Creationist Science and the Rhetorical Capacity of the Scientific Method

Meg M. Marquardt

doi:10.1080/07350198.2022.2038508

Rhetoric Review Apr 2022

Creationist Science and the Rhetorical Capacity of the Scientific Method

Meg M. Marquardt University of Wisconsin–Madison

Abstract

Rhetoricians of science often (rightly) demarcate as antiscientific the way creationists engage with, manipulate, and circulate scientific knowledge. Though this demarcation work is essential for understanding how creationists manipulate science in the public sphere, relying on demarcation analysis closes off rhetorical inquiry. By analyzing Answers Research Journal, a creationist scientific journal, this essay contends the way creationist authors engage with scientific knowledge production offers a more nuanced way of seeing how scientific meaning-making has rhetorical capacity, which offers new avenues by which rhetoricians of science can investigate the power of scientific methodologies.

Journal: Rhetoric Review
Published: 2022-04-03
DOI: 10.1080/07350198.2022.2038508
CompPile
Open Access: Closed
Topics: rhetorical criticism public rhetoric
Export: BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (34) · 4 in this index

“About Answers in Genesis.” Answers in Genesis. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020. Web.
Arp Halton C. (1988)

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies
—— — (1998)

Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science
10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.005

↗
10.1353/rap.2010.0222

↗

Show all 34 →

Collins Harry (2008)

Rethinking Expertise
10.1353/cul.2011.0000

↗
Faulkner Danny R. (2018)

Answers Research Journal
10.2307/2095325

↗
Graham et al. (2019)

There’s No Such Thing as a Scientific Controversy

Technical Communication Quarterly
Ham, K. (n.d.). “Whose Bow Is It?” Answers in Genesis. Accessed 7 Dec. 2019. Web
Hodge, Bodie. (n.d). “How Old Is the Earth?” Answers in Genesis, Accessed 29 Apr. 2020. Web.
Howell, Elizabeth. “What Are Redshift and Blueshift?” Space. Accessed 16 March 2018. Web.
Jarratt Susan C. (1998)

Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured
Jeanson Nathaniel T. (2015)

Answers Research Journal
Jeanson, Nathaniel T. “What Happened to the Animals after Noah’s Ark?” Answers In Genesis. Accessed 16 July 2021.
Kolodziejski (2014)

Harms of Hedging in Scientific Discourse: Andrew Wakefield and the Origins of t…

Technical Communication Quarterly
Lessl Thomas M. (2012)

Rhetorical Darwinism: Religion, Evolution, and the Scientific Identity
10.1038/d41586-021-00251-4

↗
Matt Georg E. (2015)

Generalizability Theory
Miller Carolyn R. (1992)

A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy
—— — (2003)

Configurations
Miller Carolyn R. (2020)

Poroi: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis & Invention
Numbers Ronald L. (2011)

History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
Paul et al. (2001)

Moving beyond the Moment: Reception Studies in the Rhetoric of Science

Journal of Business and Technical Communication
10.4324/9780203538074

↗
Redd, Nola Taylor. “How Old Is Earth?” Space. Accessed 7 Feb. 2019. Web
Reeves (2015)

Of Frogs & Rhetoric: The Atrazine Wars

Technical Communication Quarterly
10.26818/9780814214350

↗
Samuels Ellen. (2014)

Fantasies of Identification: Disability, Gender, Race
Skinner Carolyn. (2014)

Women Physicians and Professional Ethos in Nineteenth-Century America
Snelling, Andrew A. “About Answers Research Journal.” Answers in Genesis. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.
Taylor Charles Alan. (1996)

Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation
Vox Lisa. (2017)

Existential Threats: American Apocalyptic Beliefs in the Technological Era

CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Creationist Science and the Rhetorical Capacity of the Scientific Method

Abstract

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

References (34) · 4 in this index

Related Articles