Darwin Was Defeated When He Strayed Away From The Truth
Ninety-nine percent of PhDs accept evolution and reject Genesis 1–11.1 More than half of the population of the United States agrees with them.2 Creationists have a long way to go before we can claim victory.
But what to do about it? Let’s go back in time to when the culture wasn’t so far gone on evolution. It’s worth asking: What changed?
Decades of Decline
In 1925, the state of Tennessee was openly in favor of creation science. The legislature passed the Butler Act, which included the following language:
It shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, 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.3
I have a hard time believing that any state in the US ever was so bold in its stance. But Tennessee was.
Evolutionists struck back quickly. The infamous Scopes trial was the venue. But the goal wasn’t to repeal the legislative language (above). Instead, it was to mock creation science.4
The tactic worked. Creationists, having been publicly shamed, pulled back in their public advocacy for creation science.
Then, over the next several decades, the anti-creationists eroded the legal basis for the Butler Act. In 1947, the Supreme Court made it difficult to invoke religious language in state law (Everson v. Board of Education).5 In 1962, the Supreme Court took prayer out of public schools (Engel v. Vitale).6 By 1967, Tennessee had repealed the Butler Act. In 1968, the Supreme Court made it illegal to pass anti-evolution laws.
Did you catch the formula for success? (1) Publicly mock your opponent; (2) dissolve the legal foundation for your opponent’s laws; (3) repeal your opponent’s laws outright.
In the 1970s, creationists mounted a compelling counteroffensive.7 People like Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish traveled the country doing debates on public university campuses. They spoke to tens of thousands of unbelieving students. It was a real bonanza of enthusiasm for creation science.
But then the evolutionists struck back. The wave of zeal for creation science in the 1970s had crested with the passage of “equal time” laws—mandating in the public schools the teaching of creation science alongside evolution. Federal and Supreme Court decisions in the 1980s overturned these laws.
As a result, today around 99% of college students hear evolution—and evolution alone—during their university education.8 No surprise, then, that 99% of PhDs hold to evolution, as well as the majority of the country.
Despite these setbacks, creationists have been quietly chipping away at the legal basis for the 1980s court decisions. During the debates of the 1970s, creationists did a good job cross-examining the claims of evolution. It was like creationists were playing the role of lawyer. In the 1980s, the courts said that lawyer work was not science. They insisted that creationists also do detective work. They stipulated that creationists find research funds, publish hypotheses, test those hypotheses with experiments, publish the results, and come back when they made bona fide discoveries.
In my own line of research, I’ve been diligently doing detective work.9 Objectively, creationists have met the court’s standard.
Unexpected Results
Detective work brings unexpected benefits. When someone makes a genuine scientific discovery, when someone uncovers something brand new about the work, it attracts attention. When the discovery touches a question that many people have asked, it generates even more attention. My research on the pre-European history of the Americas has gone viral.10
What’s more, it’s forced unbelievers to sit up and pay attention to Genesis—in ways they’ve not be forced to before. This creationist detective work is opening doors to unbelievers—even strongly anti-Christian Native Americans—that I never dreamed would be cracked.11
Yes, the statistics on evolution are depressing. But a new way to win is emerging. By the evolutionists’ own playbook, we’ve completed two of the three steps to victory. The debates of the 1970s functioned as public mockery of evolution—respectful mockery, but mockery nonetheless.12 Over the last decade, great progress in creationist biology has dissolved the legal case against creation science. All that remains is step #3—the final repeal of anti-creationist laws.
by Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson on September 18, 2026
Featured in Nathaniel Jeanson Blog
In plain speaking, creationists have the Truth, evolutionists do not.
But what to do about it? Let’s go back in time to when the culture wasn’t so far gone on evolution. It’s worth asking: What changed?
Decades of Decline
In 1925, the state of Tennessee was openly in favor of creation science. The legislature passed the Butler Act, which included the following language:
It shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the state, 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.3
I have a hard time believing that any state in the US ever was so bold in its stance. But Tennessee was.
Evolutionists struck back quickly. The infamous Scopes trial was the venue. But the goal wasn’t to repeal the legislative language (above). Instead, it was to mock creation science.4
The tactic worked. Creationists, having been publicly shamed, pulled back in their public advocacy for creation science.
Then, over the next several decades, the anti-creationists eroded the legal basis for the Butler Act. In 1947, the Supreme Court made it difficult to invoke religious language in state law (Everson v. Board of Education).5 In 1962, the Supreme Court took prayer out of public schools (Engel v. Vitale).6 By 1967, Tennessee had repealed the Butler Act. In 1968, the Supreme Court made it illegal to pass anti-evolution laws.
Did you catch the formula for success? (1) Publicly mock your opponent; (2) dissolve the legal foundation for your opponent’s laws; (3) repeal your opponent’s laws outright.
In the 1970s, creationists mounted a compelling counteroffensive.7 People like Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish traveled the country doing debates on public university campuses. They spoke to tens of thousands of unbelieving students. It was a real bonanza of enthusiasm for creation science.
But then the evolutionists struck back. The wave of zeal for creation science in the 1970s had crested with the passage of “equal time” laws—mandating in the public schools the teaching of creation science alongside evolution. Federal and Supreme Court decisions in the 1980s overturned these laws.
As a result, today around 99% of college students hear evolution—and evolution alone—during their university education.8 No surprise, then, that 99% of PhDs hold to evolution, as well as the majority of the country.
Despite these setbacks, creationists have been quietly chipping away at the legal basis for the 1980s court decisions. During the debates of the 1970s, creationists did a good job cross-examining the claims of evolution. It was like creationists were playing the role of lawyer. In the 1980s, the courts said that lawyer work was not science. They insisted that creationists also do detective work. They stipulated that creationists find research funds, publish hypotheses, test those hypotheses with experiments, publish the results, and come back when they made bona fide discoveries.
In my own line of research, I’ve been diligently doing detective work.9 Objectively, creationists have met the court’s standard.
Unexpected Results
Detective work brings unexpected benefits. When someone makes a genuine scientific discovery, when someone uncovers something brand new about the work, it attracts attention. When the discovery touches a question that many people have asked, it generates even more attention. My research on the pre-European history of the Americas has gone viral.10
What’s more, it’s forced unbelievers to sit up and pay attention to Genesis—in ways they’ve not be forced to before. This creationist detective work is opening doors to unbelievers—even strongly anti-Christian Native Americans—that I never dreamed would be cracked.11
Yes, the statistics on evolution are depressing. But a new way to win is emerging. By the evolutionists’ own playbook, we’ve completed two of the three steps to victory. The debates of the 1970s functioned as public mockery of evolution—respectful mockery, but mockery nonetheless.12 Over the last decade, great progress in creationist biology has dissolved the legal case against creation science. All that remains is step #3—the final repeal of anti-creationist laws.
by Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson on September 18, 2026
Featured in Nathaniel Jeanson Blog
In plain speaking, creationists have the Truth, evolutionists do not.
70-79, M
