
Takeaways from AP's report on creationist beliefs 100 years after the Scopes trial
WILLIAMSTOWN, Ky. (AP) — Some people thought the 1925 Scopes monkey trial marked a cultural defeat for biblical fundamentalism.
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.'
— 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.
___
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


New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Menopause drug might prevent breast cancer and treat hot flashes, research finds
A drug intended to treat menopause symptoms could double as breast cancer prevention. New research from Northwestern University in Illinois found that Duavee, a Pfizer-made drug, 'significantly reduced' breast tissue cell growth, which is a major indicator of cancer progression. Advertisement A phase 2 clinical trial included 141 post-menopausal women who had been diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), also known as stage 0 breast cancer, according to a press release from Northwestern. This non-invasive breast cancer affects more than 60,000 American women each year, often leading to an outcome of invasive breast cancer. The women were separated into two groups — one received Duavee and the other took a placebo for a month before undergoing breast surgery. Duavee is a conjugated estrogen/bazedoxifene (CE/BZA) drug, which combines estrogen with another medication that minimizes the potential harmful side effects of the hormone. Advertisement 'The key takeaway from the study is that CE/BZA slows the growth (proliferation) of cells in milk ducts of DCIS that expressed the estrogen receptor significantly more than placebo,' Dr. Swati Kulkarni, lead investigator and professor of breast surgery at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, told Fox News Digital. 5 New research from Northwestern University found that the drug Duavee 'significantly reduced' breast tissue cell growth, a major indicator of cancer progression. Marko Geber – Another major finding is that the quality of life did not differ significantly between the two groups, but patients who took the CE/BZA reported fewer hot flashes during the study, she noted. 'This would be expected, as the drug is FDA-approved to treat hot flashes.' Advertisement Kulkarni presented the study last week at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in Chicago. 5 The women in the study were separated into two groups — one received Duavee and the other took a placebo for a month before undergoing breast surgery. Gorodenkoff – 5 Those who took the drug reported fewer hot flashes during the study. fizkes – The findings are preliminary and have not yet been published in a medical journal. Advertisement 'What excites me most is that a medication designed to help women feel better during menopause may also reduce their risk of invasive breast cancer,' said the doctor, who is also a Northwestern Medicine breast surgeon. Women who face a higher risk of breast cancer — including those who have experienced 'high-risk lesions' — and who also have menopausal symptoms are most likely to benefit from the drug, according to Kulkarni. 'These women are typically advised against standard hormone therapies, leaving them with few menopausal treatment options,' the release stated. Study limitations The researchers said they are 'encouraged' by these early results, but more research is required before the medication can be considered for approval as a breast cancer prevention mechanism. 'Our findings suggest that CE/BZA may prevent breast cancer, but larger studies with several years of follow-up are needed before we would know this for sure,' Kulkarni told Fox News Digital. Dr. Sheheryar Kabraji, chief of breast medicine at the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, was not involved in the study but commented on the findings. 5 'What excites me most is that a medication designed to help women feel better during menopause may also reduce their risk of invasive breast cancer,' Dr. Swati Kulkarni said. sarayutsridee – Advertisement 'While intriguing, this study is highly preliminary, and more research will be needed before we can conclude that conjugated estrogen/bazedoxifene (CD/BZA), a form of the hormone estrogen commonly prescribed to address symptoms of menopause, prevents invasive breast cancer or is effective at reducing cancer risk,' he told Fox News Digital. Kabraji also noted that the study focused on reducing levels of one specific protein, 'which does not always predict reduced recurrence of breast cancer.' 'This study did not directly show that CE/BZA treatment reduces the risk of DCIS recurrence or development of invasive cancer,' he noted. 5 According to Kulkarni,'larger studies with several years of follow-up are needed' to confirm that the drug prevents breast cancer. Science RF – Advertisement 'Importantly, however, patients who received this therapy experienced no worsening of quality of life, and saw improvement in vasomotor symptoms, such as hot flashes. If found to be effective in preventing breast cancer, CE/BZA is likely to have fewer side effects than current medications used for breast cancer prevention.' Lead researcher Kulkarni emphasized that this medication is not for the treatment of invasive breast cancer or DCIS. 'Right now, we can say that women who are concerned about their risk of developing breast cancer can consider this medication to treat their menopausal symptoms,' she added.


Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
Torah's clothing lessons backed by Yale study showing your attire changes how you think
It is in Genesis 27 that Isaac is preparing to pass the torch of Jewish leadership to his son, Esau — who, as the Torah makes clear, is entirely unfit for the role. His twin brother, Jacob, despite his shortcomings, is the one capable of carrying the mission forward. Rebecca, Isaac's wife and the mother of the twins, sees what's about to happen and intervenes. (See the video at the top of this article.) She tells Jacob to pose as Esau and receive the blessing in his place. Her key instruction? Put on Esau's best clothes. Isaac is blind — he won't see what Jacob is wearing. So why the costume? Because Rebecca understands something profound: To act like someone, you first have to feel like that person. And to feel like that person, you need to dress like that person. The strategy works. Jacob puts on the garments and receives the blessing. But the Torah isn't just telling a story; it's teaching a principle. It devotes entire chapters later to the clothing of the high priest — describing in detail the colors of the threads, the fabrics, the accessories, even the design of the undergarments. These aren't ritual decorations. They're instruments of transformation. The priest doesn't just look holy. By wearing sacred garments, he begins to feel holy — and that changes how he behaves. The Torah understood long before modern science that clothing shapes consciousness. Students in business suits negotiated far more successfully than those who were wearing casual clothes. In 2012, researchers at Northwestern conducted an experiment in which they gave participants a white coat. Some were told it was a painter's coat; others were told it was a doctor's coat. Those who believed they were wearing a doctor's coat performed significantly better on tasks requiring focus. In a similar experiment from Yale, students in business suits negotiated far more successfully than those who were wearing casual clothes. Sports fans know this. It's why football stadiums are full of grown men wearing the jerseys of their favorite player. Athletes understand this as well — they know the way they dress affects their performance. Psychologists now call this "enclothed cognition" — the idea that what we wear influences how we think, feel and perform. If you're depressed, you may naturally dress in a way that reflects your sadness — sweatpants and a baggy T-shirt. Psychologists have determined that this will only deepen the sadness. Professor Karen Pine suggests that a sad person should instead dress for happiness, with a well-cut dress made from natural fibers, colors that evoke nature, playful patterns that spark childhood memories — or even pair unexpected items, like a leather jacket over a dress, to engage the brain's craving for novelty. For more Lifestyle articles, visit Once again, God was right. Clothing isn't just about appearance or comfort. It's a tool for shaping who we are. When we dress with purpose, we prepare ourselves to live with purpose. Mark Gerson's new book is "God Was Right: How Modern Social Science Proves the Torah Is True," published by BenBella Books and distributed by Simon & Schuster (June 2025). This article is part of a series featured exclusively by Fox News Digital.


Axios
7 hours ago
- Axios
The great poaching: America's brain drain begins
The Trump administration's spending cuts and restrictions on foreign students are triggering a brain drain — and American scientists are panicking. Why it matters: U.S. researchers' fears are coming true. America's science pipeline is drying up, and countries like China are seizing the opportunity to surge ahead. 'This is such a race for being the science powerhouse that you never fully recover,' says Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences. 'You might accelerate back up to 60, but you can't make up for those years when you were at a standstill while the competition was racing ahead.' Driving the news: The National Science Foundation, which funds much of America's fundamental science research, is already doling out grants at its slowest pace in 35 years, The New York Times reports. More cuts to science could come with the "big, beautiful bill." Universities are also watching with bated breath as the administration tries to limit the number of foreign students studying in the U.S.. Harvard is pushing back, but could face a total ban on recruiting internationally. The Trump administration says it will " aggressively revoke" visas for Chinese students studying in "critical fields." By the numbers: While American universities are rescinding offers to incoming PhD students, other countries are recruiting heavily from U.S. labs. The journal Nature analyzed data from its jobs platform to track where scientists are looking for work. In the first few months of the Trump administration, there were jumps in the the number of U.S. applicants looking for jobs in Canada (+41%), Europe (+32%), China (+20%) and other Asian countries (+39%), compared to the same period in 2024. U.S. jobs saw fewer applications from candidates in Canada (–13%) and Europe (–41%). Case in point: France's Aix-Marseille University, which made headlines for earmarking millions of dollars for U.S. scientists, closed its application window after receiving a flood of apps. After American Nobel laureate Ardem Patapoutian's federal grant was frozen, he got an email from China offering 20 years of funding if he relocates his lab, The New York Times' Kate Zernike writes. He declined. 'This is a once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity,' the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wrote in a brief. The other side: The White House argues that its changes to the system will usher in a golden age of science and rebuild public trust. President Trump has also suggested that spots freed up by rejecting international students could be filled by American applicants. But professors say this isn't entirely realistic. "In hard sciences, in astronomy and physics and computer science, for example, there's no way you would fill that hole with local applicants of comparable quality," says Chris Impey, an astronomer at the University of Arizona. What to watch: 'The optimistic part of all of us thinks science is strong enough to outlast one administration, and for a while I thought that, but the hit to young people is at the center of the whole enterprise,' Impey says. 'It's like pulling the rug out from under the whole thing." It's not just brain drain of existing talent, he says. Students who are in high school and college now and thinking about a career in research might reconsider. "There's plenty of things smart kids can do. They don't have to go into science." At the same time, McNutt says she tells students: "If you went into graduate school in the fall of this year, by the time you get your PhD, this madness may be over. You come out with your new PhD ready to fill the gap."