Creation As Meaning Filled: Key Symbols in the Study of Creationism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Creation as Meaning-filled: Key Symbols in the Study of Creationism According to a 1996 poll, only 44% of adult Americans agreed that "[h]uman beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" (National Science Board 1996: 8). Cultural anthropology is uniquely positioned to offer an understanding of Creationism; whereas a geologist would critique the Creationist's geology or a philosopher would critique the Creationist's philosophy the cultural anthropologist can bracket out such questions and ask "How is the Creationist constructing his or her reality?" This paper will use the symbolic theories of Clifford Geertz and Sherry Ortner to examine one particular form of anti-evolutionism throughout the rest of the paper,"Young Earth known as "Young Earth Creationism" from an Creationism" should be understood to be anthropological perspective. It will be argued prototypical Creationism; hence any reference to that creation and 'the Bible' are key symbols "Creationism" or "Creationist" without any sort which unite the Creationist 'community'; hence of adjective should be taken to mean "Young any ideas which seem to contradict these Earth Creationism" or "Young Earth Creationist" symbols are perceived threaten the conceptual respectively. cohesiveness of the Creationist's reality. The It is also important to recognize what strategies employed to defend the key symbols Creationists mean when they talk about will also be considered. evolution. A significant number of Creationists (i.e. Hovind 2003, Wieland 2003) distinguish Key Terms Defined: What I Mean When I between microevolution and macroevolution Say What I Mean (Scott 1997: 271). Microevolution is understood A number of context-specific terms will to be intra-specific change whereas be used in this paper. In order to avoid macroevolution is understood to be inter-specific ambiguity it is important that these terms be change (Scott 1997: 271). The former is clearly defined. First to be considered is the accepted by most special Creationists as a term "Creationism." Scott (1997: 266) offers recombination of the existing genetic diversity "the idea that a supernatural entity(s) created the created by God; the latter is rejected as logically universe and humankind" as a minimal definition impossible since it would require entire novel of Creationism. However, this is not sufficiently structures to come into existence via natural clear for the purposes of the present paper; after processes (Scott 1997: 271). Unless otherwise all, this term could be equally applied to a much specified any references to 'evolution' in this larger range of belief systems then will be paper should be assumed to refer to considered here; Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, 'macroevolution' as defined above. Iroquois traditionalism, Wicca, etc., could all be Having defined "Creationism", considered forms of "Creationism" according to "Creationist" and "evolution" for purposes of this minimal definition. The Creationists which this paper, the final term to be defined is are being considered in this paper all identify "Creationist culture". Precisely what will this themselves as 'Christian' and locate their term mean in this paper? Here I intend to follow Creationism within their religious faith. This Geertz's (1966: 3) suggestion that we think of a paper still requires an ever more nuanced culture as a "historically transmitted pattern of definition of Creationism which recognizes that meanings embodied in symbols by forms of all Creationists agree that "God created the which men [sic] communicate, perpetuate and universe and all that is in it - including human develop their knowledge about and attitudes beings - as a special act, or as a series of special towards life." Following Geertz (1966), acts"(Scott 1997: 266); this belief is often Creationist culture can be said to be historically referred to as "Special Creationism"(Scott 1997: transmitted; it is a pattern of meanings; these 266-71). Further precision is required; thus this meanings are embodied in symbols; Creationists paper will further distinguish between "Old use these meanings and symbols to understand Earth Creationism" and "Young Earth and explain life. This understanding of Creationism"(Scott 266-71). Old Earth Creationist culture serves to highlight four Creationists imagine a special creation event that interwoven themes in this paper: The history of took place millions or billions of years ago while Creationism; Creationism as meaning-filled; Young Earth Creationists insist on a literal, six- Creationism as symbol-filled; and the day, creation event occurring only several relationship between meanings, symbols and life thousand years ago (Scott 1997: 266-71). as lived. To maintain a clear focus, this paper will focus upon Young Earth Creationism; this The Context: The Genesis of Creationism decision is primarily made because Young Earth Although there had been popular Creationism is the form of Special Creationism resistance to Darwinian thought since the which the present author finds the most publication of Origin of Species in 1859, there interesting. This preference is entirely was little organized opposition to evolution until biographical in nature; the author has known the 1920s (Numbers 1987: 391-394). During many Young Earth Creationists but almost no this decade, various antievolution laws were Old Earth Creationists. Consequently, passed and John Scopes was convicted for teaching evolution in the now-famous 1925 trial classroom time devoted to the teaching of both (Numbers 1987: 394-403). By the late 1920s, evolution and special creation (Numbers 1986: however, the special Creationist efforts towards 411). This strategy garnered success throughout legislative change slowed to a halt and the 1970s, leading to "equal-time" laws in Creationists focused their attention on lobbying several states (Numbers 1986: 411-12); for local school boards to eliminate evolution from instance, in 1973, Tennessee introduced new their curriculum (Numbers 1987: 403). legislation requiring equal treatment to both Although this garnered some success, evolution and special creation within the public Creationists turned inward over the next few school system (Larson 1985: 134-7). However, decades; this time was primarily spent building this new Tennessee law was immediately up their own institutional base, with Creationist challenged in the courts by various groups organizations such as "the American Scientific (Larson 1985: 137-8); in 1975 it was declared Affiliation" and "Religion and Science unconstitutional by both a Tennessee court of Association" being founded during this period appeal and the Tennessee Supreme Court (Numbers 1987: 404). By the early 1960s it (Larson 1985: 138-9). In 1982 a similar law, appeared that the golden age of special which had been passed in 1981, was struck down Creationism was past (Numbers 1987: 407). in an Arkansas federal court (Larson 1985: 151- This appearance was short-lived, however. 162); Judge William Overton, in his ruling, In 196i Henry Morris and John Whitcomb declared that special Creationism was not published The Genesis Flood. Intended to offer science but religion and consequently violated scientific proof for the global flood recorded in the constitutionally-mandated separation of Genesis 6 (Morris and Whitcomb 1962; see also church and state (Larson 1985: 162). Numbers (1986: 408) and Scott (1997: 268», the book ignited a controversy amongst North The Problem: My key symbols are not your American conservative Christians and helped key symbols fuel a "Creationist revival" (Numbers 1986: 407- Why are Creationists so concerned about 410). The publication of The Genesis Flood evolution? Why does it matter whether or not coincided with a resurgence of evolutionary present species evolved from earlier species? teaching in public schools and corresponding Although Creationist objections to evolution are repeals of several state laws prohibiting such certainly commentaries on scientific thought, the teaching. For example, "new evolutionary vehemence and determination with which these biology textbooks reached the Little Rock, objections are made would seem to suggest that Arkansas, public school system in 1965" (Larson they stem from more then objective 1985: 98); after a series of intricate legal disputes considerations of empirical evidence. To explain and court rulings over the evolutionary content this vehemence I would like to turn to Ortner's of these textbooks, the Supreme Court declared (1973) idea of "key symbols." the Arkansas anti-evolution law unconstitutional I have previously defined "Creationist in 1968 (Larson 1985: 98-108). Around the culture" as pattern of meanings embodied within same time, in 1967, the Tennessee legislature symbols. However, not all symbols are equal. repealed its own antievolution law (Larson 1985: In Ortner's understanding, particularly "key" 104); this repeal had particular symbolic weight, symbols are "certain key elements which ... are given that this was the same law under which crucial to [a particular culture' s] distinctive John Scopes was successfully prosecuted for organization" (Ortner 1973: 1338). These are teaching evolution in 1925. In response, symbols which are an especially integral part of Creationists began articulating an "equal-time" a particular cultural pattern. Consequently, the strategy (Numbers 1986: 411). Whereas earlier identification of key symbols in actual Creationists had sought to outlaw evolutionary Creationist literature