This article is just missing the point. There is nothing shocking that such people exist, or that some of them may even be elected to the national legislature. What is shocking is that they are crucial to the balance of power in that legislature. And that comes down not to them or their co-believers, but much broader aspects of American political structure.
Normally one would expect the US House of Representatives to be MORE representative than the US Senate, as the Senate is all elected by the plurality winner takes all vote of entire states, while the House is elected by smaller numbers of citizens. That is in fact exactly the opposite of the case, with the US House of Representatives returning strong Republican majorities despite Democrats winning the popular vote in House races over-all.
That is due to gerry-mandering of districts, which creates electoral 'ghettos' with super-concentration of support for one political party, which ends up being "wasted votes" (since having more than a majority or plurality in a district doesn't gain any more representation in Congress): In many states, one party needs from 1.2 to 1.6 times as many votes to get the same number of representatives in Congress, again reflecting the "wasted vote" phenomenon, even while the official paradigm is "one person one vote". Each state is allowed to re-district as it pleases, de facto according to the balance of power in that state), in other words tending to serve the majoritarian group in that state... i.e. exactly counter to the apparent purpose for having a larger number of more granular smaller-population districts vs. state-wide votes for Senators. Now one can expect Republican-majority states to gerrymander to their own favor, and Democrat-majority states to do likewise (and they both do so), but that doesn't account for all of the discrepancy.
In fact there are 6 states that return Democratic majorities on Presidential votes, and over-all popular vote for House seats, yet return majority Republican House Representatives. One of these, Pennsylvania, in fact depended on Democratic votes in their State Congress to achieve the majority needed to confirm the gerrymandering. If you Google that topic, you will see the rationale given by those Democratic State Congressmen to be about as coherent as these Anti-Science Representatives quoted in the article.
If ONLY those 6 states returned Representatives in line with their over-all popular vote, there would basically be a permanent US House Democratic majority. Not even all 6 of those states would be needed to switch in order to achieve that majority. Several of those states allow for citizen referendum, so there is no impediment to a popular referendum changing the representation/districting formula, yet that is not done. There is even the possibility to impose a nationwide change having consistent standards to avoid wasted votes, via Article V nationwide constitutional convention, whose requirements to convene have already been met, so such a Convention should go ahead to create Amendments which 3/4 of states then need to approve, by popular vote or their legislature. Yet that is not done.
There are nutsos and science deniers all over the world. They are not the problem with the US' political system, the US' political system is the problem. So to blame this narrow sect of ignorants is absolving the larger body politic of it's responsibility for allowing such a system to persist. This system makes many votes simply not count in terms of final outcome, not to mention side-lining any parties outside the "2 parties of power". A system of Open-List Mixed Member Proportional Representation retains the link to local district which all members chosen because of their popularity in that district (either by plurality/majority, or as the highest level of support that party received), and can accomodate independent (non-party) local candidates and splitting support for parties at local and over-all levels (to avoid supporting a hated local candidate whose party over-all is attractive). The path is open to change that system, such a process is exactly allowed for in the US Constitution, and by using a national convention expressly called for the purpose, can side-line the 2-party representatives who are married to the existing system.