Takeaways from AP's report on creationist beliefs 100 years after the Scopes trial
But a century after what was dubbed the Trial of the Century, the issue is far from settled. Many American adults still embrace creationism — a belief in the literal truth of the Genesis account of the origins of the Earth and humanity.
To be sure, Tennessee public schoolteacher John Scopes was convicted in 1925 for violating a state law against teaching human evolution. But it appeared to be a pyrrhic victory for creationists.
That's because the star of the prosecution team — populist politician William Jennings Bryan — faltered when he took the stand as an expert witness. He struggled to defend the Bible's miraculous and mysterious stories.
But
creationist belief is resilient
. Polls generally show that somewhere between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 Americans hold beliefs consistent with young-Earth creationism, depending on how the question is asked.
That belief is most evident in a region of northern Kentucky that hosts a Creation Museum and a gargantuan replica of the biblical
Noah's Ark
. They draw a combined 1.5 million visits per year.
This trend alarms science educators, who say the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and see creationism as part of an anti-science movement affecting responses to serious problems like climate change.
An ark in Kentucky
Ken Ham began speaking in support of creationism 50 years ago — halfway between the Scopes trial and today — as a young schoolteacher in Australia. He's expanded that work by founding Answers in Genesis, a vast enterprise that includes books, videos and homeschool curricula.
The organization opened the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, near Cincinnati, in 2007. Visitors are greeted with a diorama depicting children and dinosaurs interacting peacefully in the Garden of Eden — life-forms that scientists say are actually separated by tens of millions of years. The museum features an array of exhibits, some of them added in recent years, that argue for a literal interpretation of the biblical creation narrative.
Most dramatically, Answers in Genesis opened the Ark Encounter theme park in nearby Williamstown, Kentucky, in 2016. Its main attraction is the massive ark replica — 'the biggest freestanding timber frame structure in the world,' says Ham. It's 510 feet (155 meters) long, or one and a half football fields in length; 85 feet (26 meters) wide and 51 feet (16 meters) high.
Like the museum, the park includes numerous exhibits arguing for the plausibility of the ark — that Noah, his wife, his three sons and their wives had the skill and means to sustain thousands of animals in their care. The park also includes theme-park attractions such as a zoo, zip lines and virtual-reality theater. Similar theaters are planned for tourist hubs Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, and Branson, Missouri.
'The main message of both attractions is basically this: The history in the Bible is true,' Ham says. 'That's why the message of the Gospel based on that history is true.'
Creationist beliefs
Core beliefs of Christian creationism include:
— God created the heavens and the Earth by fiat in six literal days, with humans as the crown of creation.
— The Earth is just a few thousand years old.
— Humans sinned, and that brought death and suffering into the world (and, ultimately, the necessity of salvation through Jesus Christ).
— God drowned almost all people and breathing animals in a global flood because of human wickedness. God spared Noah and his family, instructing him to build a large ark and bring aboard pairs of each animal kind to preserve them from extinction.
— The flood explains geological phenomena such as the Grand Canyon.
Science educators' concerns
According to the vast, long-standing scientific consensus, the above biological and geological claims are absurd and completely lacking in evidence.
The consensus is that the Earth is billions of years old; that humans and other life forms evolved from earlier forms over millions of years; and that mountains, canyons and other geological features are due to millions of years of tectonic upheaval and erosion. A 2014
Pew Research Center poll
found 98% of American scientists accept evolution.
'Evolution and the directly related concept of deep time are essential parts of science curricula,' says the Geological Society of America.
Evolution is 'one of the most securely established of scientific facts,' says the National Academy of Sciences. The academy urges that public schools stick to the scientific consensus and that creationism is not a viable alternative. Creationists, it said, 'reverse the scientific process' by beginning with an inflexible conclusion, rather than building evidence toward a conclusion.
Courts of law — and public opinion
Creation and evolution may not be front-burner issues today, but the Scopes trial set a template for other culture-war battles over school books and gender policies. William Jennings Bryan's words from his era would sound familiar at a modern school board meeting: 'Teachers in public schools must teach what the taxpayers desire taught.'
