Heh, gotta love this. Get popcorn. I was tipped off to this by Chris Mooney in a Tweet where he’s calling for reinforcements:
Kevin Green of the American Enterprise Institute got the war of words rolling with these comments at Mooney’s new digs at scienceprogress:
Ken Green ·
Right, so let’s continue on your dismiss-a-thon of leftist anti-science, shall we? DDT and cancer, BPA and phthalates as carcinogens and endocrine disruptors; claims that organic food are safer because they have less pesticides/contaminants; claims that eating local foods are better for the environment than foods from elsewhere; claims that re-usable cloth bags are better for the environment than plastic or paper bags; false claims of species endangerment; pseudo-scientific claims about species loss treated as gospel; claims that climate models have predictive power; claims that individual weather events represent climate change…I think you missed a few.
Ken Green ·
Oh, wait, I forgot a few: frogs dying from climate change, alligator penis malformations from endocrine disruptors, bees dying from climate change (or is it cell-phones this week?), butterflies dying from BT crops…And, let’s not forget Alar, or cancer from video displays, or cell phones, or anything vaguely reminiscent of modernity.
Ken Green ·
Oops! Oh yes, then there’s the giant plastic ocean graveyard that was never seen again, and, let’s not forget the now-famous drowning polar bears.
Chris Mooney replied, though it is hardly much of one, which is why I suppose he’s trying to get Revkin and Kloor interested in it for defense.
Chris Mooney · Top Commenter · Yale University
This is quite a grab bag of claims. Many are misleading, some might be valid, some are wrong claims that have been made sometimes on the left but refuted just as vigorously by fellow liberals….including me.
I was pretty amazed (as were other commenters on other issues) that Mooney didn’t bother to address the totally bogus and overhyped “frogs dying from climate change” issue, because that was one of the worst blunders in climate science ever.
It turned out to be totally unrelated to climate, as I’ve addressed here on WUWT. The frog decline was definitively linked an infection of the chytrid fungus. The PNAS peer reviewed paper slapping down this nonsense said:
Finally, almost all of our findings were opposite to the predictions of the chytrid-thermal-optimum hypothesis.
Even Hansen’s buddies at Columbia agree. See this: Global Warming not to blame for toad extinction
Mooney was undeterred by the rebuttals, and the war was on. Green made a full post out of it at the AEI blog:
====================
Over at scienceprogress, Chris Mooney opines that the political Right is more “anti-science” than the political Left. He points to climate change and evolution as areas where the Right is anti-science, and dismisses the idea that the Left is anti-science when it comes to things like their exaggerations of the risks of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and vaccines.
His reasoning seems to break down into two arguments:
1) Chris argues that one can’t really tag the Left as being anti-science on things like vaccines and nukes because he (and a few other environmental journalists) have done their own policing on the issues, or, at least, walked away from actively shilling them. Chris actually says that he and journalists on the Left have “chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse.” That’s going to come as a shock to virtually every social-network user, who probably sees half-a-dozen anti-vaccine posts a week.
2) Chris argues that the anti-science issues usually associated with the Left (vaccines, nuclear-danger exaggerations, GMO danger claims) aren’t really left-wing issues, but rather, are held by people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Read it all here at So Who’s Anti-Science?
The “anti-science” label (which I think was coined by Joe Romm, if not he’s the worst serial user of the phrase) is no different that the “denier” label. The idea is to denigrate your opponent by applying ugly labels.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
First, I want to apologize to readers of this blog for bringing evolution into the discussion. I should know better.
Now, for the rest of the comment.
James Sextson said.“Bob, above, says, “I don’t see where “believing” in evolution ….” Yeh, right, medicine and everything else based on biological science hasn’t effected the welfare of the world population. Get real!”
Just why do you think you can put words in my mouth. Just why do you think that a belief in God precludes the acceptance of medicine or science? What we are hearing from you is a summary of your ignorance and prejudice. Cool it, dude. Most of us Christians love going to the doctor, and praise His Name that science is letting us to live longer to propagate His Word.
