Denying science isn’t dumb. It’s a brilliant strategy for governing the country! Consider the possibilities that open up when you refuse to live within the constraints of time and space.
The Genius of Science Denial
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
12 Comments. Leave new
The moron-iest morons from the moron party.
One of your best in a while.
1. The so-called fossils are just rock that looks exactly like bones. How can anyone believe that a real bone was fossilized over millions of years as inorganic compounds gradually replaced the organic material? No one has ever watched as this happened, so how can anyone believe it?
2. How can anyone believe in global warming? It always gets colder in the winter, so it’s not always getting warmer like the global warming types claim. And Ms Shelley reported on what all the scientists said in the early 19th century, that the North Pole was tropical, and narrow passages (never discovered) allowed travel through the Northwest Passage from Europe to China, so it’s actually gotten much colder now that the Arctic Sea gets only a degree or two above the freezing point of seawater every summer. And the Russians have now proven that the 16th – 18th century geographers were correct: there really IS a Northwest Passage (every summer).
3. For some reason, voters rejected Mr Romney, who used the math only known to successful multi-hundred-millionaires, and not known to any PhD mathematicians. With Mr Romney’s math, he could slash everyone’s taxes, generate a huge budget surplus, pay off the entire accumulated government debt, and also guarantee gas for less than $1 a gallon with no global warming. That’s MUCH better math than the kind I learned in graduate school, and I certainly would have voted for it if I’d voted.
Mr Rall is absolutely right: we desperately need Republican science in order to save the planet while maintaining the essential US lifestyle.
But, but … what if our guardian angels are collectivists? Yikes!!!
Love the drawings of the candidates. There really is something angry about Rubio that his good looks obscure. Maybe that’s why he likes rap — it expresses something he can’t really say.
Great job. My one suggestion though would be that I would have used a different Marco Rubio quote. The one I would have gone for was in the sentence following the one you did use, because you see the following sentence contained this gem: “I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians ….” Note: Rubio says “dispute amongst theologians,” not even a dispute between theologians and scientists which would have at least been a statement that, while still heavily ignorant and anti-science, would suggest that he might think the “opinion” of science is at least partially worthy of consideration in this “debate”. As such I suggest that THIS is the Marco Rubio quote that truly gets to the heart of what you are trying to show.
they hesitate to answer because of being ridiculed by close minded people…where could I get some recent examples of that? hmmmm
hesitating to answer that question does not make them a science denier
don’t atheist call them selves ‘open minded’ and ‘free thinkers’? take a rational look at the other side instead of ridiculing.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/age-of-the-universe-1
Best cartoon in months!!!!! Laughed so hard I almost blew milk out my nose.
Megyn Kelly: “Is this just math that you do as a republican to make yourself feel better . . . ”
When even Fox bimbos suspect that something is up, there’s a problem.
unintent, if you ask that I have an “open mind” and take a “rational” look at a website that asks “Why is it that so many scientists choose to ignore the recorded history of the Bible, and instead believe in a vastly inflated age of the universe?”, may I ask that you provide a detailed explanation for why I should prefer the Biblical account of creation over that in the Hindu Vedas? The Vedas are older than the Bible, they are beautifully poetic, there are hundreds of millions of Hindus… what “rational” reason is there to prefer the Bible over the Vedas?
If you consider this question to be “ridicule”, I must question the openness of your own mind.
“they hesitate to answer because of being ridiculed….”
Yeah, that’s the ticket – worked like a charm. 😀
I took a quick look at the link provided; but I couldn’t get past the paragraph about “Circular Reasoning,” which started with this premise:
“One answer is circular reasoning: many scientists believe the world is old because they believe most other scientists think the world is old.”
All one has to do is substitute the word “creationists” for “scientists” and insert the word “not” a couple of times in order to see why this argument is self-defeating.
I suspect that the persons portrayed above are absolutely delighted by the declining test results achieved by US pupils since 1965 in standardised tests. Just what the (incompetent) doctor ordered before the presidential elections of 2016 !…
Henri