Posts like these can be no fun to write sometimes, now that social media has compelled all entertainers to share their political views online. We remember finding comedian Michael Ian Black kind of funny in that thing he was in that one time, so you’d think someone who makes a living from their wit would throw better punches than these.

In short: Republicans don’t believe in science.

Glad he threw in that “literally,” although when we think of people keeping politics and science completely separate, the group that comes to mind is the group who held an intimate Wiccan prayer ritual in Portland in support of Bernie Sanders.

Hang on … this rant goes on a bit.

We don’t know — this Democratic Congressman thinks he knows something about science. Check the lab coat.

Can we stop for just a minute, since there’s a recurring theme here? What did it mean when candidate Hillary Clinton said at her acceptance speech in Philadelphia, “I believe in science”? Seriously, what did that mean? She believes in the scientific method? She believes “settled” (i.e., generally accepted) theories?

Or did it mean that if you are wearing a white lab coat and tell her something, she’s compelled to believe you? Were she elected, would she surround herself with the same high-profile scientific minds like Bill Nye the failed improv comic and his assistant Clock Boy to advise her on policy.

Sorry to go on, but this really grates. Everyone knows that “believing in science” is shorthand for believing in man-made climate change, and most people’s belief in that is predicated on consensus — and even that study that found that consensus can be shot full of holes.

So now, ironically, it’s the people who are still asking questions about the world around us who are branded the science “deniers.”

We warned you; this goes on:

Disbelieving in data when the data’s been cooked is a good thing.

Hang on; here’s comes the hard turn into “faith” vs. “science” — like any good roller coaster, you know it’s coming, but you still get a queasy feeling every time you round it.

OK, forget faith: ask an atheist scientist when life begins — at conception, viability, or birth — and then tell us politics doesn’t enter the equation.

Wait, he’s not done. Now he’s on to “junk science” … like the study that “proved” 97 percent of scientists agree on climate change being man-made.

We know, right? After all of those attempts to set up nations where there are no economic classes went so well, too.

Guess that means Micheal Ian Black won’t be going for coffee with us anytime soon. It’s over. Or maybe not; what if we set up a science fair … Michael Ian Black vs. whomever on the Twitchy staff has a white lab coat. Baking soda and vinegar volcanoes at dawn.

Here’s our theory: people say they “believe in science” to sound smart, because “I believe in science” has no inherent meaning. Science doesn’t care if you believe in it or not. Science doesn’t change based on consensus or faith or politics … and yet some political types think it does.

There another scientific theory that’s been floated: Trump Derangement Syndrome does put stress on comedy writers to be funny.

He’s an actor … but he’s not a Republican, so he believes in science. You might work in science, but he believes in science. You know what believing in something you can’t prove is? Faith.