Now that I have your attention, pay heed to the fact that there are problems with evolution as other sciences. I am ashamed that I ever thought connecting fossils in the Leakey manner as a proof of evolution was scientific, but also recognize the message genetics is presenting. What it really means is that evolution may be the mechanism that explains life on earth, but so far nobody understands the exact mechanism. Even so, what ever I think about evolution will not spin the earth off its axis, nor will you knowledge of religion, history, or of science win any awards.
@u.k.(us) says: September 24, 2011 at 3:51 pm
You can find related photos here: ://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ocean+plastic+patch&qpvt=ocean+plastic+patch&FORM=IGRE
To James Sexton: I apologize for my previous comment that I addressed to you. I jumped to the wrong comment and it should be addressed to Doug Allen.
Please accept my apology, James.
And NOW that staple cautionary tale of the Left, the demise of Easter Island society due to the destruction of their forests to build their giant statues, is in question. See Judith Curry’s Blog.
[TIP: cutting and pasting the link into your comment would be doing other interested readers a favor…. and that thread at Curry’s is worth the read. It can be found here. -REP, mod]
For U.K.(US) This might work, it’s from Ted Talks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrAShtolieg&feature=share
Kevin Kilty says:
September 24, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Well said, also:
“You get to facism, nazism, communism, and all sorts of other statisms through socialism. It’s the common thread to them all.”
These are all forms of collectivism, and that is the crux of the whole political debate: Collectivism vs. Individualism. IMO, it is also a main difference between alarmists and skeptics. I have always considered myself an individualist; you might guess which side I stand on. I’ll put it this way: I don’t rely on the weather report to tell me it’s raining, I go outside and look.
James Sexton says:
September 24, 2011 at 7:17 pm
…. they do love to hate the rich people but believe the wealth they acquired seems to be some path towards happiness. Never mind who earned it.
Bingo. They also hate the good for being good, and I really think they don’t believe people who achieve success for themselves actually earned it but rather got lucky because of circumstances and factors outside of their control, or they somehow gamed the system (of course there is a bit of that going on, but I blame government for that; they provide the system to be gamed). Likewise they believe poor people are poor for the same reasons – only it’s bad luck. That may be true to some extent, but it doesn’t mean they have to stay poor or will always be poor. If they have freedom it’s their call. If they rely on government programs, they will remain poor.
I have to say I have been engrossed by this struggle for more than two years now. It is a struggle that encompasses everything about being human and it is quite compelling. Rarely a day goes by that I don’t check up on the debate here and other sites on the blog roll, and I have to say I feel I am getting quite an education. Just saying a general “thank you” here to the blogosphere, Anthony, your moderators and contributors, and even the alarmists.
Cheers.
The Left is anti-science on evolution because they have a prolonged and turbulent hissy fit at the mention of any criticism of Darwin. They want to preach that Darwin proved that man evolved from chimpanzees and many similar matters but will brook no criticism whatsoever.
Because Darwin is taught in high schools, it is absolutely essential that any one teaching Darwin use the critical tools of science on Darwin’s work. Perhaps Darwin’s greatest gift to biology was the insight that similar morphology is the best evidence that two species have a common ancestor. It remains a powerful heuristic in biology today. However, as a physical hypothesis it is false. There are species whose morphology are all but identical yet they have no common ancestor. Does any one graduate from high school knowing that? I cannot find them among my students. Criticism of Darwin is forbidden by the Left because it threatens their faith that Darwin displaced God. And they are terrified that God’s voice might return to the public square.
Bob says:
September 24, 2011 at 8:40 pm
To James Sexton: …………..
=========================================
No need Bob, I understand how contentious these topics are and how it causes us to rush. I’ve been guilty myself. For me, it is usually a sign that I’m probably not presenting my case in the most rational manner. And, in this arena, it is paramount that we Christians do so.
My best,
James
Anna Lemma says:
September 24, 2011 at 7:33 pm
“Anti-Darwinists keep harping on the idea that Darwin didn’t explain the origins of life. Well, he never claimed to have the answer to that mysterium tremendum, so it’s a strawman argument. His book, after all, was titled “The Origin of SPECIES”, not the Origin of Life.”
Darwin’s fundamental posit is unique among scientific Laws because it contains by necessity an exception clause. It reads: “All species evolved from some other species, except the first one.” That states the problem of life largely and clearly. Some special explanation is needed for the first species because it did not come from a living thing.