The Scopes case involved the 1925 conviction of schoolteacher John Scopes in Dayton, Tennessee, for violating a state law against teaching in public schools '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 repealed that law in 1967, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that a similar Arkansas law was an unconstitutional promotion of religion. The high court in 1987 overturned a Louisiana law requiring creationism to be taught alongside evolution. A 2005 federal court ruling similarly forbade the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania from presenting 'intelligent design,' as an alternative to evolution, saying it, too, was a religious teaching. Though distinct from young-Earth creationism, intelligent design argues that nature shows evidence of a designer.
A 2023-2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 17% of U.S. adults agreed that humans have existed in their present form since 'the beginning of time.'
A 2024 Gallup survey found that 37% agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'
The differences may be due to the phrasing of the question and the circumstances of the survey.
Both surveys found that majorities of Americans believe humans evolved, and of that group, more believe God had a role in evolution than that it happened without divine intervention.
Catholics and many Protestants and other religious groups accept all or parts of evolutionary theory.
But many conservative evangelical denominations, schools and other institutions promote young-Earth creationist beliefs.
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's
collaboration
with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
8 hours ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
Epoch Times
8 hours ago
- Epoch Times
US Universities Become Soft Targets for China's Talent Mining
Thinking About China Some U.S. universities prioritize research partnerships and funding pipelines over security protocols. The past two years have laid bare a troubling pattern: American universities, long heralded as bastions of innovation and openness, have become soft targets for foreign intelligence operations—particularly those linked to China's Ministry of State Security.
The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
China may have more engineers, but it still lacks a culture of innovation
China announced last month a $100 billion push into artificial intelligence, intensifying what is already a fierce race for global tech dominance. Policymakers in Washington are watching with concern, and rightly so. China graduates more than 1.38 million engineers each year, about seven times more than does the U.S. The numbers sound alarming and suggest we're falling behind. But that's not the full story. While engineering degrees are critical, they don't guarantee technological leadership. What really drives innovation is not how many people you train, but how you train them. And here, China faces a deeper, cultural problem that raw output can't solve. The Chinese education system is highly structured and built for scale. But it's also rigid, top-down and deeply rooted in deference to authority. In most classrooms, memorization takes precedence over questioning and the teacher's word is rarely challenged. Correcting a professor's mistake could cause them to 'lose face,' a cultural breach that most students won't risk. This environment produces excellent test-takers but not risk-takers. It produces technical workers who are strong on facts but weak on critical thinking. They can follow a formula, but they struggle to break new ground. This is a key reason China, despite its massive engineering workforce, has yet to deliver the kind of world-changing breakthroughs we've seen from the U.S., from the microprocessor to the iPhone to mRNA vaccines. These innovations didn't come from rote learning. They came from interdisciplinary research, unorthodox thinking and cultures that reward questioning everything. Even when it comes to research output, China's surge in published papers masks a more complex reality. While China now leads the world in scientific publishing volume, scholars like Ming Xia have pointed out that much of this work lacks the originality, rigor and theoretical depth typical of Western scholarship. Plagiarism and fabrication remain persistent problems, even at top institutions. At Tsinghua University, one professor felt compelled to reassure students that if they wrote something publishable, he wouldn't steal it and submit it under his own name. The root issue is systemic. Many Chinese academics were trained in the same system they now uphold, one that prizes metrics and obedience over ideas and inquiry. As a result, scholarship often becomes descriptive, not theoretical. It explains what exists but rarely asks why it matters or how to build something new from it. Contrast that with American higher education. Our universities aren't perfect — they can be chaotic, expensive and uneven, but they're designed to cultivate thinkers, not just technicians. Students are encouraged to disagree with their professors, to explore across disciplines and to challenge the conventional wisdom. The freedom to question isn't a side effect of our system. It's the whole point. Yes, China has closed gaps in recent years by acquiring Western technology through joint ventures, forced transfers and even cyber espionage. But copying isn't creating. Without a culture that fosters original thought, China may scale existing tech but it won't lead the next wave of innovation. That doesn't mean the U.S. can relax. We need to double down on what works, investing in universities, supporting fundamental research and attracting the best minds from around the world. At the same time, we must protect critical technologies and intellectual property from exploitation. Still, we should remember what gives America an edge: a culture that values curiosity, dissent and the freedom to think differently. That's the foundation of every breakthrough we've ever made. In the long run, engineering dominance isn't just about how many degrees a country prints. It's about whether those engineers are trained to challenge the status quo and imagine something better. If the U.S. keeps leaning into its strengths of diversity, openness and academic freedom, we won't just keep pace with China. We will continue to lead.
