My friend Gerald shared this article with my group yesterday and I thought you'd find it interesting. For those of us who love science and see it as an invaluable tool to help us understand the universe, people who reject science (usually selectively since they still drive cars, take medication and talk on their cell phones, of course) are baffling. It's easy to dismiss them as stupid, but Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg at Yale University have a different hypothesis.The paper was originally published in Science in 2007, but there is a great version on the Edge.
Here are several excerpts of the Edge article:
It is no secret that many American adults reject some scientific ideas. In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, for instance, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. A substantial minority of Americans, then, deny that evolution has even taken place, making them more radical than "Intelligent Design" theorists, who deny only that natural selection can explain complex design. But evolution is not the only domain in which people reject science: Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies, and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination. ...
... While cultural factors are plainly relevant, American adults' resistance to scientific ideas reflects universal facts about what children know and how children learn. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed.
... The main source of resistance to scientific ideas concerns what children know prior to their exposure to science. The last several decades of developmental psychology has made it abundantly clear that humans do not start off as "blank slates." Rather, even one year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a "naïve physics") and the social world (a "naïve psychology"). ...
... These intuitions give children a head start when it comes to understanding and learning about objects and people. But these intuitions also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. As Susan Carey once put it, the problem with teaching science to children is "not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach."
... In some cases, there is such resistance to science education that it never entirely sticks, and foundational biases persist into adulthood. ...
Cyril of Alexandria was born around 376CE and rose to power as the Pope of Alexandria during the peak of the Roman Empire's rule there. He is credited with leading the charge against Nestorius in the First Council of Ephesus, where the divinity and caricature of Jesus Christ were debated. The Roman Catholic church eventually bestowed sainthood upon him, counting him among the 'Church Fathers' and 'Doctors of the Church', and also titling him as a Pillar of Faith and Seal of all the Fathers.
The gospel of John came last, in addition to being very obviously written by a Greek (when original versions are examined). "The Gospel [of John] certainly does not appear to have been written by an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, which is who John the disciple is portrayed as in Gospel stories." John appears to use Matthew, Mark, and Luke; but takes many liberties by using "eloquent Greek prose for the speeches of Jesus" instead of just translating. [
Supporters of Creationism and Intelligent Design don't know the difference between these three. Occasionally you'll hear one mention something about Big Bang; but many of them just figure the Big Bang was step-one of Evolution. They are completely oblivious to the theory of 
I’m sure GMN will have a response; but I just feel the desire to chime in.