@Mike says, “But Stalin is not running for President.” He most certainly is. Stalin is our current President and he is running in 2012.
Theo:
“Darwin’s greatest gift to biology was the insight that similar morphology is the best evidence that two species have a common ancestor.”
that’s just wrong. it’s the shallowest gloss over what he wrote and dumbed down past distortion.
his greatest idea was the proposition that ‘the fit survive and the unfit -not so much’ and that there are natural criteria – values- that each creature must pursue, by its nature – in order to survive. and that variation is natural and subject to natural selection.
then you actually quote darwin as saying “All species evolved from some other species, except the first one.”
i have sincere doubt that he ever wrote any such thing – but i’ll be pleased to have a wrong idea corrected. plz provide a reference so i can check that.
The question of who is anti-science is framed in the context under which the question is being asked. The people who identify someone as being anti-science are really saying that that person doesn’t understand the science and makes a foolish claim based on their lack of understanding. Of course, the person making the accusation believes that they understand the science fully and view themselves as an expert otherwise how could they judge the person being accused? To my way of thinking, these accusations from either side are made in a mental state of arrogance and without humility that characterizes real scientific endeavors. Climate change has brought out the worst in people that character assignations, put downs, and one up man ships dominate the climate BLOG pages. The tone of what is being written is very unfriendly, high toned, and generally arrogant. I am getting tired of reading it.
Malcolm Miller [September 24, 2011 at 4:29 pm] says:
“I am still amazed that many Americans seem to believe in their bones that ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ are somehow one and the same. They ain’t!”
Right, Malcolm, not even according to the great Karl Marx himself, who saw the perfected Socialist State as merely the closest form of government to the Communist Utopia, where instead there simply wouldn’t be any need for the State anymore due to its own irrelevance, with only the perfected Communists left over who had managed to make the State into their Selves and would then apparently be able to finally access the Horn of Plenty, for about half of each day then spend the rest of it fly fishing and such!
Well as we know, the Soviet Socialists silmply gave up on the whole idea of perfecting Socialism, but just try telling that to Kim Jong Il and the Castro Bros, not to mention Greece! After all, “they are the people they’d been waiting for”. And I did notice today that in “Boy on a Dolphin”, Sophia Loren made her money mostly by tending a Windmill with cloth blades, so that there was at least some reason for hope in Greece around 50? years ago, if that would have indeed given us more Sophia Lorens. But instead all we got was Winona Rider, to introduce the damn movie! And a bunch of dead monoliths as more testimony to the “future of an illusion”.
On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection is the title of a joint presentation of two scientific papers to the Linnean Society of London on 1 July 1858; On The Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type by Alfred Russel Wallace and an Extract from an unpublished Work on Species from Charles Darwin’s Essay of 1844, together with an Abstract of a Letter from Darwin to Asa Gray. This was the first announcement of the Darwin – Wallace theory of evolution by natural selection; the papers appeared in print on 20 August 1858. The presentation of the papers spurred Darwin to write a condensed “abstract” of his “big book” on Natural Selection. The abstract was published in November 1859 as On the Origin of Species.
this is what darwin was on about – the scandalous heresy was the idea that everything didn’t come straight off noah’s ark.
“2) Chris argues that the anti-science issues usually associated with the Left (vaccines, nuclear-danger exaggerations, GMO danger claims) aren’t really left-wing issues, but rather, are held by people on both sides of the political spectrum.”
There are people on both sides of the political spectrum on any issue. It’s just a matter of degree. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is predominantly a liberal cause-celebre but that doesn’t mean there aren’t conservatives who embrace it. And there are certainly a very great many conservatives who
swallowhave faith inblindly acceptdon’t doubt thebandwagonpseudoscience underwriting the neo-atheistDarwiniannarrativedogmaaccount ofcreationlife.Just sayin…
Mike says:
September 24, 2011 at 3:16 pm
If you are looking at contemporary US politicians the right has the lead in anti-science nonsense. This is certainly true among the presidential candidates and in the US House and Senate. If you look at pseudo-scientific beliefs in the population at large the picture is more mixed. There have been plenty of times is history when parts of the left were anti-science, from the Scopes Monkey Trial to the Lysenko Affair. But Stalin is not running for president.
