Bill King Facebook post, Aug 28, 2025 · Robust thinking.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10172453433550524&set=a.10152912825510524
Bill King Facebook post, Aug 28, 2025 · Robust thinking.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10172453433550524&set=a.10152912825510524
British Botanist Charles Darwin
Years ago, I remember seeing an episode of the Simpsons in which a scientist was trying to illustrate that evolution was not merely a "theory" as some people conveniently suggest. This scientist presented an exhaustive analysis of the history of research on the subject, showing how there were so many bones and fossils that basically proved the gradual evolutionary process which ultimately culminated in the "creation" of what we known as modern-day human beings.
Almost all of the proof was there, with the bones of nearly all species of our ancestors illustrating the gradual evolutionary process. Almost.
However, there was one missing. It was explained that this had not yet been found, but scientists were working on it, and it really felt like a matter of time.
Nonetheless, those who dissented and attacked the science behind the "theory" of evolution jumped on this. For all intents and purposes, they dismissed all of the science because it was not complete.
It was funny (because in some ways, it's not really funny at all), so I laughed. At the time, we of course had people who dissented and insisted that evolution was not real. They wanted "creationism" to be given equal footing on schools, so that students were given "both sides of the story."
Except that there really aren't two sides of this story. The science is there, and always has been. You can reject it, plug your ears and not listen, or deny it. You can claim it is one great conspiracy theory by those who hate human beings, or whatever. Again, though, the science is there, whether or not you like it. People either accept this truth, or they don't.
At the time, I still had the luxury of believing that most people accepted the science. Most people I personally knew understood it to be true (at least when it was discussed, which admittedly was not often). In fact, I don't specifically remember ever meeting many people who didn't accept the science, and the few people whom I had met who didn't accept it felt like...well, religious nuts. People who wanted to believe their faith more than accept science and, frankly, truth.
To be sure, I was not really close friends with any of those people who rejected evolution. I'm not trying to pigeon-hole everyone who rejects the science as not being especially bright, because I'm sure some of them are intelligent and otherwise reasonable people. But the ones I personally met were, frankly, unimpressive. One of them was one eccentric guy (a coworker) who once was reading a book and recommended it, explaining to me that this guy who had wrote it (don't remember the author) was going on about how Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel in the Bible lived lives that extended to something like 900 years and beyond. From what I gathered by what he explained, this author felt that this was the natural order of things for humans, and that we probably all should be living lives of 800 or 900 years. At the time, I couldn't tell if he was joking or not, because I didn't really know him all that well. In time, however, it became clear that he was serious. This same guy once was having a heated debate with a black coworker about whether or not Jews could be considered white or not. It was possibly the most anti-Semitic conversation that I had the misfortune to overhear. Frankly, when I think of people I have known personally who feel that evolution is questionable or just outright false, this is the guy who I think of.
Admittedly, his arguments and overall outlook were not impressive in the least.
Since then, I have met more people who similarly do not believe in evolution, or climate change. And while some have not been as outlandish or ridiculous in their beliefs as that guy was, they nevertheless also are not especially impressive in terms of their intellectual curiosity or understanding of facts, or basic science. This goes for two main things in science: evolution and climate change. In fact, I never met anyone who does not reject only one. In my experience, the people who reject one almost always reject the other.
The thing is, the vast majority of them are in no position to even debate these things. They are not qualified to weigh in, one way or the other. I am not saying that out of some kind of position of superiority, either, because it is my belief that I personally am also not qualified to debate this kind of stuff. For my part, accepting the findings of scientists going back generations in these two fields and so many other areas just feels like common sense, frankly.
Still, clearly not everyone feels that way. And if I had the personal luxury as a young man of assuming - wrongly, as it turns out - that the vast majority of people understood evolution to be true and beyond debate, those illusions have been since shattered. The movement to try and thwart and even silence scientific truths has grown very strong, especially here in the United States. In fact, it has grown to such an extent that it now threatens our very freedoms, and that is not an exaggeration. For example, even discussing climate change can get you in serious trouble these days, as the Trump administration has made every effort to stifle free speech and silence those who speak about climate change. There's a word for that: censorship.
If anything, this feels like the ultimate proof that those who reject science have lost the debate. When you have to resort to silencing people and trying to hide all evidence that something has happened (like evolution) or is presently happening (like climate change), you have lost the debate. The fact that you do not accept that and are now forcibly trying to literally eliminate anyone from speaking the truth will not prevent it from being the truth.
For now, polls show that a majority of Americans believe (personally, I feel that it should be worded as accept) that both climate change and evolution are true. Somewhere between 62% (the most current figures, according to a Pew poll linked below) to 70% of Americans understand that climate change is true. And an even more impressive amount understand that evolution is true: a whopping 80% of Americans, according to an article by the National Center for Science Education (see link below) about the poll.
Those numbers may feel reassuring. However, if one thing should have become apparent to us by now, those things can change. After all, 70% of Americans understood that climate change was real back in 2000, and those numbers seemingly keep fluctuating. But remember, in 2000, Americans elected George W. Bush, who did not care about climate change and seemed not to believe in evolution. Polls have continued to show a majority of Americans believe in evolution and climate change, as well as wanting a fairer and more affordable healthcare system, legalization of marijuana, and reasonable gun control measures, such as background checks. Yet we keep electing people into high offices who very clearly do not believe in these things, or at least publicly act like they do not. It may take time, but there really may come a time when a majority of Americans actually reject both evolution and climate change. Sorry to voice this opinion, but it feels like we Americans are growing collectively more stupid over time, which itself has become a growing threat to our nation.
