A woman named Rebecca Bright accused TV host Mike Rowe of being “anti-education, science-doubting” and for being “ultra-right wing conservative.” She said that Rowe should be fired from his gig as narrator for the Science Channel’s “How The Universe Works,” reports The Daily Wire.

“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show,” wrote Bright, on social media. “There are countless scientists that should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in education and science that would sound great narrating the show, example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”

Rowe then responded to the woman’s insulting comments in the most genius way.

First, Rowe gives Bright a little science lesson, explaining that facts that scientists have long held as being “settled science” is now being questioned by scientists everywhere. Even on the show, Rowe narrates, the discovered that the estimated number of galaxies that have been reported by scientists for a long time is actually off by some two trillion.

“As I’m sure you know, it’s OK to make assumptions based on theories. In fact, it’s critical to progress. But it’s easy these days to confuse theory with fact,” he added.

After social media users apparently jumped on Rowe for underscoring how quickly scientific “facts,” theories, or ideas can change, he clarified further, even daring to bring up the untouchable issue of “Global Warming”:

“‘When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In general, people like you accused me of “doubting science.” Which is a curious accusation, since science without doubt isn’t science at all.’

‘This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that man-made global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo,’ Rowe said.”

Rowe continues to take down this woman by asking her to offer up some evidence herself. But not evidence about whether global warming is caused by humans, but the accusation she makes about Rowe.

“Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am,” he said.

Rowe then pleads this illogical liberal to actually read what she just suggested the Science channel to do. Something that is difficult for headstrong democrats that don’t care about the rights or even ability of conservatives who are simply doing their jobs.

“‘Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?,’

‘Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,” it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully,’ Rowe finishes.”