Georgia Congressional Rep Denies Evolution

We found this today in London’s Daily Mail, a British tabloid with an active comments feature (more than 650 for this article so far). Their headline is ‘I don’t believe in that so called science’: Marjorie Taylor Greene says she doesn’t ‘believe in evolution’ and is convinced COVID was made by China as a ‘bioweapon’. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Conspiracy theorist Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene revealed she doesn’t ‘believe in evolution,’ [Hee hee!] and suggested COVID-19 was designed to be a bioweapon and leaked on purpose. [Who knows?] The Georgia representative made the comments earlier this week on the ‘Real America’s Voice’ podcast, hosted by Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist under President Donald Trump.

If you’re curious about this brilliant legislator, Wikipedia has an article on her: Marjorie Taylor Greene. This seems to be her first term in Congress, and she’s already wildly controversial. The tabloid quotes her:

‘I don’t believe in evolution,’ she told Bannon. ‘I believe in God.’

That makes sense! Then the tabloid tells us:

Greene and Bannon were discussing theories about the origin of COVID-19 when Greene pushed the theory that the virus had been created in a lab and released out into the public on purpose as a ‘bioweapon’.

Of course. If the virus couldn’t evolve, then it had to be designed. The news story continues:

Bannon asked Greene if she believed in gain-of-function research, medical research that alters diseases to study their spreadability to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to help develop vaccines. She said she does not buy that kind of research because that science is supported by the theory of evolution. ‘I don’t believe in that type of so-called science,’ Greene said.

Your Curmudgeon is confused by that — she seems to have contradicted herself. But it doesn’t matter. We know that you, dear reader, will clarify the situation for us. There’s more to the news story but it’s largely irrelevant to our interests, so we’ll quit here. Let us know what you think about this.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

21 responses to “Georgia Congressional Rep Denies Evolution

  1. Robert Baty

    Marjorie has gotten a lot of press about that and other things.

    You might want to consider the related, mostly not covered story about the announced 2022 Georgia Gubernatorial candidate Kandiss Taylor.

    She trying to make a name for herself using the “God, Guns, Babies” slogan and promoting a forensic audit by teaming up with Arizona con man David Jose and using his “affidavit” technique.

    I have an article about that at:

    She and David Jose are all over social media promoting that stuff.

  2. chris schilling

    “COVID-19 was designed to be a bioweapon…”

    A bioweapon: that makes it sound kind of… you know, dangerous. But
    weren’t many of these people now claiming bioweapons and deliberate leaks the same people who were adamant COVID was just a hoax to begin with, or merely a new strain of flu, so what was there to worry about, anyway?

    They go from one conspiracy theory to another, without pausing for breath, even when the current model cancels out the previously held one.

  3. Sure MTG, the Chinese developed SARS-CoV-2 as a bio-weapon and then released it in China, just to check that it worked. Did Qty-Non tell you that?

  4. Charles Deetz ;)

    There was something in this story about her saying god would not create something that killed people. It just gets fruitier the more you think about what people like her say.

  5. So-called representative.

  6. Dave Luckett

    It’s no use saying “so-called”, richard. Like it or not – and I don’t like it any more than you – Marjorie Taylor Greene was elected to represent the 6th electoral district of Georgia, where she resides. She is a member of the House of Representatives of the United States, just as sure as Joe Biden is the President. That she’s also an out-and-out fruitcake is irrelevant to that fact.

    I confess that when I observe the election of Greene and Gohmert – and of their Australian counterpart, Pauline Hanson – I feel qualms and begin to doubt that we should trust the electors, much like Megalonyx when he contemplates Brexit. But there is no viable alternative. I don’t like seeing raving ratbags elected to public office, but the alternative is raving ratbags who weren’t elected.

  7. Greene …another demo that the voters only vote for those as stOOpid as themselves.

  8. docbill1351

    Greene is the perfect T****ian. Every sentence she utters is independent.

    I had neighbors like Greene eons ago. We’d only meet a couple of times a year at neighborhood gatherings like Fourth of July or Halloween. The wife was a Chatty Cathy with an infinitely long string; a Greene prototype. Nothing she said made sense. “I like pizza. Oh, look, clouds!”

    Her husband was the neighborhood know-it-all. Of course, he knew absolutely nothing. Dunning-Kruger on stilts before I ever heard the term. They were both very smug, too, because they knew they were right. Always wrong, never in doubt.

  9. Ditto for Colorado’s Lauren Boebert. Hopefully the folks in the 3rd District will come to their senses and dump this empty-headed attention whore.

  10. Deplorables doing their best to start another pandemic with the Delta variant.

    Pinned Tweet
    Marjorie Taylor Greene Flag of United States
    Jan 7
    RT if you still have @realDonaldTrump’s back!

