Who's more anti-science: flat-earthers, Creationists, or AGW deniers?

Does a serious question need a serious answer? I googled flat earthers and got the web site for a brewery in the midwest. Even before my first sip of coffee I was chuckling.

Okay, seriously. I thought I was going to go with the flat-earthers, but found the following quote. The author should get the 10 points for making my argument for me, not I:

"Evolution is a scientific fairy-tale just as the “flat-earth theory” was in the 12th century.

-- Edward Blick, scientific creationist

To make such a forceful statement when there's solid evidence to refute it is absurd. And I loved what Samuel Birley Rowbotham, founder of the modern flat-earth movement had to say:

“Let the practice of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy.”

The Bible, Old Testament and New, had references that were interpreted as telling its disciples that the Earth was flat. Hence if you believe in the Bible and God, you have to believe the Earth is flat. So there was built-in denial, but it existed because essentially the scientific evidence to refute it did not yet exist.

The AGW are essentially the bastard children of a well-financed campaign to continue living life as usual in the face of mounting evidence that global warming is a threat to the very fabric of our lives. Are they truly "anti-science?" I don't think so,not necessarily anyway. They're simply wielding science as a sharp sword in any and every way possible.

Creationism then? From Wikipedia, the following definition:

"Creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of natural biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.[2]"

At any rate, I could go round and round on this. I'm calling it a tie. I'm letting the flat-earthers off the hook because of the times and the rudimentary facts available to seriously refute their argument. Both Creationists and AGW deniers, in general, simply use or dismiss science at will. Science is not a political tour, and although there is room for interpretation -- I watched a cool program about meteors and asteroids last night that demonstrated that there's not always a uniform consensus in science -- to starkly dismiss valid theories simply because they don't conform to your own, for whatever reason, in the face of overwhelming information to the contrary, is wrong.

Asked another way: why do deniers never cite scientific research. Their argument is of course that all scientists are evil conspirators, and none can be trusted? That attitude is very scary because it is an attempt to push civilization back to the leaches. Mike: Science is not negotiable. There can be learning by a thoughtful exchange of information, but that can only work between people who want to discuss real science. Leave the crap out and cite only real research and the conversation can move ahead in an informed matter. But people who want to ignore science are absolutely ignorant. One cannot negotiate with ignorance. John, you are flat-out wrong. The IPCC was always the IPCC, it never changed the wording from Climate Change to Global warming. It was the Bush administration that pushed to get away from the media's use of "Global Warming" in response to communication guru Frank Luntz who advised that the term Global Warming was too scary. This is public knowledge -- at least among people who read rather than say ignorant things. And to have an economic/political debate over how to counter global warming will be an important step. But the first thing is to make people aware that global warming is absolutely real and is absolutely caused by man. Now that everyone knows that our children and grandchildren have problems coming, let's talk about how we can mitigate those problems.

Interesting question...

I would have to say creationists. It's no so much that they're anti-science it's just that Genesis is all the proof they need therefore science is a relative non-sequitur.

I hear it mentioned a lot, but are there really flat earthers any more?

AGW "deniers" especially those who flat out deny the fact that it has been warming are a bit suspect in my opinion. But I can't help but empathize with their cynicism. However I think there are a lot of holes in AGW theory, and I see a lot more movement towards predicting the impacts of "poorly" understood methodology than I do making a greater attempt to understand *exactly* what is happening.

I've never actually encountered a Flat Earther...I understand the story line...but minus any real experience I won't talk about them.

I would argue that it is the Creationists, with a caveat. I'm a scientist...but I believe in creation...I just don't believe that it took place in 6 days, or in the manner that it's described in the bible...but I'm also Catholic...and the church has said for quite some time that the Bible is a divinely inspired allegory/teaching aide, but should not be taken literally.

I am actually frightened by the true believer "creationists" who not only take the creation story literally, but will deny any science that does not support their claim as being part of some conspiracy.

I fully agree with Emerilesque's answer:

AGW deniers because they have no excuse.

All three groups mentioned in your question are anti-science, because they deny scientific facts. But AGW deniers are the worse for another reason too:

I view science as a tool contributing greatly to the progress and welfare of humanity. So an anti-scientist is also someone who is against humanity's welfare.

Taking this into account, I would say flat-earthers don't cause any damage since nobody takes them seriously today. Creationism also is not a serious threat since evolution is widely accepted nowadays, even by religious leaders.

So the greatest threat humanity faces today (from the three groups mentioned above) is listening to AGW deniers and taking no action against global warming.

That's why I believe AGW deniers are the most anti-science (and anti-human) group.

I'm not aware of anyone who believes the flat earth argument...but if there are, I'd bet they were creationists. They're the ones who flat out deny science. And what's ironic is they type on their computer, a scientifically derived object, and go to Dr's...who have studied and believe in evolution.

AGW deniers....I've seen them try to use 'sciencey' arguments...I think there are a few that really are misled. It's their refusal to listen to both sides...but they do seem to listen to scientific SOUNDING answers if it says AGW isn't happening...anything that helps them keep their head in the sand.

I would say flat Earthers since we have pictures from outer space showing that the Earth is round. Back say 500 years ago, the flat Earth theory was more for the uneducated since most sailors and a lot of scientists have figured out that the Earth was round.

As for Creationists, they are not incorrect. Some one or thing had to get the complexity of life started. Also, we have only proved the theory of survival of the fittest which proofs micro evolution within a species. So far we haven't found any proof that a species changes into a new species.

As for Man made global warming deniers, there are still too many unsolved assumptions out there and too many variables that have not been seriously studied to proof global warming one way or the other.

I would say flat-earthers.

AGW deniers apparently have strong supportive evidence that global warming is happening. Recently GW scientists predicted that storms would become fewer in numbers but more violent. They were proven correct.

Creationist, well a "god" creating man may not be far fetched. The science may be hidden behind centuries of theology and the records have become a bit off. The story of Genesis may have some truth behind it, but muddled with layer after layer of theology that we cannot be certain.

Flat-Earthers, holy SH_T!! There has been evidence that the Earth is round LONG before rockets or boats sailing around the world. Thousands of years ago, someone (can't remember his name) was told of a place where at high noon, you can see down to the bottom of the well. And math stated that the Earth was round.

Plus all of the photographic evidence and why you cannot see Europe even with the best telescope money can buy.

I'd say its the creationists. AGW denial and flat-earth theorists both have perfectly falsifiable theories. (which is something different than the fact that those theories were falsified)

Creationists import an all-powerful god that evens out any wrinkle in their theory on beforehand, which makes their theory incompatible with sience.

AGW AGW AGW AGW a million times.

I'm a Muslim who believes in evolution(no contradiction in my religion) so creationism is fine for me.

But i'd say agw.