In an era when scientific literacy is not just desirable—but essential—the question of why large swathes of the American public still reject Darwin’s theory of evolution is both troubling and revealing. Edward White's recent article in The Conversation, "Why many Americans still think Darwin was wrong, yet the British don’t", reproduced below under a Creative Commons license, shines a stark light on this divide.
White argues that in the U.S., disbelief in Darwin often stems less from engagement with scientific evidence and more from a pre‑emptive rejection rooted in religious conviction. Here, many fundamentalists begin with a conclusion — evolution must be false because it contradicts the Bible — and then marshal arguments to fit that view. By contrast, the British tend to approach Darwin’s legacy with curiosity rather than hostility, allowing evidence and inquiry to guide their conclusions.
This isn’t just a cultural quirk. It’s a profound divergence in how societies value knowledge, method, and truth. Where curiosity and empirical rigour flourish, science thrives. Where ideological certainty undermines inquiry, progress stalls. The difference is a profound example of the harm religious fundamentalism can do and the control it can exercise over the behaviour and opinions of those affected by it. In his article, Edward White explores what drives the American creationist impulse, why the British public’s more accepting stance offers a blueprint, and why standing firm on the side of science matters now more than ever.
Why many Americans still think Darwin was wrong, yet the British don’t
Evangelist T.T. Martin's books against the theory of evolution are sold at an outdoor stand in Dayton, Tenn., 1925, scene of the Scopes trial.
Edward White, Kingston University
One hundred years after a Tennessee teacher named John Scopes started a legal battle over what the state’s schools can teach children, Americans are still divided over evolution.
Scopes was charged with violating Tennessee law by teaching evolution, in a highly publicised July 1925 trial that led to national debate over evolution and education. The trial tested whether a law introduced that year really could punish teachers over evolution lessons. It could and did: Scopes was fined US$100 (£74).
But here’s the weird part: while Americans remain deeply divided about whether humans evolved from earlier species, across the Atlantic British people had largely settled this question decades before the Scopes trial.
John Scopes one month before the Tennessee v. John T. Scopes Trial.
From 1985 to 2010, Americans were in what researchers call a statistical dead heat between acceptance and rejection of evolution – which is academic speak for people couldn’t decide if we were descended from apes or Adam and Eve.
Here’s where things get psychologically fascinating. Research into misinformation and cognitive biases suggests that fundamentalism operates on a principle known as motivated reasoning. This means selectively interpreting evidence to reach predetermined conclusions. And a 2018 review of social and computer science research also found that fake news seems to spread because it confirms what people already want to believe.
Evolution denial may work the same way. Religious fundamentalism is what researchers call “the strongest predictor” for rejection of evolution. A 2019 study of 900 participants found that belief in fake news headlines was associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism and reduced analytic thinking.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
High personal religiosity, as seen in the US, reinforced by communities of like-minded believers, can create resistance to evolutionary science. This pattern is pronounced among Southern Baptists – the largest Protestant denomination in the US – where 61% believe the Bible is the literal word of God, compared to 31% of Americans overall. The persistence of this conflict is fuelled by organised creationist movements that reinforce religious scepticism.
Brain imaging studies show that people with fundamentalist beliefs seem to have reduced activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – the brain region responsible for cognitive flexibility and analytical thinking. When this area is damaged or less active, people become more prone to accepting claims without sufficient evidence and show increased resistance to changing their beliefs when presented with contradictory information. Studies of brain-injured patients show damage to prefrontal networks that normally help us question information may lead to increased fundamentalist beliefs and reduced scepticism.
Fundamentalist psychology helps explain the US position in international evolution acceptance surveys. In a 2006 study, of over 33,00 people from 34 countries, only Turkey ranked lower than the US, with about 27% accepting evolution compared to America’s 40% at the time. Among the developed nations surveyed, the US consistently ranks near the bottom – a pattern that persists in more recent international comparisons.
Where did humans come from? Teaching children about evolution can be controversial, depending on where they live.
In the UK, belief in evolution became accepted among respectable clergymen around 1896, according to church historian Owen Chadwick’s analysis of Victorian Christianity. But why did British religious institutions embrace science while American ones declared war?
The answer lies in different approaches to intellectual challenges. British Anglicanism has a centuries-old tradition of seeking a “via media” – a middle way between extremes – that allowed church leaders to accommodate new ideas without abandoning core beliefs. Historian Peter documented how British religious leaders actively worked to reconcile science and religion, developing theological frameworks that embraced scientific discoveries as revealing God’s methods rather than contradicting divine authority.
Anglican bishops and scholars tended to treat evolution as God’s method of creation rather than a threat to faith itself. The Church of England’s hierarchical structure meant that when educated clergy accepted evolution, the institutional framework often followed suit. A 2024 paper argued that many UK church leaders still view science and religion as complementary rather than conflicting.
A different approach
The British experience proves it’s possible to reconcile science and faith. But changing American minds requires understanding that evolution acceptance isn’t really about biology — it’s about identity, belonging, and the fundamental question of who gets to define truth. People don’t reject evolution because they’ve carefully studied the evidence. They reject it because it threatens their identity. This creates a context where education alone can’t overcome deeply held convictions.
Misinformation intervention research suggests that inoculation strategies, such as highlighting the scientific consensus on climate change, work better than debunking individual articles. But evolution education needs to be sensitive. Consensus messaging helps, but only when it doesn’t threaten people’s core identities. For example, framing evolution as a function of “how” life develops, rather than “why it exists, allows for people to maintain religious belief while accepting the scientific evidence for natural selection.
People’s views can change. A review published in 2024, analysed data which followed the same Gen X people in the US over 33 years. It found that, as they grew up, people developed more acceptance of evolution, though typically because of factors such as education and obtaining university degrees. But people who were taught at a private school seem less likely to become more accepting of evolution as they aged.
As we face new waves of scientific misinformation, the century since the Scopes trial teaches us that evidence alone won’t necessarily change people’s minds. Understanding the psychology of belief might be our best hope for evolving past our own cognitive limitations.
Edward White, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Kingston University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
This mindset has broader consequences than mere disagreement over biological origins. It undermines trust in the scientific method and fosters a culture in which facts are subordinated to ideology. When religious dogma is treated as immune to challenge, education suffers. Students are taught that evidence-based reasoning is optional, and that science is just one “belief system” among many. This erodes critical thinking and weakens public policy, especially in areas like healthcare, environmental protection, and biotechnology—fields that depend on accurate scientific understanding.
By contrast, the British approach, as White highlights, tends to treat science as a tool for discovery rather than a threat to faith. This cultural openness to scientific inquiry reflects a healthier relationship between religion and public life, where theological beliefs need not dictate scientific conclusions. The comparison serves as a powerful reminder of the harm that can result when fundamentalism seeks to control not just private belief, but public knowledge, and bend political policies to serve its own self-interests even in a democracy in which they are a minority.
In resisting this intrusion, we protect both intellectual integrity and the foundations of a scientifically literate society.
Advertisement
Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It
This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.
What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You
How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
Amazon
All titles available in paperback, hardcover, ebook for Kindle and audio format.
Prices correct at time of publication. for current prices.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.