEN’s (n.d.-a) goals is to create “renewed harmony and justice between people” and “between
people and the rest of the created world” (para. 24). The parts of God’s creation have been
unnecessarily separated and should once again be united. The EEN (n.d.-c) also argued that
“intellectual excellence [pursuit of science] and Christian conviction could exist in harmony”
(para. 2).
Integration. In addition to harmony, RTB staff and members frequently used the terms
integrate and integration where science and religion can be combined in the search for truth.
RTB frequently described science and religion as compatible, dual revelations of God. The terms
often appeared together, as subjects containing the same emphasis and value in the sentences.
Nature, science, and related terms such as rationality were clustered around scripture, the Bible,
and purpose. Zweerink (2015) noted that RTB challenges the “popular narrative” that science
and Christianity are not compatible. Instead of separating the two, he said it is possible to “live in
both of those worlds” because they are the same world, ours. One of RTB’s (2015) primary
tenets is their belief in the “constructive integration” of scripture and nature, because “truth will
always be consistent” (para. 2). In a phrase that combined motifs, RTB (2014a) described on of
174
its goals to “work rigorously to integrate both of God’s revelations into one harmonious picture”
(para. 4). In describing “who they are” on their website, RTB (n.d.-a) uses the phrase “the
integration of science and Christian faith” (para. 1). This integration is repeated as integral to
RTB’s identity. Ross (2014) described RTB’s approach to science and religion as the belief that
“science and Scripture can be constructively integrated” (p. 16). RTB works toward making that
integration possible and disseminating it to the public.
RTB considers nature a complementary book to the Bible, containing its own version of
the creation story. A lecture video in the RTB online course named God as the “author” of
creation and the Bible. Nature and scripture were often referred to as God’s “two books.” For
example, a student in the online course wrote that RTB members are “correctly interpreting both
the books of Scripture and nature” (Student MD, 2015b, para. 2). In The Creator and the
Cosmos, Ross (2001) noted, “the God of the Bible [is] the Author of the cosmos” (p. 171). In
lecture six, the instructor noted that we are alive in a unique part of history where we are able to
read “the whole book.” He argued that science is a tool to help us learn about nature because
“God wanted us to see the whole storybook of creation.” The metaphor of narration helped RTB
establish a common origin of nature and the Bible. One of the course instructors posted:
The words of Scripture and the book of nature (creation) come from the same Source, and
cannot disagree. So if there is apparent disagreement between what nature reveals
through science and what the Bible says, then there are 3 possibilities: we are not
understanding nature properly, we are not interpreting the meaning of Scripture properly,
or both. (Instructor A, 2015a, para. 1)
God created both nature and scripture, so they share characteristics and qualities and cannot
contradict one another. Nature and the Bible are equated as books that are written by the same
175
author. With the same origin and equal standing, they should not conflict, but should instead
equally inform our understanding of reality. The Earth is another iteration of God’s written
works that helps to explain reality. The words in the Bible are similar to the recipe God wrote in
DNA that can be discovered and understood by scientists as information about reality (Condit et
al., 2002). They are both divine sources of information about the same topic, reality, so must be
in agreement about basic facts and history.
In the harmonizers’ discourse, Science and religion were linguistically connected as
equals that imply and support one another. For example, Student MD (2015a) wrote, “The Big
Bang matches the Bible’s teachings of a singularity beginning (Gen. 1:1
18
, Heb. 11:3
19
), and
expanding universe (Is. 40:22
20
), and fixed physical laws governing the universe (Jer. 33:25
21
)”
(para. 2, emphasis added). Student MD (2015a) supported the compatibility between science and
religion by seeing similarities between cosmological theories and Bible verses. Ross (2014)
echoed this sentiment, noting that “God’s communication would manifest the same qualities as
did the cosmos” (p. 11). It is natural for there to be shared information and qualities between
nature and scripture because they both come from the same source. Student WJ (2015) referred
to RTB’s mission and noted that science and religion are “God’s word and world” (para. 5). In
the lecture “Building a Testable Creation Model,” the RTB scientist argued that science and
18
Genesis 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
19
Hebrews 11:3 – By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen
was not made out of what was visible.
20
Isaiah 40:22 – He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches
out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
21
Jeremiah 33:25 – This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established
the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant.”
176
religion each have part of the “picture” and the world does not make sense until you put both
pieces together. The same lecture noted that all disciplines must “mesh” with biblical truth,
including science and theology. RTB (n.d.-b) called the Bible and nature “reliable revelation[s]”
from God through which humans can make predictions in order to understand God (para. 6).
Echoing the language of the Christian revelation that Christ is a deity, RTB equates faith with the
discovery of the compatibility between science and religion.
Because they were created by the same God, all of creation is related. One evangelical
described it as “He calls us to take dominion of the garden, but more as a gardener would, not as
a warrior. We are the stewards of the earth, not its conquerors” (Bloomfield, 2016). The
environment should not be treated with contempt, ownership, and exploitation, but rather caring,
tending, and stewardship. Hescox described the EEN’s advocacy as pro-life, because they protect
life “from conception to natural death” where “anything that affects the quality of life is
something that’s a pro-life value” (as quoted in Valentine, 2014, para. 10). The EEN (n.d.-c)
argued that because its organization is “pro-life and pro-family, we are not content to roll the
dice with our own and our neighbor’s future. We take appropriate precautions” based on the
science” (para. 4).
The focus on transcendence also appeared in other language describing solving conflict
and creating compromises. The EEN lamented that “so many in the evangelical church openly
resist” discussion about today’s social issues (Hescox, 2015, para. 6). The EEN (n.d.-d) argued
that people should consider caring for the Earth as an integral part of worshipping God.
Furthermore, “It is actually unbiblical to set one against the other” (Evangelical Environmental
Network, n.d.-d, para. 6). Where people perceive “irresolvable conflict,” there are always
“peaceful resolutions” (Evangelical Environmental Network, n.d.-d, para. 11). Hescox (2015)
177
described the “culture wars” as best conceptualized between choosing between old and new wine
(para. 6). The “new wine [evangelical action toward climate change] presses us to reconsider our
models, lifestyles, and understanding of the good news in Jesus” (Hescox, 2015, para. 6). The
new wine reflects unity in overcoming “the great moral challenge of our generation” (Hescox,
2015, para. 6). Hescox (2015) warns not to “place our trust in ‘old wine,’” because it quickly
sours, just like the souring effects of conflict and disagreement (para. 12). Instead, people must
be filled with optimism and “allow faith and hope to be your guide” to a new climate future
(Hescox, 2015, para. 11). The EEN encourages people to let go of “the past [that] is completely
blind to a new future” (Hescox, 2014, para. 7). Hescox (2014) argued that following Christ
“means letting go of our outdated dependence on fossil fuels and seeking new opportunities”
(para. 9). To remain in an era of conflict, war, and disagreement is to forestall a brighter and
better future with renewal energy and proactive environmental legislation.
Hescox (2014) called evangelicals to “move beyond our past and rise to a better future;
Jesus did” (para. 13). Jesus literally rose above material and physical issues, and the EEN can
copy those actions figuratively through transcendent language and ideologies. The conflict
between science and religion, such as White’s (1967) statements, are in the past; the EEN is
transcendent, looking upwards, and to the future. The EEN frequently mentioned its growing
members and the extent of its influence. When the EEN rallied its members in support of the
EPA, it noted that “over 120,000 pro-life Christian supportive comments from 14 states” were
sent to the EPA (Hescox, n.d., para. 11). EEN Vice President Laushkin (2015d) wrote that “over
600,000 people have taken action with EEN” since 2011 (para. 3). Their ministry expands
beyond just evangelicals and involves all Christians and even non-Christians in advocacy work.
Although from a Catholic source, the EEN praised Pope Francis’s Laudato Si encyclical as
178
“opening up the door for a wider and deeper understanding of our cultural moment” (Laushkin,
2015d, para. 4). The EEN reaches across denominations and unites all Christians under a shared
environmental commitment.
For the harmonizers, science and religion are two parts of the same narrative about life,
instead of two epistemologies in conflict. Using language about harmony and integration is a
rhetorical strategy to shift public thinking about the relationship between science and religion.
Where many consider them completely incompatible, the harmonizers wish to reclaim a natural
theology and incorporate science into Christianity. For harmonizers, a recognition of and
attention to mainstream scientific conclusions is an integral part of being a good Christian.
Because God created both the Bible and nature, they will always match and agree with one
another. To ignore the information provided by nature and the people who study it is to ignore
part of God’s creation and the valuable knowledge that can be gained from its study.
Negotiating the Relationship between Science and Religion
Similar to the strategies of the bargainers, harmonizers appeal to many scientific
characteristics and methodologies to support religious conclusions. Unlike the bargainers, the
harmonizers accept nearly all of mainstream science’s arguments, distinguishing themselves not
from scientists, but from other Christian groups. This next section unpacks the ways that RTB
and the EEN incorporate mainstream science while distinguishing their perspectives from other
Christians and from naturalistic science. Their discourse is not violent or revolutionary. Instead,
the harmonizers acknowledge that their attempts to create a transcendent discourse has not united
everyone around a single narrative. This section provides insight into how the harmonizers
179
negotiate their position among dissenting and skeptical voices in order to overcome
incompatibilities.
Incorporating mainstream science. Harmonizers incorporate scientific conclusions and
discoveries into their discourse. Harmonizers hold themselves to standards of scientific inquiry,
support advocacy based on scientific conclusions, and use a transcendent frame when dealing
with those that disagree with them. RTB and the EEN are not interested in correcting or making
large, overarching changes to the scientific community, with whom they overwhelmingly agree.
They seek to support mainstream scientific conclusions and focus their ministry on Christians
who have not embraced the role that science should play in Christianity.
While Lippmann (1929) argued, “Faith is not a formula which is agreed to if the weight
of evidence favors it,” RTB does measure faith in this way (p. 56). RTB believes that if one
examines the material evidence, one ends up with the Bible. RTB starts with the natural world
and scientific methodologies to provide them insight into interpreting the Bible. This approach to
faith is sometimes called a “God of the gaps” approach where God and faith fills in the spaces
where science has yet to make conclusions. RTB (n.d.-b) argues that “God gives humans the
privilege to fill in the details, carefully, through patient, ongoing exploration” (para. 6). In this
sense, RTB uses the dual knowledge of science and faith to explain unknown details of “God’s
creation activity” and the mechanisms behind it (RTB, n.d.-b, para. 6). RTB does admit that “not
all biblically described events can be subjected to scientific testing” such as “the virgin’s
pregnancy, Lazarus’s resurrection, and the water’s transformation into wine” (Ross, 2014, p. 10);
those are supernatural components of faith. But, these miraculous events are only a few, limited
parts of the Bible unavailable for validation. Other aspects of creation “can be subjected to the
180
degree of scientific scrutiny needed to confirm or deny the creation, flood, and postflood events”
(Ross, 2014, p. 10) and should be. In these cases, science provides the opportunity to verify the
Bible “with greater precision and to a greater depth than previous generations might have
imagined possible” (Ross, 2014, p. 10). Religion itself can be measured and tested scientifically,
prompting Ross (2014) to marvel “with amazement that this ancient document [the Bible] would
be structured much like a modern research report” (p. 28). In the online RTB course, Student
MD (2015a) wondered to what extent “God accommodated the scientific ideas of the time in the
Bible,” so as not to confuse the people that first read it. God had to forgo “a modern physics
lesson” in favor of simple, easily understood information, given the initial audience (Student
MD, 2015a, para. 2).
Lippmann (1929) argued, “A religion which rests upon particular conclusions in
astronomy, biology, and history may be fatally injured by the discovery of new truths” (p. 307).
As science creates more explanatory power, Lippmann (1929) argued that the role for God
shrinks. RTB disagrees with this sentiment. Ross (2014) argued that the validity of the Christian
faith is possible “with the help of many remarkable advances in astronomy, physics, geophysics,
chemistry, paleontology, biochemistry, and anthropology” (p. 10). Instead of being “eroded” by
science, Christianity is supported through its discoveries (Reasons to Believe, 2014b, para. 1).
New scientific discoveries are viewed as opportunities to confirm RTB’s interpretation of the
Bible and create a richer understanding of the Christian God. Ross (2014) argued that “while
scientific developments of the nineteenth century seemed to undermine confidence in the truth of
Genesis, advances of the twentieth century breathed new vitality into belief in the biblical
Creator” (p. 15). New knowledge and discoveries validate biblical conclusions and support
RTB’s conclusions.
181
Ross (2015) argued that RTB follows strict scientific methods and holds mainstream
scientific conclusions to rigorous analysis. Ross (2015) described RTB’s high standards:
I do not put a lot of confidence in a scientific result unless it is established by
experiments, observations, and theory and unless I see the consistency among all the
observations and experiments becoming progressively better as the error bars, both
random and systematic, shrink. (para. 14)
RTB accepts scientific methodologies such as observation, experimentation, and repeatability
and uses them to analyze new conclusions. RTB’s creation model is an example of a scientific
conclusion that does meet these high standards. This creation model sets predictions for the
conditions humanity can expect in the universe given information in the Bible. RTB (n.d.-b)
described its model as offering “reasonable explanations for the entire scope (origin to ending) of
a particular system, as well as for its relationship to other natural phenomena” (para. 3). The
creation model “has yielded an improving consistency” to explain the origins of the universe and
human life (Ross, 2015, para. 14).
RTB emphasized the shared origins of science and religion and reclaimed a natural
theology. Roberts (2015c) argued that people often conceptualize science and religion as “two
warring combatants” in a “hostile debate between leaders from opposing ‘camps,’” which is
unique to our present time period (para. 1). In the past, the relationship between science and
religion was viewed as natural partners in the search for knowledge. Rogstad (personal
communication, April 7, 2015) noted, if “you look at the history of science, . . . the science has
drifted away from the religious base, but they still assume all of these values.” Many people
interpret the relationship now as oppositional or exclusive, as do separators. But RTB points to
182
the shared values that allowed for science to flourish. Rogstad (personal communication, April 7,
2015) elaborated:
The intellectual virtues necessary to carry out scientific enterprise are part of God’s moral
law in Scripture. You got to be honest, you got to have integrity, you got to have a work
ethic, you have all of these kind of characteristics that are encouraged for us as human
beings to have in the Scripture and those are necessary. . . . So all of these kind of
Christian values, Judeo-Christian values in a broader sense, supported the study of
science so it allowed the science to come forth and be fruitful.
RTB argues that science would not have manifested in the same way without Judeo-Christian
values and the motivation to learn more about the world God had created. These “intellectual
virtues” are shared among all scientists and encourage them to make rational, honest conclusions
about reality and human nature (Rogstad, personal communication, April 7, 2015). Daniel Dyke
and Hugh Henry (2014) echoed this sentiment and wrote, “God created the universe and life in a
structured, systematic, logical, progressive manner. An knowing that the universe is orderly and
predictable is the first step in exploring natural law – or doing science” (para. 5). Science and
religion are thus supposed to be together; it is modern conceptions and thought that have torn
them asunder.
As a part of its own research pursuits, RTB hosts debates, publishes articles, and puts on
events and conferences. In February 2015, RTB hosted the inaugural AMP Conference where lay
people attend to learn more about the science behind creation and tips for discussing the unity of
science and faith with others. “AMP” is an acronym for Apologetics, Mission, Partnership, but
also is short for amplify – “to increase the strength of; to make louder” (“AMP Conference,”
2015, para. 2). The conference mirrored an academic conference where speakers shared their
183
research and opinions about pressing topics, organized by panels with time for questions. For the
2015 event, the AMP conference was “designed to prepare Christian to use apologetics tools in
their evangelism and to become confident witnesses to a skeptical world” (“About,” 2015, para.
1). Rogstad (personal communication, April 7, 2015) summarized the 2015 event:
We had a conference recently called AMP. . . . It was in a huge church, there were about
900 people that came and a variety of people spoke at it. And Hugh, of course, and all of
the other scholars of course, gave talks. But he told about some of these things that he
had experienced, encouraging people to be available, to be knowledgeable, to find out
you know what your faith is about and be available and God will give you opportunities
to talk to people.
I attended the 2015 event that was co-sponsored with Biola University, the Ravi Zacharias
International Ministries (RZIM), and the Eastside Christian Church. The two-day conference was
organized around a series of topics in both science and theology. Ross and Rana discussed the
basics of biology and chemistry and how they lead to a Christian worldview. Other speakers
from co-sponsorship groups, and Zweerink, focused on evangelization and tips for bringing God
and creationism into conversations. Stuart McAllister, a representative from RZIM, gave a talk
called “Looking both ways: God’s Word and God’s world,” which echoed the dual metaphor of
common authorship used by RTB.
Events such as the AMP Conference are examples of Kelly and Hoerl’s (2012) argument
of creationists using scientific means to advance their own religious positions. In the case of
RTB, they are not intending to manufacture a controversy or engage in public controversy with
scientists. But, they are searching for new venues and creative formats to discuss their integrative
approach to science and faith as present themselves as aligned with science. The AMP
184
Conference focused on encouraging Christians to include scientific thought into their organizing
narrative. Their format, similar to scientific conferences, emphasizes their research goals and
focus on scientific engagement and dissemination.
The EEN views science and religion in harmony. They believe that evangelicals should
embrace science and do not allow the “fear of science” to detract from environmental
engagement (Hescox, 2015, para. 11). Hescox (2012) argued that groups such as the CA are
“misusing science” which “turn[s] people away from the good news in Jesus” (para. 1). These
groups are “blinded . . . on the science” and cannot understand “real science” through their
“contrarian worldview” (Hescox, 2012, para. 7). Science agrees with religious goals and is an
important part of EEN’s fundamental goals. The EEN (n.d.-c) described its actions as “exploring
the biblical basis for Christian engagement [and] the science of a changing environment” (para.
1). It is important to “understand the science” in order to guide appropriate actions towards the
environment (Evangelical Environmental Network, n.d.-c, para. 5). The EEN places authority
with scientific experts and draws upon their “world-wide consensus” that includes “every
national academy of science” to support its environmental decisions (Hescox, 2012, para. 7).
Referencing a study by Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Hescox (2012) noted that 97% of
scientists argue that global warming is anthropogenic and the cause is “not natural, cycles, but
the burning of fossil fuels” (para. 6). The EEN trusts in scientific conclusions and uses them as
the roots for their environmental activism.
The EEN argues that science has reawakened a concern for the environment. Hescox
(2012) wrote, “mounting studies and evidence” provide support that “changes to our global
system are happening faster than we could have imagined a decade ago” (para. 2). Scientists and
environmentalists describe increased risk and urgency that invite a Christian, moral response. For
185
example, the EEN called attention towards harmful consequences of human action, such as “air
and water pollution, species extinction,” among others, as evidence of a need for change
(Evangelical Environmental Network, n.d.-e, para. 4). Hescox (2012) estimated that over
300,000 people die annually as a result of climate change (para. 5). The EEN (n.d.-a) called the
human effect on the environment the “degradations of creation” (para. 5). In the pursuit of
progress, people have “forgotten our responsibility to care for [earth]” (Evangelical
Environmental Network, n.d.-a, para. 10). Part of this search of progress came with “the
industrial age [when] we started burning more and more fossil fuels and thus chang[ed] the
delicate balance God created for sustaining life” (Hescox, 2012, para. 4). This balance is so
delicate that even “small percentages upset the created balance and put human life at risk”
(Hescox, 2012, para. 5). The search for advancement and improvement led to extreme
environmental changes and an “unprecedented rapid temperature rise” (Hescox, 2012, para. 4).
Science reminds Christians of the interconnectedness of life and motivates them “to
address some of the greatest challenges facing God’s people and the world today” (Evangelical
Environmental Network, n.d.-e, para. 3). Many of life’s current issues, “climate change,
abortion, God’s creatures, land conservation, water pollution, light pollution, mercury and the
unborn, GMOs, and more” are all connected “with a common thread” to care for the
environment and others (Evangelical Environmental Network, n.d.-f, para. 4). The EEN (n.d-a)
thus calls for people to “sustain and heal the damaged fabric of the creation which God has
entrusted to us” (para. 30). The EEN hopes to return creation to its original form and reclaim a
more balanced relationship. The EEN reprimands other groups whose advocacy is based on
“denying the physical laws ordained by Our Creator” and instead advocates “trusting in
Christ . . . to develop clean energy, sustainable food production, and care for all creation”
186
(Hescox, 2012, para. 10, 9). The EEN argues that they are in fact achieving the goals set forward
by groups such as the CA and the AI while maintaining alignment with mainstream science.
Incorporating scientific elements, values, and methodologies into faith is a shared
rhetorical pattern of the harmonizers. RTB and the EEN view science as a positive epistemic tool
that is fully integrated with their faith and guides their advocacy work. RTB sees itself as
expanding science’s focus and following its standards. The EEN is less concerned with doing its
own science and instead uses science as inspiration and a source of urgency to act in accordance
with the Bible. These characteristics stem from the shared use of a transcendent frame and the
metaphor of harmony. Science and religion are viewed as compatible despite the attempts of
others to divide and stretch them, leading to the incorporation of scientific standards into their
discourse.
