Are You Crazy If You Don’t Accept Science?

I would argue that those who reject the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution are willfully ignorant. Living in a fantasy world. Delusional. Maybe not crazy, only because that suggests to me a state you don’t have complete control over, but in colloquial terms, it fits.

Which brings us to this conversation from Sunday’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” between the host, blogger Andrew Sullican, and PBS’ Gwen Ifill in which they talk about the rightward shift of the Republican Party and its tendency to be, among other things, anti-science:

(image via ABC News)

IFILL:… But, you know, I’ve interviewed both Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. And here’s the thing. Neither of them come — I don’t like the words crazy and insane to describe people who are actually trying to put themselves forward to run for public office and represent people, because both of them are speaking to constituencies in their states, in Missouri and Indiana, who respond to what they say, who believe that life believes at conception.

So they don’t think what Richard Mourdock said was crazy. They’re not so — they didn’t like what Akin said about rape, women’s bodies shutting down, but they were willing to forgive him for it. And that’s why those races are closer…

STEPHANOPOULOS: And he’s not out of it right now.

IFILL: Akin is not out of it, and Mourdock is not out of it.

SULLIVAN: He’s crazy to believe that evolution is a lie.

IFILL: And you may disagree, but I’m talking about what it takes to get Senate candidates elected in these conservative states.

SULLIVAN: But I’m just saying, on the principles, they deny that evolution takes place. I think that puts you in a crazy category.

Yes, in addition to their awful views on rape and women, Republican candidates who deny evolution are simply unfit to be in a position of power where dealing with evidence and exhibiting logical thinking ought to be prerequisites.

Guess who didn’t take Sullivan’s comments very well?

The Creation Museum’s Ken Ham:

So there you have it. If you don’t believe in evolution, you are “crazy.” Of course, if people like Andrew Sullivan would actually attempt to defend molecules-to-man evolution, then we would see how bankrupt their religion of evolution really is. But such people say whatever they want — and because they have the ear of the secular media, they can publicly make such outlandish statements. It’s all a part of the continued maligning of Christians and those who believe God’s Word.

Riiiiight. Evolution is a religion that requires faith and its proponents can spread those ideas with the help of the mainstream media — because they’re in on the whole conspiracy.

Ham’s may not be medically crazy. But the man sure knows how to lie to himself to the point where he believes his own bullshit.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://twitter.com/AchronTimeless Achron Timeless

    Yes.

    That’s basically the end of the discussion.

    • Fbab661

      IFILL: And you may disagree, but I’m talking about what it takes to get Senate candidates elected in these conservative states.That is the real scary part of this exchange. That these candidates may have just taken this position in order to get elected….

      • http://twitter.com/AchronTimeless Achron Timeless

        Sorry, I come from a continuum where the only time you use “but I’m talking about” is in the middle of a conversation, not in your first reply when you haven’t been talking about anything yet. It makes no bloody sense otherwise.

  • Tainda

    Cause ya know, we morons in Missouri and Indiana are all Republican bible thumpers who believe everything them there politicians tell us.

    Yeah, fuck you.

    • Dglas26

      Well, I guess the election will tell us whether that is true or not.

      • Tainda

        Yep, because everyone in every state is EXACTLY THE SAME!

        • KeithCollyer

          what is your problem?  nobody is saying that.

        • Nate Frein

          No, but enough people are dumb enough to go in for that nonsense to get these people elected.

    • Thegoodman

      If a representative is  elected in your district, he/she speaks on behalf of you in Washington. They didn’t say “Every single individual in their states”.

      “Yeah, fuck you.”
      I’m glad to see you are focusing on the important points here. Because this is clearly all about you and how you do not like to be defined by the representatives you and your fellow citizens elected.

      BTW I am from Indiana.

  • http://twitter.com/ool0n oolon

    Given the connotations of “crazy” to dismiss people who are not neuro-typical and the insult to them as a result.. No. They ain’t “crazy”, but they are able to able to compartmentalise, rationalise and self-delude like the rest of us. 

    • C Peterson

      They are broken in some way. They may be crazy in some clinical sense, they may be stupid and ignorant, or they may be under the sway of someone who is influencing their judgment. Recognizing that they are damaged is not an insult. This goes far beyond normal levels of compartmentalization, rationalization, and self-delusion.

