by Paul Braterman
Throughout most of the UK (Northern Ireland is a partial exception) evolution is regarded as established science, and no politician would make belief in separate creation part of their platform, for fear of ridicule. In the US, this is far from being the case. Although evolution has become more widely accepted over time, one third of Americans still believe that God created humans in their present form. Here I discuss the enormous influence of creationism in US politics and analyse the arguments put forward in its favour, as set out for example by Charlie Kirk, the recently slain leader of Turning Point USA.
Mike Pence, Vice President during Trump’s first term in office, had argued in Congress for creationism, while creationists have been prominent in the various faith councils supporting Trump. At least three members of his present cabinet (Pete Hegseth, Scott Turner at HUD, pastor at Prestonwood Baptist Church, Doug Collins at the VA, one-time pastor at Chicopee Baptist Church) are committed creationists, as is Mike Huckabee, another former Southern Baptist pastor, now ambassador to Israel. So is Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who has done pro bono work for Answers in Genesis, now the leading creationist organization. Russell Vought, co-author of Project 2025, whose role at the Office of Management and Budget is pivotal role in the distribution of federal funds, is an elder of a church that explicitly rejects evolution, and sees Satan as “the unholy god of this age.” Vought is also acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and on 28 October 2025, in this capacity, rescinded the rule that, in some States, prevents medical debt from showing up on credit reports.
We can understand the link between creationism and US right-wing politics in terms of the appeal to US conservatives of loyalty, respect for authority, and sanctity. These all favour absolutist theology, which demands submission to divine authority, loyalty to the community of believers, and the preservation of pure doctrine. With this in mind, we can understand the appeal of Christian Nationalism and Trumpism to creationists. Thus as early as 2015, Answers in Genesis praised Trump, not for any specific policies, but because he spoke, just as Jesus spoke to the Pharisees, as one with authority.
Creationists claim to be following the only natural interpretation of the sacred text, despite the fact that the text itself is full of ambiguities, contains scientific impossibilities (such as the creation of day and night, evening and morning, before the creation of the sun), and has been the subject of fierce controversy among believers since the beginning. Present-day versions are dominated by Young Earth creationism, which became dominant among US evangelical Christians in the decades following its foundational text, The Genesis Flood, in 1961. After various schisms, the group associated with that book has set up a number of organizations, most notably Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research, with the most prominent organisation now being Answers in Genesis, founded by Ken Ham when under circumstances leading to litigation he broke away from the other two major organisations. Answers in Genesis operates the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter, both in Kentucky, as well as a worldwide publication network.
All this is of major political significance. From its beginning, the modern Young Earth creationist movement has been connected with right-wing American politics. Tim LaHaye, now best known for the Left Behind series of books, developed in his 1980 book The Battle for the Mind the thesis that creationism was the only valid form of religious belief, and was associated with true American values, while evolution was linked to humanism, internationalism, socialism, and immorality. From this it followed that it was the duty of true believers to involve themselves in politics. Such arguments were influential in forging the links between evangelical Christianity and the modern Republican Party as constructed by Ronald Reagan.