Distinguishing themselves from others. RTB and the EEN clearly distinguish
themselves from other groups, especially competing Christian groups that ignore or deny their
transcendent and unified position. Although RTB unites science and religion and advocates for
many scientific theories such as the Big Bang and the old age of the Earth, RTB’s doctrine
expands upon the conclusions of mainstream science. The primary difference lies in the process
of evolution, the extent to which its processes are random, and how humans fit in the ancestral
tree. RTB does accept evolution as a natural process that created plant and animal life, but
advocates that God intervened specifically in the creation of human life from proto-human life.
RTB (2014a) also argues that God has intervened “throughout the history of the universe in
various millions, possibly even billions, of times” (para. 1) with the intervention to create human
life being the most important.
187
RTB does not view science and religion as opponents or in conflict. Anjeanette Roberts
(2015b) wrote, “it puzzles me why some people . . . insist that science and Christianity are in
conflict with one another” (para. 1). Roberts (2015b) echoed my characterization of separators in
saying, “separating science and faith . . . can lead to minimizing one or the other and can impede
a coherent view of reality” (para. 13). For RTB, science and religion are needed together to give
a sense of reality. To separate them, as AIG does, is a disservice to the pursuit of knowledge and
truth. RTB also critiqued the perspectives of groups like ICR “whose strategy was to fight fire
with fire” and “to rewrite science” instead of accepting its conclusions (Ross, 2014, p. 203). For
RTB, these groups misunderstand the relationship between science and religion and thus miss the
larger message from God. Ross (2014) accuses them of encouraging a simplistic approach to
science and religion that ignores their unity. In constructing science as an enemy that must be
destroyed or a mistaken fool that must be overthrown, “no one need be concerned about the
difficult and often challenging questions they raise” (Ross, 2014, p. 207). I argue that RTB also
avoids these challenges and conflicts by lauding unity and compromise over intense discussion
and balancing of information, although they recognize this characteristic of others.
Science as a methodology does not pose a threat to RTB’s faith. RTB wishes to expand
upon science’s exclusion of supernatural influences. For many Christians, it is not reasonable to
consider that such a patterned, organized world could come from purely natural processes.
Rogstad (personal communication, April 7, 2015) argued that “science has been very successful
with a naturalistic viewpoint, . . . but it doesn’t really provide you with the answers of well why
does it work, what is behind it?” Although science has become a dominant voice, Rogstad, and
RTB, believes that there is more to the natural world that science alone can provide. Science is
not incorrect, or wrong, but are simply lacking part of the overall picture. Rogstad (personal
188
communication, April 7, 2015) asked, “how is it possible to have rational, believable reasoning
and thinking coming out of a process and an environment that is totally irrational?” Science
provides the mechanisms for change, but Christianity answers the questions of why and for what
purpose. It is God and divinity that provide the order and rationality. Darwinist evolution ignores
the possibility of supernatural intervention, so is missing a part of RTB’s coherent narrative.
Ross (2001) argued, “the evidence permits only two options: divine design or blind chance” (p.
161). RTB offers divine design as a solution to the blindness of evolution. Scientists and
Christians each have part of the story, but only when they are united is the truth revealed. Ross
(2001) argued “the God of the Bible is replaced by Chance, or, in the language of nonChristian
cosmologists, by an infinite number of random fluctuations” (p. 171). Ross capitalized “Chance”
as performing the role of a deity in the naturalistic worldview. This substitution does not
communicate war or disdain, but instead acknowledges that even atheist scientists must admit the
God-like consistency present in their narrative, which must be attributed to a source. The
location of humans in evolutionary theory is one of the few deviations from RTB’s agreement
with scientific knowledge. Indeed, RTB wishes to expand mainstream science’s understanding of
evolution to include the Christian God as a guiding force.
Ong (1967) argued that Christians tend to think of God as a “Great Architect” who
designs and constructs with a specific plan and end goal (p. 73). The Great Architect uses “the
same blueprint throughout the biological realm” and “reuse[s] successful designs over and over
again” (Rana, 2000, para. 22). An architect “build[s] . . . from similar raw materials” that
accounts for similarities between animals and humans (Rana, 2001, para. 8). Thomas Phillips
(2014b) compared God’s actions to that of an engineer: “Just as engineers reuse designs, it
appears that God did the same” (para. 5). Where naturalist scientists would see shared genes as
189
evidence for common ancestry, RTB’s religious warrants interpret that same information as
evidence for “common design” (Roberts, 2015a, para. 11). Roger Wiens (1996) called nature
“God’s handiwork,” reiterating the metaphor of construction, work, and intervention in the
natural world (para. 30). Science and religion, together, explain the full story of the Earth’s
creation.
RTB members also used the metaphor of fine-tuning to describe God’s control over
evolutionary processes. The metaphor of the “watch-maker” or the tuning power of God is
common in intelligent design discourse (Paley, 1802, p. 1). The metaphor is used to compare the
detail, specificity, and precision of current life with the autonomy and control of a transcendent
being. The tuning undergone is explicitly laid out in the Bible as historical record. Ross (2001)
argued, “the big bang is the most exquisitely designed entity known to man” (p. 45). Instead of
being “a random, chaotic, uncaused explosion,” the big bang “actually represents exactly the
opposite” (Ross, 2001, p. 27). The big bang is used as evidence for God’s planning, because its
occurrence eventually led to humanity. There are so many examples of fine-tuning in the world
that Ross (2001) asked how anyone could draw a different interpretation: “Does the fine-tuning
imply purposeful design? So many parameters must be fine-tuned and the degree of fine-tuning
is so high, no other conclusion seems possible” (p. 161). Ross (2000) further clarified the
precision of these parameters, noting, “Even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity of
electromagnetism would make stars [and thus all life] impossible” (para. 11). God made specific
decisions with a plan for all of humanity and all of existence. Ross (2016) argued that “God was
already at work with us in mind” as the ultimate purpose of creation (para. 5). The future of
human life is left unknown within God’s plan.
190
Unbelievers are not the main targets of RTB’s missionary efforts. Rogstad (personal
communication, April 7, 2015) said, “I don’t see many hard over atheists becoming [Christian],”
but when having these conversations, “others in the audience [are] listening.” RTB ministers not
only through its content, but its engagement in talks, debates, and publications in the community
that can reverberate to larger audiences. Bloomfield (2015) argued that the purpose of public
presentations and debates “is not necessarily to persuade, but to strengthen the advocates that
already share the speaker’s worldview and to gain a public platform for alternative narratives”
(p. 7). RTB may reach Christians uncertain of how to incorporate science into their faith or
provide an alternative to other Christian interpretations of origins. RTB does not primarily aim to
change the minds of evolutionists or atheists, but to expand Christianity’s conceptualization of
science’s role.
RTB finds many similarities among its narrative and other Christian narratives. They all
share the same roots, believe in Christ, and emphasize the importance of origins. Similar to
RTB’s relationship to science, RTB does not try to amend or overhaul other Christian narratives.
Instead, RTB emphasizes the shared resources to turn other Christian on to the proper integration
of science. In his book Christian Endgame, Samples (2013) argued,
A common skeptical complaint asserts that Christians never get along. For many
nonbelievers (and believers), the body of Christ seems hopelessly divided over secondary
doctrinal issues. Though the differences may seem dominant, the truth is that Christians
share significant doctrinal common ground on essential beliefs – including the often-
touchy topic of eschatology. (p. 27)
Ross (2001) argued, “researchers with an anti-God bias often make blind leaps of faith to escape
any evidence of God’s involvement in reality” (p. 100). Their naturalistic bias prevents them
191
from seeing the role of God as a valid scientific conclusion. Mainstream science thus lacks a
crucial component of origins knowledge, because it does not incorporate supernatural ways of
knowing. For RTB, this does not mean that science is an enemy to destroy or a foolish enterprise
to overthrow. Science instead needs to be enlightened and educated to a new and integrative
perspective.
In comparing RTB to other groups, Rogstad (personal communication, April 7, 2015)
clearly identified ICR and AIG as groups working against RTB’s goals. Discussing ICR, he
noted, “as much as they want to argue that it’s good science, it’s just really not” (Rogstad,
personal communication, April 7, 2015). ICR returns the feeling, arguing that RTB’s progressive
creationism is “opposed to Biblical and scientific creationism,” the labels of AIG and ICR
(Whitcomb, 2006, para. 4). RTB describes its narrative as a literal interpretation of the Bible.
The groups differ, however, in their hermeneutics. RTB uses the term literalism to include
various translations of commonly standardized verses, whereas AIG and the ICR argue that a
literal translation means to “assume God meant what He said” (Stambaugh, 1991, para. 4). Ross
(2014) argued, “a precise understanding” of the Bible “includes knowledge of word definitions
in the original language, usage of certain words throughout the Bible, grammatical context,
cultural context, range of theological lessons the text aims to communicate, and the intended
audiences” (p. 10). While the separators and bargainers take the Bible at face value in its
translated verses, RTB allows for other elements to influence their interpretation and
understanding of the Bible. RTB (n.d.-a) noted, “While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally
superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary
styles of its individual human authors” (para. 4). RTB believes that the Bible is the inspired word
of God, but also written by humans capable of creativity and alteration. While the Bible is
192
“without error,” true biblical scholars cannot exclude the potential for multiple interpretations
and translations of verses in order to determine the best and most accurate meaning intended
(RTB, n.d.-a, para. 4).
For example, RTB (2014a) argues that the word “day” in Genesis 1:5
22
“has three literal
definitions: 12 hours, 24 hours, or a long time period” (para. 5). RTB (2014a) starts with science
and what nature tells us about the age of the Earth to know that the third definition is “the best,
and most faithful, way to interpret Genesis 1” (para. 5). Although they interpret “day” as a literal
day, they acknowledge the multiple translations for the Hebrew word for day in their
interpretations of Genesis. RTB (n.d.-b) measures the accuracy of those interpretations by
saying, “We believe God’s two revelations (Scripture and nature) will agree when properly
interpreted” (para. 9). RTB argues that because science provides evidence for the old age of the
Earth, the word “day” must be interpreted this way. The interpretations of the separators and
bargainers, then, do not meet RTB’s standards of interpretation and thus have a less accurate and
less faithful understanding of scripture. RTB acknowledges that combining science and religion
is difficult, especially for young Earth creationists. To say that the Earth is older than biblical,
chronological estimates can be seen as the equivalent of “a wrecking ball crashing into the
foundation of Christian faith” (Ross, 2014, p. 208). The truth is, though, that there is “scientific
evidence for God’s miraculous work throughout the whole of Earth’s 4.5662-billion-year-
history,” so no Christians need to worry about their foundations being undermined by science
(Ross, 2014, p. 208). RTB embraces the opportunity to enlighten young Earth creationists to how
22
God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning –
the first day.
193
science and religion are compatible and can replace the obstacles of young earth creationism
with scientific information.
In distinguishing themselves from other religious environmental groups, the EEN focuses
on their interpretation of scripture and the policies that they advocate. While the CA and the AI
focus on the potential economic threats environmentalism poses, the EEN is more skeptical of
unfettered economic progress and its effects on the environment. The EEN (n.d.-b) noted, “we
are thankful for the many benefits provided by our modern, advanced economy,” but continued,
“our economic progress has been accompanied by considerable environmental degradation”
(para. 5). In addition, the EEN (n.d.-b) supports the actions of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the implications for air, pollution, and water regulations. This perspective
differs from the economically driven concerns of the CA and the AI who view the EPA’s
regulations on businesses as detrimental. The EEN (n.d.-b) categorizes the tactics of separators
and bargainers as “seeking to weaken or delay the regulations” because the regulations will be
“too expensive” for businesses (para. 9). For the EEN, separators and bargainers appear to value
businesses and money ahead of people’s health and wellbeing. In an article discussing the
prevalence of mercury in water due to unregulated pollution, the EEN (n.d.-b) invited
conversation about “how much our children’s health is worth” (para. 9). Hescox (n.d.) equated
these groups with “un-clarity, non-enforcement, and unknowing” that “place[s] our children at
further risk” (para. 6). Instead of focusing on the success of businesses, the EEN directs its
attention toward the environmental effects on people’s health, especially of children and poor
populations.
While the CA and the AI undermine intervening in policy and instead advocate anti-
regulation and hesitancy, the EEN advocates “private and public action” (Laushkin, 2015c, para.
194
6). One of the EEN’s (n.d.-a) goals is to support “public policies which embody the principles of
biblical stewardship” (para. 33). Laushkin (2015a) argued that evangelicals, who often share in
conservative values and ideals, have great pull on “conservative lawmakers” to encourage
environmental activism (para. 7). Furthermore, the EEN aims at “building bipartisan support” for
its initiatives (Laushkin, 2015b, para. 5). Hescox emphasized transcending politics and noted,
“climate change is not a liberal issue or any issue other than a people issue” (as quoted in
Valentine, 2014). Climate change should transcend politics and avoid labels of liberal and
conservative and instead focus on common concern for the environment. The EEN makes
marked attempts to influence politics and encourages others to use their religion and passion for
environmental protection. Solutions to climate change “require all of us coming together to
unite” current knowledge about “successes that have already been achieved” (Bodakowski, 2012,
para. 18). The EEN encourages its members “to get involved in regions of the United States and
the World” (para. 1), with no limit to the potential influence of the Christian community. The
EEN has a dual focus on engaging within local church communities, and also supporting national
and global initiatives to protect the environment and future generations. This includes
“promot[ing] cooperation of best resources, best technology, and best approaches to these
problems” through social and political means (Bodakowski, 2012, para. 18).
The EEN is also distinguished by its hermeneutics and definition of important Christian
terms such as stewardship and dominion. A respondent in Bloomfield’s (2016) creation care
survey argued, “dominion is so often misinterpreted as carte blanche permission to do what we
want with creation” (p. 9). Another respondent noted, “Dominion doesn’t mean to destroy;
195
rightly understood, it implies Genesis 2:15
23
” (Bloomfield, 2016, p. 9). This conception echoes
Aristotle’s scales, where life is organized sequentially:
A creature at one level was given “authority” over those at all lower levels, and was
subject in turn to all those above it. Man being at the head of Aristotle’s scale, he was set
in dominion over the lower creatures; but now Angels were placed above him in the
scale, with God in the topmost place of all, man being as much a subject to them as the
lower creatures were to him. (Toulmin, 1985, p. 54)
Contemporary dominion narratives, such as the CA, function in a similar way. Humans are seen
as above all creatures and thus justifiable in their exploitation. Creation care members, and those
focused on purpose, however, are always cognizant of the upper part of the scale. A creation care
member in a survey noted, “humans are a part of creation and while we may be the crown of
creation, we are closer to the rest of creation than to God” (Bloomfield, 2016, p. 15). RTB
(2014b) echoed that same phrase, calling human beings “the crown of God’s creation” because
we possess “inherent dignity and moral worth . . . distinct in kind from all other life on earth”
(para. 7). Instead of the CA’s dominators of the environment, creation care language places a
more protective, defender role on humanity. Rogstad (personal communication, April 7, 2015)
agreed with the EEN view and called Christians “viceroy[s] to oversee creation and to use it
wisely and to take care of it [and] not to tear it apart.” Both RTB and the EEN reinterpret the
dominion quotation of Genesis to best match their orientation towards the environment.
Evangelical creation care members focused on performing actions in the present in spite
of their eschatology that the Earth is a temporary home (Bloomfield, 2016). In a survey of
23
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
196
creation care members, one evangelical noted, “what we do today to protect our world matters in
the future” (Bloomfield, 2016, p. 11). Another survey-taker argued, “I’d rather spend my energy
trying to make it a better place – a place where life can flourish, rather than focusing on an end
that seems unclear” (Bloomfield, 2016, p. 11). Rogstad (personal communication, April 7, 2015)
argued “You could take the view that if we believe that the end of the world is near, why worry
about these things? And I think that we would disagree with that viewpoint.” Samples (2013)
echoed this sentiment by saying, “reflection on Christian eschatological truths should instead
motivate believers to action in the here and now. Knowing that one will leave this temporal
world to dwell in God’s eternal consummated kingdom should encourage distinctively
purposeful living” (p. 54).
For the EEN, humans are the guardians of Earth and are tasked with taking care of it
before the Second Coming. Instead of feeling defeated and vulnerable by the imminent
apocalypse, creation care members tend to view potential endings with hope of renewal and
rebirth (Bloomfield, 2016). The EEN (n.d.-a) encouraged its members to reflect on “the renewal
and completion of God’s purpose in creation” (para. 27). Although God has a plan and an
ultimate purpose, the EEN argues that people have an integral role to play in that plan and must
take up their charge wholeheartedly instead of being passive. The EEN (n.d.-a) argued, “Until
Christ returns to reconcile all things, we are called to be faithful stewards of God’s good garden,
our earthly home” (para. 36). Humanity has the purpose of caring for creation until God returns.
The EEN equates this purpose with a temporary home and gift that will ultimately be returned.
For example, Hescox (n.d.) argued that “if God wasn’t [sic] a gracious landlord, humanity would
have been evicted from the earth long ago” (para. 8).
197
The harmonizers distinguish themselves from other Christian groups through their
hermeneutics and approach to mainstream science. Harmonizers shift the focus from changing
science to opening more Christians to their message. RTB and the EEN attempt to unite two
disparate epistemologies in a coherent narrative, but only achieve a new position by negotiating a
new natural theology. The harmonizers’ discourse is unique from the separators and the
bargainers mainly because of their overall perspective of science and their approach to
incorporating science into the Christian narrative without addressing underlying conflicts. In
avoiding these conflicts, RTB accepts science’s grounds and claims, but offers competing
warrant to find a place for religion in a logical, explanatory structure.
Competing Argument Warrants
In incorporating scientific discourse, harmonizers often accept scientific grounds and
share scientific claims about the world. The harmonizers believe that science is an accurate
foundation by which to support their faith, so agree with many of mainstream science’s
conclusions and adopt much of its evidence. As previously discussed, RTB and the EEN often
point to scientific statistics, information, and data as the core of their religious advocacy. What
differs between harmonizers and mainstream science is the warrants that they use to make the
logical connections between grounds and claims. For example, the EEN would agree with the
IPCC that the warming of the Earth is appropriate grounds to supporting environmental
advocacy because it reflects a danger to human life and the future of the planet. But, the EEN
might also supply a religious warrant, noting that such grounds support such claims because of a
religious duty to protect the environment. RTB and the EEN thus incorporate religion into
198
scientific arguments by providing supplemental justifications for scientific conclusions through
their faith.
RTB (n.d.-a) describes their faith as being “rooted in testable truth,” so science and
empiricism is the foundation and bedrock from which their faith grows. Instead of interpreting
science through a biblical interpretation, RTB start with science. RTB uses a scientific starting
point for its arguments and reaches the same conclusions, such as the big bang and the age of the
Earth. But, RTB interprets the evidence of the age of the Earth and the presence of the big bang
as confirmations of the Christian God, whereas mainstream science views them as confirmations
of a naturalistic universe. RTB argues that Isaiah 42:5
24
accurately describes the Big Bang,
which is used as the warrant to claim that “the two most fundamental properties of the big bang”
confirm the Bible (Ross, 2000, para. 4). The same evidence, the presence of the Big Bang, is
linked to similar claims about its effects on life through religious warrants. These warrants reveal
the ultimate intention of each claim, to support materialist naturalism or supernatural
intervention.
RTB often emphasizes the variety of interpretations of evidence and observations that
might lead people both away and toward the Christian narrative. Thomas Phillips (2014a) argued
that it is important to recognize “that when a new scientific results appears to conflict with our
Christian worldview, the result reported is usually one interpretation of the data” (para. 9).
Specifically, that interpretation is based on “naturalism, meaning that supernatural interpretations
of data are excluded by assumption” (Phillips, 2014b, para. 1). These interpretations will differ
from RTB’s conclusions about how scientific evidence informs our conception of reality. RTB’s
24
This is what the Lord says – He who created the heavens and stretched them out.
199
warrants encourage supernatural and specifically Christian intervention, which leads to an
attribution of evidence to God instead of natural causes. Phillips (2014a) reminds RTB members
that “it is likely that there are other possible interpretations of the relevant observations that will
not cause conflict” (para. 9). RTB’s strategy, therefore, is to use the scientific evidence available
to inform their interpretations of scripture while also offering competing warrants to mainstream
science’s interpretations of discoveries. In cases where successful integration is in question, “we
reexamine the data – both biblical and scientific – recognizing that our understanding is
incomplete” (RTB, n.d.-b, para. 8). Both the Bible and science are susceptible to reinterpretation
when “scientific data seems an unclear or awkward fit with the biblical data” (RTB, n.d.-b, para.
9). Unlike the separators and the bargainers who would eschew reinterpreting the Bible, RTB’s
narrative allows for the reconsideration of biblical conclusions given competing scientific
evidence or changes over time. These reinterpretations are not risks to RTB’s worldview. In fact,
“we see such instances as an opportunity to study both of God’s revelations more deeply” (RTB,
n.d.-b, para. 9). More information does not undermine the Bible, but enables more accurate
understanding of God’s word, and thus better guidance for living.
