The Conflict over Origins: A Discourse Analysis of the Creationism Controversy in American Newspapers

Abstract

The debate about human origins between creationists and biologists is hardly a new one. In its latest cycle, the dispute concerns the status of Intelligent Design and the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. The controversy is primarily political, motivated by deeply held feelings about identity. A discourse analysis using network modeling was applied to newspaper coverage of the controversy from September to December 2005, around the time of the Dover trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District). The present study investigated how newspaper coverage of the trial framed the controversy. Arguments from the creationist viewpoint tended to portray the conflict as a dispute between “Darwinism” and a new theory. Arguments from the science position focused on the consensus regarding current knowledge and science teaching in public schools among professional biologists. Results suggest the elite frame was more common, just as other studies of science journalism have found. No significant differences were discovered comparing metropolitan and nonmetropolitan newspapers. Although there were some regional differences, the overall structure of the discourse was similar.