Sure, science does take more work than most people are willing to put into it, and abuses do occur; on the other hand, you have peer review - it's far from perfect, but works. On that note, simply dismissing science "believers" as being just the same as religious "believers" is silly, in my view. Those are fundamentally different points of view about the how the world actually works: in the former, you "believe" the world can be understood, and that, that understanding can then be used to control it and shape it to our needs; in the latter, you believe you are at the mercy of a creator, and whatever happens, happens because of an arbitrary, unfathomable "god willed it so" (depending on the fairy tale of your choice, of course).
In this sense, I would much prefer people to at least have some basic understanding and interest about the world around them (and, who knows, maybe even contribute to that understanding), rather than giving it all up and go live alone in the mountains somewhere waiting for their favorite savior (or whatever).
a belief is just that - a belief
It is very common place to present
theories and less disputed but unproven
hypothesis like the big bang and particularly a lot theories in psychology (but other sciences aswell)
as facts in popular science and they are
beliefed as such.
Many people take many theories as actual fact. I bet almost everyone reading this takes A LOT of theories as actual proven facts which they are not.
Actually most of what you belief based on science is not real - most of what is propagated is actually only theories.
Theism is the same - just a theory and some people take it as fact.
So why does it matter how plausible the theory is? I think the huge following of the scientific cult is as sheepish as the religious folks. They are sometimes even just as radical. Scientific radicals and extremists. Yes, they do exist a lot but are not perceived in that way.
