As a former serious chess player. I can look at the methodology of formal scientific method. Chess being the largest use of this, outside of science itself. Theories are put forward, tested, published, replicated and analyzed. The word used is the same as science ie. " best. " Yes fashion and personalities play a part, just as in science. However what works best will always prevail. It may take a long time but it will get there in the end.
Evolution is still a theory but it is the best way of describing how we got here. Many have a problem understanding the scientific use of the word theory. Ohms law is not a law at all but is still a theory. Any attempt to prove Ohms theory can only be done with instruments calibrated using Ohms theory. Yet we do not use electricians from the will of Allah school of electrical engineers. Similarly when the US military are looking to find a vaccine for malaria (they are a major player in this endeavor), they have to battle evolutionary forces. The fight against this disease is one of the most sticking examples of the selfish gene.
When I was growing up the major cause for concern was over population and how we could feed all these people. Say what you will about modern agri-business but there is enough food for everyone on the planet. Economic and political difficulties are the reason why people starve, not scientific ones. We are distrustful of science because some scientists have been false to us. They have lied about nuclear power, DDT etc. but they have produced such wonders and have been there for us when called upon. The expected epidemic of AIDS non-arrival is just one example of many.
The headline catching scientific news stories that make us distrustful is more to do with how we fund our research rather than science itself. Cancer research is often the biggest offender. The amount of donations this branch receives is staggering. So if some guy finds even a small link to coffee or bananas, he publishes. Thus ensuring his grant for next year. Science is made by people after all and we a human but science itself is not to blame.

"Scientism" has more in common with "belief" than "science".

Science has skepticism baked into it. Any science that is not skeptical of itself is not worthy of the name. I don't know why this is so hard for people to get.

I just happened to believe in both. No I'm not going to pull something out of my pocket to show anyone so don't ask. I just do.

Yeah. The superstition outoutweighs the obvious facts. Take Elvis & Virgin sightings, ufos. I was staying in a house that had electric heat. Pretty quiet, but the heaters make sounds when they expand & contract leading the wido to imagine her dead husband trying to communicate.

I find it difficult to believe that so few people believe in evolution. It is an estabnlished scientific principle that any intelligent person should acdept.

Thank you for your enlightening post.
You are correct. Look into just about anything and ultimately it will either come down to Sociology or Psychology. People denying evidence to keep them in a social group should not surprise anyone. Look at what happens to a human being when they are put in social isolation. They literally lose their minds. We are social animals. That is the ULTIMATE basis of any religion. Would you rather be alone, ostracized by your friends and family (been there) or stand up for what feels true to you body, mind, and / or soul (that invisible piece inside of you that is connected to the intangible).....what you FEEL but cannot explain with your mind or body. Love could fall into that category....and not just love for another person.
Regarding discussing pseudoscience, acknowledge exactly what that means. Pseudo....that for what there is no explanation for.
Until we progressed with the tangible we lived in pseudoscience. An ink pen would have been pseudoscience. It is simply the tangible that we have yet to find. It doesn’t make it untrue, it simply means that we don’t understand YET. YET being the key word.

I used to live in Boulder and would attend CWA. One of the last yrs I attended, Joe Biden was on a few panels. Miss it!

Would have loved that talk! Thank you for giving us a snippet..I am a little surprised on % of climate change deniers, still! And people who have never met a scientist. And, I will hold that last idea on trying to inspire instead of argue...

Why is this surprising?

19% seems shockingly low. Where did you get this figure?

Science deniers are the most terrifying people to me.