Absurd/scary/Factual as that title really suggests.
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/26/neil_degrasse_tyson_vs_the_right_cosmos_christians_and_the_battle_for_american_science/

Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. the right: “Cosmos,” Christians, and the battle for American science
The real reason conservatives are freaking out about Neil deGrasse Tyson: He's laying bare their worst hypocrisies
SEAN MCELWEE

[. . .]

In truth, we cannot get fundamentalism without the scientific revolution. Fundamentalism does not exist independently, but rather defines itself in relationship to post-Enlightenment values. It is the odd melding of science and religion that creates fundamentalism — the belief that the Bible is ultimately both a scientific and religious text. Fundamentalists, like the conspiracy theorists they resemble, will build up reams of evidence creating the case for something that can be disproven with a simple logical proposition. Few thinkers have built such an impressive edifice of logic and evidence upon such a thin foundation of speculation.

[. . .]

HTF does one 'argue with' a 3 yo. who insists there are spooks under his bed?
Define 'spooks'? or just give him a Magic-flashlight?

Ed: and the implications..

And here the threat from the right is far stronger: We have seen free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion and rights of due process come under scrutiny at all levels. Workers are being denied even the semblance of control over their labor and women over their bodies. Money is making a mockery of democracy.

What we see is an asymmetric illiberalism. The religious right and some portions of the conservative movement have hijacked Enlightenment values for selective use. A truly deep (almost dogmatic) commitment to free speech, say, that practiced by the ACLU, which will defend the right of neo-Nazis to protest, is not what we find in many conservative circles. Instead, we see an embrace of empiricism when it is good and a rejection when it is bad. We see an embrace of religious freedom for me, but not for thee. Harry Emerson Fosdick preached in 1922:

ie a Puzzlement, confounded by replacing common [referents]-for-words with conveniently-new ones.
In the Land of the blind the one-eyed is King; in the Land where words change like the Red Queen?
Nothing Gets Done.

'Amok' seems to be the watchword for the day.