The EEN also offers religious warrants to link scientific data with appropriate claims and
actions. Primarily, the EEN uses religious warrants in its arguments about the apocalypse and the
environment’s role in the end of the Earth. Scholars have connected apocalyptic consequences to
climate change (e.g., Bloomfield & Lake, 2015; Killingsworth & Palmer, 1995). The end of the
world is potentially brought about by environmental chaos, but is interpreted very differently
depending on one’s orientation towards the apocalypse. David Barker and David Bearce (2013)
argued that some Christians welcome the coming apocalypse because it is a sign of the end
times, where they will be raptured and returned to Heaven. They also argued that belief in the
200
apocalypse can lead to inactivity and passivity towards the environment (Barker & Bearce,
2013). The EEN, however, takes evidence of the apocalypse as an opportunity to make
immediate and effective change. In a survey of creation care members, one respondent argued, “I
am committed to the idea that if or when Jesus comes back, there is going to be plenty of clean
power technology around for helping humanity proceed here on earth” (as quoted in Bloomfield,
2016, p. 11). The fact that the apocalypse will happen, no matter when or how, is a motivating
factor that encourages creation care members to take action. For non-religious people, the intense
changes predicted by the IPCC result in action to protect human life and forestall potential
catastrophe. For the EEN, those actions are also justified based on the given evidence because of
the potential rapture and second coming.
As discussed earlier, the EEN understands dominion and creation care as a mandate and
integral part of their faith. A respondent in the creation care survey argued that everyone “will be
held to account by God for how we manage his creation” (as quoted in Bloomfield, 2016, p. 13).
Christians should take action to protect the environment because the science clearly outlines the
threat to God’s Earth. Another respondent echoed this idea of responsibility noting, “If I put
someone in charge of something, I would expect them to do the same; thus, God expects us to
care [for] the earth wisely” (as quoted in Bloomfield, 2016, p. 13). The poor state of the Earth is
thus a wake-up call from which the EEN justifies its actions and concerns.
These small differences in hermeneutics and argument structure lead to incredibly
different cosmologies and starting narratives, causing friction and potential hostility between the
groups, similar to denominational distinctions. Particularly in the decision of starting with
science instead of religion, the harmonizers distinguish themselves clearly from the logic of the
separators and the bargainers. Science is the foundation from which their arguments stem,
201
meaning that the harmonizers accept scientific claims and grounds as appropriate elements of
their arguments. The separators reject science’s ability to make accurate claims about the Earth
and the bargainers produce competing grounds and evidence from which to reason. In contrast,
the harmonizers accept scientific claims and grounds, but offer religious warrants as a way to
include religion in their reasoning process.
Conclusion
The harmonizers share discursive resources and a framework that emphasizes the unity of
science and religion. Guided by a transcendent rhetoric, RTB and the EEN seek to overcome the
perceived incompatibilities by claiming their unity. Their transcendent frame accepts scientific
information as accurate and meaningful. The goal of their rhetoric is not to change the status quo,
but reframe current knowledge to move into new alignments. RTB differs from mainstream
science on a few points, but overall, RTB and the EEN both accept science as an epistemology
and are heavily influenced by its rhetoric. Unlike the war and revolution metaphors of the
separator and bargainers, the harmonizers are not interested in changing or overthrowing the
current order. Instead of doing battle with scientific conclusions or changing them from within
the community, the harmonizers focus on transitioning skeptical perspectives into embracing the
unity of science and religion. The harmonizers overcome potential difficulties by avoiding and
subsuming them under a competing narrative that emphasizes unity and harmony. Because
science and religion are completely compatible and unified, there is no hard and fast distinction
between them that needs to be defended or remedied. Counter-arguments to RTB’s perspective
202
fall on deaf ears, because RTB’s orientation prevents an understanding of competition and
incompatibility.
This approach to science and religion creates an orientation that guides how the
harmonizers will interact with science and other Christian groups. The narrative does not contain
enemies to be destroyed or overthrown, but does contain scientific and religious groups that have
not yet realized science and religion’s compatibility. Harmonizers do not wish to change the
explanatory narratives of creationists, religious environmentalists, or scientists, but to show them
all that there is immense resonance between them. People can maintain their labels and many of
their guiding tenets and conclusions; their orientation towards the two need only shift. By
viewing science and religion in harmony, the harmonizers also invite aesthetic elements of
discourse to be married with science’s empiricism. Both RTB and the EEN view science as an
epistemic and complementary partner to religion, easily incorporating and finding overlap
between the two. This concerted effort to find balance and unity spreads beyond the relationship
between science and religion. RTB emphasizes common ground among all Christians and argues
that certain doctrinal differences should not sunder the larger agreements of Christians and
creationists. The EEN emphasizes the interconnectedness of life and how humans, plants, and
animals are all in harmony with the Earth and God.
These metaphors guide the harmonizers’ approach to the other characters in their
narrative and how they draw distinctions. Both RTB and the EEN incorporate scientific
methodologies and standards into their discourse, where science serves as the foundation for
action and knowledge. RTB hosts scientific conferences and publishes information regularly
about scientific discoveries. Unlike ICR, RTB is not itself producing competing scientific
information to mainstream science. Oftentimes, RTB is adapting or reinterpreting biblical
203
information and scientific conclusions in order to find alignment between science and religion.
RTB frames information in a new light, provides religious warrants to show compatibility to a
religious audience. RTB measures its interpretations of the Bible based on confirmations from
material evidence. The EEN trusts in scientific conclusions about the risks and urgency of
climate change to spur its advocacy. With the support of scientific institutions, studies, and
graphs, the EEN provides ample scientific justification for immediate and powerful lobbying by
religious groups.
In responding to the pressures of modernity and as a strategic way to reify and legitimize
their religious identity, the harmonizers engage in three distinct rhetorical patterns: 1)
transcendence upwards, 2) metaphor of harmony, 3) competing religious warrants. These
characteristics are distinct from the strategies of the other groups and represent a third option in
response to pressures on existing worldviews. Instead of rejecting new information and
promoting division and instead of stretching new information to fit previously held beliefs,
Christians can embrace scientific information and construct a new, coherent framework that
accepts the old and the new together. This transcendent approach deals with dissenting voices
through transcendence at all costs and prompts scholarly intervention into contemporary
movements that break from the comic/tragic binary. Furthermore, the harmonizers place into
question the legitimacy of the science and religion divide by constructing a new hierarchy that
unites them. In claiming to be both scientifically inspired and religiously dedicated, the
harmonizers invoke a poetic drama that avoids the conflict, stretching, and sacrifice contained in
others. This narrative has not reached mainstream acceptance, however, and competes with the
discourse of the separators and the bargainers for the adherence of contemporary Christians.
204
Chapter Five
A Comic Corrective and the Future of Science and Religion Controversies
This dissertation argued that contemporary facets of Christianity engage different coping
mechanisms in order to legitimize their faith against challenges from science and modernity.
Despite having the same discursive resources, the six groups studied here have immensely
divergent strategies for incorporating science into their religious narratives. After examining
their discourse, these responses were categorized into three discursive patterns: the separators,
the bargainers, and the harmonizers. This argument expands upon previous notions that
Christianity and religion serve as monolithic, unified challenges to science. Instead, this
dissertation demonstrates the incredibly varied responses to scientific pressures taken by groups
to validate religion’s role in their organizing narratives. I argue that it is more informative for
scholars to conceptualize religious groups as nuanced, fragmented, and varied iterations of the
Christian narrative to better understand contemporary challenges to science and the resources
that people use to make sense of beginnings, endings, and the role of humans within the cosmos.
To understand the lasting skepticism of scientific knowledge and the changing role of religion, it
is imperative to interrogate religion’s rhetorical strategies. The need to explain and validate
human existence results in myriad narratives that resonate to varying degrees with the public, be
they from religious, secular, or blended sources. In this chapter, I present a summary of the
groups previously discussed and draw important points of comparison between them in their use
of guiding terms, metaphors, frames, and argument forms. Then, I unpack some of the theoretical
contributions of the study and the potential consequences of current religious fracturing. I further
expand on my role as a scholar in addressing issues of power and authority in controversies over
205
science and religion and how Burke’s comic corrective can provide a way forward. Given these
discussions, I offer avenues for future research into the complicated relationship between science
and religion and the potential universality of the coping mechanisms described here. I conclude
by reiterating the importance of explanatory narratives and the pervasiveness of science and
religion controversies.
Comparing the Separators, Bargainers, and Harmonizers
I have outlined the rhetorical resources and discursive patterns of the separators,
bargainers, and harmonizers. Within each category, I identified two groups, one focusing on
human origins and one focusing on the environment, and analyzed their discourse. The two
groups within each category had many similarities despite their different topical focus, creating
distinct rhetorical patterns from the two other categories. In discerning three dominant strategies
to legitimize faith, I offer an alternative perspective to analyzing Christianity as a unified
discourse. Within Christian narratives, even literal Christian narratives, there is diversity and
even incompatibility.
Not only do these groups largely challenge traditional conceptions of science and
religion, but they also challenge each other’s interpretations of the Bible. Science, modernity,
and conflicting religious interpretations all serve as complications to a coherent, Christian story.
Oftentimes, the presence of other Christian narratives is more threatening than a scientific
opponent. The existence of multiplicities reflects the pervasive problem of modernity that
uproots religious ways of knowing. Modernity supplants religion with empiricism, while
postmodernity only guarantees religion a competing space among other epistemologies. In a
206
postmodern society, religion has a role to play, but must compete against other, equally valid
perspectives. In a modern society, religion takes a back seat to science and materialism. Gadamer
(1999) argued, “It is hard for theology to sidestep the demand that faith be harmonized with
reason,” but theology is not limited as to how reason should be incorporated (p. 3). With the
emergence of science, religion did not completely fade from view, but has instead reimagined
itself in order to reclaim and reestablish the legitimacy of the Christian narrative. For many in the
US, religion never faded from an important public role. But, it is also hard to combat the
increasing validity of non-religion living, where nearly one in five Americans profess no
religious affiliation (Lipka, 2015). Finding ways to cope with atheism and agnosticism become
integral parts of defining one’s religious, and oftentimes Christian, identity.
For the Christian groups studied here, the three response categories share the same
discursive foundations, but vary widely in their orientations, guiding terms, and conclusions.
Much like the fracturing among Christian denominations, creationists and religious
environmentalists exhibit many similarities, but also incompatible differences, necessitating the
formation of multiple group identities. In what follows, I will briefly summarize the key
arguments of the previous chapters and reiterate the defining characteristics of each group. Then,
I will address some important points of comparison between the groups, including their
demographic information, hermeneutic process, and narrative resonance.
Separators
The separators are guided by division, or the separation of terms and identities into
opponents. AIG and the CA polarize religious and scientific identities, marking them as enemies.
207
Religion alone has access to the truth and science proposes a competing, false worldview. For
the separators, religion is under attack and needs to be defended from the immoral influences of
science, evolution, and environmentalism. Materialism and modernity directly undermine and
compete with Christianity, so must be destroyed. Under the orientation of division, the separators
engage in a melodramatic frame, where science and opponents to faith are evil villains to be
vanquished. The separators engage in a holy war, where their actions are justified in restoring the
order where religion is dominant. Opponents to the faith cannot be treated lightly or with
kindness; opponents must be destroyed, and justly so. The guiding term of division encourages a
melodramatic frame, because divided groups are set against one another in competition for
resources and members where there is a clearly polarized good and evil, akin to Manichaeism.
Separators ignore possibilities for compromise and deny the need for science in their
metanarrative. Separators not only identify enemies in science and atheism, but also within
Christianity. Separators label competing Christian narratives, such as those of the bargainers and
harmonizers, as damaging to the authority of the Bible. Bargainers may reach many of the same
conclusions as the separators, but they, along with the harmonizers, offer competing explanations
that challenge the autonomy of the separators’ explanatory narratives. The separators seek to
destroy the influences of science and offer religion as a viable solution for when science
eventually fails.
AIG is the human origins separator and uses the war metaphor to justify fighting against
evolution and Christian “compromisers.” AIG argues for a young earth based on a literal six-day
creation and the chronology based on the genealogy of people listed in the Bible. Not only does
AIG advocate that scientific conclusions are false, but it also argues that those conclusions are
morally damaging. These threats motivate AIG to respond in kind, with aggressive, belligerent
208
language. Evolution, atheism, and materialism target Christianity, prompting attacks and
defensive measures in return. AIG specifically addresses the implications of evolution on the
youth and advocate a return to the Bible as the only solution to society’s problems. AIG uses its
website, publications, public debates, and museum sites to disseminate the message of separation
and reclaim absolute truth for the Bible. AIG also demonizes competition from other Christians,
such as the harmonizers, who incorporate scientific methodologies and evidence in ways that
distort AIG’s brand of literalism. AIG firmly denies the possibility of any compromise or
cooperation between science and religion. Although AIG may reach many of the same
conclusions as ICR, they go about justifying and supporting those conclusions through distinct
means.
The CA is the climate change separator that views environmentalism as a threat to
biblical living. The CA argues against environmental advocacy and the severity of predicted
consequences. Instead, the CA argues that global warming can be beneficial and the negative
effects have been largely exaggerated. Furthermore, the CA blames the environmental movement
for distracting the public from more pressing, moral issues such as abortion and poverty.
Scientists and environmentalists prioritize climate change advocacy at the expense of these
“real” Christian issues. The CA advocates re-engaging important social issues and directing
current attention, time, and money away from the environment. The CA even goes as far as to
describe environmentalism as a competing religion that undermines the goals of the Bible.
People must choose between Christianity and environmentalism, because one cannot piously
worship two faiths. The CA also engages the war metaphor and warns that Christians should
“beware” the lure of environmentalism. While the CA argues that the environment is important,
209
it places complete control of Earth in God’s hands; humans are powerless to counter God’s
wishes.
Based on analysis of AIG’s discourse, publications, and sites, the separators share three
important discursive patterns: 1) melodramatic frame; 2) metaphor of war; and 3) competing
argument claims. These patterns are rooted in division, which separates and polarizes science
and religion and their Christian narrative from others. These characteristics comprise a
fundamentalist approach that is easily recognizable as belligerent, polarizing, and fervent. In
many ways, this discursive pattern is easiest to conceptualize, recognize, and understand as a
natural reaction to new and frightening information. In their discourse, good and evil are clearly
defined, and there is no complicated compromise and bargaining with the enemy. Separators take
a hard line against science as encroaching and undermining the religious narrative and thus reject
including it in their narrative. Separators embrace Christianity fully as the only required and
valid epistemology.
Bargainers
The bargainers are guided by consubstantiality, where they modify and stretch definitions
of science, its methodologies, and its standards to confer the scientific label on themselves. The
bargainers place some faith in science, but only to the extent that it matches their religious
foundations of a young earth and belief that God values economics as an in-roads to
environmentalism. Bargainers locate enemies within the scientific establishment and seek to
overthrow their materialist bias. Bargainers invoke a tragicomic frame, where opponents are
portrayed as foolish, but also needing to be overthrown and identified clearly as inaccurate
210
factions within science. Scientists are often painted as mistaken or blind to accurate, unbiased
evidence. This foolishness cannot be taken lightly, unlike in the comic frame, and must be
corrected at all costs. Because bargainers place themselves within the scientific establishment,
they do not seek to destroy its epistemic dominance. Instead, they hope to start an ideological
shift where mainstream scientists come to terms with supernatural ways of knowing through
conversion or replacement. Bargainers are guided by the metaphor of revolution; they hope their
minority position will eventually overthrow modern conceptions. Bargainers find mainstream
scientists to be lacking an important element of scientific inquiry, the Bible, and as a result they
reach incorrect conclusions. Bargainers offer their own competing scientific grounds and
evidence in order to influence the general public and mainstream science. The bargainers find
science and religion compatible to the extent that the Bible remains their epistemic yardstick by
which aspects of mainstream science are deemed “scientific.”
ICR is the human origins bargainer that views itself as part of the scientific
establishment. ICR acknowledges that it has minority and dissenting viewpoints, but this fact
only empowers the organization to challenge mainstream science. ICR notes that it is unique
among scientific groups because it employs the Bible as a literal history. Similar to AIG, ICR
advocates a young earth and that Noah’s Flood is a historical event. Through a scientific
revolution, ICR hopes to reinstate the once-dominant position of creationism in schools and
public opinion. ICR has a museum in Santee, California and is building a new one in Dallas,
Texas, to communicate biblical information in a scientific form. Adopting the term scientific
creationism, ICR negotiates scientific information to fit their religious orientations. ICR runs its
only laboratory experiments including genome analysis, fossil examination, and cosmological
observations to offer competing scientific grounds. They also undermine established scientific
211
methodologies such as radioactive dating and offer their own shorter time scales as competing
evidence. Furthermore, ICR appeals to tenets of science such as open space for communication
and the sharing ideas as a tool to claim space within scientific thought.
The AI is the climate change bargainer that offers economics as a competing scientific
discipline to environmentalism. The AI adopts economic conclusions as scientific grounds to
make arguments against climate change advocacy. Similar to the CA, the AI advocates hesitancy
and caution towards environmental action, but does so not by vilifying environmentalism, but
offering economics as an alternative, and more Christian, method of engagement. The AI
specifically posits that taking action supported by environmentalists will damage the global
economy. For the AI, the economic security of the world and the promotion of free economic
policies supersede environmental protection. The AI advises Christians to have faith in God’s
power over the environment, so more attention can be turned to influencing human-made
systems, such as the economy. While the AI would trumpet stewardship as a guiding value, they
alter the definition of stewardship to include loyalties to economics and vulnerable populations.
The AI argues that bolstering the global economy will not only lift many people out of poverty,
but it will also naturally encourage the formation of more environmentally-friendly business
practices.
The bargainers thus share three important discursive patterns: 1) tragicomic frame; 2)
metaphor of revolution; and 3) competing argument grounds. Through an emphasis on casuistic
stretching and consubstantiality, the bargainers negotiate a middle ground that pushes and pulls
against the definitions of “science.” These characteristics blend the separators’ fundamentalist
approach with the harmonizers’ respect for scientific ways of knowing. But, instead of adopting
science wholeheartedly, bargainers adapt science to fit their religious identities, meaning that
212
they must make coherent decisions between what is and what is not science. The bargainers
make adjustments that often contradict the conclusions of mainstream science of which they
claim to be a part.
Harmonizers
The harmonizers are guided by identification, and they seek common ground and
transcendence where the other groups seek war and revolution. The harmonizers transcend the
differences between science and religion and propose a new perspective where the two work
together in perfect unity without attention to their contradictions and incompatibilities. The
harmonizers view themselves as being biblical literalists, but their approach to hermeneutics
leads to different conclusions than the separators and bargainers. The harmonizers allow for their
interpretation of the Bible to be guided by science, because they view both as compatible. God is
the author of both the Earth and the Bible, so their common source connects them. Without the
possibility for the two to disagree, harmonizers place the burden of incompatibility on human
interpretation of the Bible. Harmonizers thus only seek to modify the perspective that people
take towards the relationship between science and religion, not the epistemologies themselves. In
this vein, harmonizers propose alternative religious warrants as ways to interpret scientific
information in line with the Bible. Although they seek transcendence upwards and perfect
harmony, the harmonizers simply redraw the lines of battle and continue to alienate other
religious interpretations (Burke, 1966b). Separators and bargainers seek substantial change to the
established order, specifically to remove the threats of science and modernity to religion’s
legitimacy. Harmonizers, however, do not view science and modernity as threats. It is only a lack
213
of perspective and holistic orientation that stops everyone from understanding the compatibility
of science and religion. In proposing this option, however, harmonizers have not spurred a shift
in perspective, but have managed to make enemies of both the separators and the bargainers.
RTB is the human origins harmonizer that transcends the divide between science and
religion by viewing them as dual revelations of God. RTB describes its interpretation of the
Bible as literalist. Unlike AIG’s and ICR’s literalism, RTB agrees with scientists that the
universe is billions of years old and started with the Big Bang. RTB also believes in the
mechanisms of evolution, but holds that God intervened in the specific creation of human life.
RTB would agree with many mainstream scientific conclusions, but advocates for a shift in
perspective where both science and Christians would respect the role of the Christian God in the
creation and development of the universe. In many ways, RTB echoes the discourse of intelligent
design advocates who argue that there is evidence of God’s creative power and insight in human
life. RTB also emphasizes purpose along with agent, noting the creativity, intelligence, and
design apparent in all life. RTB unites science and religion in harmony as complementary ways
that God provides information to humans. The Bible and nature, therefore, will never contradict
one another. If science provides new information about the world, then the Bible may have to be
reinterpreted to match those scientific conclusions. Because science and religion will always
agree, humans have erred, not God.
The EEN is the climate change harmonizer that uses biblical mandates to motivate
Christians to support environmental protection. The EEN shares the metaphors of harmony,
unity, and transcendence. They do not find disagreement or conflict between science and
religion, nor do they find conflict between human life and non-human life (Bloomfield, 2016).
