Honestly this barely even deserves refutation but I'll stoop to the level of doing so.
It's not the fault of "big science" if peer review and the scientific method don't support your views. If you could actually prove your points adequately it would change science dramatically. But you can't, because you insist that you can never be wrong and try to slam the evidence into your conclusions, no matter how poorly they fit. At worst we get to the point a troll on one of yesterday's posts admitted: that you believe that God makes fake evidence indistinguishable from truth so that only the truly faithful recognize it as such. Which basically means you can never be wrong because any evidence against you can be fake. Which basically makes it impossible to argue against your specific points, but whatever.
*...How is it disproven that climate change is happening because of human activity? If anything the evidence is stronger in favor of that... Oh wait, you don't care about "evidence". Sorry about that.
*...We don't "support" evolution. There's nothing to support or oppose about it. We just study the evidence and conclude that it happens. Where's your evidence it doesn't? ...Oh wait...
*OK, this is where things just get stupid. They've proven solidly that second hand smoke exists and causes health issues. In fact one of the most conservative friends of mine agrees that it's a thing, and also agrees with me that e-cigarettes cause second hand health problems. ...And he's hardly an example of liberal thinking in any sense of the word. So again, the evidence is not on your side and even die-hard conservatives are convinced of that. ...But again, it's wonderful being free of evidence, that way you never have to change your mind, huh?
*...Here we have the classic Schlafly conflation of relativity with moral relativism, even though there's no connection at all between them. For the uninitiated: special relativity is a concept of physics where classical Newtonian mechanics are adapted to explain seemingly contradictory observations: namely, the observation that the speed of light never changes, regardless of relative motion. Moral relativism is the philosophical idea that there is no fixed morality of right and wrong, and that it depends on the individual what is moral or not (at odds with moral absolutism, which many religious people believe in due to having a single judge of right and wrong in their God). Clearly these have nothing to do with each other aside from similar names. But Schlafly is easily confused, and thinks that scientists who use relativity promote moral relativism, and thus go against his religion, and are therefore wrong. He practically builds straw men of himself by doing so. (Incidentally, I don't know if I believe in moral relativism or not, but I know for sure I don't believe in his brand of absolutism either.)
*Most scientists who are educated on the subject believe that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, yes. Whether that subconscious orientation is due to a genetic trait or other psychological factors hasn't been entirely proven yet. But clearly you're just upset with it not being a choice, because that shoots a hole in your belief that it's sinful to be gay. And of course, once again, who cares about evidence when any of it can be a lie from your God anyway to root out the True Believers(TM)?
*If those of us who follow actual science seem to obsess over "intelligent" "design" it's only because you fundies keep trying to convince us that it's science, even though you know it's just creationism in a borrowed lab coat. If you just dropped the issue there'd be nothing to obsess over.