Two other developments further cemented evangelical creationism to right-wing politics. The first of these was the adoption by the Reagan campaign of the abortion issue. As late as 1973, evangelical Christians had no strong position on abortion, which was regarded mainly as an issue for Catholic voters. However, in 1975, Paul Weyrich and allies used the issue to rally evangelicals to the Republican cause, presenting it as a matter of biblical morality although the Bible itself is completely silent on the matter. Here they were helped by the theologian Francis A. Schaeffer, and the distinguished surgeon (later US Surgeon-General) C, Everett Koop. Schaeffer’s spiritual retreat at L’Abri in Switzerland taught the Young Earth version of creationism.1My friend Michael Roberts, transitioning from geologist to Church of England priest, had intended to spend some time at L’Abri, until his assigned tutor told him that geological dating was based on a circular argument, since the sediments are used to date the fossils and the fossils are then used to date the sediments. Michael, who had just mapped out the Precambrian geology of large areas of southern Africa without a single fossil in sight, was not impressed Koop was not only an extremely skilled surgeon but an effective and courageous public educator.2Whenever I hear blanket condemnation of creationists, I think of Koop. While morally opposed to abortion, he resisted pressure from the Reagan Administration to describe it as injurious to mental health. He was also responsible for the recognition of the strength of nicotine addiction and for government initiatives to restrict smoking, and in the face of mealy-mouthed officialdom sent information about AIDS to every US household. He also urged that violence in America be treated as a public health problem. He was nonetheless a creationist, being enormously impressed by the complexity of the human body. So is Ben Carson, Donald Trump’s Surgeon General during his first administration, a brilliant surgeon who has separated conjoined twins and yet regards evolution science as inspired by Satan.
The other one significant development was the emergence of a creationist climatology. From 1970 if not earlier, we have seen the emergence of a scientific consensus that tells us that the Earth is currently warming at an alarming rate, and that much if not all of this warming is due to the emission of greenhouse gases by human industrial activity. This consensus is reinforced by analysis of past climates, as inferred from the study of annual bands in deep cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, going back hundreds of thousands of years. Young Earth creationists are forced to explain the formation of the ice sheets in some other way, and from 1987 onwards have developed their own fantastical explanations (also among the unbiblical things mentioned on the Ark Encounter), involving extreme moisture transfer in the aftermath of Noah’s Flood. This leads in their logic to denial of the importance of greenhouse gas emissions, making them allies of the US anti-environmentalist Right. A pivotal role here is played by the Cornwall Alliance, which combines biblical literalist creationism with libertarian free market beliefs, and which has direct links between on the one hand Answers in Genesis, and on the other the Heritage Foundation, birthplace of Project 2025.
With this lengthy preamble, we can make sense of the hidden agenda of Charlie Kirk’s December 2024 U-tube, I Help College Students Understand the Case for Creation Over Evolution.
He stands with his microphone against a backdrop that reads “You are being brainwashed,” a slogan directly attacking the entire university curriculum, including, as we shall see, evolution science. He is very good at what he does. His black T-shirt exaggerates his arm movements. His voice conveys conviction, passion, and at the same time reasonableness and approachability, while his actual words show a carefully crafted informality and imprecision, enabling him to give an impression of bridge building when he is in fact doing a very opposite.
He is being questioned by a member of the crowd (a plant?) who identifies himself as Jason, says he is there to defend evolution, and then advances in its favour a couple of extremely weak arguments, albeit arguments that fit in well with Kirk’s own ideology. In a series of tightly choreographed exchanges, Kirk replies with a distillation of the standard creationist elements against evolution, before proceeding to declaim in favour of creationism as a pillar of his own faith, moving on to a set piece about the Resurrection as historical proof of Christianity, and promising his audience “a sense of purpose that nothing can explain” if, like him, they accept Jesus into their hearts.
If making a case for evolution, I would refer to such things as family relationships originally based on observation of existing species, increasingly confirmed by a fossil record enormously richer than that available to Darwin, and triumphantly verified by comparisons of DNA, the same kind of method now routinely used by individuals to trace their ancestry. I might add detailed anatomical similarities, evolutionary relics such as gill arches and yolk sacs in the embryos of mammals (including of course us), the distribution of species past and present over the globe, and finally the basic mechanism by which evolutionary novelties arise. All of this has been understood in outline for over a century and is now explainable down to the molecular level (for a summary, see here).
Jason mentions none of this, but opens the case for evolution by comparing it to free market competition, which allows the cream to rise to the top in society. In reply, Kirk proclaims himself a strict creationist, but in a display of reasonableness says that a range of views are possible, and would Jason contemplate the possibility that God created and directs evolution. Jason plays into Kirk’s hand by seizing on the word “created,” and agreeing that the universe had a beginning, but did it need a beginner and why should that beginner be Christ? Kirk replies that we (notice the reference to a collective identity, which is what he is offering his followers) believe that the universe has a beginning point and an end point, words that he repeats for emphasis (notice how Kirk has dragged in the concept of an end time, never far in the background of apocalyptic Christian Nationalist politics).