Many would plausibly claim that a follower of Lenin-Marx IS in the White House now, IS running desperately for re-election, and that Marx’s followers ARE common through the federal, state, and local “bureacrazies” and academic circles. (The members of the democrat House of Representatives are now (by majority) also members of the socialist party and their partners, and all members of the Congressional Black Caucus are socialists by membership in that group. Hence the fear and crazed hatred of the “right” who do not follow their scriptures (er, scripts) about destroying capitalism and freedom. The left’s propaganda about science is very effective – and not exaggerated.
Now, what do you claim is “anti-science” nonsense?
HankH says:
September 24, 2011 at 7:41 pm
I don’t see the disconnect that is supposed to exist between a belief in God and embracing science. When I learn of some exciting new thing science is revealing about the origins of the universe I think to myself “so, that’s how God must have done things.”
To all readers who claim religion, or the “religious right” are anti-science:
A simple challenge: Please read the following description of the world’s creation.
Then tell me where it came from: an obscure word-of-mouth tradition starting some 5000-odd years ago by itinerant shepherds who didn’t even have a “zero” to count upon, much less decimal points to keep track of time; or the latest 20th century particle physics textbooks, archeology, geology and oceanographic references, biology and taxology theories, and astronomical discoveries.
————
Everything was created. Suddenly and with great violence, but with uncalculable forces in the darkness. From this energy, light condensed a short while later. Then matter was created as the light energy further cooled. A period of time passed.
The earth and solar system was formed from the galactic dust and interstellar plasmas, gathering together and cooling into the individual spheres (the planets and their atmospheres) and the sun we see rotating around our sky today. Another period of time passed.
Down here on the earth itself, one continent was formed surrounded by one single massive sea, later breaking up and re-connecting by continental drift into the continents and seven seas everybody is familiar with today. Once dry, cool (non-volcanic) land appeared, the first plants began growing, changing the original inhospitable and deadly atmosphere of toxic and light-absorbing gasses into the clear and viable combination of oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor and carbon dioxide we need (the balance of gasses that all life needs on earth!) to survive today. These first plants kept growing for another while longer.
Well, the atmosphere was finally clear enough for visible light to be transmitted through the previously dark atmosphere, and suddenly the available energy on the surface grew large enough to support more life, higher forms of life above simple plants.
So animal life grew – first in the warm tropic seas as fish and amphibians, then on land with dinosaurs (who evolved into birds) and then modern large mammals. Domesticated animals and Man finally straggled onto the scene, very late behind everything else.
—–
Now … to repeat my question: What is “anti-science” about religion, if religion could “discover” and correct use the principles of twentieth century nuclear physics, paleontology, biology, evolution sequences, geophysics, and continental drift before they invented writing?
The basics of this argument, when we really get down to it, is this, the right, by which they really mean the Christian Right (if such a thing exists) is anti science and has been so for some time because it is against evolution, because evolution equals science (last I heard, it was only one small branch of science, but that is the argument). I then looked into this, from a scientific point of view, is Christianity, as originally given (often different from the way it is presented now) actually anti evolution, and thus “anti science”? In short, what if we look and see if what they are saying the bible says is what it actually does say, and does it actually deny evolution, if we look at it from the point of view that, say, people who read this blog do, from a scientific method point of view? I have found out that the very basics of this argument, “the right is anti science”, by which they mean the Christian right, by which they mean the bible, by which they really mean the bible as interpreted by many moderns which is different than what it actually says originally, using the original language and strict literal and scientific parsing of the words as written, does not deny evolution at all, nor does it deny science. That is because neither the “right” nor the “left” actually ever seen to look at it from a strictly logical, scientific point of view, but instead both sides are only looking at it to find in it talking points for their particular desired point of view (which is often, “those other guys are eeeevil, listen only to ME”). In this way, it is rather like CAGW, so politicized that the actual original science is often all but ignored but is twisted to suite ones particular point of view (usually, the point that grant money is good).