The EEN unites all life under the umbrella of God’s creation, valuing each as directly coming
214
from God. For the world to be in harmony, humanity needs to respect God’s command to care
for all of creation, including the environment. The EEN uses scientific evidence and predictions
about climate change to ground its activism. Science provides the justification for mobilizing
quickly for environmental protection. The EEN embraces science’s dominance as a complement
to the environmental mandates in the Bible. The EEN values all life and argues that protecting
the environment is part of a pro-life, charitable Christian identity. Instead of limiting pro-life
advocacy to abortion, the EEN expands the term to include the quality of life from cradle to
grave. Environmental protection, therefore, is part of stewardship to both the Earth and fellow
humans.
The harmonizers thus share three important discursive patterns: 1) transcendence
upwards; 2) metaphor of harmony; and 3) competing argument warrants. These characteristics
are rooted in identification, where the similarities and overlap between science and religion are
of the utmost importance to their understanding of reality. Harmonizers attempt to create a
comic, transcendent approach, but they gloss over many of the incompatibilities and underlying
disagreements between science and religion. In championing harmony and unity, the
harmonizers alienate many of their Christian peers and appear to be naïve to many of the issues
that people commonly see in these controversies. Their conclusions often mirror those of
mainstream science, making it easy for separators and bargainers to construct the harmonizers’
activities as enemies to Christian piety. The harmonizers’ position makes the mistake of
valorizing compromise and unity over working through details and nuances between religion and
science. This perspective, then, does not quite reach the awareness and reflection needed for a
comic approach and instead transcends upwards without critical attention to how and why the
conflict emerges and persists between science and religion.
215
These discourses are representative patterns of how religious groups are responding to the
threats of science and modernity to their Christian narratives. The separators, bargainers, and
harmonizers can be mapped onto Burke’s (1951) stages of discourse and conversation. He
argued that language often moves through three stages: “an Inferno, a Purgatorio, and a
Paradiso” (Burke, 1951, p. 202). The Inferno represents the war metaphor of the separators in
polarizing two “fighters” as good and evil (p. 202). The Puragatorio represents the bargainers
because of its “movement of transition,” that transforms and alters perspectives (p. 202). The
Paradiso embodies “the Upward Way” which moves toward “progressively ‘higher levels of
generalization’” at the expense of understanding differences (p. 202). Separators, bargainers, and
harmonizers engage in the Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso, respectively, in constructing an
overarching narrative that provides unity and understanding for its members. Burke’s (1951)
metaphorical stages help illuminate the differences between these three categories in their
approach to interpreting reality.
These categories lay the foundation for a more nuanced understanding of religious
narratives and the challenges that science faces in the public sphere. Although modernity
provides science dominance over knowledge, this status is conferred mostly in the technical
sphere. Moving from the technical to the public sphere requires translation of scientific concepts
that are then rejected, accepted, or modified by the public. Science provides information to the
public, but faces competing ways of knowing, such as religion, that disrupts its claims to
autonomy. Religion particularly challenges science on issues of education and politics, areas
where we continuously see controversies emerge. These six groups invoke different coping
strategies in order to validate and legitimize religion, specifically their version of the Christian
216
narrative. These versions are tailored and nuanced into coherent narratives, creating fissions
between interpretations as incompatible.
Hermeneutics
Across Chapters Two, Three, and Four, I elaborated on the importance of labeling and
definitions within explanatory narratives, between the “true” narrative and the “other,”
competing interpretations. Each group drew the lines of battle differently (Burke, 1966b),
approaching their faith with different guiding terms, principles, and orientations. Even the groups
within the same category choose disparate priorities of beginnings and endings. All six groups
made use of the same epistemic resources (i.e., the Bible) and the language within it. But, their
process of hermeneutics led to drastically different conclusions. The differences in language use
and labels between these groups separate them into competing explanatory narratives. It is their
definitions of common terms that prevent them from compromising and joining forces to face
common enemies and reestablish a religious order. Burke argued that language becomes so
“useful” as a powerful tool to define ourselves, that these divisions can stall forward progress,
identification, and unification.
We find our way about by distinguishing ourselves from others that may threaten our
own livelihood based on the labels we ascribe to ourselves (Lake, 1997). When the separators,
bargainers, and harmonizers identify each other as enemies or, at least different narratives, they
are, in part, undermining their own claims to religious truth. Harrington (2007) argued that
multiplicity, in part, ensures the presence of multiple narratives by universally legitimizing
claims. In de-centering their positionality, however, these groups go against their primary goal:
217
to put forth their narrative as the ultimate truth. Groups must thus appeal simultaneously to
postmodernity, which guarantees them space and a voice in a multiplicity of truths, and
modernity, which encourages objective truths and centers knowledge on single ways of knowing.
Burke (1941) argued, “no one quite uses the word in its mere dictionary sense,” so there
is no universal pattern of usage for language (p. 35). Instead, people understand the meaning of
words “by the company it keeps,” and the terms that cluster together (p. 35). The separators,
bargainers, and harmonizers often used the same words, but ascribe vastly different meanings to
them. For example, all three human origins groups labeled themselves “creationists.” AIG used
the term to define their narrative as a young-Earth creationism that challenged evolution. AIG’s
creationism is defined by a reading of Bible verses in their “normal” meaning, so God created
the universe in six-24 hour days. AIG clustered creationism around morality and the authority of
God to tell the truth using the Bible. ICR adopted the term “scientific creationism” to note their
maintenance of the creationism narrative with scientific support. ICR also read the Bible in its
“normal” usage, but marked its creationist narrative as being legitimized by the institution of
science. ICR’s discourse clustered creationism around science, evidence, and accuracy to
emphasize the scientific validity of their conclusions. RTB used the term “progressive
creationism,” to distinguish its approach to creationism as the progressive, forward-thinking, and
enlightened approach to the Bible. Instead of being a fundamentalist, regressive approach to
creationism, RTB advertises its new and unique approach as progressive creationism, updated
for the contemporary era. RTB clustered creationism around terms of harmony and integration.
In describing themselves as “creationist,” it is impossible to know for certain each group’s
conclusions without paying attention to other words that influence their interpretations and
definitions.
218
The climate change groups also clung to the same terms, for example “stewardship.”
Each group used stewardship as a mandate from God to guide their actions, but how they defined
the terms created very different courses of action towards the environment. The CA considered
stewardship towards God’s creation as protecting solely human life, especially vulnerable life
such as the unborn and the poor. Stewardship was clustered around care for humanity, including
moral and social responsibilities. The AI defined stewardship as helping both the poor and the
environment through economic policies that would trump environmental protection laws. The
AI’s stewardship clustered around terms relevant to the economy, such as progress, poverty, and
capitalism. The EEN interpreted stewardship as care towards all of God’s creation, including
plant, animal, and human life. The EEN’s stewardship was defined in relation to the
interconnectedness of life, cooperation, and moral responsibility. The climate change groups
shared the human origins groups’ reliance on similar terminology and guiding terms. In
redefining Christianity, they all clung to a similar vocabulary as reference points for current and
potential adherents. Recognizing the power of well-known terms, these groups capitalize on the
biblical mandate of stewardship and frame their piety around achieving it. Each group argues
that humans should be good stewards of the environment. Instead of battling the dominance of
this guiding term and replacing it with another, the groups redefine what “good” stewardship
means in order to meet their goals. Because other groups do not meet these standards, they can
be dismissed as inaccurate or encouraging bad stewardship.
Despite these six groups using the same resources, they fragmented over their
interpretations of guiding terms. Burke (1966b) argued that there are two types of words, “terms
that put things together, and terms that take things apart” (p. 49). Creationism and stewardship
appear to be both. For those that ascribe to the same definition of creationism and stewardship,
219
they are powerful words that signify the discovery of a compatible explanatory narrative in
alignment with these groups. For those that disagree, these terms create incompatibility and, in
some instances, enemies. These terms are undoubtedly pulling Christians apart in their varying
definitions, but they also unite groups of Christians that resonate with those same definitions and
the orientations thus implied. These two terms are exemplars of commonality between the
groups, but are by no means the only ones. Discussing creationism and stewardship emphasizes
the importance of hermeneutics and interpretation in this study.
The language that the groups use further reinforces their narrative perspective; their
hermeneutic conclusions always confirm the frame with which one reads a text. Paul Ricoeur
(1974) argued, “interpretation has specific subjective implications, such as the involvement of
the reader in the process of understanding and the reciprocity between text-interpretation and
self-interpretation” (p. 95). This process of the “hermeneutical circle” guarantees that the reader
will include parts of themselves in their reading, and challenges the idea that any reading is
literal or without interpretation. (Ricoeur, 1974, p. 95). Approaching the Bible under the
framework of a young earth instead of an old earth will influence the appropriate reading of
Genesis 1:1-31
25
. Similarly, if one already holds a perspective about actions towards the
environment, one will read the dominion mandate
26
with an eye towards stewardship instead of
control and exploitation. In other words, a predilection for stewardship may cause religious
environmentalists to interpret “dominion” in a care-taker role over other definitions. The Bible
25
This passage describes the creation process happening over six days, from the creation of the universe, earth,
plant and animal life, and humans.
26
Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth
220
does not contain all of the answers; understanding the information within involves mediation and
decoding by humans. Various readings of the Bible in part contributed to the creation of many
denominations. I argue that currently, interpretative readings are also causing fracturing among
human origins and religious environmental groups. Armed with a desired perspective, groups
search the Bible for confirmation of their orientations. The choices one makes among the many
options have rhetorical implications for attitudes and beliefs. Although the separators and the
bargainers argue that they use a literal interpretation that is more true to the Bible’s intentions
than the harmonizers, they are themselves still participating in a selection and deflection of
reality through language. In trying to “reflect” the truth of the Bible, groups “select” the passage
that most resonate with them, and thus, they “deflect” the perspectives and narratives of other
groups (Burke, 1969, p. 59). These selections are strategic choices that appeal differently to the
general public and their conceptions of faith. Moving forward, I analyze the implications of the
narrative resonance of each group based on these hermeneutic strategies.
Narrative Resonance
One clear conclusion of this study is that there are enough people struggling with the
science and religion to seek out membership in these groups and to experiment with the
relationship. If people were not struggling with ontological and epistemic questions, then there
would not be enough members to populate these six groups, let alone the dozens of other groups
working in this space. Many groups advocate similar conclusions; they are all Christian groups
making sense of reality using the same tools. These patterns are only the first step in exploring
the nuances of contemporary Christian and religious thought and the responses that science
221
provokes. The emergence of even slight variations with these different response types spurs the
creation of new groups constructing similar, yet distinct narratives. The span of potential group
narratives supports the importance of studying this ongoing and immensely difficult rhetorical
process. In this section, I will address the varying resonance that these stories have as reflected in
their size and influence.
The sizes of the six groups varied greatly. If one were to draw connections between the
viability of certain narratives and number of group members, it is clear that some narratives are
resonating more than others around different topics. In other words, there was no one response
type that is the most successful between human origins and climate change controversies. AIG,
the creationist separator, is by far the largest and is the most influential of the human origins
groups. AIG boasts $27 million in annual income and often receives press coverage for its event
such as Ham’s debate with Bill Nye in February, 2014 (Charity Navigator, 2014a). This is
substantially larger than RTB, whose donations are a little more than one fifth of AIG’s annual
income (Charity Navigator, 2014b). While AIG dominates the human origins narrative, the EEN,
a harmonizer, is the largest and most well-known group of the religious environmentalists. They
have more than 600,000 registered members nation-wide, with offshoots such as the Young
Evangelicals for Climate Acton, both of which continue to grow (Laushkin, 2015d). They are
frequently in the news because of their partnerships with other religious environmental groups,
support for Pope Francis, and popular protests against policies such as the Keystone pipeline.
The separator and harmonizer narratives thus have varying success across these two topics. The
separator narrative of war and division resonates more profoundly in the issue of creationism vs
evolution. This narrative does not hold as much traction, however, in the climate change
222
controversy, where harmonizing discourse that unites religion and science appears to resonate
with more Christians.
The groups were sometimes aware of their position within the larger constellation of
science and religion groups. Rogstad (personal communication, April 5, 2015) noted:
We’re the best kept secret. We go out there and we find out that not very many people
know about Reasons to Believe. A lot of people know about Answers in Genesis, they
have these huge amounts of money and build these, like Answers in Genesis has that
big . . . museum in Kentucky or something. We’re operating relatively on a shoestring.
RTB describes its low funding and membership to a “secret” in the human origins community.
RTB believes it has the correct, universally true and transcendent narrative, but acknowledge that
few people are aware of it. Similarly, AIG is aware of their more powerful position. On their
history page, Ham (2015a) argued that AIG “has now become the world’s largest apologetics
organization” (para. 92). AIG acknowledges its influence and works to expand it through events
such as public debates and projects such as the Ark Encounter. ICR (2016) also argued for its
continue influence and power in the community, noting that its long-standing organization “has a
legacy of changing lives” that will continue when it opens its Dallas Museum of Space and Earth
History (p. 6).
I have previously argued that different pentadic ratios lead to different levels of narrative
resonance (Bloomfield, 2015). This study adds further nuance to this conclusion by arguing that
even within certain overarching narratives, such as creationism, there are various levels of
resonance and adherence. Although all groups emphasized the agent and the power of the
Christian God, the harmonizers also made frequent reference to the importance of purpose,
perhaps enough to be a dual leading ratio. The narrative of separation and war seems to ignite
223
more people in the creationism narrative, perhaps because of increased trends of polarization and
the subsequent media coverage such tactics draw (Dixon & Clarke, 2012; Norris & Inglehart,
2011). But, this association does not hold true in the climate change controversy, where the
harmonizer has the more resonate story. The future consequences and potential risks of climate
change may be creating an exigency that is friendlier to action than additional calls for war. A
focus on purpose indicates a driving need and motivation for action. While the past is important,
it has already happened, but the future is still something that present action can reconfigure and
change. With the increase of information about the severity and urgency of climate change
(IPCC, 2012), the harmonizer narrative may be more appealing because it offers hope to
influence the future.
These three categories are current aspects of religious rhetoric that can be used
descriptively and analytically in the discussion of future groups, controversies, and responses to
science and modernity. This analysis indicates that these categories have varying narrative
resonance, similar to Burke’s pentadic ratios (Bloomfield & Sangalang, 2014), that can be
further studied and expanded. The varying strength of the categories across human origins and
climate change controversies supports the complexity and nuance within religious explanatory
narratives. Without comparing membership lists, it is impossible to say concretely whether
someone is likely to be a separator in both categories. But, consistency makes sense. The
rhetorical patterns that resonate with people about beginnings would also provide the resources
for an appetite that would be fulfilled in the endings. A separating beginning would hardly
provide the piety to match a harmonizing ending. The differences in membership and reach may
indicate the likelihood for separator, bargainer, or harmonizer to be involved in either issue or
the relative awareness people have of the various options in each issue. Beginnings and endings
224
are inextricably linked, so it would logically follow that the discourses of the separators,
bargainers, and harmonizers would be consistent across the topics, creating an overarching
narrative that does not vary in its tone, framework, and guiding terms.
Demographic Information
Due to space and the key arguments of this piece, I have so far avoided analysis of the
demographic make-up of these groups. Here, I offer a brief analysis of an apparent pattern. It had
occurred to me during early on in my research that group leadership was nearly exclusively
white men. I had initially justified this as an iteration of general race and gender hierarchies
where white men are a large percentage of organization and business leaders. I had noticed the
lack of diversity, but was not sure what that meant for the larger topics at hand, so did not think
to categorize it or ascribe significance to it at first.
Attending chapter meetings, conferences, and site visits brought this homogeneity into a
new light. At the AMP 2015 conference, I noticed little diversity among attendees. I do not have
access to demographic information of the registered guests, but the speakers at the event and the
audience I saw were almost exclusively white with a great majority being male. I also attended
an RTB chapter meeting in California that fit this pattern. The meeting schedule covered various
topics such as UFOs, synthetic biology, and atheistic evolution. It was at one particular meeting
about genetic manipulation and the moral and ethical limits that should be placed on scientific
experimentation, where I noticed that 30 of the 36 present were white men. I was one of six
females present, three of which were women of color. One Asian woman was the spouse of the
guest speaker and sat at my table, while the other two women of color were a black mother and
225
her daughter. I was the youngest member there besides the daughter by decades. Despite some
scholarly support for the youthful age of science-friendly faithful (e.g., Prelli & Winters, 2009), I
have found many middle-aged and older participants in both creation care groups (Bloomfield,
2016) and creationist groups. At ICR’s Creation and Earth History Museum in Santee, I was
confronted by the same lack of diversity. Upon entering the museum, a Latino couple
approached the front desk, asked a question, and then promptly left the space. Besides those two
people, there were only white museum attendees and workers throughout my visit. A tour group
from a local school was also racially homogenous, with moms and female teachers as
chaperones. The tour guides were white men as were all identifiable staff members. In the site
visits I was able to make to RTB and ICR sites, I found a predominance of white bodies with few
females.
Once I noticed the lack of diversity in both leadership and attendees, I went back and did
more explicit coding of race and gender in the groups’ leadership. The homogeneity discovered
at site visits was borne out by the leadership. This miniature quantitative analysis is based on the
information provided by each organization online, so might not be fully inclusive of the
organization’s leadership or membership or entirely accurate. But, with the information
available, I found incredible consistency in the lack of women and people of color in staff
administration and leadership, which I believe is worth noting. The most diverse group was the
AI, who of their 21 person leadership (executive board and research staff), had six women (all
white) and two people of color (both men). The AI’s leadership is thus 71.4% male and 90.4%
white. To say that this was the most diverse leadership is quite profound. The AIG’s staff
contained one white woman in a group of 14 people, making them 100% white and 92.8% male.
The CA listed both primary staff and an advisory board. Of the two executives listed, one was a
226
white male (Beisner) and his administrative assistant, a white woman. Including those two staff
with the 30 person advisory board, the CA had one white woman and one man of color, meaning
that the CA is 96.8% white men. RTB lists only 4 research staff, with one man of color (75%
white; 100% male), although during the writing of this study, RTB’s visiting scholar was a white
woman. The EEN and the ICR were both 100% white men (four and nine staff members,
respectively). When females were present, it was often in administrative or secretarial positions,
such as staffing welcome desks and running homeschooling programs. One reason for this may
be due to a conformity to gender roles that places women in more submissive, passive roles in a
patriarchal, religious systems. The research and leadership positions were dominated by men,
specifically white men. Across all of these groups, there was not a single woman of color listed
as executive or research staff. The final count listed eight women and four men of color out of 84
total staff. This makes the collective group demographics 90.4% male and 95.2% white.
As I had initially thought, some of this disparity might be a reflection of a general lack of
women and people of color in leadership positions in businesses and non-profits. I doubt,
however, that this fact alone explains the immense dominance of white men in these religious
groups. It is difficult to state with any certainty why these demographic divides have occurred
without further inquiry, but I will offer some potential reasons behind the lack of diversity, both
of which extend from the internal and external identity functions of religion and race. First, I
propose that general security and livelihood of white men might provide them the free time and
mental space to worry about higher ideals. In Abraham Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs, the
search of self-actualization and philosophical complacency are achieved only once needs of
security, safety, and physiological needs are met. This is not to say that all non-white people and
women are unsafe or unsecure or are lacking biological needs. But the lack of economic stability
227
and the fight for equality, fair treatment, and justice may trump issues of origins and the
environment. Maslow (1943) argued that if the needs of a particular level are not being met, then
“all other needs may become simply non-existent or be pushed into the background” (p. 373). If
there are more pressing needs for physical safety, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, or
financial equity, such as the gender pay gap, then beginnings and endings may pale in
importance to the present moment. People who are secure and stable in their basic needs at
present may place more importance on the larger narrative of life and its bearing on the present.
Thus, the external pressures of identifying as a man of color, a white woman, or a woman of
color (not to mention the oft-invisible non-binary combinations of gender and race), might
overshadow concerns over the nuance of faith. Faith becomes a social community and support
for understanding and tackling larger issues, and minute discussions of interpretation and
hermeneutics are not as important or valued.
Also contributing to this racial divide might be the lack of a cohesive “white” community
that can provide a specific identity and narrative (Dyer, 2005). In a black religious community,
an internal sense of identity and purpose is provided by membership in the group and validated
through the shared experiences of others. For white religious communities, and specifically white
men in these communities, the church does not provide a concrete race or identity besides
“human” or “person” with which to connect and solidify an identity (Dyer, 2005, p. 10). With
religion substituting as that foundation, differences between biblical interpretations become
paramount to the white, male identity. With whiteness and masculinity being relatively neutral
identity markers, one’s sense of meaning, purpose, and identity may search for concrete
identifiers “in a world of multiple identities, of hybridity, of decentredness and fragmentation”
(Dyer, 2005, p. 11). Religion becomes that sacred identity where one’s membership as a
228
“creationist,” or even a “scientific creationist,” becomes a way to identify differences and
similarities. James Zappen (2009) argued, “while Christianity provides a powerful instance of
identification, it also provides an equally powerful illustration of its division from other peoples”
(p. 280), and I propose that this function may be heightened when religion is the most salient
aspect of one’s identity.