We have to keep fighting to make sure that the truth gets out there. This antipathy towards knowledge, this growing skepticism towards truth and decency, this absurd anti-intellectualism cannot be allowed to prevail. It has clearly gained quite a bit in recent years. And low and behold, not only has this antipathy not improved our standard of living, but in fact has rather begun to noticeably usher in what most people see as a serious decline.
So I for one feel that we need to keep fighting. Need to keep repeating the truth, in hopes that it kicks in at some point. That people begin to listen. It is in that spirit that I am publishing this particular post which I recently came across on Facebook and seemed worth sharing here. Also below are the links to two articles about polls showing how, at least for the moment, a majority of Americans still accept science (for now).
Vast majority of Americans accept human evolution, new survey finds published by the National Center for Science Education, February 28, 2025:
https://ncse.ngo/vast-majority-americans-accept-human-evolution-new-survey-finds
The Short Answer: Are Americans Concerned About Global Warming? published by Gallup, December 13, 2024 UPDATED December 13, 2024:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/355427/americans-concerned-global-warming.aspx
ScienceExplained Facebook Post, August 22, 2025:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=697156563372035&set=a.338451959242499
Most of us in English-speaking countries, or at least in the United States, are at least passingly familiar with Dr. Seuss. I mean, his books were well-established and popular when I was a kid and going to school. So I remember the books and the cartoons which occasionally aired on television.
Well, there are things about him which most of us never really knew about Dr. Seuss. Recently, I ran into this article, which revealed some surprises about Dr. Seuss. One of the main things which surprised me was him finding kids very annoying. That's really quite strange for a famous, even iconic, author of children's books.
So it seemed like something worth sharing here. Below is the link to the article which got me on the topic of Dr. Seuss.
Enjoy.
Dr. Seuss Was Even Weirder Than You Realized by Regina Clarke
https://thefun-guru.com/dr-seuss-was-even-weirder-than-you-realized/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=120226917346350582&utm_campaign=tfg-fb116-us-d-drseussfacts_tfg-rpm12_exp_ma_dy_v9765315276_arizonaandyesterday_dup_08.11.25&utm_content=120226917348630582&utm_term=Facebook_Desktop_Feed&utm_id=120226847815510582&fbclid=IwY2xjawMRDEFleHRuA2FlbQEwAGFkaWQBqyG-lI74NgEeX1m3QcROUACUe6jWeMBeRklXF8ixuQ6A15Mb5Bae85LsApNMjkd-ZT7H8JQ_aem_YpfbjIndrfrsmXBvWY9uPw
Does anyone else get really nervous anytime that President Trump talks about being a dictator, even when it is designed to quell fears and urge people that he is not, in fact, a dictator?
After all, claiming that he is not a dictator, and then going ahead and suggesting that a lot of people really want a dictator, feels like Trump's way of testing the waters. Seeing how the general American public will respond.
“The line is that I’m a dictator, but I stop crime,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting, referring to his moves to send troops into major American cities. “So a lot of people say, ‘You know, if that’s the case, I’d rather have a dictator.’”
He later added: “Most people say … if he stops crime, he can be whatever he wants.”
So in one fell swoop, Trump has already laid the groundwork for his becoming a de facto dictator. Basically, he is claiming that "most people" are fine with him being a dictator, at least on condition that he "stops crime." And we are apparently just supposed to take his word for that? Have there ever been polls with that seemingly absurd question, about whether Trump really should be able to become a dictator? Frankly, even if most Americans are okay with Trump, theoretically, becoming a dictator, aren't there laws against it? I mean, if the Constitution means anything, doesn't it guard against an abuse of power precisely like the threat of an abusive dictator or absolute ruler?
Hello?
Believe it or not, this does not remind me as much of George Orwell as of the warnings - decades ago, mind you - by punk musician Jello Biafra, formerly of the Dead Kennedys.
It also reminds me of that well-known quote:
Trump’s authoritarian flexing has snowballed to the point where it’s hard to keep track. There are moments of ridiculous vibes, like when Trump suggests he could rename the Kennedy Center in his honor. But there are also moments that demand pause, such as when he wants the Pentagon renamed to the Department of War. The fact that we are even debating how far the country has shifted says volumes. When Richard Nixon in 1973 told newspaper editors gathered at Disney that he was no crook, the world shrugged. A half-century later when Trump says he is not an autocrat, audiences are left wondering if he’s making a promise or protesting too much.
Indeed, I also feel that King Con Don doth protest too much.
Frankly, everything that he says feels like there is some deeper, more sinister meaning than what he simply says on the surface.
12 Years Ago, Obama Joked He Wasn’t a ‘Dictator.’ When Trump Says It, No One’s Laughing by Philip Elliott Senior Correspondent, Aug 26, 2025:
https://time.com/7312463/trump-dictator-comment-fires-cook/
‘I am not a dictator,’ Trump says. Here’s what 21st century dictators do Analysis by Zach Wolf Zachary B. Wolf, August 26, 2025:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/26/politics/what-is-a-dictator-trump-analysis
Trump’s new ‘dictator’ comment betrays his trick for expanding his power Analysis by Aaron Blake, August 26, 2025:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/26/politics/dictator-comments-trump-power-expansion-analysis
Trump on dictator accusations: "I just know how to stop crime" by Rebecca Falconer, August 26, 2025:
https://www.axios.com/2025/08/26/trump-dictator-crime-crackdown-dc-democrat-cities
Exclusive: Most Americans see Trump as "dangerous dictator," poll says by Russell Contreras, Apr 29, 2025:
https://www.axios.com/2025/04/29/prri-poll-most-americans-trump-dangerous-dictator