So, does the Christian right, by which I mean the original bible, ACTUALLY deny evolution? Lets look at it, from a WUWT sort of view:
First, the pre evolution stuff, before you can have evolution or anything else, you kind of need a universe and an earth to have it on. The bible starts out by saying the universe had a beginning, and other parts describe an expanding universe. Furthermore, it appears that the universe as we know it is so statistically impossible that the chance of it appearing randomly, without aid from an intelligent designing being, are 1 chance in 10*10*123 (10 to the power 10 to the power 123, 2 exponents). You can check this out, at the following links
http://www.youtube.com/user/IDquest#g/a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTS5ZVuK6Jw , warning, science, and lots of it (science alert!). The bible then goes on to describe the creation of earth in space, the oceans outgassing from the early hot earth and forming a complete cloud cover and “thick darkness”, the planet cooling enough that rain can fall on the surface without instantly evaporating, the cooling crust starting to wrinkle and thus dry land appearing out of these early seas, and, after the first early plants started their work changing the atmosphere, the clearing of that atmosphere so that one could see the sky through it. Up to this point, we see a literal description of the formation of the universe and early earth that is in complete agreement with science as we know it. You can read more about this here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html . Note also, it says nothing about six days, the exact word used is YOM, which means a period of time, length unspecified.
Then, it gets to the part we are primarily interested in here, the part that seems to be at the center of the whole “science versus religion” idea, and thus the whole “secular left versus Christian right” thing. “Gen 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation”: etc. Note what it does not say, it does not say “and God formed clay into vegetation, and breathed life into it and it became living grass” or anything at all like that. It does not say that any miracle, “breaking of natural law” or anything like that, happened. First, it says that God did a saying, a transmitting of information, not a direct doing. This is also consistent with the creation of the universe as described in the utube links above, the universe started out with an impossibly huge amount of order and information, and “then God said” indicates a transmitting of information, exactly as the science demands. While God is at it, why not include in the big bang, the information that will eventually result in evolution and life? That is to say, information what will result, rather like a fall of a loooooong string of dominoes, in a series of extremely improbably events all happening in one place in one short time frame in a very specific order, the chance of which happening by random chance is extremely small even for just a few of them, much less all at once and in just the right order, as you can read about here http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap9/Prebiotic-synthesis-DNA-RNA-Protein-1.php (science alert!, good news, well and clearly written). This is further specified in genesis when it says “let the land produce”, which specified that it was the land that produced it, not God doing it by some form of direct magical creation, but the plants forming from the land, method unspecified, exactly as evolution states (right down to the method unspecified part). It then goes on to describe exactly what the fossil record shows, the evolution of creatures in the sea first, then birds (from dinosaurs), then mammals and land critters of all kinds, and finally mankind. The creation of mankind and the specific place prepared for the first people is then described in the second chapter. This is not, as many say, at odds with the first chapter, since it only describes the conditions in “the garden”, which, being a garden, is different than the non garden outside of it, and the specific creation of mankind, which is not at odds with what the first chapter says since the first chapter specifies no specific method for the creation of mankind. This creation of mankind is the only place where evolution is very clearly NOT stated to be involved, instead, a clearly non natural method is specified, which makes sense when you think about it, if sentient creatures are given souls which can go to heaven or hell, what do you do with half sentient creatures if mankind gradually evolves to sentience?
So, if the bible is not against evolution, but, in fact, actually demands it, why are all these “religious right” types so dead set against evolution? Well, for one thing, because few actually know much about it, if they did, they would realize that for evolution to happen, one needs a God to set up that extremely improbably event (also true of a universe coming into being). However, the main reason seems to be the same reason that the UN can present a non peer reviewed non scientist created article in a skiing magazine as ‘settled science” (see “glaciergate”), because they wish to oppose those “evil, godless evolutionists”, and they will seize on ANY idea to do so. In other words, the whole anti evolution idea is not science, OR the bible, but is simply based on emotion. It is based on that great feeling of superiority you get from being better than “those evil, godless evolutionists”, exactly similar to the feeling you get from being superior to those “denialists”, and that great feeling you get when ‘saving the planet”.
