A Taxonomy of Crackpot Ideas

Some time ago, when the anti-science, anti-evolution, religious literalist movie “Expelled” was making the rounds, it occurred to me that a strict 6-day, young-earth creationist idea of the world requires a particular confluence of perceptual filters in order to exist. There has to be an unquestioned acceptance of literalist religious dogma, a profound ignorance of some of the basic tenets of science, and a willingness to believe in a vast, orchestrated conspiracy on the part of all the world’s geologists, biologists, archaeologists, geneticists, and anthropologists in order for this notion to seem reasonable.

I’ve been chewing on that thought for a while, and looking at the perceptive filters that have to be in place to accept any number of implausible ideas, from moon hoaxers to lizard people conspiracy theories to anti-vaccinationism.

And, since making charts is something I do, I plotted some of these ideas in a Venn diagram that shows an overlapping set of prerequisites for a number of different flavors of nuttiness.

As usual, you can click on the image for an embiggened version.

50 thoughts on “A Taxonomy of Crackpot Ideas

  1. Nice. I do have some small quibbles with placement, but they are small.

    For example, I see no difference between Evolution Denial, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design. There would be a small subset of the first and the last that wouldn’t necessarily endorse the middle set, true. But the first and the third? Identical.

    • Not always. There are evolution deniers who aren’t necessarily Intelligent Design advocates; steady-state evolution deniers claim that all existing organisms were created in more or less their current state, and that small changes can occur because of adaptive proessures but that new species can never arise. A lot, but not all, these folks are also young-earth creationists.

      Which actually gives me an idea; a Venn diagram showing the overlap between different forms of evolution denial might be interesting…

      • . . . steady-state evolution deniers claim that all existing organisms were created in more or less their current state. . . .

        Ah, yes! Gosse’s Omphalos theory. I hadn’t thought of that, though the book where I first encountered it noted that it was making a comeback since the days long ago when it ruined Gosse’s reputation.

        Another aspect to consider, though I have no idea where it would be placed: Those that perpetuate the crackpottery but themselves may not embrace the ideas. I’m thinking here of the Discovery Institute’s Wedge document. Did you know that the three most dangerous people in history were Darwin, Marx and Freud?

        Seriously, that doc is the stuff of conspiracy, except that it seems it was genuine.

    • Lots of more moderate Christians believe in both intelligent design and evolution. I did, when I was still a Christian; the evidence for evolution is too strong to discount, but if you don’t believe God’s in charge, what’s the point in being religious?

      • Actually, that’s what I thought myself, the idea of a central creation followed by change over time guided by, well, a Guide. I loved my dinosaur books too much to think they were merely Devil-inserted rocks. Soon after I was told that this change idea was heresy, I just gave up on the faith part (around fourth grade or so).

        Must not have been very strong in the first place.

  2. Nice. I do have some small quibbles with placement, but they are small.

    For example, I see no difference between Evolution Denial, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design. There would be a small subset of the first and the last that wouldn’t necessarily endorse the middle set, true. But the first and the third? Identical.

    • Re: 99% correct

      The Genepax car in that video is actually a REVAi electric car.

      Genepax has shut down since that video was made. They never really explained their supposed technology, other than to say that a metal hydride chemical reaction was used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. If that’s true, the water isn’t actually a power source; the ultimate source of energy for the vehicle would be that chemical reaction, which would consume the metal hydride (presumably, a calcium, lithium, or potassium hydride, if it runs at room temperature). The water is simply a carrier for the energy; the source of the energy would be the hydride, which would have to be replaced as it was consumed.

      • Re: 99% correct

        well, they did mention a number of liquids…but, there have been cars driven by steam, which is merely water in a gaseous form…and there is another company that has a car that runs on compressed air. Regardless…the diagram is still funny…and sadly correct…

        • Re: 99% correct

          Yep, water can be used in all sorts of ways to drive a propulsion system. Steam engines are a great example. Fuel cells are another, and there are systems in which water is poured over a reactive material to generate heat and/or hydrogen gas for power.

          What I’m referring to in the diagram is the notion that water can be used as an energy source. In any system that actually works, water is an energy carrier, but never actually supplies energy to the system on its own. Steam engines work when water is heated by some other source, which might be anything from burning coal to a nuclear reactor; water “pill” systems work by using water to react with some highly reactive chemical, often a sodium or lithium compound, to liberate energy, but the pill is consumed in the process.

          There are a lot o folks who think it’s possible to run a car on water with no external energy inputs. That’s the bit that’s the crackpot idea. If I do an update to this chart, I’ll probably clarify that. 🙂

  3. Re: 99% correct

    The Genepax car in that video is actually a REVAi electric car.

    Genepax has shut down since that video was made. They never really explained their supposed technology, other than to say that a metal hydride chemical reaction was used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. If that’s true, the water isn’t actually a power source; the ultimate source of energy for the vehicle would be that chemical reaction, which would consume the metal hydride (presumably, a calcium, lithium, or potassium hydride, if it runs at room temperature). The water is simply a carrier for the energy; the source of the energy would be the hydride, which would have to be replaced as it was consumed.