  11. This lady doesn’t believe in evolutionism because it’s simply a hypothesis; it’s not theory because it can’t be tested.

    So, it’s not ‘science’, it’s just an idea – like the multiple universes hypothesis which also cannot be tested.

  12. @Scotty
    I thought that the usual line is that evolution is only a theory. Not a fact, because, supposedly, it cannot be tested.
    That line is so wrong in so many ways.
    For example, a major fault in the demial of evolution is that there is no alternative. All there is a negative advertising campaign. It is barren.
    Of course, evolutionary biology has generated a great deal of testing.

  13. Evolutionism is a hypothesis because it cannot be proved or disproved by experiment.

    If it could be tested, evolutionism would be a theory.

  14. @Scotty
    You are mistaken.
    Biological evolution is a process which occurs in life. It is observed to happen, both in the wild and under laboratory conditions. It is subject to a great deal of experimentation.
    There is no alternative to evolution as an explanatory factor for the variety of life.
    You are also mistaken in your understanding of scientific theories.

  15. The DNA of any given creature would have to be re-written, if it were to change or ‘evolve’ into another creature. So, a bear becoming a whale, the DNA would have to be re-written (Steve Jones’ book)
    This has never happened. Neither do you have any evidence, at all, that this has ever happened.
    Mutations in the gene are degenerative. Humans have 60 to 100 new degenerative mutations every generation. I have a common degenerative disorder called dupuytren’s contracture. I believe that sickle cell anaemia is another degenerative disorder. We must all evolving…towards death, the death of the human race!
    In the human body, there are trillions of cells, each containing between 4 to 4.5 billion letters of encoded DNA, written in base 4, I believe.
    Similar levels of complexity are true for animals, as well.

  16. You are mistaken if you believe that evolution means that one living thing changes into a different thing.
    Most mutations have no effect.
    There is a great deal of experimental evidence for evolutionary change.

  17. Dave Luckett

    Oh, it’s on again, is it?

    The theory of evolution is a well-supported explanation for the variety of life on Earth. The process of evolution has been repeatedly observed in the lab and the field. Speciation – ie, species separation, NOT “one animal changing into another”, but separation of one species into two or more – has been observed at least a couple of dozen times under controlled conditions. The apple maggot fly, the Mediterranean wall lizard, e-coli, the nylonase bacterium, the Faroe Islands house mouse, several others.

    Fossil sequences detailing wider and more dramatic evolution are available to anyone with the goodwill to go and look. We have birds with teeth, fish with feet, whales with legs, horses with toes, turtles with half a shell, and a transition series from reptiles to mammals of exquisite detail. We have apes that are partly arboreal, then obligate bipeds, then bipeds with reduced teeth and jawbones, then ones whose bones were found with chipped flint tools. The last were humans, for certain. The others? Depends on your definition.

    You won’t accept the observations from life because it’s only a fly diverging into two closely related flies, or whatever, and you won’t accept the fossil evidence because it isn’t continuous video footage, just a series of snapshots. You’ll say that small divergences can’t become large ones over time, but you won’t say how you know that. Actually, you know no such thing.

    How about the evidence from retroviral DNA? Humans have what are clearly retroviral insertions in our genome. Way, way back, a common ancestor contracted a virus that wrote its own DNA into its host’s germ plasm, but the host recovered, to pass that change – which was neutral, inert, non-coding – on to all descendants. But the thing is, if you look at the DNA of our nearest relatives, the chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan, you find that insertion at exactly the same point in the genome. The ancestor that contracted that virus was common to all those species. We, the chimpanzees, the gorilla and the orangutan are commonly descended.

    But of course you say “It can’t be proven”. Of course it can’t – to you. Evidence can never provide a proof in the mathematical sense. All it can do is to convince beyond a reasonable doubt. The vital word there is “reasonable”.

    Which you aren’t..

  18. Scotty boldly trolls where countless have trolled before:

    This lady doesn’t believe in evolutionism because it’s simply a hypothesis; it’s not theory because it can’t be tested.

    So, it’s not ‘science’, it’s just an idea

    Correct: “evolutionism” is not science; in contemporary usage, it’s a strawman term used by Creationists.

    If you’re going to troll, please try and entertain us with something we haven’t heard before. I won’t ask that you offer something of substance, because that is doubtless beyond your reach.

  19. To be honest, I could respect someone who denies Evolution on religious grounds; but I draw the line at any Federal politician who maintains the truth of the “Big Steal”. The former might rely on their religious faith but the latter is a carpetbagger intent on the demolition of democracy.

  20. There was a limit to what Nixon would do.

  21. FL Gov. Duh Santis just signed a law requiring school kids to observe 1 minute of silence. That’s one fewer minute spent thinking.
    MAGA Make America Godly Again