I've been thinking.  Does it seem to you that climate-change denial & evolution denial share a demographic?  I don't know why it seems that way to me, but it does.  And that's strange, because they're fundamentally incompatible.

Denying the existence of evolution, going back to Alfred Wallace (who, as a "co-discoverer" certainly didn't deny evolution, but did deny that humans evolved), is all about how humans are important.  We are the specially-created, the image of our Creator, the measure of all things.  We are that, without which, the Universe is meaningless, and those unto whom the world was given.  After all, no religion teaches us that God sent his only budded rhizome to the Irises.  It's all about us, baby!

Climate-change denial is all about how humans are . . . not exactly unimportant, but certainly not central.  I mean, come on -- we've only had internal combustion engines for a hundred years or so.  It's not like we've had time enough or tools to change the world!

At root, the one idea is that humans are the most important, powerful thing in the world.  At root, the other idea is that humans are really just a supporting player, capable at most of influencing the world, but certainly not altering it.  And yet, it seems to me that the groups holding these ideas overlap.  I must be wrong.  It's too inconsistent, too illogical on the face of it.  And yet, I can't shake the idea.