Finally, about that whole “global flood” thing so near and dear to the anti evolutionists hearts (but not, unfortunately, their minds), one should realize that, if there is a beginning for mankind, well, then one can indeed have a flood which will effect all of mankind, if mankind is all in one place. The bible states that the flood was, in fact, local http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html , that mankind was “east of Eden”, and thus, the flood appears to have happened where the people were, that is to say, here http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-civilization-existed-beneath-persian-gulf.html . So much for ‘the flood”.
“Furthermore, it appears that the universe as we know it is so statistically impossible that the chance of it appearing randomly, without aid from an intelligent designing being, are 1 chance in 10*10*123”
love those statistics, eh.
no better way to make nonsense sound authoritative, non?
here’s what the abrahamic goat herders contributed to ‘civilization’ –
they practiced animal husbandry.
then they immediately applied it to each other.
the simpleminded notion of men as chattel became the divine order.
the fossil mindset is preserved in the language, my lamb.
but anton lavey has written much cleverer essays on this sort of thing.
I love the garbage peddled on National Geograhic promos (Foxtel), words to the effect ” … every year a 1/2 million species will become extinct …. scientists are finding 18,000 new species each year … ”
Exactly how do they know that 1/2 million species are being wiped out each year? And then these same ‘scientists’ claim to find 18,000 new species each year … exactly what do they know and what are they guessing? Looks to me like leftist environmentalists just guessing.
I’d love somebody to bring a legal action requiring them to prove these claims.
i sort of like the erisian apologetics best.
they believe in chaos.
their argument runs thus:
who do you think put all the chaos in the universe – vast impersonal forces or something!?!?!
no! it’s got to be goddess! nobody can prove otherwise, of course.
but for service to humanity- perhaps the pastafarians have done more-
http://beta2.tbo.com/news/nation-world/2007/dec/22/na-polk-needled-noodled-in-evolution-flap-ar-176172/
Legatus says:
September 24, 2011 at 10:43 pm
==================================
Very nice. I can appreciate the effort you’ve gone through. I would only quibble on one issue. That would be why some Christians are repulsed by the thought of evolution. It is because of the way it is presented. While the theory doesn’t state this, it is often implied by the presenters that evolution takes the requirement of God out of the origins of life. Which, I find laughable because it doesn’t answer the original questions.
Further, while I agree with your general description, Christianity is a matter of faith. It isn’t necessary to find scientific evidence for our origins. God said for it to happen, and so it was.
Presented properly and taught properly and resistance to such ideas would wither. But, as Theo points out, it isn’t, and it is incomplete. Obvious questions arise and no answer is given. And the questions are usually not allowed. This is why some bristle that the mention of evolution.
In your quest to enlighten, be sure not to become a stumbling block. Its a tricky subject to approach one with.
Kindest regards,
James
RACookPE1978 says:
“Now … to repeat my question: What is “anti-science” about religion, if religion could “discover” and correct use the principles of twentieth century nuclear physics, paleontology, biology, evolution sequences, geophysics, and continental drift before they invented writing?”
What is “anti-science” about religion?
one of the distinguishing characteristics of religion is belief in an afterlife, right?
science is the process of verifying a logical proposition.
the statement ‘death is (everlasting) life’ is a logical self contradiction.
therefore a basic tenet of religion is anti-science.
a proposition which can not be falsified, such as an invisible supernatural entity that’s omniscient and omnipotent and wants to be friended on facebook, is not to be accepted as true.
accepting as true, that which is not susceptible to verification at all – that’s anti-science.
religion requires faith. faith means belief because of no proof. that is anti-science.
the rest of your sentence is just really silly.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
September 24, 2011 at 4:25 pm
I find full agreement with what you have said but I could never have said it so well. Bravo!
Um, I consider myself to be a conservative but I do not believe in gods and I do not believe in creationism. How many people here actually do not beleive in evolution?
It is a somewhat nuanced subject in regards to that I suspect that most people accept evolution as a grand process but dispute elements of it? Yes, No??
There are many areas of evolution that science has not yet totally figured out. Doesn’t mean its wrong, just that we still remain ignorant, just a little bit less so.
Most people have a polyglot of beliefs that run the whole spectrum of left to right. I really dislike it when they try to lump people into polar camps, implying an either or rather than wide spectrum.
So seriously, how many people around these parts reject evolution?