      • http://profiles.google.com/memorial.music Phil Smith

        No.
        I was brought up in an environment where evolution was considered “bad science”. I believed what I was told. I even had, to had, a bunch of the “stock” examples that proved evolution to be false. 
        The problem was not that I was broken (mentally ill, damaged) but that I did not have the resources at my disposal to really investigate further than my good-enough-to-argue-with-equally-ignorant-people knowledge.

        Now that has all changed  I’m no longer a teenager. I’m no longer connected to the group of people who held like-minded opinions. I’ve since been exposed to what I would consider convincing evidence and argumentation that counters what I used to think… and of course this process posed many wide-ranging worldview implications for me.

        So. Am I “healed now”? Have I overcome mental illness and am suddenly no longer crazy? No. 
        I’m essentially capable of the same or similar levels of cognitive ability I was then. the difference is i my exposure to information and education. 

        Fortunately I was exposed to people that had made similar journeys and showed compassion in my search. I was not exposed to people who decided to label me as delusional, crazy, or mentally ill. 

        • C Peterson

          I disagree. You were broken; your brain was not functioning in a healthy way. You were under the influence of someone who kept you ignorant and compromised your judgment. I did not say that was the same as mental illness. But I do think it is accurate to say that you have been healed.

          • http://profiles.google.com/memorial.music Phil Smith

            Reads like an illogical position to me. Certainly seems to suggest that my previous lack of education is now to be treated as [an ill defined]  “brokenness” with respect to human cognition. That’s an interesting new cognitive/developmental position to adopt, and not one that is currently supported by any neurological science I’m aware of. But hey, I’m always happy to see new findings.

            By this reasoning (pre-educated = broken/crazy/mentally ill), it seems to me that one could argue that anyone who lived prior to us with inferior knowledge (or without access to greater knowledge), was “broken”, simply because they didn’t attain our current historical levels of fact gathering. Seems an awfully arrogant historical position to adopt. And what about all those people in isolated geographies without similar access, are they similarly “broken”?  Now, the post colonialists are going to have a field day with this new anthropological analysis. Thanks for reminding me that this is the internet. 

            • smrnda

               If someone is given bad information, bad sources, they may be very good at reasoning and will reach wrong conclusions anyway. To Phil Smith – you probably had a decent capacity to reason, just that you were given faulty premises.

          • brianmacker

            Broken implies he was whole then broke which is a bad analogy since he was never in a state where he understood evolution before the assumed period of brokenness.

  • observer

     I can’t say people who don’t believe in evolution are crazy, not like it changes the facts regardless. But I can say that the crazy people are the ones who deem evolution to be some conspiracy or even a religion to just to convince themselves not to believe in it.

  • Baal

    I might describe it as delusional rather than crazy.  ‘It’ being the (R) tendency to dislike or work against any idea  based on evidence and reason.  It’s also clear that being delusional doesn’t necessarily lower your overall fitness – esp. if you can get more folks to follow along.

  • Rick

    “When people of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please…these are novelties that are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealths and the subversion of the state.”  
    -Galileo Galilei
    “Science isn’t a popularity contest”
    -Me

    • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

      I’m currently reading the book “Galileo’s Dream” by Kim Stanley Robinson and am at the part of Galileo’s trial.  Very interesting and very frightening what living in a theocracy was like.  (and is currently like in certain parts of the world…  and could be like here again if “enough” theocrats get elected)

      • Artor

        KSR is awesome. I’ll look up Galileo’s Dream, thanks for the heads-up.

        • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

          “Galileo’s Dream” is a historical novel about Galileo’s life, scientific discoveries, and conflicts with the church.  It also has a science fiction component worked in whenever Galileo dreams (a bit of time travel and visiting Jupiter’s moons).  If you don’t really go for the science fiction parts, the historical novel parts are good on their own.  If you like the science fiction parts, then you can enjoy that as well.    I really am enjoying it.  Knowing the Galileo story should be required reading for anyone interested in the separation of church and state and the dangers of a theocracy. 

  • http://twitter.com/rebellionkid Adam Casey

    If I say the sky is pink and really mean it then I’m crazy.
    If I say I am Napoleon and really mean it then I’m crazy.
    If I say that my cat can predict the lottery and really mean it then I’m crazy.

    Surely if I believe anything which is obviously not the case then I’m crazy? I dont get why this idea isn’t obvious.