I am unable to further discuss or delve into the role of race and gender in the religious
communities studied here. Without further analysis, it is difficult to determine the full
implications of such homogeneity on issues of science and religion. Suffice to say, the issues of
those in power can lead the attention and focus of others. With white men the predominant
movers and shakers in human origins and climate change controversies, they may always have a
voice and a road to participation where other voices might be stifled. There is also the possibility
that other groups of women and people of color are congregating around these issues, but that
they are being subsumed under larger categories or are not as prominent as other groups. The
thoughts presented here are preliminary at best and further research might attend in more detail
to the role of race and gender in religious communities and group formations.
Argument Summary
In this dissertation, I explored the different discursive resources that Christian groups use
to make sense of science within their explanatory narrative. Considering the complicated
relationship between science and religion, I analyzed how people make sense of seemingly
incompatible ways of knowing. Modernity, empiricism, materialism, and scientific inquiry are
competing epistemic resources to the Bible and influence its validity. As discussed above, the
229
groups’ hermeneutic frame influences their approach to the relationship between science and
religion. Foregrounding dramatism as a critical lens allowed for the interrogation of religion as a
fractured explanatory system. The three categories, separators, bargainers, and harmonizers,
differently incorporated science as a coping mechanism to legitimize the Christian narrative.
I argued that these discursive patterns reflect key dramatistic terms, such as identification,
orientations, and metaphors. I argue that dramatism illuminates how competing stories intersect
and position one another in contemporary controversies. It is important to consider science and
religion as narratives (Bloomfield, 2015). This perspective helps explain the pervasiveness of
science and religion controversies and the ways that religion validates itself as a competing
epistemology. I also offer these three categories as a coding mechanism for future research to
break away from considering group responses as monolithic. The relative stability of these
patterns may reflect the utility of genres, because they create categories to which other
discourses can be compared. These groups, particularly the harmonizers, also provide potential
in-roads for communication between science and religion and the creation of consubstantiality.
Although I find RTB’s science somewhat problematic, it appears that the EEN has been
successful creating strategic alliances between science and religion to promote activism and
awareness of one of the most pressing issues of the modern era.
The fracturing of Christianity among these discourses also supports the idea that religion
may not be as intractable as once thought. The underlying religious adherence remains, but there
is also increasing pressure to alter or modify how one measures accurate adherence and piety.
There was evidence, especially from RTB members, that conversion between categories
occurred. In the online Astronomy by Design course, an RTB member said that he used to be a
young-earth creationist who “listened to and read Kent Hovind and ICR material” (Student MD,
230
2015c, para. 14). He continued, “I simply believed based on what I had been told that the
scientific evidence was on the side of a young earth,” but after researching for himself, “I rapidly
accepted an ancient earth and universe” (Student MD, 2015c, para. 14). There is evidence that
Christians can move between the categories to find a resonating narrative or fitting
denomination. For example, Beisner is the President of the CA, but also writes for the AI. In
wearing multiple hats, Beisner changes his discourse to meet the overarching frames, terms, and
metaphors of the particular group for which he is writing. On its surface, these types of rhetorical
adjustments could be considered natural occurrences of accommodating various rhetorical
situations (Bitzer, 1990). Shifting frameworks is incredibly burdensome work, so it is probable
that these moves are themselves comprised of much stretching, bargaining, and struggle (Burke,
1969). Scholars may further attend to these rhetorical categories and how easy or difficult it is to
move between them.
This research also reinforces contemporary practices in rhetoric to pair the rhetorical
patterns of official discourse with participant observation. I make use of symbolic and material
resources to analyze the official narrative of groups and how those discourses are enacted by
their members. This research is important in order to understand the contemporary challenges
that science communication faces. Most research highlights or only recognizes the separator’s
fundamentalist, belligerent narrative. Rhetorical and science communication scholars would
benefit from a more nuanced consideration of the ways science is reinterpreted and understood
by the general public. To ignore the separators is to not engage in the war of worldviews, which
is understandable. But, to ignore the bargainers and harmonizers is to give up control and
autonomy over the definition and role of science. In stretching and adopting science, bargainers
seem to create legitimate challenges and manufacture controversies that science cannot leave
231
unquestioned. In transcending the divide between science and religion, harmonizers may open
space for the inclusion of faith in science classrooms or mischaracterize the unity beyond what
should be considered appropriate. At the very least, the harmonizers disrupt the association of
science with empiricism and materialism to make room for supernatural influences. In the
harmonizers, I see an attempt at a comic frame that does not quite reach the goals of cooperation,
unity, and transcendence. By keeping the focus on the correct epistemology instead of larger,
more inclusive action, they elude the key elements of the comic corrective. Their appearance and
multitude themselves is something of rhetorical value and importance, but exploring their
implications should also be a goal of the rhetorical scholar.
Burke (1984) argued that no matter what discourse is, “criticism had best be comic” (p.
107). So far, this dissertation has mostly shied away from evaluative claims and the weighing of
each perspective against one another. I agree with others that note that a lack of weighing and
prioritizing could have a negative impact on knowledge, culture, and the authority of science
(e.g., Ceccarelli, 2011; Goodnight, 1999). While this work is incredibly important in supporting
and/or challenging certain systems of power and knowledge, I have focused on different goals
throughout most of this project. I have embraced the existence of these multiple viewpoints as
important indicators of the public’s dissatisfaction with purely scientific narratives and why
alternatives continue to emerge and expand in contemporary times. In justifying this perspective,
I must turn once more to Burke (1984), who noted, “Be he [sic] poet or scientists, one defines the
‘human situation’ as amply as his [sic] imagination permits” (pp. 3-4). Science, religion, war,
revolution, and harmony are all resources that people use to make sense of reality and our
position within it. The resources’ relative “truth” or “accuracy” is tangential to their ability to
function as successful and resonating organizing narratives. That does not, however, mean that I
232
wish to leave this inquiry entirely without standards or make the mistake of providing only
“empty categories” for rhetorical analysis (Goodnight, 1999, p. 512). I propose that there is a
way forward in science and religion controversies that enables stabilized space without being
restrictive and that avoids the complications of a pluralistic free-for-all.
Progress will not be made through transcendence upwards, which glosses over the
obvious differences and tumultuous history of science and religion. Although I think the
harmonizers come the closest to reimagining this relationship in a positive light, there is still
much rhetorical and political work to be done to create an environment that does not erupt in
war, revolution, or ignorance. In attempting a comic corrective, I look towards Burke’s (1951)
rephrasing of contradictions in terms of “balances” (p. 209). In seeking to create balances
between opposing sides, the opposition between them is minimized in favor of a more holistic
look at the larger conversation. Balance, thus, is an integral part of the comic frame that
represents the mistakes and follies of humanity as a whole. Burke (1984) argued, “the comic
frame relieves the pressure towards opportunism by a broadening, or maturing, of sectarian
thought” (p. 102). The comic frame is transcendent in that it overcomes differences, but still
recognizes them. Embracing consubstantiality without a need for stretching, the comic frame
encourages us to consider science and religion as intertwined, but distinct ways of knowing,
epistemic resources, and explanatory narratives.
We overcome incompatibilities by recognizing them for what they are and maturing our
understanding of what each side offers. A person “transcends the conflicts of the mine and the
thine . . . by raising them to resonant terms of ours” (Burke, 1951, p. 209). It is not science vs
religion, but a unified, common struggle for understanding and explaining life. If science and
religion were represented by a chasm, transcendence creates “the possibility of bridging
233
conflicting ideologies” (Zappen, 2009, p. 280) and “builds a bridge” between the disparate
realms (Burke, 1966a, p. 880), while respecting both. Weiser (2007) also described this
characteristic of transcendence, noting “embracing ambiguities is the alternative to war because
it allows diverse perspectives to be analyzed and transcended into a unity that merges without
erasing divisions” (p. 299). This perspective collapses the separation between science and
religion while recognizing their divisions are maintained and recognized as a natural part of
identification. Perhaps science as an epistemology can and should engage more with the moral
and ethical implications of its conclusions. Perhaps religion can add an appreciation of science
into its motivation toward proper religious action. This sense of balance, however, does privilege
science as the dominant way of knowing and current order of rationalization, but also provides a
valuable role for religion to play in public life.
This process involves its own hermeneutics, because one must not define science or
religion as anathema to the other, lest we fall prey to the polarization of the separators. Instead,
their differences become beneficial in helping shed light from multiple perspectives on an issue.
For me, this naturally leads to an understanding of the ways that science and religion are both
material and symbolic, although each may be more of one than the other. In recognizing these
strengths and weaknesses, science and religion can be combined in more complementary ways to
seek understanding and peaceful coexistence. In common pursuit of environmental activism, are
the differences between acting based on scientific or religious motivation significant to forestall
cooperation? In learning about evolution from materially-based scientific consensus in
education, is its integrity lost by having a religious overtone taught at home? There are
undoubtedly more ways that science and religion can maintain their autonomy, but also work
234
together in creating alternative perspectives to contemporary problems, lest we lose
understanding and cooperation completely.
Whatever one’s personal beliefs about the relationship between science and religion, I
think the role of the critic should be towards a comic approach that would be representative of a
society still struggling with the relationship, and not artificially uniting them at the expense of
true appreciation and acknowledgement. I agree with Goodnight (1999) that destabilization and
chaos are not the preferred outcomes of controversies, nor do controversies have clear outcomes
or “function in a similar manner” as genres of communication (p. 513). I doubt that the
relationship between science and religion will ever truly be resolved, because the need for
understanding and overcoming uncertainties often contain both supernatural and material
elements. Quoting Burke, Brett Biebel (2010) argued, “Of all the frames, comedy best blends
‘both transcendental and material ingredients’” (para. 16). In the cycles of controversy to come,
pluralisms should be understood at attempts to explain both the current situation and the larger
narrative through which people situate themselves and their existence.
Despite science as the reigning epistemology, rhetors will always use whatever tools are
available to bend public opinion to their message. Various iterations and responses of Christian
belief, or indeed, all religious belief, cannot be dismissed out of hand. Instead, they should be
addressed with sincerity, for they represent a lasting need to stir emotions, quell anxieties, and
experience wonder, that science has yet to capture. If religion has long engaged rhetoric’s power
to further its goals, increase its membership, and expand its reach, perhaps it is time for science
to embrace St. Augustine’s (n.d.) advice and use rhetoric for these purposes as well. He noted,
“Since, then, the faculty of eloquence is available for both sides, and is of very great service in
the enforcing either of wrong or right, why do not good men study to engage it on the side of
235
truth?” (Saint Augustine, n.d., pp. 73-74). Even if we ignore St. Augustine’s framing of “sides,”
the point remains that tools are available for all rhetors; it is the rhetor’s responsibility to choose
and use the best of them. When religious groups remain unchallenged by public figures, science
gives up its power to present its narrative. The separators, bargainers, and harmonizers claim the
authority to deny, rewrite, and reinterpret scientific truths. If science is to have a fighting chance
to defend against, to correct, and to redirect these dissenting groups, it must also enter the public
sphere, establish firmer bridges, and incorporate citizen-science and bottom-up participation.
Scientists in ivory towers are always subject to attacks of elitism. But a science that engages the
power of rhetoric to paint a similarly comforting story may create its own comic corrective to the
plight of religion and science as dueling forms of thought. To use another aesthetic metaphor,
science may find a way, through language, to make its field more palatable to the general public
and less poisonous to faithful, everyday living.
Future Research
In looking towards future research, it is important to recognize the limitations of the
present study. First, this dissertation posited three key discursive patterns that emerge in
contemporary Christian narratives. There are many shades of discourse and beliefs within
religious, blended, and even scientific perspectives. It was necessary at times to be slightly
reductionist in order to compare overall conceptual differences between these groups and elicit
overarching patterns. Michael McGee (1990) offered an explanatory framework for which the
relevant fragments of discourse are constructed through analysis. Without clear distinctions
between text and context, my work as a rhetorical scholar unites the fragments of various
236
religious and scientific groups to create coherent artifacts for the purpose of analysis (McGee,
1990). In such cases, it is difficult to create holistic narratives of all discourses for in my
selections of discourse to address, I necessarily deflect attention away from other examples
(Burke, 1966b). The fragments I highlighted reflect the difference patterns between these three
dominant responses, for the purpose of emphasis and analysis.
I acknowledge that the definitions and labels being used are not universally accepted by
the groups discussed. Wherever possible, I used the terms and labels that each group ascribes to
itself, while remaining faithful to the relevant categorizations. The wide variety of labels
27
,
especially for issues of human origins, necessitates a concern for accuracy. All labels made here
were for the purpose of simplicity and convenience and were not meant to be exhaustive or
exclusive. There are certainly groups and members of the general public that may span these
strategies or borrow elements from multiple groups to make sense of religion’s role in society.
These groups, however, were categorized as such to reveal the prominent and domain rhetorical
patterns in the same epistemic endeavor to legitimize faith.
In this study, only American movements were examined, which necessitated a focus on
Christianity and its relationship to science. This study therefore precludes insights from
international, non-American, and non-Christian interpretations of science and religion. Any
quotations of religious belief were from the New International Version of the Christian Bible,
unless otherwise noted. This study also focused on two exemplar groups for each category and
was, regrettably, unable to provide sufficient depth of inquiry for more groups in the limited
27
Religious narratives about human origins use a wide variety of labels such as creationism, scientific creationism,
progressive creationism, old-earth creationism, young-earth creationism, intelligent design, theistic evolution, and
theistic Darwinism, among others.
237
space. Even so, this inquiry is partially incomplete in its treatment of each group because I
focused on key characteristics of each that constituted a pattern related to the configuration of
science and religion. I hope that these gaps did not infringe upon the exploration of the larger and
more central argument about religion’s role in mitigating cultural anxieties over science and
modernity. Instead, these limitations might guide future research in fleshing out the proposed
categories and exploring how these patterns may emerge across faiths or cultures.
Attention to ongoing scientific controversies is integral to understanding the varied
rhetorical strategies that can emerge despite shared discursive resources. The sheer variety and
variation among groups that all identify as literal, Christian advocacy groups highlights the
ambiguities of language and the importance of nuanced identities. The fracturing of religious
identity reveals the immense stress that science and modernity place on the maintenance of
religious stories. As narratives continue to emerge and compete for dominance, scholars may
further analyze the relative success of each response type and draw conclusions about the more
resonate and meaningful ones. More nuances may yet emerge that expand upon our knowledge
of identity fragmentation and the rhetorical devices people use to legitimize their explanatory
narratives. Further exploration may find more distinguishing characteristics among these three
groups and the flexibility of stories.
I theorize that these responses hold true in other controversies and throughout time. The
space in this dissertation has not allowed the fleshing out of this claim. I was primarily
concerned with the fragmentation of contemporary iterations of science and religion, but I
encourage future research to test the notion that these three response types are universal and
historical. In responding to new information and controversies over frameworks, people can
either reject, negotiate with, or completely accept it. These responses map onto the separators,
238
bargainers, and harmonizers in their response to science and modernity. I theorize that these are
exemplar reactions that would emerge in other situations where worldviews are threatened and
replaced. Exploring this theory would necessitate a historical look into similar framework shifts
(e.g., the Reformation and the Enlightenment), and whether similar groupings have emerged.
Burke has come under scrutiny by some who argue that his “universal” theories are not
applicable outside of a Western, Christian culture (e.g., Condit, 1992). This analysis is also
plagued by a Western Christian focus. To see whether these categories hold universally, more
research into other cultures and religions should be done. I theorize that these categories
transcend cultural boundaries and reflect natural human rhetorical strategies for coping with new
information and hardship. I would expect that the dominant narrative might change among
cultures. That is, the relative adherence to a separator, bargainer, or harmonizer narrative may be
influenced by social values, norms, and customs. I encourage theorists to explore this framework
in more detail to find potential, new uses for these discursive genres.
In research about these response categories, it is also important to test the validity of my
discernment between Burke’s frames. Noting the differences between these discourses, I have
mapped the theoretical, dramatic frames onto their practical occurrences. Scholars have been
transfixed by the power of the tragic and comic frame as explanatory tools, even expanding these
frames into sub-types and proposing a tragicomic frame (e.g., Desliet & Appel, 2011; Smith &
Hollihan, 2014). This dissertation provides additional evidence for the importance of frames,
albeit in new and variant forms. I focus on undertheorized, overlooked frames, the melodramatic,
the tragicomic, and transcendence upward, and the utility they offer for analysis. I encourage
scholars to explore the potential contributions of examining this categorization schema as a
resource for rhetorical stability in other groups and situations. Furthermore, I largely support the
239
consideration of science and religion alike as explanatory stories that can and should be analyzed
dramatistically, narratively, and rhetorically.
I propose that a fruitful avenue for the rhetorical analysis of science and religion is
through nontraditional media. Although still largely using traditional communication forms such
as magazines and public debates, religious groups are increasingly turning towards online and
mobile platforms to spread their messages. Of the six groups analyzed here, all of them had
websites that included articles, blogs, and stores to purchase books and other items. Additionally,
RTB, AIG, ICR, and the CA had links to podcasts and videos, and all of the creation groups have
mobile apps for researching about creationism on the go. The use of new media may be an
attempt to enter spaces not previously explored or policed (Kelly & Hoerl, 2012), or may be a
strategy to engage the youth, for whom computers and new technology are a near daily part of
life (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010) in Bible-friendly messages. Religious groups may be
engaging with new media and visual/multi-modal persuasion in similar ways to other groups, but
they may also be engaging unique argumentative techniques. Previous scholars have laid the
groundwork for interrogating the unique relationship between the digital and the spiritual (e.g.,
Campbell, 2011; Dawson & Cowan, 2004; O’Leary, 1996). I hope that researchers continue to
analyze the ways that online technologies are changing the nature of religious communication
and, thus, its interaction with scientific and public discourse.
Further research might also address the reaction of scientific institutions and research
groups that address religious groups. Contemporary strategies for dealing with manufactured
controversies and public debates vary among scientific institutions. Perhaps these discourses also
fragment into responses that reject that religion is a legitimate threat to science, negotiate with
them to bring about compromise, or incorporate religion, perhaps in their work, perhaps
240
personally, to transcend the apparent divide. I expect that these responses risk spurring religious
movements to re-legitimize themselves. How, then, can scholars best advise scientists to
communicate their knowledge and information to the general public? Given the variety of
potential rhetorical roadblocks, scholars should continue to explore their effect on science
discourse and the potential ways to counter or approach science denialists or appropriators.
Ceccarelli (2013) posited that the goal of rhetoricians of science should not simply be to expand
or enlighten our understanding of rhetorical situations. Although I do believe these are still
important and valuable rhetorical endeavors, I agree with Ceccarelli (2013) that scholars should
also consider embodying “another more active characteristic of our persona” by directly
engaging the stakeholders that have the power to make changes (p. 2). This research and further
discussion of the science and religion relationship should consider repackaging and
dissemination to relevant audiences and communities. For example, my research on the creation
care movement (Bloomfield, 2016) has already become a roadmap for local chapters of
Progressive Christians Uniting. Opening up opportunities for conversations can create new
possibilities for scholarly endeavors and practical applications of theory. Given the lasting and
complicated relationship of science and religion, I feel it is the role of scholars to offer potential
ways that these groups can productively communicate. Both science and religion should be held
to standards of truth, consistency, and control over their subject areas. But, this inquiry may
provide ways that their epistemic separations could result in fruitful compromises and
cooperation in life’s daily challenges. Regarding the issue of climate change, scientific and
religious thought has much work to do in motivating the general public and politicians to
continue making environmentally conscious decisions.
241
There are many opportunities for future research in this space because science and
religion continuously renegotiate their claims to knowledge and because the public struggles to
find comfort and assurance in a tumultuous life. To return to Lippmann (1929), I would argue
that the search for explanations, and thus comfort, is a defining feature, not just of the current
age, but of humanity as a whole. Without an understanding of life, without a sense of place and
purpose within in, and without an orientation towards everyday action, our lives become
unhinged and purposeless, fodder for the expanding void of chaos. To ask questions of
beginnings and endings, origins and the environment, and humanity and the cosmos is to dig at
the ultimate meaning of life, which may forever be unanswered and unknown. The search itself,
however fruitless, provides a sense of comfort that keeps people addressing these important and
life-altering questions.
Closing Thoughts
As I started working on this chapter, I received a brochure in the mail from ICR, looking
for donations for their Dallas Museum of Space and Earth History. The brochure argued, “It’s
high time to give them [young people] answers!” (Institute for Creation Research, 2016, p. 5).
They argued that this museum “will be the culmination of decades of study and research,” and
will include exhibits about the origin of the universe, DNA, the Garden of Eden, and Noah’s
Flood (Institute for Creation Research, 2016, p. 8). ICR (2016) called the museum a “tool,” much
like science itself, which would be used to influence future generations (p. 13). With my writing
mostly done and my arguments mostly made, the brochure reminded me that this work is
242
unfolding in the present moment. The influence of these groups is ongoing. This brochure is only
one example of the projects in which these six groups are currently involved.
