&gt; I disagree, but am happy to agree to disagree.<p>Just to be clear, you disagree with a fact that follows from very simple assumptions just by applying a few very simple steps of logical reasoning, yet you accept as dogmatic (i.e. authorative) truth a historical (i.e. unrepeatable and illogical) fact that you never witnessed yourself and that many people claim is false? <i>Interesting.</i><p><i>Edit:</i> Or, maybe you don&#x27;t disagree that evolution is <i>happening</i>, just that it <i>happened</i> (i.e. that the current species were created by evolution)? I guess that&#x27;s the other option, which would be less inconsistent with logic.<p>&gt; Regardless of whom of us is correct on that count, there remains the fact that denial of the theory of evolution is unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people.<p>Well, given that holocaust denial is legal in the US, I think it&#x27;s pretty safe to say that it&#x27;s a fact that it&#x27;s unlikely to successfully radicalize an appreciable amount of people.<p>&gt; Yes, which paragraph of law forbids discussion of denial of holocaust?<p>I don&#x27;t know, but why don&#x27;t you check Wikipedia (a more raliable source) instead of relying on me (a completely unreliable, potentially lying, source)?