Isn’t the cartoon a simple answer to a serious problem? Does that make it wrong?
I also thought about the revolutionary ideas in science, like evolution. Darwin’s answer is not complex — it’s fundamentally very simple — but it has deep implications and complex consequences, and yes, it’s a long and winding road if you try to follow all the details that flow from it. But it’s not the complexity that makes people reject it. If complexity were an objection, there would be no Catholics or Muslims in the world.
It’s the mismatch between simple and wrong perceptions and simple but right reality.
Evolution says that biological change is a property of populations — that every individual is a trial run of an experimental combination of traits, and that at the end of the trial, you are done and discarded, and the only thing that matters is what aggregate collection of traits end up in the next generation. The individual is not the focus, the population is.
And that’s hard for many people to accept, because their entire perception is centered on self and the individual. That’s why they invent stories of life after death and eternal life, because what’s the point if you just live for a brief time, and then die? The point only emerges when you step away from it and see the world from a different perspective, that of the population.
So I have to reject the premise of the cartoon. People are willing to avidly embrace difficulty and complexity if it conforms to their personal biases, if it affirms what they want to be true.