Â鶹ÒùÔº

Why many Americans still think Darwin was wrong, yet the British do not

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 , in a highly publicized 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, our British predecessors largely settled this question decades before the Scopes trial.

According to think tank data from 2020, only 64% of Americans accept that "humans and other living things have evolved over time." Meanwhile, 73% of Brits are fine with the idea that they share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. That nine-percentage-point gap might not sound like much, but it represents millions of people who think Darwin was peddling fake news.

From 1985 to 2010, Americans were in what researchers call a statistical dead heat 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 suggests that fundamentalism operates on a principle known as motivated reasoning. This means selectively interpreting evidence to reach predetermined conclusions. And a 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 of the rejection of evolution. of 900 participants found that belief in fake news headlines was associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism and reduced analytic thinking.

High personal religiosity, , 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 , compared to 31% of Americans overall. The persistence of this conflict is fueled by that reinforce religious skepticism.

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. show damage to prefrontal networks that normally help us question information may lead to increased fundamentalist beliefs and reduced skepticism.

Fundamentalist psychology helps explain the US position in international evolution acceptance surveys. In a 2006 study of over 33,000 people , 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 in more recent international comparisons.

that political polarization on evolution has historically been much stronger in the US than in Europe or Japan, where the issue rarely becomes a campaign talking point. In the US, are still being introduced in .

In the UK, belief in evolution became accepted among 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 of seeking a "via media"—a middle way between extremes—that allows church leaders to accommodate new ideas without abandoning core beliefs. Historian Peter documented how 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. 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 . 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 can't overcome deeply held convictions.

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. 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 people to maintain religious belief while accepting the scientific evidence for natural selection.

People's views can change. A review published in 2024 analyzed data that 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 . But people who were taught at a private school 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.