Would You Trade Evolution Accuracy For Accuracy About Vaccines, GMOs And Energy? - Science media is not as partisan as political media but it can be rather rancorous because it is lacking in diversity and pretty far out of the political mainstream. So it's been commonplace to magnify the anti-science ills of the right and minimize the ones on the left because, really, people write for their friends more than they should. 

In reality, though, it is just the opposite of partisan claims - denial of evolution actually harms no one. Yes, some groups raise all of their money promoting the notion that if some crank school district tries to get religion in science class, we are doomed, but America won a whole lot of Nobel prizes when America was a whole lot more religious than it is now.

Denying evolution makes no difference at all in the fate of humankind, and even climate change doesn't in the short term. We have cut CO2 emissions back to 1990s levels and the American government promptly turned around and gave China the stamp of approval to increase its emissions until 2030. Since science media is so partisan, that was declared a victory for climate science, somehow.

Yet when 2014 began, an alarming number of people were still rationalizing why vaccines, medicine and food anti-science beliefs were not harmful at all. It got better by the end of this year and when science media criticized the anti-science left more, things began to change. 'Philosophical' objections to vaccinating kids - where anti-science progressives in California lead the way - have begun to drop, but I credit it more to the Ebola scare and calls for a vaccine for it by those same wealthy elites than the tepid objections to science denial on the left by media pundits on the left.