Having disingenuously claimed not to have studied the subject in sufficient detail, Kirk then gives us a distillation of the standard creationist arguments, with which he is clearly very familiar:
Evolution hinges on far more faith than creation. To believe that the way that we are currently composed, and having species change, is an Act of Faith. Now Darwin was more of an adaptionist than an evolutionist, in the sense that he proved adaptation but he did not prove Evolution. He theorized evolution. He could be right, I don’t think he is, but he through his finches, he wrote that yes, animals or birds will adjust to the environment of which they are in. We do not have any evidence nor can you, you can guess, in the fossil record of actual species change, does that make sense?
The first two sentences here simply ignore the entire body of evidence for evolution, while paving the way for a later argument from improbability. In an apparent show of intellectual generosity, Kirk acknowledges that Darwin has got something right, but that something is mere adaptation, rather than evolution. Here we have the creationist admission that change does happen (they could hardly deny this), coupled to denial that such change could ever lead one kind of living thing to transform into another. As for the fossil record, Kirk is referring to two common creationist arguments. Firstly, the seemingly reasonable comment that no individual fossil is evidence of species change. True up to a point, since any fossil must represent its own viable species, although it is commonplace for fossils to show a mosaic of features already present in their ancestors, and novelties that they pass on to their descendants. The other idea being referred to is the alleged incompleteness of the fossil record. Darwin himself described this as a grave objection to his theory, unless gaps on the record would be filled over time. This of course they have been, and we now have, as Darwin did not, whole sequences pointing to successive changes, as clearly as footsteps in the sand.
The reference to Darwin’s finches is surprisingly common in the creationist literature, although these finches played very little role in Darwin’s own work, and the birds that he used as examples of change in The Origin of Species were pigeons.
In reply, Jason launches into a naïve exposition of evolutionary psychology, and one that suits Kirk’s purposes suspiciously well. He points out that
as a general rule of thumb like women are the sexual gatekeepers and men are the sexual pursuers
and that this difference is explained by evolution, since a woman’s investment in the child is much greater than a man’s.
Cue for Kirk to kill two birds with one stone:
But maybe God, God, maybe God, God made it that way, right?
Kirk is alluding to the well-known Christian Conservative doctrine of complementary roles for men and women, invoking God (note the repetition) for support, and preparing the ground for a more general version of the Argument from Design.
Jason: Maybe, but a lot of things like that point towards evolution of some sort?
Kirk: For sure, but I think you would I think you’re close, because you’re marveling at the design, and therefore we believe it was designed.
Note again the reference to “we,” the apparent generosity of his argument (“I think you’re close”), and the judo move by which he transforms the fitness of organisms from an argument in favour of evolution to one in favour of design.
Kirk now puts forward at some length, while claiming to appeal to reason, the standard creationist argument that the complexity of living things could not have arisen simply by chance. This of course is true, but a central point 3I almost wrote “the central point,” but my biologist friends repeatedly remind me that much, perhaps most evolutionary change is the result of random drift. of evolutionary explanation is that the complexity has arisen step-by-step, by trial and error and repeated winnowing.
Jason here argues that evolution occurs by selection at the gene level, no conscious effort required. To which Kirk replies
Of course I don’t disagree with any of that. We just think all of that was designed into us, right.
He’s lying. He disagrees with all of it. The claimed agreement is an affectation, to pretend that there is symmetry between evolutionary and design-based explanations.
