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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