    • C Peterson

      It’s a lot more complicated than that. How do you separate “crazy” from “ignorant” or “stupid”? A person isn’t crazy simply because they lack intelligence, and they aren’t crazy simply because they were never taught how to think critically. Compound ignorance and stupidity with shysters and con men like Ken Ham and religious leaders who are getting rich by feeding vast amounts of false information to the credulous, and you’re left with precisely what we’re now seeing… no “crazy” required (at least, not in a clinical sense).

      • WoodyTanaka

        Not in the clinical sense.  I think Dawkins got it right when he included lying, stupid, ignorant, insane or brainwashed (and maybe one or two more, I don’t remember off the top of my head.)

  • C Peterson

    This is a fascinating and profound subject, and vitally important to the survival of the U.S. (if not the developed world). Of course, words like “crazy” carry all sorts of baggage, having both clinical and colloquial connotations. What is certain, however, is that there appears to be an increasing number of people who are somehow intellectually broken or damaged. Something is genuinely wrong with people who don’t believe in evolution, who don’t accept global warming, who believe vaccinations are unsafe. Whether these people meet the criteria of some sort of clinical disorder is uncertain; that they pose a real threat to modern civilization seems certain.

    In my view, it is the product of some insidious interaction between individual thinking processes and an unhealthy social system (corrupt politics, damaged economy, deliberate manipulations by influential people)- something akin to a mass psychosis. Societies have failed in the past when they went collectively “insane”; I fear something like that is happening in the U.S.

    I also see these collective delusions regarding science and social policy as closely related to religion and religious thinking. The same sort of psychological damage leads to both, and it’s no coincidence that the vast majority of science deniers are also religious. Neither is it a coincidence that other periods of mass irrationality in the U.S. have coincided with periods of religious revival. The recent growth of atheism and decrease in religious affiliation is really the only light of hope suggesting that this wave of anti-science, anti-intellectualism, and political nuttiness might decline before the damage is irrecoverable.

  • jose

    Perhaps they’re just misinformed. Nobody is born knowing about evolution. They might have been homeschooled by evangelicals or something.

    If your electorate is as misinformed as you are, then you’re not going to have a problem about it.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/chidy/ chicago dyke, Blonde

    the overton window is a tricky thing to understand, but here it is in its full glory.

    eyefull and snufaluffagus exist for one reason, and one reason only: to make crazy people and theorcratic fascists and apologists for the 1% seem “normal.” just keep pushing that window to the right, that is their only purpose. “it is crazy to believe the sky is green?” “is it crazy to believe that gravity works in two directions?” 

    GI and GS are paid to normalize such arguments. americans who watch TV and listen to NPR are conditioned to accept such “logic” via advertising and propaganda. there is no justification for what they say in the world of logic, fact and reason. people like Sully, whom i sort of hate for other reasons, are appalled, because they come from places like europe where such ‘arguments’ would be laughed off the air. it’s only that most americans don’t travel or see foreign media that they don’t understand how ridiculous, childish and stupid they look to the rest of the world. 

    the future is rapidly leaving USA#1FuckYeah behind, in every enterprise that matters. science, technology, medicine, literature… this empire is dying, and it’s very sad to me how many residents in it can’t understand that. teach your children mandarin and spanish, they’ll need that to get a job in the coming decades. there won’t be any here, except for the ones where workers are paid to wipe the asses of the dying trust fund grandbabies of the 1%.

    • smrnda

       Nice point. I’ve noticed how alleged ‘news programmes’ always try to present ‘both sides’ to an issue, as if there were always two competing yet totally credible sides.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I don’t care what they believe, or how they delude themselves. It only matters to me when they start trying to force their beliefs on others. If they keep it personal, they can can worship a pencil and I won’t blink.

    • C Peterson

      Bzzzzt! Wrong answer!

      We are a society; people don’t live in isolation from each other. A person who is ignorant, stupid, delusional, or crazy affects everyone. The votes he casts affect you and me. The organizations he supports affect you and me. How he brings up his kids affect you and me.

      It doesn’t matter if someone like this tries to force his beliefs on others or not. Simply holding crazy beliefs has a negative impact on society. We cannot function effectively without the majority of people being well informed and capable of thinking critically.

      • Ibis3

         Hmm. It almost sounds like you think there’s more to do than just declare that there’s no god and call it a day.

