I’ve written over 640 articles over the past 2 ½ years, 3-4 a week. It’s fun, mostly. About 360 of those articles are on vaccines, vaccination, and you know, those who don’t like vaccines.
When I started, I wanted to write about all kinds of topics that always rub us skeptics the wrong way: creationism, global warming denialism, UFO’s, the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster having an affair with Sasquatch, everything but the kitchen sink causing or curing cancer (seriously, it’s that bad with cancer), and, near the bottom of the list, vaccines. Why at the bottom of the list? I naively believed that vaccines were a settled question. You know, vaccinate or really horrible diseases will return. I guess I was wrong.
This is just a “sense of the readers” poll. So choose wisely. I might go in that direction.
Serious question (occasionally, this will happen). Not that I will change how I describe the typical vaccine denier, but I might. This is my not-nearly-complete list of descriptions I’ve heard (or used, or both) with respect to your typical antivaccine “activist.” If you’ve got a better one, drop it in the comments. I might use it. Or blog about it. And you’ll have internet proof that you mentioned it first!
One of the things that drive pro-science types crazy (amongst a few hundred things, but still let me proceed) is when someone who seems to be rational about a scientific idea, then drop a bomb that they accept something so pseudoscientific, you have to wonder about everything else that person accepts.
I know people who argue vociferously for the fact of evolution, then claim that astrology predicts the future. Or someone who will accept everything in science, but claim that vaccines are dangerous. My personal favorite are those who proclaim widely that global warming deniers are crazy lunatics, then try to convince us that GMO crops are dangerous, using the same exact tactics and lack of science as the global warming deniers.
I began to wonder where my readers stood on the four major scientific consensuses (I assume that’s the plural of consensus, but it looks weird) that I discuss regularly here. They are:
Evolution, which is supported by the overwhelming consensus of scientists throughout the world.
Anthropogenic (human caused) global warming, which is supported by the overwhelming consensus of scientists throughout the world.
Vaccinations (the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to prevent disease), which is supported by the overwhelming consensus of scientists throughout the world.
The safety of GM (genetically modified) foods, which is supported by the overwhelming consensus of scientists throughout the world.
See what I did there?
In this week’s poll, a double version, first, just vote on how many of these four key scientific principles you accept. Then second, choose which ones you reject. Easy!
There are a few interesting points regarding this poll:
The poll was commissioned by LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention, a rather conservative Christian denomination. I’m concerned about the inherent bias.
Protestants in various parts of the country have different beliefs about science and evolution. This poll may be biased towards Southern US churches, where more literal beliefs in biblical myth is more prevalent.
Of course, this polling does not include anyone outside of the US.
The first question was “I believe god used evolution created people”. About 24% agreed with that, over 72% disagreed. Of course, that’s a loaded question, because a pastor might accept evolution and not think a god was involved, but it’s hard to tell without the real data.
Interestingly, only 46% thought the earth was 6000 years old, whereas 43% disagreed (although, not sure if they thought it was 4.5 billion or something else).
One minor, but very annoying point. One does not believe in evolution, since belief implies acceptance with or in spite of evidence. Evolution is a theory (and in science, a theory is essentially a fact) based on mountains of evidence. It does not require evidence, it requires acceptance of the evidence, or rejection of the evidence based on denialism, ignorance, or belief in an alternative explanation–or all three.
There are churches that accept evolution as is. Jews, Catholics, and most mainstream Protestants (such as Anglicans) were, of course, excluded from this poll, and would have skewed it toward “pastors” supporting evolution. Of course, anti-evolution (or evolution denialism) is so prevalent these days, we probably shouldn’t be surprised by this poll.