The Ark Encounter applied for a tax rebate program as a part of the Kentucky Tourism
Development Program, but was initially denied. AIG was allowed to reapply if they could meet
two conditions: “1) waive its right to include a religious preference in hiring, and 2) affirm that it
will tolerate no ‘proselytizing’ at the theme park” (Answers in Genesis, 2014b, para. 2). These
requests are anathema to AIG’s goals, so AIG filed a counter suit appealing the decision. AIG
recently won their appeal on January 25, 2016 that reinstated their ability to claim $18.5 million
in tax rebates under Kentucky’s tourism incentives (Tucker, 2016). In light of the court decision,
AIG has announced that the Ark Encounter will open on July 7, 2016 (Answers in Genesis,
2015). Ham predicts that the theme park will draw 2 million visitors annually (quoted in Tucker,
2016). AIG argues that this ark is the “best and most effective ways to reach tens of millions of
people” with the truth of the Bible and events like Noah’s Flood (Ham, 2016b, para. 8). The
project is still receiving backlash, but this backlash empowers AIG to continue to spread the truth
of the Bible (Ham, 2016a). Ham (2016a) reassured AIG members:
You see, if we were not engaged in building a project that is going to have an incredible
impact on the world, the enemy wouldn’t even worry about us! The enormity of our
opposition has just reinforced over and over again in my mind that the enemy hates the
Ark project. (para. 11)
Ham identified a singular, unified enemy that challenges the ark project, justifying its protection
and forward progress. The appearance of obstacles and roadblocks is evidence of its virtue and
importance. As evidenced by their continuous media presence, AIG is still a powerful group in
the creationism movement.
243
RTB held its 2
nd
annual AMP conference in February 2016. I did not attend this year’s
event, but viewed the online schedule. RTB kept many of the previous conference’s sponsors and
had a variety of speakers discuss science, religion, and evangelism. In his presentation summary
about negotiating the science and religion relationship, Rana (2016) argued, “intractable
scientific challenges can uncover some of the most compelling reasons to believe in the
credibility of the biblical account of human origins” (para. 4). AMP looks like it will be a yearly
conference that brings together a few hundred Christians in the Southern California area to
discuss science and religion. In future years, AMP may continue to grow and engage more
people in their message.
The CA (2015b) recently produced a documentary titled, “Where the Grass is Greener:
Biblical Stewardship vs. Climate Alarmism,” which features interviews with prominent climate
skeptics. The video argues that these 30 scientists are “standing for the truth” against the
environmental movement (CA, 2015b, 00:24). The title echoes the CA’s war metaphor which
pits the Bible and climate activism as opponents in a battle versus one another. It is the Bible or
the environment, not the Bible and the environment. The CA’s blog is updated frequently with
responses to current climate activism, such as encouraging politicians to ignore the EPA’s Clean
Power Plan (Beisner, 2016, para. 1). Although the CA is a relatively small group, its frequent
messaging and powerful connections indicate its influence is growing.
The EEN has recently launched a new campaign called the Pro-Life Energy Campaign.
The group continues its advocacy work through encouraging political action. In the campaign
description, the EEN discusses the moral motivations for creating clean energy and reducing
pollution “to stop poisoning the womb,” of both mothers and Mother Nature (Laushkin, 2016,
para. 3). The EEN points to advances in modern science and “innovative approaches” to
244
alternative energy as the solution for current environmental issues (Laushkin, 2016, para. 4). The
campaign focuses on encouraging states to adopt “clean renewable resources by 2030” to power
100% of the state’s electricity (Laushkin, 2016, para. 8). The EEN’s campaigns have the power
to be politically influential. The EEN’s campaigns encourage individuals to become more active
in politics by giving them a list of concrete actions.
These groups are highly active and continue to vocalize support for alternative narratives
to those of science. The influence of these groups cannot be overstated. Instead, their growing
prominence should be of interest to rhetorical and communication scholars. Science and religion
controversies rage on and dominant much public attention and concern. As these groups grow in
membership and donations and more groups continue to occupy this space and use new tools and
technique, there will be more competing religious narratives that alter and reframe science. There
are many implications for the study of science communication, rhetoric, religion, and
controversies. The growing strength and prominence of these groups invites additional rhetorical
analysis about the contemporary strategies and configurations of the science and religion
relationship. Considering the perpetual and perennial emergence of these controversies, it is clear
that scholars will have plenty more to analyze and discuss in future years. These groups, in
particular, are still rising in importance and are becoming more influential in the public sphere.
From the millions of dollars in donations and growing memberships, these groups still have
incredible influence over public opinion and decision-making. The emergence of modernity and
science has not silenced the voices of religious adherents. Instead, threats to religion seem only
to empower and polarize its followers into reactionary groups. I predict that religious groups will
continue to compromise, bargain with, incorporate, and wage war against mainstream science. It
is unclear, however, how scientists may respond to these impassioned voices. This conclusion
245
offers a few ways forward, so science does not lose complete control over the narrative. There
are times when religion and science can and should work together to move the country forward.
When kairos strikes for compromise, scholars, politicians, and the public should all be ready to
answer the call. For those who struggle with science’s reigning orthodoxy, we must all be
concerned that only true, standardized, reasonable discourse guide decision-making and policies.
The rhetorical strategies that are making headway and the ethical concerns about those strategies
is a prime area for future research.
In a world where making room for Christianity, and its resulting multiple identities, is the
paramount concern for many in the US, religion will never fade from the rhetorical scholar’s
view. Integral to issues of religion are questions of why humanity exists, how we came to be, and
how it might all change or even end. Controversies over science, religion, beginnings, and
endings will never cease; they address fundamental questions and problems over the uncertainty
of the human condition. In our search for the right words to address these problems and comfort
ourselves against the unknown, language simultaneously complicates and aids our ability to
make sense of reality and our place in it.
246
References
About. (2015). AMP Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.ampconference2015.com/about.html
Acton Institute. (2015a). About the Acton Institute. Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.acton.org/index/about
Acton Institute. (2015b). History of Acton Institute. Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.acton.org/about/history-acton-institute
Acton Institute. (2015c). Is AU right for you? Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://university.acton.org/about-au
Acton Institute. (2015d). Acton Institute core principles. Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.acton.org/about/acton-institute-core-principles
Acton Institute. (2015e). Acton Book Shop. Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://shop.acton.org/books/
AMP Conference. (2015). Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.ampconference2015.com/
Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in
climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), 12107-
12109.
Answers in Genesis. (n.d.-a). Accountability. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/about/statement-of-accountability/
Answers in Genesis. (n.d.-b). Global warming: Fact or fiction? Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/global-warming-fact-
or-fiction/
247
Answers in Genesis. (n.d.-c). About. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/about/
Answers in Genesis. (2009a). Us vs. them? Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/us-vs-them/
Answers in Genesis. (2009b). On science and scientists. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/culture/on-science-and-scientists/
Answers in Genesis. (2012). The 10 best evidences from science that confirm a young earth.
Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-
from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/
Answers in Genesis. (2014a). A pocket guide to atheism: Understanding the inherent problems
of a no-God worldview. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/atheism-pocket-guide/?sku=00-1-085
Answers in Genesis. (2014b). State officials won’t sink Ark Encounter. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/state-officials-wont-sink-ark-
encounter/
Answers in Genesis. (2015a). About Ark Encounter. Retrieved from
https://arkencounter.com/about/
Answers in Genesis. (2015b). Religious discrimination lawsuit filed today by AIG/Ark
Encounter against Kentucky. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/religious-
freedom/religious-discrimination-lawsuit-filed/
Answers in Genesis. (2015c). Statement of faith. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
Appel, E. C. (2008). “Tragedy-life” or “Melodrama”? In search of a standard generic tag.
Southern Communication Journal, 73(2), 178-194.
248
Ballor, J. (2006). Stewardship and economics: Two sides of the same coin. The Acton Institute.
Retrieved from http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2006/02/15/stewardship-and-
economics-two-sides-same-coin
Ballor, J. (2007). Evangelical environmentalism’s moral imperative. The Acton Institute.
Retrieved from http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2007/03/14/evangelical-
environmentalisms-moral-imperative
Ballor, J. (2015). Christian Reformed Church backs UN Climate Change Agenda. The Acton
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2015/07/08/christian-
reformed-church-backs-un-climate-change
Barker, D. C., & Bearce, D. H. (2013). End-time theology, the shadow of the future, and public
resistance to addressing global climate change. Political Research Quarterly. 66(2), 267-
279.
Beers, J. M., Hittinger, R., Lamb, M., Neuhaus, R. J., Royal, R., Sirico, R. A. (n.d.). The
Catholic Church and the stewardship of creation. The Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.acton.org/public-policy/environmental-stewardship/theology-e/catholic-
church-and-stewardship-creation
Behe, M. J. (1998). Intelligent Design as an alternative explanation for the existence of
biomolecular machines. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 1(4), 565-570.
Beisner, E. C. (2010a). The competing world views of environmentalism and Christianity.
Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2010/11/10/the-
competing-world-views-of-environmentalism-and-christianity/
Beisner, E. C. (2010b). Wanted for premeditated murder. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2010/03/18/wanted-for-premeditated-murder-how-post-
249
normal-science-stabbed-real-science-in-the-back-on-the-way-to-the-illusion-of-scientific-
consensus-on-global-warming/
Beisner, E. C. (2013). ‘Evangelical scientists and academics’ mistaken in urging Congress to act
on climate. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2013/07/13/evangelical-scientists-and-academics-
mistaken-in-urging-congress-to-act-on-climate/
Beisner, E. C. (2014a). Three great legacies of Climategate. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2014/12/03/three-great-legacies-of-climategate/
Beisner, E. C. (2014b). Familiar environmental deceit threatens pro-life movement again.
Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2014/05/28/familiar-
environmental-deceit-threatens-pro-life-movement-again/
Beisner, E. C. (2014c). Evangelical environmentalism: Bought and paid for by liberal
million$$$? Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2014/10/21/evangelical-environmentalism-bought-and-
paid-for-by-liberal-million/
Beisner, E. C. (2015a). The radical religion of environmentalism. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved
from http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2015/10/08/the-radical-religion-of-
environmentalism/
Beisner, E. C. (2015b). World Magazine exposes evangelical environmentalist’ growing
dependence on green-left funding. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2015/05/30/world-magazine-exposes-evangelical-
environmentalists-growing-dependence-on-green-left-funding/
250
Beisner, E. C., Cromartie, M., Derr, T. S., Knippers, D., Hill, P. H., & Terrell, T. (n.d.). A
biblical perspective on environmental stewardship. The Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.acton.org/public-policy/environmental-stewardship/theology-e/biblical-
perspective-environmental-stewardship
Bellah, R. N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96(1), 1–21.
Bellah, R. N. (1970). Beyond belief: Essays on religion in a post-traditional world. New York,
NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
Bellah, R. N. (2011). Religion in human evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Berger, P. L. (1969/2011). The sacred canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion.
Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Berger, P. L. (1970). A rumor of angels: Modern society and the rediscovery of the supernatural.
Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Berger, P. (1977a). Facing up to modernity. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Berger, P. (1977b). Secular theory and the rejection of the supernatural. Theological Studies,
38(1), 39-56.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Bergman, J. (1995). Contemporary suppression of the theistic worldview. Answers in Genesis.
Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/contemporary-
suppression-of-the-theistic-worldview/
Bergman, J. (2015). From atheist to creationist. Acts & Facts, 44(2), 20.
Besel, R. (2012). Prolepsis and the environmental rhetoric of Congressional politics: Defeating
251
the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. Environmental Communication: A Journal of
Nature and Culture, 6(2), 233–249. doi:10.1080/17524032.2012.666985
Biebel, B. (2010). Standing up for comedy: Kenneth Burke and The Office. Kenneth Burke
Journal, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.kbjournal.org/biebel
Biesecker, B. (1992). Coming to terms with recent attempts to write women into the history of
rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 25(2), 140–161.
Bigelow, J., & Tocqueville, A. de. (1899). Democracy in America: Volume I. New York, NY: D.
Appleton and Company.
BioLogos. (2015). “About the BioLogos Foundation.” The BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved
from http://biologos.org/about
Blair, C. (2001). Reflections on criticism and bodies: Parables from public places. Western
Journal of Communication, 65(3), 271–294.
Blair, C. & Michel, N. (2000). Reproducing civil rights tactics: The rhetorical performances of
the civil rights memorial. Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 30(2), 31-55.
Bloomfield, E. F. (2014). The rhetoric of Pope Francis at World Youth Day: Replacing war with
sports in the post-secular era. Unpublished manuscript.
Bloomfield, E. F. (2015). Controversy over human origins: Pentadic ratios and rhetorical
ideology. Unpublished manuscript.
Bloomfield, E. F. (2016). Characteristics and beliefs of creation care members: Christianity’s
non-fatalistic, self-sacrificing, ecological movement. Unpublished manuscript.
Bloomfield, E. F., & Lake, R. A. (2015). Negotiating the end of the world in climate change
rhetoric: Climate skepticism, science, and arguments. In M. S. Meisner, N.
Sriskandarajah, & S. P. Depoe (Eds.), Communication for the commons: Revisiting
252
participation and environment. Selected papers and posters from the 12th biennial
Conference on Communication and Environment, Uppsala, Sweden, (pp. 384-396).
Turtle Island: The International Environmental Communication Association.
Bloomfield, E. F., & Sangalang, A. (2014). Juxtaposition as visual argument: Health rhetoric is
Super Size Me and Fat Head. Argumentation and Advocacy, 50(3), 141-156.
Blumenberg, H. (1987). An anthropological approach to the contemporary significance of
rhetoric. In K. Baynes, J. Bohman, & T. McCarthy (Eds.), After philosophy: End or
transformation? (pp. 429-458). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bodakowski, M. (2012). A discussion with Reverend Mitchell Hescox. Berkley Center for
Religion, Peace & World Affairs. Retrieved from
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/interviews/a-discussion-with-reverend-mitchell-
hescox
Bormann, E. G., Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (2001). Three decades of developing, grounding,
and using symbolic convergence theory (SCT). Communication Yearbook, 25, 271–313.
Bost, M., & Greene, R. W. (2011). Affirming rhetorical materialism: Enfolding the virtual and
the actual. Western Journal of Communication, 75(4), 440–444.
doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.588902
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige
press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125-136.
Bray, D. (2010). The scientific consensus of climate change revisted. Environmental Science &
Policy, 13, 340-350. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.001
Bricker, B. J. (2013). Climategate: A case study in the intersection of facticity and conspiracy
theory. Communication Studies, 64(2), 218–239. doi:10.1080/10510974.2012.749294
253
Brock, B. L. (1985). Epistemology and ontology in Kenneth Burke’s dramatism. Communication
Quarterly, 33(2), 94-104.
Brockriede, W., & Ehninger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46(1), 44-53.
Brod, D. F. (1965). The Scopes Trial: A look at press coverage after forty years. Journalism
Quarterly, 42, 219-226.
Brown, J. F. (1991). Casuistry. [Review of the book The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral
reasoning, by A. R. Jonsen & S. Toulmin]. America, 165(20), 492.
Burke, K. (1931). Counter-statement. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1941). Four master tropes. The Kenyon Review, 3(4), 421–438.
Burke, K. (1951). Rhetoric – old and new. The Journal of General Education, 5(3), 202-209.
Burke, K. (1966a). I, eye, ay: Emerson’s early essay on “Nature”: Thoughts on the machinery of
transcendence. The Sewanee Review, 74(4), 875-895.
Burke, K. (1966b). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1970). The rhetoric of religion: Studies in logology. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Burke, K. (1974). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1984a). Attitudes toward history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1984b). Permanence and change. Berkeley: University of California Press.
254
Campbell, H. A. (2011). Understanding the relationship between religion online and offline in a
networked society. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 80(1), 64-93.
Campbell, J. A. (1970). Darwin and The Origin of Species: The rhetorical ancestry of an idea.
Speech Monographs, 37(1), 1-14.
Campbell, J. A. (1998). Intelligent Design, Darwinism, and the philosophy of public education.
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 1(4), 469-502.
Campbell, K. K. (1973). The rhetoric of women’s liberation: An oxymoron. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 59(1), 74-86.
Carlson, A. C. (1986). Gandhi and the comic frame: “Ad bellum purificandum.” Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 72(4), 446-455.
Carter, R. (2014). I really, really, really like fossils! Green Forest, AZ: Master Books. Retrieved
from https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/i-really-really-really-fossils/?sku=10-1-
601
Cassirer, E. (1944). An essay on man: An introduction to a philosophy of human culture. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday & Company.
Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate.
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228.
Ceccarelli, L. (2013). To whom do we speak? The audiences for scholarship on the rhetoric of
science and technology. POROI, 9(1), 1-7.
Charity Navigator. (2014a). Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5214#.VGaZoP
mjOm4
255
Charity Navigator. (2014b). Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5204#.VfXjSh
FVhBc
Charity Navigator. (2015). Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved from:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7485
Charland, M. (1991). Finding a horizon and telos: The challenge to critical rhetoric. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 77(1), 71–74. doi:10.1080/00335639109383944
Christiansen, A. E., & Hanson, J. J. (1996). Comedy as cure for tragedy: ACT UP and the
rhetoric of AIDS. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82(2), 157-170.
Clarey, T. (2015). Homo naledi: New claims of a missing link. Acts & Facts, 44(12). Retrieved
from http://www.icr.org/article/9005
Clements, T. S. (1990). Science versus religion. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Cleveland, C. (2012). Die heretic! The absurdity of divisions in the Church. [Blog post].
Christena Cleveland. Retrieved from http://www.christenacleveland.com/2012/10/die-
heretic-the-absurdity-of-divisions-in-the-church/
Cloud, D. L. (1994). The materiality of discourse as oxymoron: A challenge to critical rhetoric.
Western Journal of Communication, 58(3), 141–163.
Coe, R. S., Prévot, M., & Camps, P. (1995). New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of
the geomagnetic field during a reversal. Nature, 374, 687-692.
Comfort, R. (2011). The defender’s guide for life’s toughest questions. Green Forest, AZ: Master
Books. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/defenders-
guide/?sku=10-2-394
256
Condit, C. M. (1990). The birth of understanding: Chaste science and the harlot of the arts.
Communication Monographs, 57(4), 323-327.
Condit, C. M. (1992). Post-Burke: Transcending the sub-stance of dramatism. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 78(3), 349-355.
Condit, C. M. (1998). The rhetoric of Intelligent Design: Alternatives for science and religion.
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 1(4), 593-602.
Condit, C. M., Bates, B. R., Galloway, R., Brown Givens, S., Haynie, C. K., Jordan, J. W., . . .
Marshall West, H. (2002). Recipes or blueprints for our genes? How contexts selectively
activate the multiple meanings of metaphors. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88(3), 303-
325.
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S, A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., . . . Skuce, A.
(2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific
literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 1-7.
Coppedge, D. (2009). Bottom-up science. Acts & Facts, 38(11). Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/article/bottom-up-science
Coppenger, M. (2014). Finding our way in a secular America. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved
from https://answersingenesis.org/culture/finding-our-way-secular-america/
Cornwall Alliance. (2009). An evangelical declaration on global warming. Cornwall Alliance:
For the Stewardship of Creation. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
Cornwall Alliance. (2013). About the Cornwall Alliance. Cornwall Alliance: For the
Stewardship of Creation. Retrieved from http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/
Cornwall Alliance. (2014a). About us. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
257
Cornwall Alliance. (2014b). What we do. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/what-we-do/
Cornwall Alliance. (2014c). What drives us. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/what-drives-us/
Cornwall Alliance. (2014d). The biblical perspective of environmental stewardship: Subduing
and ruling the Earth to the glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors. Cornwall
Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/the-
biblical-perspective-of-environmental-stewardship-subduing-and-ruling-the-earth-to-the-
glory-of-god-and-the-benefit-of-our-neighbors/
Cornwall Alliance. (2014e). An open letter on climate change to the people, their local
representatives, the State Legislatures and Governors, the Congress, and the President of
the United States of America. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/climateletter2015/
Cornwall Alliance. (2015a). New petition and videos unmask dangers of climate alarmism.
Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2015/09/22/new-
petition-and-videos-unmask-dangers-of-climate-alarmism/
Cornwall Alliance. (2015b). Where the grass is greener: Trailer. Retrieved from
https://player.vimeo.com/video/147603299
Coyne, T. (2013, July 10). Ball State sparks controversy for hiring Guillermo Gonzalez,
Intelligent Design proponent. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/ball-state-guillermo-
gonzalez_n_3573972.html?utm_hp_ref=college
258
Crowley, S. (2007). Tolerance and the Christian Right. Communication and Critical/Cultural
Studies, 4(1), 102-105.
Dalferth, I. U. (2010). Post-secular society: Christianity and the dialectics of the secular. Journal
of the American Academy of Religion, 78(2), 317–345. doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfp053
Dao, C. (2011). Evolution controversy’s outdated, one-sided exposure. Institute for Creation
Research. Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-controversys-outdated-
one/
Davis, J. (2012). 24 hours – Plain as day. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/24-hours-plain-as-day/
Dawson, L. L., & Cowan, D. E. (Eds.) (2004). Religion online: Finding faith on the Internet.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Desilet G., & Appel, E. C. (2011). Choosing a rhetoric of the enemy: Kenneth Burke’s comic
frame, warrantable outrage, and the problem of scapegoating. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,
41(4), 340-362.
