Species Evolve, So Why Can't Our Mindset?

After hundreds of years of research, it has been made extremely clear that Darwin's theory of Evolution is viable.  However, it is still not uncommon in the United States to come across someone who considers it to be unreasonable.  The longer you argue with them, the more incapable you become of convincing them that Darwin is correct.  Their creationist ideals have been instilled in them over generations, so it is only natural that they struggle to accept another concept.  But why, exactly is this natural?  There have been countless court cases involving evolution versus creationism, and yet no matter how many times a ruling is made, another court case turns up debating the exact same issue. This is a long-discussed issue that has yet to be solved.

Perhaps the most well-known case of evolution is the Scopes Monkey Trial, more officially known as the State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes.  The case took place in 1925, and quickly became a nation-wide phenomenon as people tuned into the radio to hear the event transpire.  The case essentially attempted to charge John Thomas Scopes with a misdemeanor for teaching evolution in a classroom that was intended to be strictly creationist.  The court's extremely Christian attitude found Scopes to be guilty, and he was charged with a crime (which was overturned two years later). However, the intense outcry from the other end of the evolutionary spectrum was enough to lead to the death of the prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan, just a number of days later.  In this case, both sides of the argument fought so intensely that both the defendant AND prosecutor got hurt.  Although in this situation creationism was preferred, that was not always the case.

In 1968, the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, which had a similar background to the Scopes Monkey Trial, overthrew a statute which prohibited teaching evolution.  However, although the outcome for this case was different, it still was not ruled on the basis of fact.  The court's ruling made the claim that according to the First Amendment to the Constitution, teaching cannot be catered to the needs of a specific religion, and by extension, cannot exclude things.  Although this was a step in the right direction for Darwin's theory, the ruling was not made simply because creationism is an unproven theory; it was more founded on the concept of freedom of speech.  In order to properly teach Darwin's theory it must be regarded as fact, therefore the ruling made it a flawed lesson.

Although there have been countless cases on evolution, it is best to focus on those more spread out, in order to properly examine the lack of change throughout generations of learning--similar to the studying of evolution itself.  Therefore, it is best to focus on a more modern case now (as modern as creationism can get)- the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005).  In this case, the District Court Judge ruled to destroy the intelligent design policy in the Dover School District, which forced teachers to explore the "gaps in the theory of Evolution" and offer more "theories" like intelligent design, which is, for all intents and purposes, creationism.  In this case, a large number of people refused to back off on the idea of using the book Of Pandas and People in an attempt to not abandon their literal interpretations of the Bible when teaching students.  The actual teachers at the school, who knew better, fought their hardest to disallow the teaching of an unconfirmed "theory."  In this situation, although it was extremely modern, creationists still refused to change their opinion, despite the facts. This, of course, was the  case for the biology teachers, as well, but they had years of factual research to back up their extremely legitimate theory.  Even eighty years after the Scopes Monkey Trial, people still refused to change their minds.

So where does this stubborn unwillingness to adapt to the facts come from? After many studies, scientists argue the idea of cognitive dissonance, in which people struggle with the concept of balancing two opposing ideas.  It is because of this that no matter what they hear, no  matter how factual it may be, people refuse to change their mind.  Because of this natural inclination to act headstrong when learning, people intentionally block out information that they consider to be wrong. They use a tactic known as motivated reasoning, in which they actively seek out agreeable information.  It is because of selective exposure like this that people tend to stay within their own realm.  It is from this that the well-known media bias stems as well.  The willingness of the public to search out news sources that they agree with is what fuels the revenue of such companies, like the New York Times, Fox News, and others.  Over time, people find themselves far more certain in their beliefs, whether factual or not, due to the news sources they access.  It additionally comes from the people who argue with them, as they eventually choose to just block them out in an attempt to remain correct.  This is unfortunately the case with creationists; no matter how much the world changes, they will still find themselves sticking to their guns about what is true and what is not, even if there is not factual evidence to back up their beliefs.