        • Coyotenose

           Sly devil.

      • Baby_Raptor

        Well, not “voting their beliefs” and not supporting agencies who try to force religious views would fall under “keeping it to themselves.”

        The kids thing we can do jack shit about. It sucks, but thems the breaks. the best we can hope for is to straighten up the education system to where it’s not teaching bullshit anymore so at least the public schooled ones have a shot.

        • C Peterson

          We can do something about the kids. We can seek to change the minds of their parents. That works, and it’s why I’m not willing to simply ignore it when people believe crazy things. I can’t force them to change their views, but at least I can try to reason them away from those ideas. (And, of course, as you say, we can try to educate the kids properly in public schools.)

        • brianmacker

          Also their children are both opportunities for cooperation and competitors, not purely the former. So if they don’t teach their kids to read that is one less competitor for that adult reading teaching job your kid wants, plus one more customer.

      • WoodyTanaka

        “Bzzzzt! Wrong answer!”

        Wow.  Talk about your bloated egos.  Peterson, Baby_Raptor gave his opinion.  You may disagree with it, but that does not make his opinion “wrong.” It makes you a self-important jerk.

        • C Peterson

          Hey, Woody, lighten up! It’s just a humorous cliche. I think we all know that everybody is just expressing their own opinions here. I hope you’re not one of those people who think that civility requires prefacing every statement with “in my opinion…”

  • http://www.everydayintheparkwithgeorge.com/ Matt Eggler

    A point of agreement and a point of disagreement:

    I disagree that disbelief in evolution is crazy or an act of willful ignorance. It is certainly true for some people, but experience has shown me that many of these people are the products of poor education that places no value on critical thinking and where their biology teachers are creationists who teach evolution as being a lie. They grow up with all the authority figures they are taught to trust, their parents, pastors and teachers, telling them evolution is false and are taught that those people on the outside who contradict this are evil and not to be trusted. They have no local resources to teach them about evolution and aren’t given any of the critical thinking skills or motivation to search outside their experience. Only those people who are by nature anti-authoritarian, curious and skeptical, in other words the vast minority,  are able to overcome these obstacles.

    I whole-heartedly agree that people who are not curious, who lack critical thinking skills and who are unable or unwilling to search out information to try to understand the world around them are categorically unfit to govern at the national level.

    • Willy Occam

      “I disagree that disbelief in evolution is crazy or an act of willful ignorance.”

      I think ignorance is the key factor here — whether or not its willful is another matter.  But Matt makes a good point as to how ignorance is unwittingly passed down from one generation to the next in small, insular communities.  One would hope that the internet can only help in these matters, as long as the indoctrinated can somehow get past the idea that it is “the devil’s work.”

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        I think the key might be in the interaction of authority and ignorance — acceptance of the former leads to limiting your explorations, disregarding dissonant findings, or disregard alternative descriptive explanations.

        • Willy Occam

           Indeed… authority+ignorance is a dangerous combination!

    • John Las Vegas

      Unfortunately, we do have little control over parents and pastors and the religious tripe they pass on to kids, however, we can and must take control over what teachers pass on to our students. We could solve the problem very easily if we insist that teachers, journalists and other educators firmly denounce unfounded religious reasoning as they would any other theory that is suspect. Instead of disproving the idea in the classroom, we leave it unchallenged and return it home in its ignorant state.  It is not enough to teach to build on the truth. We must also teach to take down the lies. 

  • jdm8

    It is delusional in some form to stand on magical thinking that requires a form of magic and beings whose existence you can’t prove, over a more plausible explanation that doesn’t require that.

    Evolution isn’t perfect, but it’s a far better explanation than reading ancient texts written by people that predate science and reading those writings as if it was a scientific explanation.

    • Willy Occam

       “Evolution isn’t perfect….”

      This is the wrong way to approach the matter; evolution itself isn’t “perfect” or “imperfect” — it just is.  Only our understanding of evolution isn’t perfect (the same as our understanding of everything else in the natural world, which we humans have been trying to figure out for millennia). 

      • http://profiles.google.com/memorial.music Phil Smith

        I suspect what the writer means is that evolution alone isn’t a perfect explanation for all things. It is, after all, primarily about the development of biological forms. 
        We have other branches of science for the remainder of the natural/ observable processes.

      • jdm8

        You’re quite correct, I should have had “The theory of…” in front of that statement.

        • Willy Occam

          I didn’t mean to split hairs, jdm8… but I thought it would be good to clarify the matter.  We both know that there are a lot of religious people out there who misunderstand (and misrepresent) evolution as a belief, a religion, a philosophy, a dogma, etc., rather than simply a natural process that happens whether or not we mere humans understand or believe in it!

          • jdm8

            I agree, and I took no offense.

  • Octoberfurst

       Are people who don’t accept science crazy? Well it depends what you mean by “crazy”. By “crazy” some people mean mentally ill while others use the term to describe people with really bizarre beliefs who aren’t mentally impared. (I prefer the latter definition.)
       I call people who don’t accept science as willfully ignorant. I mean, it’s not like they CAN’T find out the facts. They just choose not to.  Much of it has to do with their religious/political beliefs.  You can have an intelligent person who thinks that if he believes in evolution that it will negate his belief in God so he chooses not to accept evolution.  Or you could have someone who doesn’t believe in global warming because his favorite politicians say it isn’t true. Facts don’t matter to such people.
      But what I find really irritating is that there are so many people out there who are anti-science.  (Most of whom  are deeply religious.)  They believe in creationism, don’t believe in global warming, think natural disasters are caused by a pissed-off deity, believe that prayer cures diseases, are anti-contraception, etc. It wouldn’t bother me so much if these people kept their idiotic views to themselves but they vote for politicians who believe as they do and try to enact legislation to push their anti-science views.  It makes me fear for the future of this country.    

    • WoodyTanaka

      I would say being willfully ignorant is simply one way of being crazy.

  • Artor

    I think that those who can claim actual ignorance can’t fairly be called crazy, but for someone with an actual education, like a trained doctor, to deny science in general, or evolution in particular, requires that they either be incredibly cynical, and willing to tell enormous, bald-faced lies to get elected, or they’re just batshit crazy.

    • smrnda

       You may be over-estimating the medical profession. Becoming a doctor is like becoming a technician more than becoming a scientist, and so you get people who can do well on memorization and such becoming doctors. They are probably fairly shallow intellects who don’t go much further than learning just what it takes to get ahead.

      • Coyotenose

         Hmm, like with engineers. You have the exceptional ones and the average, educated majority of course, but the shallow ones help form a larger-than-expected minority of Creationists. They’re people who think they’re scientific-minded, but what they learned was how to envision a desired outcome and then create a series of steps to get there. Ta da, you have an apologist and/or quote miner. My favorite was the twit who declared to me that his personal definition of “vestigial organ” was right, because he had LOOKED UP THE WORDS AND COMBINED THEM HIMSELF, even though his version was not the definition that’s been in use since before Darwin.

        And yeah, I’ve been told that most doctors don’t get more than an absolute minimum of exposure to Evolutionary Theory, often not even as much as a high school biology class teaches, because it simply isn’t necessary. Then the bad ones Dunning-Kruger up and assume they know everything, and they’re pretty much useless on the topic for life.

    • brianmacker

      There are other motivations for denial such as being able to bilk a bunch of self selected rubes.

  • Sven2547

    I think “stupid” and “unreasonable” is a better descriptor than “crazy”.

  • smrnda

    Someone on one of these blogs classified creationists. I think some, like Ken Ham, have some sort of visceral or emotional commitment to disbelieving in evolution, and so they’ll grasp at straws to find some ‘hole’ in the theory, all while arguing that the leaky boat of creationism is a sea-worthy vessel.

    And then there are people who trust the above and uncritically accept that ‘well, Ken Ham must have done enough research’ – Ken Ham does only enough research to pull out sound-bytes that would convince scientific illiterates.

    I would say a person like Ken Ham is psychologically unhealthy, but not crazy. He isn’t delusional since he probably realizes the shaky foundation his beliefs are on, which is why he advances ‘presuppositionalist’ apologetics and other forms of justifying using unfounded assumptions. 

  • Thegoodman

    I would go one step further and say that all religious people are crazy, at least on some level.

    Denying the evidence that supports evolution is no less or more crazy than accepting a supreme being that has no evidence.

    • BeasKnees

      I disagree, in part.  
      Up until my sophomore year of college, when I was finally on my own and away from the religious family/church/friends that I grew up with, I simply believed that the teachings of christianity that I grew up with were correct, because every person of authority in my life until that point had told me so.
      Was I crazy?  No.  Ignorant, yes.  I wouldn’t even say that was my fault.  I believed how I was taught to believe.
      It took me getting away from all of the religious influence and shame that went along with that, and finally feeling it was OK to have questions to pull me out of that ignorance.  
      Now, there are still people that decide it’s better to stick their fingers in their ears and sing “la la la” than to listen to any differing opinion (my own family included).  But even then, I would say they were willfully ignorant, not crazy.

  • Michael

    I will grant that it is necessary to be skeptical about science too, but that doesn’t mean that arbitrarily choosing a completely different set of facts based on some bronze age carvings is necessarily a better idea.

    Sure, as far as we can tell the idea of needing to drink 6-8 glasses of water a day is an urban legend that posed as science for a long time, now it has been exposed as such, fewer and fewer people bother with it. That doesn’t mean they’ve all gone back to eating bronze age meals.

  • nojinx

    “Crazy” is too vague a word, too broad and negative in connotation. It is like the word “natural” – you have to define it every time you use it.

    I think “self-deluded” applies at times, as often people believe out of a desire for something to be true. “Denial” may work for some, as they avoid or ignore evidence, concepts or theories that conflict with their beliefs.  I guess this could also be called “willful ignorance.”

    • http://twitter.com/AchronTimeless Achron Timeless

      Or “organic” food. Oh, so it has carbon in it.. yay?

  • Russian Alex

    It’s one thing to have creationists and other kooks who distrust science; that’s par for the course. They always existed and will remain for as long as there are humans. It’s worse to have a significant population of such people that are pretty vocal about it. Even worse is the fact that they are given the stage and not ridiculed for delusions and silly demands for respect for their faith in that crap. But what’s worst of all those is that you have to look around and wonder if you offended anyone when you state that you accept the theory of evolution and global climate change as valid, and that in quite a few areas you have much better chance to be elected if you proudly stand up and announce that you are ignorant and/or delusional. I want to believe in humanity, but shit like that makes it so damn hard.

  • Good and Godless

    The rejection of science is a demonstration of the power of the influence of manipulation.

    The anti-science movement is engineered and choreographed to further a political and marketing  agenda destined to leave humanity in a worst condition.

    • Maria

      A bit conspiracy theorist, but definitely doesn’t sound too far fetched to me!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sandy-Kokch/100000074576649 Sandy Kokch

    The simple answer is it depends which side of the Atlantic you live on.

    On the Brit / Euro side of the Great Sanity Divide (aka the Atlantic Ocean) the answer is YES. NB: Italy now seems to be a sort of exception to that rule, at least judicially.

    On your side the answer is NO.

    Unfortunately, whilst belief in and acceptance of evolution may not be a world threatening matter, climate change definitely IS. And as long as a major developed country like the USA happily denies the science, and drags its feet to resolve issues, what chance do you guys think the rest of us have in getting developing nations like China and India to clean up their acts?

    This denialist cognitive dissonance is a serious matter, and one that only you guys can fix. It is a multi headed hydra – from the matters discussed in Richard Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style In American Politics”, through money driven politics and political funding, the exceptional US attachment to extremist fundamental religions, the sense of fair play and free speech, the cowardly balance obsessed media, the growing anti-intellectualism and acceptance of ignorance as a virtue, ….on and on the list runs.

    It needs fixing guys, and step one is not voting for any doofus who denies science or wears his faith as a campaign button.

    Dont give up…. fight on and make America that country that put men on the moon again.

  • brianmacker

    They are both wrong, and Sullivan’s error lends credibility to Ham. The theory of natural selection takes a certain amount of brain power and disciple to understand. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make you crazy. Sullivan makes a very poor advocate.

    Most people don’t understand economics. That includes Nobel prize winning economists like Paul Krugman. I would never claim he was crazy merely because he isn’t sharp enough to understand economics properly. That’s even though he has made crazy sounding claims. For example, claiming the government faking an alien invasion would be good for the economy.

  • brianmacker

    I wonder how many reading this are unable to comprehend that price gouging is a productive economic activity. I wonder how many can truly comprehend the Monti Hall problem even after it is explained to them. I also wonder how many people who claim to “believe in evolution” truly understand the theory of natural selection. I wouldn’t call any of them crazy for disbelief either way.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X