Kirk then gives his own exposition of Scripture, designed to be as noncommittal as possible on matters of doctrine. He has no strong opinion about the age of the earth, but what matters is that God came first, and in succession created the universe, then nature, then animals, then man. The Ten Commandments are good, therefore the Bible as a whole is good. The details don’t matter, but reason commends the twin doctrinal pillars of Creation, and the Resurrection. The Resurrection is well attested by four separate accounts, written from different viewpoints (here Kirk pre-empts the obvious objection that the Gospel accounts contradict each other), as well as reference by Josephus and other unnamed historians. (The kindest interpretation here is that Kirk has not actually read the relevant section of Josephus, which is obviously4“Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man… for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.” No Jew would ever use such language. a later out-of-character revision.) Moreover, why did the apostles allow themselves to be martyred in witness to their faith in the Resurrection, if it was not an actual event? I must admit that Kirk does seem to have a point here. However, I noticed that his chief example is St Paul, who never met Jesus and had no first-hand knowledge of his life and death.
The initial question, namely the scientific validity of evolution, has now been buried beneath layers of distraction, while creationism is being extolled by association, as Kirk launches into his final triumphant declaration of how faith in Jesus has transformed his own life.
We can be sure that Kirk’s movement, Turning Point USA, will remain influential in American politics, and perhaps beyond (there is already a Turning Point UK, which has been addressed by Nigel Farage, proprietor5Strictly speaking, major shareholder. Reform UK is actually incorporated as a limited company. of the hard Right Reform Party). It is now thoroughly subsumed into the Trumpian juggernaut, with a governmental campaign of reprisals and intimidation, initially directed against Kirk’s critics, spilling over to the Regime’s opponents in general.
Turning Point USA is in direct contact with the US Education Department through the Civics Curriculum initiative announced by Education Secretary Linda McMahon just a week after Kirk’s death. This connection has troubling implications, not only for Civics, but for other subjects as well, including the teaching of evolution. In the US, it is unconstitutional for any part of Government to promote a religion, and the courts have repeatedly ruled that for this reason creationism cannot be taught in publicly funded schools. The most recent and most notable of such cases was Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, where Judge Jones also ruled that Intelligent Design was not science, but a form of creationism. Here the decision, handed down in December 2005, appeared to be so strongly worded as to preclude further challenge, but Judge Jones now fears that that may no longer be the case, given recent rulings6Judge Jones relied heavily on what was known as the Lemon test, based on religious intent. This he sees as being replaced by more permissive criteria, such as historical practice. by the present Supreme Court. So this may be one of the numerous battles that appeared won decades or even centuries ago, but will now need to be fought, all over again, with outcome uncertain.
I thank Randall Balmer, Glenn Branch, Andrew Petto, Michael Roberts, and William Trollinger for helpful and enjoyable discussions, and Susan Trollinger for the Ark Encounter interior photo.
***
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.
Footnotes
- 1My friend Michael Roberts, transitioning from geologist to Church of England priest, had intended to spend some time at L’Abri, until his assigned tutor told him that geological dating was based on a circular argument, since the sediments are used to date the fossils and the fossils are then used to date the sediments. Michael, who had just mapped out the Precambrian geology of large areas of southern Africa without a single fossil in sight, was not impressed
- 2Whenever I hear blanket condemnation of creationists, I think of Koop. While morally opposed to abortion, he resisted pressure from the Reagan Administration to describe it as injurious to mental health. He was also responsible for the recognition of the strength of nicotine addiction and for government initiatives to restrict smoking, and in the face of mealy-mouthed officialdom sent information about AIDS to every US household. He also urged that violence in America be treated as a public health problem.
- 3I almost wrote “the central point,” but my biologist friends repeatedly remind me that much, perhaps most evolutionary change is the result of random drift.
- 4“Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man… for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him.” No Jew would ever use such language.
- 5Strictly speaking, major shareholder. Reform UK is actually incorporated as a limited company.
- 6Judge Jones relied heavily on what was known as the Lemon test, based on religious intent. This he sees as being replaced by more permissive criteria, such as historical practice.