The 2012 Tennessee law shares some similarities with the law at the center of the Scopes Trial. Both laws reflect an attempt to restrict or influence the teaching of evolution in public schools. While the 1925 law directly prohibited the teaching of evolution, the 2012 law sought to create space for alternative viewpoints by encouraging the discussion of “weaknesses” in scientific theories.
Opponents of the 2012 law, like Charles C. Haynes, argued that it did not promote academic freedom but rather provided a “Trojan horse” for inserting religious convictions into the science curriculum. They feared that teachers, without proper scientific training, might present creationism or intelligent design as valid scientific alternatives to evolution, despite the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community.