Evolution denials

The strongest objection used to be the age of the earth. The earth could not be several billion years old because the sun could not have been "burning" for even a few million years given its mass. Enter nuclear fusion, stage left.

Today the situation is different: it is now accepted that the moon formed following a disruption of the young earth - probably due to a collision (unless you deny that NASA went to the moon ... it was a Democrat's project ... and that those are indeed lunar rocks that the "paid" scientists are testing.) The moon has been critical to evolution on earth due to tidal action on the oceans: with tidal zones and tidal pools came terrestrial life.

But life itself? Where that topic is concerned, public recognition of scientific theory has been cruel. There were no Nobel prizes for either George Gamow or Fred Hoyle.
Today the insights of Gamow, Hoyle and others are the basis for stellar evolution and astrobiology. Science denials are often based on how often great scientists such as Gamow and Hoyle were wrong. Or focussing on disagreement rather than accepting the criteria by which agreement is eventually found.
Wait for spalinns on NASA wasting our money on dark matter detection or detection of amino acids on Saturn's moon Titan. Or mocking the longest-running NASA science project: the Gravity Probe B. Had the project been based in Alaska, it would have been shut down long ago - but fortunately national administrations have sometimes heeded national scientific opinion.

Not that a national scientific consensus cannot be wrong: for that see Boltzmann and atomism.

Denials: Chernobyl caused poison lichen for Laplander reindeer. No. Radioactive reindeer are just part of natural climate changge.

But if atomic testing had been done on the Aleutian Atoll ... or just across the Bering Strait ... or if mercury levels rise in Alaskan crabs ...