Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perelman’s Pseudo-Argument as Applied to the Creationism Controversy

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

If you want to challenge or at least weaken the adhesion to a system of values, you can basically adopt two radically opposed rhetorical strategies. Either you will attack the system in a frontal way: for instance, fundamentalists or fascists deny any validity to democratic values and human rights. Or you will pretend to argue from within the system (by saying that you accept some of its basic premises), while subtly distorting the process of reasoning in order to get to your conclusions. If the audience is naïve or poorly informed, you will be able to defend positions that are fundamentally at odds with liberal-democratic values while seeming to argue from inside the system. I would like to show how such a process of “perverse” translation works in the context of the Darwinism/Creationism “controversy”. The attacks on the teaching of evolutionary biology began approximately one century ago. The way Creationists have argued and changed several times their rhetorical strategies seems very interesting to me, in that it exemplifies an important contemporary phenomenon, which I call “perverse translation” or “the wolf in the sheepfold”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Perelman defines the “pseudo-argument” as follows. “It is actually possible that one seeks to obtain approval while basing the argument on premises that one does not accept oneself as valid. This does not involve hypocrisy, since we can be convinced by arguments others than the ones used to convince the persons we are talking to.” See Perelman( 1989: 80).

  2. “The Butler Act… made it against the law to ‘teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals’.” (Tennessee Legislature Act, 1925, quoted by L. Frank, Creationism/ID. A short legal history, http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm).

  3. In the 1950 s, a very beautiful movie was released, Inherit the Wind, based on a play showed on Broadway, with Spencer Tracy playing Darrow. The movie was about the trial, at a time when the intolerance of the fundamentalists was considered a metaphor of McCarthyism (see also the famous play The Crucible by Arthur Miller).

  4. There is a certain irony in the situation. Indeed, another fundamental part of scientific biology—genetics—had been challenged, with disastrous results, by Trofim Lysenko, the director of Soviet biology under Stalin. Lysenko advocated the hereditary transmission of acquired characters, which was the politically correct “Lamarckian” conventional wisdom in the “homeland of Socialism”. Indeed, the Soviets believed in a supposedly indefinite progress of humanity. Geneticians who challenged Lysenko’s conceptions were severely persecuted.

  5. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

  6. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). The Everson case not only made the Establishment clause applicable to States and local governments, but also inaugurated a very “separatist” series of decsions.

  7. Daniel v. Waters, U.S.Tenn. Jun 17, 1974. NO. 73-1436. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the decision of the lower court (Daniel v. Waters, 417 U.S. 963, 94 S.Ct. 3164, 41 L.Ed.2d 1135).

  8. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982).

  9. Edwards v. Aguillard, 476 U.S. 1103, 106 S.Ct. 1946, 90 L.Ed.2d 355, 32 Ed. Law Rep. 897 (U.S.La. May 05, 1986) (NO. 85-1513).

  10. Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251, 54 USLW 2078, 26 Ed. Law Rep. 29 (5th Cir.(La.) Jul 08, 1985) (NO. 85-3030).

  11. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) (opinion delivered by Justice Brennan; Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissenting).

  12. Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 975 F.Supp. 819, 121 Ed. Law Rep. 614, E.D.La., August 08, 1997 (NO. CIV. A. 94-3577); Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F.3d 337, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 195. Emphasis added.

  13. “While the Court is normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere, and not a sham.” (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)).

  14. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 205 Ed. Law Rep. 250, M.D.Pa., December 20, 2005 (NO. 04CV2688). Emphasis added.

References

  • Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F.2d 1251, 54 USLW 2078, 26 Ed. Law Rep. 29 (5th Cir.(La.) Jul 08, 1985) (NO. 85-3030).

  • Daniel v. Waters. 1974. U.S.Tenn. NO. 73-1436.

  • Daniel v. Waters, 417 U.S. 963, 94 S.Ct. 3164, 41 L.Ed.2d 1135.

  • Edwards v. Aguillard, 476 U.S. 1103, 106 S.Ct. 1946, 90 L.Ed.2d 355, 32 Ed. Law Rep. 897 (U.S.La. May 05, 1986) (NO. 85-1513).

  • Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) (opinion delivered by Justice Brennan; Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissenting).

  • Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

  • Everson v. Board of Education. 1947. 330 U.S. 1.

  • Flank, L. 2006. Creationism/ID. A short legal history, http://www.talkreason.org/articles/HistoryID.cfm).

  • Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 975 F.Supp. 819, 121 Ed. Law Rep. 614, E.D.La., August 08, 1997 (NO. CIV. A. 94-3577).

  • Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 185 F.3d 337, 137 Ed. Law Rep. 195.

  • Haarscher, Guy. 2006. Free speech, religion, and the right to caricature. In Censorial sensitivities: free speech and religion in a fundamentalist world, ed. A. Sajo, 309–328. Utrecht: Eleven International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haarscher, Guy. 2008. Rhetoric and its abuses: How to oppose liberal democracy while speaking its language. In The role of prudence in law and legal education, ed. J. Mootz II, Jr. Recalling Vico’s Lament: Chicago-Kent Law Review, (83) 3: 1225–1259.

  • McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. 1982. 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark).

  • Perelman, Chaim. 1989. Rhétoriques. Brussels: Brussels University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, E.C. 2004. Evolution versus creationism. An Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707, 205 Ed. Law Rep. 250, M.D.Pa., December 20, 2005 (NO. 04CV2688).

  • York daily record. 2005.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Free University of Brussels (ULB), Brussels, Belgium

    Guy Haarscher

Authors
  1. Guy Haarscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy Haarscher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haarscher, G. Perelman’s Pseudo-Argument as Applied to the Creationism Controversy. Argumentation 23, 361–373 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9148-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9148-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation