Some people think I’m not being fair when I refer to anti-science fundamentalists as “flat-earthers” or “opponents of a helicentric solar system.” I’m serious. (Via MeFi)
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
Some people think I’m not being fair when I refer to anti-science fundamentalists as “flat-earthers” or “opponents of a helicentric solar system.” I’m serious. (Via MeFi)
Comments are closed.
So what qualifies here as an “anti-science fundamentalist”? Just asking, as I have seen you heckle those who find evolutionary theories questionable.
And I am just playing devil’s advocate specifically towards this case. Geometry, a far simpler science, shows that a flat earth and a geocentric universe are impossible. It would be interesting to see how they justify their claims, though from what I can see, these are probably the same type of people who protest at the funerals of soldiers because they see it as God’s punishment for homosexuality.
I’m okay with anti-evolutionists, if they have a scientific argument. (I’ve only met one, and he was ill-informed. By the time we parted he was no longer an anti-evolutionist.) However, I despise those who let preconceived notions override logic. For example, a geologist who works with carbon-dating on a regular basis, but still think the cosmos is only 6,000 years old.
Anybody who rejects well-founded scientific facts for “beliefs” not supported by any fact and attempts to enforce these beliefs upon others in lieu of the truth.
This is awesome: they don’t believe in gravity, either, and even cite scripture to back it up. Once you start rejecting fact for fantasy, I guess there’s no need to stop with evolution.