Dickinson, G. (1997). Memories for sale: Nostalgia and the construction of identity in Old
Pasadena. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83(1), 1-27.
Dickinson, G., Blair, C., & Ott, B. L. (2010). Places of public memory the rhetoric of museums
and memorials. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Dickinson, G., Ott, B. L., & Aoki, E. (2006). Spaces of remembering and forgetting: The
reverent eye/I at the Plains Indian Museum. Communication and Critical/Cultural
Studies, 3(1), 27-47.
259
Dixon, G. N., & Clarke, C. E. (2012). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media
coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication,
35(3), 358-364.
Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate
change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22-23.
Dow, B. (2001). Criticism and authority in the artistic mode. Western Journal of
Communication, 65(3), 336-348.
Draper, J. W. (1874). History of the conflict between religion and science. Oxford, UK: The
Bodleian Library.
Driessen, P. (2014, November 7). Climate change ‘deniers’ should be jailed: RFK Jr. Heartland
Institute News. Retrieved from http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-
article/2014/10/24/climate-change-deniers-should-be-jailed-rfk-jr
Duffy, B. (2011). Supreme being(s), the afterlife and evolution. Ipsos Global. Retrieved from
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5217
Duncan, H. D. (1962). Communication and the social order. New York, NY: Bedminster Press.
Durkheim, E. (1960/2005). The dualism of human nature and its social conditions. Durkheimian
Studies, 11(1), 35–45. doi:10.3167/175223005783472211
Durkheim, E., Cosman, C., & Cladis, M. S. (2008). The elementary forms of religious life.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Dyer, R. (2005). The matter of whiteness. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), White privilege: Essential
readings on the other side of racism (pp. 9-14). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Dyke, D., & Henry, H. (2014). Q&A: Why do Christians study science? Reasons to Believe.
Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/articles/q-a-why-do-christians-study-science
260
ECI Statement. (n.d.).AESE online. Retrieved November 19, 2012, from
http://www.aeseonline.org/aeseonline.org/Evangelical_Climate_Initiative.html
Edwards v. Aguillard. (1987). 482 US 578. (OpenJurist: http://openjurist.org/482/us/578).
Epperson v. Arkansas. (1968). 393 US 97. (OpenJurist: http://openjurist.org/393/us/97).
Evangelical Environmental Network. (n.d.-a). Evangelical declaration on the care of creation.
Retrieved from http://creationcare.org/creation-care-resources/evangelical-declaration-
on-the-care-of-creation/
Evangelical Environmental Network. (n.d.-b). Mercury and the unborn. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/mercury-and-unborn/
Evangelical Environmental Network. (n.d.-c). Loving the least of these. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/creation-care-resources/loving-the-least-of-these/
Evangelical Environmental Network. (n.d.-d). Why creation care matters. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/creation-care-resources/why-creation-care-matters/
Evangelical Environmental Network. (n.d.-e). Ministry overview. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/ministry-overview/
Evangelical Environment Network. (n.d.-f). Creation care champions. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/creation-care-resources/creation-care-champions/
Evangelical Environmental Network. (2011, April 5). Mercury & the unborn. Creation Care.
http://creationcare.org/blog.php?blog=30
Evans, M. S. (2012). Supporting science: Reasons, restrictions, and the role of religion. Science
Communication, 34(3), 334–362. doi:10.1177/1075547011417890
Faust, J. (2008). Can religious arguments persuade? International Journal for Philosophy of
Religion, 63, 71-86.
261
Ferngren, G. B. (2002). Science and religion: A historical introduction. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral
argument. Communications Monographs, 51(1), 1–22.
Flaherty, C. (2014, May 6). Professors and students at Bryan College protest changes to
statement of faith. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/06/professors-and-students-bryan-
college-protest-changes-statement-faith
Foley, A. (2014). Science confirms climate change! Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/science-confirms-
climate-change/
Foss, S. K. (1984). Women priests in the Episcopal Church: A cluster analysis of establishment
rhetoric. Religious Communication Today, 7, 1-11.
Francis. (2015). Encyclical letter Laudato si’ of the Holy Father Francis on care for our common
Home. The Holy See. Retrieved from
http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-
francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf
Fritch, J. E., & Leeper, K. K. (1993). Poetic logic: The metaphoric form as a foundation for a
theory of tropological argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 29(4), 186-194.
Gadamer, H-G. (1999). Hermeneutics, religion, and ethics. (J. Weinsheimer, Trans.). New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ganiel, G., & Mitchell, C. (2006). Turning the categories inside-out: Complex identifications and
multiple interactions in religious ethnography. Sociology of Religion, 67(1), 3-21.
262
Ganiel, G., Winkel, H., Monnot, C. (Eds.). (2014). Introduction. In Religion in times of crisis
(pp. 1-7). Boston, MA: Brill Academic.
Gaonkar, D. P. (1997). The idea of rhetoric in the rhetoric of science. In Rhetorical
hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the ages of science. Gross, A. G. & Keith,
W. M. (eds). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 25-88.
Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the
United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187.
doi:10.1177/0003122412438225
Gedicks, F. M. (1992). Public life and hostility to religion. Virginia Law Review, 78(3), 671-696.
Gedicks, F. M. (1995). The rhetoric of church and state: A critical analysis of religion clause
jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). Religion as a cultural system. In The interpretation of cultures (pp. 87–126).
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gish, D. (2007). A few reasons an evolutionary origin of life is impossible. Acts & Facts, 36(1).
Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/3140
Goodnight, G. T. (1991). Controversy. In D. Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy:
Proceedings of the seventh Alta Argumentation Conference (pp. 1-8). Annondale, VA:
Speech Communication Association.
Goodnight, G. T. (1999). Messrs. Dinkins, Rangel, and Savage in colloquy on the African Burial
Ground: A companion reading. Western Journal of Communication, 63(4), 511-525.
Goodnight, G. T. (2005). Science and technology controversy: A rationale for inquiry.
Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 26-29.
263
Greene, R. W. (1998). Another materialist rhetoric. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,
15(1), 21–40. doi:10.1080/15295039809367031
Griffin, L. M. (1952). The rhetoric of historical movements. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 38(2),
184-188.
Gross, A. G. (1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public
Understanding of Science, 3(1), 3-23.
Guliuzza, R. J. (2015). Major evolutionary blunders: The imaginary piltdown man. Acts & Facts,
44(12). Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/imaginary-piltdown-man/
Guterl, F. (2012). The fate of the species: Why the human race may cause its own extinction and
how we can stop it. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Haarscher, G. (2009). Perelman’s pseudo-argument as applied to the creationism controversy.
Argumentation, 23, 361-373.
Habermas, J. (2006). Religion in the public sphere. European Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 1-25.
Hagerty, B. B. (2007, May 16). Evangelical voters may be up for grabs in ’08. NPR.org.
Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10215580
Ham, K. (1998). A Young Earth – It’s not the issue! Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/a-young-earth-its-not-the-issue/
Ham, K. (2007). Is it time for a new reformation? Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/is-it-time-for-a-new-reformation/
Ham, K. (2012). Not surprised by secular attacks on God’s Word. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved
from https://answersingenesis.org/culture/not-surprised-by-secular-attacks-on-gods-word/
Ham, K. (2013a). Missionaries to a pagan culture. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/culture/america/missionaries-to-a-pagan-culture/
264
Ham, K. (2013b). The chasm is widening: Are you on God’s side? Answers in Genesis.
Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/culture/america/the-chasm-is-widening-are-
you-on-gods-side/
Ham, K. (2015a). History. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/about/history/
Ham, K. (2015b). How to prevent losing another generation. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/how-prevent-losing-another-generation/
Ham. K. (2015c). Propaganda war against the Ark! Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/propaganda-war-against-the-
ark/
Ham, K. (2016a). Rallying like Nehemiah to proclaim the truth of God’s word. Answers in
Genesis. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-
encounter/rallying-like-nehemiah-to-proclaim-truth/
Ham, K. (2016b). The voyage begins again! Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/voyage-begins-again/
Ham, K., Beemer, B. & Hillard, T. (2009). Already gone: Why your kids will quiet church and
what you can do to stop it. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/already-gone-book/?sku=90-7-508
Ham, K., Hall, G., & Beemer, B. (2011). Already compromised: Christian colleges took a test on
the state of their faith and the final exam is in. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books.
Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/already-compromised-
book/?sku=10-1-489&
265
Ham, K., Hodge, B., Kerby, C., Lisle, J., McKeever, S., Menton, D., Mortensen, T., Purdom, G.,
& Riddle, M. (2005). War of the worldviews. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books. Retrieved
from https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/war-worldviews/?sku=10-2-204
Ham, K., Kinley, J., & Beemer, B. (2015). Ready to return: Bringing back the church’s lost
generation. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/ready-return/?sku=10-1-625
Ham, S. (2011). Unity . . . at what cost? Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/unity-at-what-cost/
Ham, S., & Ham, K. (2008). Raising godly children in an ungodly world: Leaving a lasting
legacy. Green Forest, AZ: Master Books. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/raising-godly-children-ungodly-
world/?sku=10-1-367
Hample, D. (1978). Predicting immediate belief change and adherence to argument claims.
Communication Monographs, 45(3), 219-228.
Harrington, A. (2007). Habermas and the “post-secular society.” European Journal of Social
Theory, 10(4), 543-560.
Hawhee, D. (2009). Moving bodies: Kenneth Burke at the edges of language. Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press.
Hebert, J. (2012). A universe from nothing? Acts & Facts, 41(7). Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/article/universe-from-nothing/
Hebert, J. (2013). Do young C-14 results reflect contamination? Acts & Facts, 42(7).
Hebert, J. (2016). Genesis and climate change. Acts & Facts, 45(1). Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/article/9088
266
Heelas, P. (Ed.). (1998). Introduction: On differentiation and dedifferentiation. In P. Heelas, D.
Martin, & P. Morris (Eds.), Religion, modernity, and postmodernity (pp. 1-18). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Hege, B. A. R. (2014). Contesting faith, truth, and religious language at the Creation Museum: A
historical-theological reflection. Theology and Science, 12, 142-163.
Henderson, B. (2013). Belief in evolution up since 2004. YouGov. Retrieved from
http://today.yougov.com/news/2013/07/22/belief-in-evolution-up-since-2004/
Hescox, M. (n.d.). Water is life. Evangelical Environmental Network. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/water-pollution/
Hescox, M. (2012). My meeting with Brother Cal. Evangelical Environmental Network.
Retrieved from http://creationcare.org/2012/11/27/my-meeting-with-brother-cal/
Hescox, M. (2014). Caring for God’s creation is part of a pro-life ethic. Evangelical
Environmental Network. Retrieved from http://creationcare.org/2014/04/15/caring-for-
gods-creation-is-part-of-a-pro-life-ethic/
Hescox, M. (2015). New mine. Evangelical Environmental Network. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/2015/04/29/new-wine/
Hill, F. (1972). Conventional wisdom – traditional form – the president’s message of November
3, 1969. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(4), 373-386.
Hodge, B. (2005). The evidence doesn’t speak for itself. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/the-evidence-doesnt-speak-for-itself/
Humphreys, D. R. (2005, June). Evidence for a young world. Acts & Facts, 34(6). Retrieved
from http://www.icr.org/article/1842/
267
Hyde, M. J., & McSpiritt, S. (2007). Coming to terms with perfection: The case of Terri Schiavo.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 93(2), 150–178. doi:10.1080/00335630701426777
Inhofe, J. (n.d.). Biography: About Senator Inhofe. Retrieved from
http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/biography
Innis, R. E. (2007). The making of the literary symbol: Taking note of Langer. Semiotica,
2007(165), 91-106.
Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-a). ICR’s approach to scientific investigation. Retrieved
from http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research
Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-b). Principles of scientific creationism. Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/tenets
Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-c). Reasons to doubt secular ages. Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/doubt-ages
Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-d). Who we are. Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/who-
we-are/
Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-e). Earth sciences resources. Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/creation-earth/
Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-f). Biblical age of the Earth. Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/biblical-age
Institute for Creation Research. (n.d.-g). Explore ICR. Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/discover
Institute for Creation Research. (2013). Contents. Acts & Facts, 42(9), 3.
Institute for Creation Research. (2016). Dallas Museum of Science and Earth History. Print
brochure, 1-16.
268
Instructor A. (2015a, June 2). “Big Bang Cosmology and the Bible” [Online forum comment]. In
Astronomy and Design: Summer 2015. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2012). Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D.
Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M.
Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (Eds.) Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to
Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.pdf
Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative
think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 349–385.
doi:10.1080/09644010802055576
Jamieson, K. H. (1980). The metaphoric cluster in the rhetoric of Pope Paul VI and Edmund G.
Brown, Jr. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(1), 51–72. doi:10.1080/00335638009383502
Jayabalan, K. (2015). The economic reeducation of Pope Francis? The Acton Institute. Retrieved
from http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2015/09/30/economic-reeducation-pope-
francis
Jeanson, N. T. (2013). ICR life science research: Three years in review. Acts & Facts, 42(4).
Jeanson, N. T. (2014). Darwin vs genetics: Surprises and snags in the science of common
ancestry. Acts & Facts, 43(9). Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/darwin-vs-
genetics-surprises-snags/
Jensen, G. (2015). Nature, markets, and human creativity. The Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2015/05/27/nature-markets-human-creativity
Johnson, J. J. S. (n.d.) Recognition. Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved from
http://www.icr.edu/recognition
269
Johnson, J. J. S. (2012). Hidden in plain view: Evolution’s counterfeit history is everywhere.
Acts & Facts, 41(2). Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/hidden-plain-view-
evolutions-counterfeit/
Johnson, J. J. S. (2013a). Avoiding identity fraud. Acts & Facts, 42(7).
Johnson, J. J. S. (2013b). Real freedom only comes from real truth. Acts & Facts, 42(4).
Jonsen, A. R., & Toulmin, S. (1988). The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kant, I. (2010). Religion within the boundary of pure reason. (J. W. Semple, Trans.). Whitefish,
MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC.
Karshner, E. (2011). Thought, utterance, power: Toward a rhetoric of magic. Philosophy and
Rhetoric, 44(1), 52-71.
Kelly, C. R., & Hoerl, K. (2012). Genesis in hyperreality: Legitimizing disingenuous controversy
at the Creation Museum. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48, 123-141.
Killingsworth, M. J., & Palmer, J. S. (1995). The discourse of “environmentalist hysteria.”
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 81(1), 1-19.
Klumpp, J. F., & Hollihan, T. A. (1989). Rhetorical criticism as moral action. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 75(1), 84–96. doi:10.1080/00335638909383863
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Lacey, T. (2015). Is stewardship the same as going green? Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/stewardship/stewardship-same-
going-green/
270
Lacey, T. (2016). What makes a Christian martyr different from other faiths’ martyrs. Answers in
Genesis. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/religious-freedom/christian-martyr-
different-from-other-faiths/
LaClau E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: towards a radical democratic
politics. London, UK: Verso.
Lake, R. A. (1997). Argumentation and self: The enactment of identity in Dances with Wolves.
Argumentation and Advocacy, 34(2), 66-89.
Lake, R. A., & Pickering, B. A. (1998). Argumentation, the visual, and the possibility of
refutation: An exploration. Argumentation, 12(1), 79–93.
Lakoff, G. (1991). Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the gulf.
Peace Research, 23(2/3), 25-32.
Lamine, A-S. (2014). “I doubt. Therefore, I believe”: Facing uncertainty and belief in the
making. In P. Heelas, D. Martin, & P. Morris (Eds.), Religion, modernity, and
postmodernity (pp. 72-90). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Landis, D. (2007). “The worldview of today’s youth.” Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/the-worldview-of-todays-youth/
Langer, S. K. K. (1988). Mind: an essay on human feeling (Abridged ed. / abridged by Gary Van
Den Heuvel.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Laushkin, A. (2015a). African American Pentecostals focus on carbon pollution reduction and
job creation. Evangelical Environmental Network. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/2015/04/29/african-american-pentecostals-focus-on-carbon-
pollution-reduction-and-job-creation/
271
Laushkin, A. (2015b). Proposed 2016 budget addressed carbon pollution. Evangelical
Environmental Network. Retrieved from http://creationcare.org/2015/02/06/proposed-
2016-budget-addresses-carbon-pollution/
Laushkin, A. (2015c). African American evangelicals urge Virginia Governor to lead on climate.
Evangelical Environmental Network. Retrieved from
http://creationcare.org/2015/03/17/african-american-evangelicals-urge-virginia-governor-
to-lead-on-climate/
Laushkin, A. (2015d). Laudato Si’ and our cultural moment. Evangelical Environmental
Network. Retrieved from http://creationcare.org/2015/07/08/laudato-si-and-our-cultural-
moment/
Laushkin, A. (2016). Announcing the Pro-Life Clean Energy Campaign. Evangelical
Environmental Network. Retrieved from http://creationcare.org/2016/02/08/announcing-
the-pro-life-clean-energy-campaign/
Leber, R. (2014, November 5). Congratulations, voters. You just made this climate denier the
most powerful senator on the environment. The New Republic. Retrieved from
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120134/climate-change-denier-james-inhofe-lead-
environment-committee
Leff, M. (1992). Things made by words: Reflections on textual criticism. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 78(2), 223–31.
Lessl, T. M. (1993). Punctuation in the constitution of public identities: Primary and secondary
sequences in the Scopes Trial. Communication Theory, 3(2), 91-111.
272
Lessl, T. M. (2007). The culture of science and the rhetoric of scientism: From Francis Bacon to
the Darwin Fish. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 93(2), 123–149.
doi:10.1080/00335630701426785
Levinson, M. H. (2006). Science versus religion: A false dichotomy? ETC.: A Review of General
Semantics, 63(4), 422.
Light and Life Foundation. (2015). Museum history. Retrieved from
http://creationsd.org/museum_history.html
Lipka, M. (2015). 5 key findings about religiosity in the U.S. – and how it’s changing. Pew
Research Center FactTank. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2015/11/03/5-key-findings-about-religiosity-in-the-u-s-and-how-its-changing/
Lippmann, W. (1929). A preface to morals. New York, NY: Time-Life Books.
Lisle, J. (2013a). The solar system: The sun. Acts & Facts, 42(7).
Lisle, J. (2013b). The solar system: Venus. Acts & Facts, 42(9).
Lisle, J. (2014). The biblical basis for peer review. Acts & Facts, 43(7). Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/article/biblical-basis-for-peer-review
Lisle, J. & Chaffey, T. (2012). Commentary on the Intelligent Design Movement. Answers in
Genesis. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/commentary-on-
the-intelligent-design-movement/
Lynch, J. (2013). “Prepare to Believe”: The Creation Museum as embodied conversion narrative.
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 16, 1-27.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
273
Maddux, K. (2013a). Religious dissociation in 2012 campaign discourse. Rhetoric & Public
Affairs, 16(2), 355–368.
Maddux, K. (2013b). Fundamentalist fool or populist paragon? William Jennings Bryan and the
campaign against evolutionary theory. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 16(3), 489-520.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1970). The German ideology. New York, NY: International Publishers.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
McCammack, B. (2007). Hot damned America: Evangelicalism and the climate change policy
debate. American Quarterly, 59(3), 645-668.
McGee, M. C. (1984). Responses to Wander. Central States Speech Journal, 35(1), 43–50.
doi:10.1080/10510978409368159
McGee, M. C. (1990). Text, context, and the fragmentation of contemporary culture. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 54(3), 274-289.
McKerrow, R. E. (1989). Critical rhetoric: Theory and praxis. Communication Monographs,
56(2), 91–111. doi:10.1080/03637758909390253
McLean v. State of Arkansas. (1981). 663 F. 2d 47. (OpenJurist:
http://openjurist.org/663/f2d/47/mclean-v-state-of-arkansas).
Middleton, M. K., Senda-Cook, S., & Endres, D. (2011). Articulating rhetorical field methods:
Challenges and tensions. Western Journal of Communication, 75(4), 386–406.
doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.586969
Mitchell, E. (2011). Skeletons in the closet. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/eugenics/skeletons-in-the-closet/
Mitchell, E. (2012a). Faith and science: Any absolutes? Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/science/faith-science-absolutes/
274
Mitchell, E. (2012b). Re-writing history. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/scopes-trial/re-writing-history/
Mitchell, E. (2013). Where did morality come from? Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/morality/where-did-morality-come-from/
Mitchell, E. (2014). Questioning Cosmos: A guide to great discussions. Hebron, KY: Answers in
Genesis. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/questioning-
cosmos/?sku=10-2-450
Moen, M. C. (1994). From revolution to evolution: The changing nature of the Christian Right.
Sociology of Religion, 55(3), 3450357. doi:10.2307/3712058
Mol, H. (1977). Identity and the sacred: A sketch for a new social-scientific theory of religion.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Moore, G. (2007). Old-Earth Creationism: A heretical belief? Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/articles/old-earth-creationism-a-heretical-belief
Moore, R. (1998a). Creationism in the United States: Banning evolution from the classroom. The
American Biology Teacher, 60(7), 486-507.