  4. Not always. There are evolution deniers who aren’t necessarily Intelligent Design advocates; steady-state evolution deniers claim that all existing organisms were created in more or less their current state, and that small changes can occur because of adaptive proessures but that new species can never arise. A lot, but not all, these folks are also young-earth creationists.

    Which actually gives me an idea; a Venn diagram showing the overlap between different forms of evolution denial might be interesting…

  5. Re: 99% correct

    well, they did mention a number of liquids…but, there have been cars driven by steam, which is merely water in a gaseous form…and there is another company that has a car that runs on compressed air. Regardless…the diagram is still funny…and sadly correct…

  6. Re: 99% correct

    Yep, water can be used in all sorts of ways to drive a propulsion system. Steam engines are a great example. Fuel cells are another, and there are systems in which water is poured over a reactive material to generate heat and/or hydrogen gas for power.

    What I’m referring to in the diagram is the notion that water can be used as an energy source. In any system that actually works, water is an energy carrier, but never actually supplies energy to the system on its own. Steam engines work when water is heated by some other source, which might be anything from burning coal to a nuclear reactor; water “pill” systems work by using water to react with some highly reactive chemical, often a sodium or lithium compound, to liberate energy, but the pill is consumed in the process.

    There are a lot o folks who think it’s possible to run a car on water with no external energy inputs. That’s the bit that’s the crackpot idea. If I do an update to this chart, I’ll probably clarify that. 🙂

  7. I used to be the Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler of alt.usenet.kooks, where I ran monthly awards to recognize kooky people and their even kookier ideas. I’ve run into almost all of these ideas in my time on that newsgroup, but I’ve never run into anything quite this organized. The closest I’ve seen is “The Conspiracist Buffet,” which deals with political conspiracy theories, and is a decade out of date. I’ll upload it to my scrapbook and post it in another comment.

  8. I used to be the Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler of alt.usenet.kooks, where I ran monthly awards to recognize kooky people and their even kookier ideas. I’ve run into almost all of these ideas in my time on that newsgroup, but I’ve never run into anything quite this organized. The closest I’ve seen is “The Conspiracist Buffet,” which deals with political conspiracy theories, and is a decade out of date. I’ll upload it to my scrapbook and post it in another comment.

  9. Lots of more moderate Christians believe in both intelligent design and evolution. I did, when I was still a Christian; the evidence for evolution is too strong to discount, but if you don’t believe God’s in charge, what’s the point in being religious?

  10. . . . steady-state evolution deniers claim that all existing organisms were created in more or less their current state. . . .

    Ah, yes! Gosse’s Omphalos theory. I hadn’t thought of that, though the book where I first encountered it noted that it was making a comeback since the days long ago when it ruined Gosse’s reputation.

    Another aspect to consider, though I have no idea where it would be placed: Those that perpetuate the crackpottery but themselves may not embrace the ideas. I’m thinking here of the Discovery Institute’s Wedge document. Did you know that the three most dangerous people in history were Darwin, Marx and Freud?

    Seriously, that doc is the stuff of conspiracy, except that it seems it was genuine.

  11. Actually, that’s what I thought myself, the idea of a central creation followed by change over time guided by, well, a Guide. I loved my dinosaur books too much to think they were merely Devil-inserted rocks. Soon after I was told that this change idea was heresy, I just gave up on the faith part (around fourth grade or so).

    Must not have been very strong in the first place.

  12. Just curious why Dominionism crosses over in to conspiracy theories?

    Also, would churches that teach only some people are real humans & other races are the result of humans (usually Cain) mating with animals or other such things producing “mud races” fit in there somewhere? It’s primarily “white power” churches in the US, but there’re a few Islamic sects with similar beliefs. They’re all evolution deniers of one stripe or another, not sure if they’re a big enough subset for their own X.

  13. Just curious why Dominionism crosses over in to conspiracy theories?

    Also, would churches that teach only some people are real humans & other races are the result of humans (usually Cain) mating with animals or other such things producing “mud races” fit in there somewhere? It’s primarily “white power” churches in the US, but there’re a few Islamic sects with similar beliefs. They’re all evolution deniers of one stripe or another, not sure if they’re a big enough subset for their own X.

  14. Ok, yeah, that makes sense about the Dominionists.

    There’re several other “churches” that fit that list, the umbrella term is “Christian Identity.” Like I said, tho, I’ve seen some Muslim groups expressing similar things (tho in a less organized fashion) but I’ve not seen a name for that.

  15. Ok, yeah, that makes sense about the Dominionists.

    There’re several other “churches” that fit that list, the umbrella term is “Christian Identity.” Like I said, tho, I’ve seen some Muslim groups expressing similar things (tho in a less organized fashion) but I’ve not seen a name for that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.