Eastern Illinois University The Keep Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications 1989 Evolution/Creation Debate: A Rhetorical Analysis James V. Miteff Eastern Illinois University This research is a product of the graduate program in Speech Communication at Eastern Illinois University. Find out more about the program. Recommended Citation Miteff, James V., "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Rhetorical Analysis" (1989). Masters Theses. 2546. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/2546 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THESIS REPRODUCTION CERTIFICATE TO: Graduate Degree Candidate• who have written formal theses. SUBJECT: Permission to reproduce the11e11. The University Library is r�ceiving a num�er of requests from other institutions asking permission to reproduce. dissertations for inclusion in their library holdings. Although no copyri�ht laws are involved, we feel that professional courtesy de�ands that permission be obtained from the author before we allow theses to be copied. Please sign one of the following statements: Booth Library of Eastern Illinoi� University has my permission to lend my thee.is to a reputable ·college or 'QJliversity for the purpose of copying it for inclusion in that institution's library or· research holdings. Date I respectfully re.quest Booth Library of Eastern Illinois University not allow my thesis be reproduced because -------------- Date Author m EVOLUTIOR/CREATION DEBATE: A Rhetorical Analysis (TITLE) BY JAMES V. MITEFF THESIS SUBMITIED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts IN THE GRADUATESCHOOL, EASTERN IWNOIS UNIVERSITY CHARLESTON, IUINOIS 1989 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THIS THESIS BE ACCTPTEDAS FULFIWNG THIS PART OF THEGRADUATE DEGREECITED ABOVE 03- t1 I DATE , , ...... • ·r,· .,,. • :1,. ABSTRACT During the course of human history, many social issues have come and gone. One argull!ent that caught the writer's eye is the argument about how man came to exist. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to analyze an evolution/ creation debate that took place at Columbus College, Georgia, on May 6, 1981. Evolutionary theory was supported by Dr. Schwinner, a paleontologist from Columbus College. His partner was Dr. Frazier, a professor of geology at Columbus College. Creation theory was supported by Dr. Henry Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, and Dr. Slusher, an astronomer and geophysicist from the University of Texas, El Paso. Hypothesis The working hypothesis is that an analysis of the language, arguments, and philosophical frameworks employed during a debate between scientists would yield a responsible perspective on theories of origin. Materials A transcript was made from a cassette tape of the evolution/ creation debate that took place at Columbus College. This debate was chosen because of its comprehensive coverage of arguments supporting evolution and creation. The debate was complete and uncut without editing. Methodology This paper applies a methodology created by B. F. McClerren and demonstrated in his rhetorical analysis: "The Rhetoric of Abortion: An Analysis," (unpublished paper, Eastern Illinois University, 1989). This methodology provides for three basic identifications: emotive language, modes of argument, and philosophical frameworks. Each is described in the paper. This methodology is applied to each debater. Conclusion The hypothesis was supported. The analysis revealed that the debaters marshaled their language and arguments to responsibly and clearly defend their respective philosophical frameworks. Because the writer cannot claim that all possible arguments about the evolution/creation issue were employed in the one debate studied, the following suggestions for further study using the same methodology are offered: 1. A study of the same debaters in different settings. 2. A study of other evolution/creation debates by other responsible debaters. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION. • . • • • . • 1 Purpose of the Study. • . 2 Signi ficance of the Study •••• 3 Review of Literature ••.••.•••• 4 Materials 5 Method. • 6 Procedure . • . 11 Organization of Study 11 I I. ANALYSIS. 13 I II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 48 Summary • • • 48 Conclusion. • 55 APPEND IX A 57 REFERENCES • 201 ii Evol ution/Creation Page 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCT ION During the course of human history a myriad of social issues have come and gone. In my br ief lifetime alone , I have witnessed the rise of such issues as the Vietnam War , abortion, the war on drugs , and others. One argument , however, which caught this wr i ter 's attention is the argument about how man came to ex ist. Although theor ies of the or igin of humankind have been debated since the dawn of recorded history, the debate has been of particular interest in the Uni ted States of America as shown by conf licting court cases and public debates. The speci fics that fol low indicate the historical conti nuum of the debate about origins. In 1926 , John T. Scopes was convi cted and fined for teaching the theory of evolution in Dayton , Tennessee . In 1976 <Ohio v. Wisner> the state court brought criminal charges against parents who put thei r children in a Christian school because the public school was teaching evolution and secular humanism. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the parents and verified that secular humanism is a rel igion. In 1982 <McLean v. Arkansas) the Arkansas Supreme Court disal lowed al l views in science cl asses except those compat ible with Evolution/Creation Page 2 purely natural istic rel igions. Theories of evolution were retained. Creation theory was disal lowed. Clearly, the debate over origins is not settled. On the one hand , there is the evolutionist 's camp , and on the other there is the creationist 's camp. The evolut ionists have won the educational victory, but the ideological victory must still be won. The debates between these two factions wi ll no doubt continue for years to come. Mul finger (1970 , p.39> claims maki ng plausible guesses as to the origin of the uni verse is evidently a challenging pastime. To many , however , the debate is more than idle chatter. For the past fifteen years some very responsi ble debates about origins have taken place on col lege campuses in the United States. For example, creation scientists from the Institute for Creat ion Research have met evolution scientists before many col lege audiences. <A list is provi ded of these debates on page 5.) PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to anal yze a creation v. evolution debate that took place at Columbus Col lege Georgia, on May 6, 1981. Evolutionary theory was supported by Dr. Schwinner , a paleontologist from Columbus Col lege. His partner , Dr. Frazier, is a professor of Evolution/Creation Page 3 geology at Columbus Col lege. Creation theory was supported by Dr . Henry Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research , San Diego , and Dr . Slusher , an astronomer and geophysicist from the University of Texas , El Paso . The wor king hypothesis is that an analysis of the language , arguments, and phi losophical frameworks employed during a debate between scientists would yield a responsible perspective on theor ies of or igin. SIGNif ICANCE OF THE STUDY The si gni ficance of this study is threefold: rhetorical , social , and personal . First the study is of value to those having an interst in rhetoric and public address. Weaver (1970, p. 105) insists that a large part of the world 's oral and written expression takes the form of argumentation. Examining the speeches of each participant in a debate provides rhetor ical insights. This study deals with a controversial issue that is current and of great interest in· our soc iety. Faced with opposing theories about ori gins, it seems most unscientific to withhold consideration of one of the theories if it does not fit one 's personal ideas of haw something happened <Hei nze, 1980 , p. 11> . This study gives society a bal anced view. Evoluti on/Creation Page 4 Final ly, this study is of personal value. It is a learning experience for the author. Thompson <1947 , p. 227> notes: The preparation of the thesis can be a rich educational experience which provides trai ning in research methods; requires the integration of the knowledge and the ski lls of several fields •••makes the student and expert within a defined area: and leads ta concl usi ons regarding the theory and practice of rhetoric in our own time. Hockett <1955 , p. 12> also advocates the personal value of a thesis • He claims: •••a master 's essay may make a real even if minor contribution ta historical knowledge and thus become a source of justifiable pr ide an the part of the author. More important •••is the discipl ine which should result from the use of the critical methods. REVIEW OF LITERATURE A review of literature revealed that this is an or iginal topic for a rhetor ical anal ysi s. The Index to Journal s in Communication Studies Through _1985 , was consul ted to determine if there lfJere any rel evant studies concerning theories of creation and evol ution. Several books did ai d in providing general background information. What is Creation Science? <Morris � Parker , 1984) . Creation vs. Evol ution Handbook , <Hei nz, 1980) �as also helpful . Evol ution/Creation Page 5 The other creati on-evolution debates , avai lable on tape and listed below, also aided my review. The creation debaters are listed first: 1. Morris, Gish v. Schweitzer , �ones, University of Tennessee , January 14, 1975. 2. Gish v. Robi nson , University of Wisconsin, February 10, 1978. 3. Morris, Gi sh v. Edward , Nol a, San Diego , Cal ifornia, April 12, 1978.