Moore, R. (1998b). Creationism in the United States: The aftermath of the Scopes Trial. The
American Biology Teacher, 60(8), 568-577.
Moore, R. (2000). The revival of creationism in the United States. Journal of Biological
Education, 35(1), 17-21.
Moore, R. (2004). How well do biology teachers understand the legal issues associated with the
teaching of evolution? BioScience, 54(9), 860–865. doi:10.1641/0006-3568.
275
Morris, H. M. (n.d.). The scientific case against evolution. Institute for Creation Research.
Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
Morris, H. M. (2008). The biblical origins of modern science. Acts & Facts, 37(2). Retrieved
from http://www.icr.org/article/biblical-origins-modern-science/
Morris III, H. M. (2012). The Genesis controversy. Acts & Facts, 41(3). Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-controversy/
Morris III, H. M. (2013a). Adam in the city. Acts & Facts, 42(4).
Morris III, H. M. (2013b). Genuine liberty. Acts & Facts, 42(7).
Morris, J. D. (1990). What can we do about the public schools? Acts & Facts, 19(11). Retrieved
from http://www.icr.org/article/what-can-we-do-about-public-schools/
Morris, J. D. (1995). Is belief in the young earth necessary to be a Christian? Acts & Facts, 24
(3). Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/1138/391/
Morris, J. D. (2013). God’s “very best” creation. Acts & Facts, 42(7), 14-15.
Mortensen, T. (2006). Feedback: What is the most compelling scientific evidence of a Young
Earth? Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-
creation/most-compelling-scientific-evidence-of-young-earth/
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2011). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nothstine, R. (2015). After the culture wars. Religion & Liberty, 25(4). Retrieved from
http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-25-number-4/after-culture-wars
276
Nystrom, C. L. (2000). Symbols, thought, and reality: The contributions of Benjamin Lee Whorf
and Susanne K. Langer to media ecology. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 8(1),
8–33. doi:10.1080/15456870009367376
O’Leary, S. D. (1993). Arguing the apocalypse: A theory of millennial rhetoric. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
O’Leary, S. D. (1996). Cyberspace as sacred space: Communicating religion on computer
networks. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 64(4), 781-808.
O’Neill, I. (2015). Giant mystery ring of galaxies should not exist. Discovery News. Retrieved
from http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/giant-mystery-ring-of-galaxies-should-
not-exist-150804.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1
Ong, W. J. (1967). The presence of the word: Some prolegomena for cultural and religious
history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Ono, K. A., & Sloop, J. M. (1995). The critique of vernacular discourse. Communication
Monographs, 62(1), 19–46. doi:10.1080/03637759509376346
van Oort, J. (2009). Manichaeism: Its source and influences on Western Christianity. Verbum et
Ecclesia, 30(2), 1-5.
Palczewski, C. H. (2005). The male Madonna and the feminine Uncle Sam: Visual argument,
icons, and ideographs in 1909 anti-woman suffrage postcards. Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 91(4), 365–394. doi:10.1080/00335630500488325
Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology or evidences of the existence and attributes of the deity.
London, UK: R. Faulder Publisher.
277
Parkinson, G. (2014). Energy Darwinism to hit Australian utilities – Citigroup. Renew Economy.
Retrieved from http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/energy-darwinism-hit-australian-
utilities-citigroup-76445
Patterson, R. (2015). Were you there? Pointing to God as Creator. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved
from https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/were-you-there/
Pavry, J. D. C. (1937). Manichaeism. A rival of Zoroastrianism and Christianity. The Journal of
Religion, 17(2), 161-169.
Peeples, J., Bsumek, P., Schwarze, S., and Schneider, J. (2014). Industrial apocalyptic:
Neoliberalism, coal, and the burlesque frame. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 17(2), 227-253.
Pennock, R. T. (1996). Naturalism, evidence, and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson.
Biology and Philosophy, 11(4), 543-559.
Pennock, R. T. (2003). Creationism and intelligent design. Annual Review of Genomics and
Human Genetics, 4(1), 143–163.
Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District and Board of Trustees. (1994). 37 F. 3d 517.
(OpenJurist: http://openjurist.org/37/f3d/517/peloza-v-capistrano-unified-school-district).
Pew Research Center. (2007). Religious landscape survey. Retrieved from
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
Pew Research Center. (2013). Top Priorities Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/interactives/top-priorities/
Pezzullo, P. C. (2003). Resisting “national breast cancer awareness month”: the rhetoric of
counterpublics and their cultural performances. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 89(4), 345–
365. doi:10.1080/0033563032000160981
278
Phillips, B. B. (2010). Evangelicals and global warming. The Acton Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2010/06/23/evangelicals-and-global-warming
Phillips, T. (2014a). Do you know the difference between observation and interpretation? Part 1.
Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/articles/do-you-know-the-
difference-between-observation-and-interpretation-part-1
Phillips, T. (2014b). Do you know the difference between observation and interpretation? Part 2.
Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/articles/do-you-know-the-
difference-between-observation-and-interpretation-part-2
Phillips, T. (2014c). The Higgs apocalypse. Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-higgs-apocalypse
Pilcher, J. (2015, October 6). Big ark could mean big business. Cincinnati.com. Retrieved from
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/northern-ky/2015/10/06/big-ark-could-mean-
big-business/73438028/
Prelli, L. J., & Winters, T. S. (2009). Rhetorical features of Green Evangelicalism.
Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3(2), 224–243.
doi:10.1080/17524030902928785
Purdom, G. (2010). Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian? Answers in Genesis.
Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/intelligent-design/is-the-intelligent-design-
movement-christian/
Purdom, G. (2012). “Science – worldview neutral?” Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/science-worldview-neutral/
Rana, F. (2000). Repeatable evolution or repeated creation? Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/articles/repeatable-evolution-or-repeated-creation
279
Rana, F. (2001). Humans and chimps differ. Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/articles/human-and-chimps-differ
Rana, F. (2015). Why argue about evolution? Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/articles/why-argue-about-evolution
Rana, F. (2016). Sessions. AMP 2016. Retrieved from http://www.ampconference.com/sessions/
Rawls, J. (1988). The priority of right and ideas of the good. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 17(4),
251–276.
Reasons to Believe. (n.d.-a). Who we are. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/about/who-we-
are
Reasons to Believe. (n.d.-b). Our creation model approach. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/about/our-creation-model-approach
Reasons to Believe. (2014a). FAQs. Retrieved from www.reasons.org/about/faqs
Reasons to Believe. (2014b). Our mission: Engage & equip. Retrieved from
www.reasons.org/about/our-mission
Reasons to Believe. (2014c). First time here. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/about/first-
time-here
Reasons to Believe. (2014d). Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/
Reasons to Believe. (2014e). I disbelieve. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/about/i-
disbelieve
Reasons to Believe. (2015). Building a testable creation model [Class lecture]. In Astronomy and
Design: Summer 2015. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Rich, M. (2013, November 22). Texas education board flags biology textbook over evolution
concerns. The New York Times. Retrieved from
280
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/education/texas-education-board-flags-biology-
textbook-over-evolution-concerns.html
Ricoeur, P. (1974). Metaphor and the main problem of hermeneutics. New Literary History, 6(1),
95-110.
Roberts, A. (2015a). A common design view of ERVs encourages scientific investigation.
Reasons to Believe. http://www.reasons.org/articles/A-Common-Design-View-of-ERVs-
Encourages-Scientific-Investigation
Roberts, A. (2015b). How to relate science and faith without conflict (part 1). Reasons to
Believe. Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-to-relate-science-and-faith-
without-conflict-part-1
Roberts, A. (2015c). How to relate science and faith without conflict (part 2). Reasons to Believe.
Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-to-relate-science-and-faith-without-
conflict-part-2
Rod, D. K. (1986). Kenneth Burke and Susanne K. Langer on drama and its audience. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 72(3), 306-317.
Rogers, R. A. (1998). Overcoming the objectification of nature in constitutive theories: Toward a
transhuman, materialist theory of communication. Western Journal of Communication,
62(3), 244–272. doi:10.1080/10570319809374610
Rogstad, D. (2008). Life without God. Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/articles/life-without-god
Rogstad, D. (2015, April 7, personal communication).
Roser-Renouf, C., Stenhouse, N., Rolfe-Redding, J., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014).
Global warming’s six Americas: book chapter preview. Yale Project on Climate Change
281
Communication: Bridging Science & Society. Retrieved from /climate-
communication/article/global-warmings-six-americas-preview-book-chapter/
Ross, D. (2013). The religious and political climate: Getting past the antediluvian. Reports of the
National Center for Science Education, 33(4), 1-5.
Ross, H. (2000). Big Bang – The Bible taught it first! Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/articles/big-bang---the-bible-taught-it-first
Ross, H. (2001). The Creator and the cosmos: How the latest scientific discoveries reveal God.
Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.
Ross, H. (2014). Navigating Genesis: A scientist’s journey through Genesis 1-11. Covina, CA:
Reasons to Believe Press.
Ross, H. (2015). How to evaluate the certainty in scientific discoveries. Reasons to Believe.
Retrieved from http://www.reasons.org/articles/how-to-evaluate-the-certainty-in-
scientific-discoveries
Ross, H. (2016). Red clay reveals extraordinary climate cycle. Reasons to Believe. Retrieved
from http://www.reasons.org/articles/red-clay-reveals-extraordinary-climate-cycle
Russell, C. A. (2002). The conflict of science and religion. In G. B. Ferngren (Ed.), Science and
religion: A historical introduction (pp. 3-12). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Russill, C. (2008). Tipping point forewarnings in climate change communication: Some
implications of an emerging trend. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature
and Culture, 2(2), 133–153. doi:10.1080/17524030802141711
282
Saint Augustine. (n.d.). On Christian doctrine, in four books. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian
Classics Ethereal Library. Retrieved from
http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel580/doctrine.pdf
Samples, K. R. (2013). Christian endgame: Careful thinking about the end times. Covina, CA:
Reasons to Believe Press.
Schlanger, Z. (2014, February 28). Creationist Ken Ham raised enough money after Bill Nye
debate to build Noah’s Ark. Newsweek. Retrieved from
http://www.newsweek.com/creationist-ken-ham-raised-enough-money-after-bill-nye-
debate-build-noahs-ark-230539
Schmidhuber, J., & Tubiello, F. N. (2007). Global food security under climate change.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19703.
Schultze, Q. J. (2010). The nature and future of religious communication scholarship. Journal of
Communication & Religion, 33(2), 190-205.
Schwartz, D. (2014, August 11). Creation Museum adds dragons and zip lines in effort to
increase declining attendance. Viral Global News. Retrieved from
http://www.viralglobalnews.com/u-s-stories/creation-museum-adds-dragons-zip-lines-
effort-increase-declining-attendance/14335/
Schwarze, S. (2006). Environmental melodrama. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 92(3), 239-261.
Scult, A. (1994). Heidegger’s hermeneutics and the rhetoric of biblical theology. Philosophy and
Rhetoric, 27(4), 397-409.
Sellnow, D., & Sellnow, T. (2001). The “Illusion of Life” rhetorical perspective: An integrated
approach to the study of music as communication. Critical Studies in Media
Communication, 18(4), 395–415. doi:10.1080/07393180128090
283
Sellnow, T. L. & Seeger, M. W. (2014). Introduction to special issue on communication and
climate change. Communication Studies, 65(5), 465-467.
Shaftel, H., Jackson, R., & Tenenbaum, L. (2015). Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is
warming. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Retrieved December 16, 2015 from
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Sherkat, D. E. & Ellison, C. G. (2007). Structuring the religion-environment connection:
Identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 46(1), 71-85.
Smith, F. M., & Hollihan, T. A. (2014). “Out of chaos breathes creation”: Human agency, mental
illness, and conservative arguments locating responsibility for the Tucson Massacre.
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 17(4), 585-618.
Snow, C. (2015). Unholy alliance: Who is advising Pope Francis on global warming? The Acton
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2015/06/17/unholy-
alliance-who-advising-pope-francis-global-w
Soter, S. & deGrasse Tyson, N. (2000). Cosmic horizons: Astronomy at the cutting edge. New
York, NY: The New Press.Excerpt retrieved from
http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html
Sparr, P. (2007). Special ‘effects’: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707
(M.D. Pa. 2005) and the fate of intelligent design in our public schools. Nebraska Law
Review, 86(3), 708-736.
Spencer, W. (2009). Why recent creation? Answers in Genesis. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/why-does-creation-matter/why-recent-creation/
284
Stambaugh, J. (1991). Hugh Ross, ICR, and facts of science. Acts & Facts, 20(8). Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/article/345/
Student HC. (2015, June 11). “Skeptic’s view of the universe” [Online discussion post]. In
Astronomy and Design: Summer 2015. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Student MA. (2015, June 29). “Your experience with YEC on age of universe” [Online forum
comment]. In Astronomy and Design: Summer 2015. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Student MD. (2015a, June 1). “Big Bang Cosmology and the Bible” [Online forum comment]. In
Astronomy and Design: Summer 2015. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Student MD. (2015b, June 2). “Big Bang Cosmology and the Bible” [Online forum comment]. In
Astronomy and Design: Summer 2015. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Student MD. (2015c, June 2). “Talking with Young Earth Creationists.” [Online forum
comment]. In Astronomy and Design: Summer 2015. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Student WJ. (2015, June 21). “Plausible Arguments” [Online forum comment]. In Astronomy
and Design: Summer 2015. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Tashman, B. (2014, May 7). Pat Robertson says fighting climate change will ‘destroy America.’
Right Wing Watch. Retrieved from http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pat-robertson-
says-fighting-climate-change-will-destroy-america
The Holy See. (2002, June 10). Common declaration of John Paul II and the ecumenical
patriarch his Holiness Bartholomew I. The Holy See: Speeches of John Paul II. Retrieved
from
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/june/documents/hf_jp-
ii_spe_20020610_venice-declaration_en.html
285
Thomas, B. (2009). Caterpillar controversy discloses deep evolutionary disagreement. Institute
for Creation Research. Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/5003/
Thomas, B. (2013a). The unpredictable pattern of bioluminescence. Acts & Facts, 42(4).
Thomas, B. (2013b). Global warming halts, artic ice multiples. Institute for Creation Research.
Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/7731
Thomas, B. (2015a). Can carbon dating be trusted? Acts & Facts, 44(10). Retrieved from
http://www.icr.org/article/8970
Thomas, B. (2015b). Top 2015 news: Science confronts Big Bang. Institute for Creation
Research. Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/9080/
Thompkins, J. (2013). Pseudogenes are functional, not genomic fossils. Acts & Facts, 42(7).
Tole, L. A. (1993). Durkheim on religion and moral community in modernity. Sociological
Inquiry, 63(1), 1–29. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1993.tb00199.x
Toombs, M. (2015). You’re invited! New Cornwall documentary to premier at the Heritage
Foundation. Cornwall Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2015/10/02/youre-invited-new-cornwall-documentary-
to-premier-at-the-heritage-foundation/
Toulmin, S. (1985). The return to cosmology: Postmodern science and the theology of nature.
Berkeley, University of California Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York, NY:
Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Tucker, L. (2016, January 16). Noah’s ark rises in Kentucky, dinosaurs and all. Newsweek.
Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2016/01/29/noahs-ark-kentucky-dinosaurs-
416653.html
286
Turner, B. S. (1990). Periodization and politics in the postmodern. In B. S. Turner (Ed.),
Theories of modernity and postmodernity (pp. 1-13). London, England: SAGE
Publications.
Valentine, K. (2014, May 20). Evangelical group: Climate change is a ‘pro-life’ issue. Think
Progress. Retrieved from
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/20/3439695/evangelical-environmental-
network-rick-scott-petition/
Vannini, P. & Maskul, D. (2006). Symbolic interaction as music: The esthetic constitution of
meaning, self, and society. Symbolic Interaction, 29(1), 5-18.
Vardiman, L. (2008). Does carbon dioxide drive global warming? Acts & Facts, 37(10).
Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/4128
Vatican Radio. (2014, May 21). Pope at audience: If we destroy Creation, it will destroy us.
Vatican Radio: The voice of the Pope and the Church in dialogue with the World.
Retrieved from
http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2014/05/21/pope_at_audience_if_we_destroy_creation
%2C_it_will_destroy_us/en1-800909
Wander, P. (1983). The ideological turn in modern criticism. Central States Speech Journal,
34(1), 1–18. doi:10.1080/10510978309368110
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing
evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1),
179-225.
Weber, M., Baehr, P. R., & Wells, G. C. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the “spirit” of
capitalism and other writings. New York, NY: Penguin.
287
Webster v. New Lenox School District No. 122 and Alex M. Martino. (1990). 917 F. 2d 1004.
(OpenJurist: http://openjurist.org/917/f2d/1004/webster-v-new-lenox-school-district-no-
m).
Weimer, W. B. (1977). Science as a rhetorical transaction: Toward a nonjustificational
conception of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 10(1), 1-29.
Weinsheimer, J. (1999). Translator’s Preface. In Hermeneutics, religion, and ethics. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, vii-xiv.
Whitcomb, J. C. (2006). The history and impact of the book, “The Genesis Flood.” Acts & Facts,
35(5). Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/history-impact-book-the-genesis-flood/
White, A. (2013). Should we be concerned about climate change? Answers in Genesis. Retrieved
from https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/should-we-be-
concerned-about-climate-change/
White Jr, L. (1967). The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science, 155, 1203-1207.
Wiens, R. C. (1996). The dynamics of dating. Reasons to Believe. Retrieved from
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-dynamics-of-dating
Wilkinson, K. K. (2012). Between God & green: How evangelicals are cultivating a middle
ground on climate change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Witnesses Highlight Flawed Processes Used to Generate Climate Change Science, Inform
Policy. (2011). Retrieved June 5, 2012, from http://science.house.gov/press-
release/witnesses-highlight-flawed-processes-used-generate-climate-change-science-
inform
Zagacki, K. S., & Gallagher, V. J. (2009). Rhetoric and materiality in the Museum Park at the
North Carolina Museum of Art. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 95(2), 171-191.
288
Zappen, J. P. (2009). Kenneth Burke on dialectical-rhetorical transcendence. Philosophy &
Rhetoric, 42(3), 279-301.
Zhao, X., Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2011). Attention to
science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively
predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support. Journal of Communication,
61(4), 713–731. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01563.x
Zweerink, J. (2015). Four c’s of apologetics. In Astronomy and Design: Summer 2015 [Class
lecture]. Retrieved from RTB Moodle site.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This dissertation explores the strategies used by religious organizations to legitimize their identities in response to scientific discourse and modernity. I argue that contemporary religious groups reconfigure the constellation of scientific and religious knowledge in order to claim space for faith in controversies over human origins and the environment. I categorize these responses into three types: 1) separators, 2) bargainers, and 3) harmonizers. This work adds to the growing literature on religious groups, their re-emerging importance in American life, and the rhetorical strategies they use to maintain a voice in the public sphere. In Chapter One, I explore the relationships between science and religion, and human origins and climate change. Influenced primarily by Kenneth Burke, I argue that separators, bargainers, and harmonizers employ different rhetorical strategies as coping mechanisms to legitimize religious frameworks in the face of modernity. In Chapter Two, I analyze the separators, whose discourse is guided by the metaphor of war that justifies their existence in a hostile world. In Chapter Three, I analyze the bargainers, whose discourse is guided by the metaphor of revolution that validates their attempts to change mainstream science. In Chapter Four, I analyze the harmonizers, whose discourse is guided by the metaphor of harmony that reclaims a natural theology. Chapter Five explores the implications of each of these strategies and how they reimagine the relationship between science and religion. I argue that the rhetoric of these groups reflects a deep-seated need for religion as a resource for living that is amplified as a result of modernity. Controversies over origins and endings remain ongoing, persistent issues.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Deliberating the science of madness: DSM-5 and the polytechtonic rhetorical economy of psychiatric nosological controversy
PDF
Falun Gong’s evolving definitions through stages and disputes
PDF
Miracles of birth and action: natality and the rhetoric of birth advocacy
Asset Metadata
Creator
Bloomfield, Emma Frances
(author)
Core Title
Rhetorical strategies in contemporary responses to science and modernity: legitimizing religion in human origins and climate change controversies
School
Annenberg School for Communication
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Communication
Publication Date
07/21/2016
Defense Date
04/22/2016
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
bargainers,climate change,controversy,creation care,creationism,environmental communication,evolution,harmonizers,human origins,identity,modernity,OAI-PMH Harvest,religious rhetoric,rhetorical criticism,scientific rhetoric,separators
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Lake, Randall (
committee chair
), Goodnight, G. Thomas (
committee member
), O'Leary, Stephen (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ebloomfi@usc.edu,efbloomfield@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-272219
Unique identifier
UC11280559
Identifier
etd-Bloomfield-4568.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-272219 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Bloomfield-4568.pdf
Dmrecord
272219
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Bloomfield, Emma Frances
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
bargainers
climate change
controversy
creation care
creationism
environmental communication
evolution
harmonizers
human origins
identity
modernity
religious rhetoric
rhetorical criticism
scientific rhetoric
separators