A problem is that many things appear to be bunk and are only later discovered to be not so much bunk. An example is continental drift. The old guard is often scornful at newer views. Sometimes, even the greatest experts are wrong. And with so much politics thrown into the mix, it's often difficult for one to discern the bunk from the merely mistaken from the brilliant.
Are Peter Duesberg's ideas about AIDS and HIV bunk? A great many scientists disagree with him. But many people considered him brilliant before he broke away from the pack. I tend to disagree with him (only because of my herd instinct, though, and not because I know enough to evaluate what he says). Still, even if he's wrong, would we call his ideas bunk? If he's wrong, they might even be dangerous ideas. I'm sure there are some people who think his ideas (and probably his person) are worthy of scorn.
Evolution vs creation is an interesting case. I believe there are people among the creation scientists who deliberately mislead others. I say this as someone who was formerly a creationist and who is slightly irritated at having been misled. The vast majority of creationists, however, are not attempting to mislead anyone. Some don't have the education to understand what the issues are and how things work. Many are ignorant, but usually not wilfully so. Their heads are filled with crap before they're even old enough to distinguish their craniums from their sphincters. I certainly feel contempt for creationism, but seldom for creationists. And despite having heard that creationists are trying to make more moves on the school systems, I'm not that worried about it.
In Darwin's time, creationists declared that evolution was impossible because god would not make anything that wasn't perfect. When the gypsum moth was later used, they would say declare that, okay frequencies can changes, but nothing new could be created. Later, it was discovered that microbes mutate and they admitted that okay microbes can evolve but new species are not formed. Nowadays, the creationist elites (scientists at the ICR) admit that certainly evolution can produce new species, but not new *kinds* where *kinds* is ... well, wherever we notice a fossil gap, I guess. I'm not sure what it means. In any case, I suspect that in my children's lifetimes, creationist beliefs will become as rare as belief in a flat earth. My memory is fuzzy here and some of my facts might be slightly off, but I think this is generally true. Even creation scientists now acknowledge that evolution occurs.
Sidenotes:
You're surely aware there is a growing community of skeptics who are acutely interested in what is and what is not bunk. I read an article by Mary Lefkowitz some years back called "Greece for the Greeks: History is not Bunk" which I found pretty interesting. She wrote a book that expanded these ideas called "Not out of Africa" which a friend gave me for xmas and which turned out to be well worth the time. (She also edited a later one called "Black Athena Revisited" which I have not yet read. ) I wonder how many other books have the word "bunk" in the title.
Martin Gardner wrote two very good books called "Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus" and "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science" that gave accounts of poor science and quackery. James (the Amazing) Randi wrote "Flim Flam." Last time I checked, there were dozens of books (at least) published by Prometheus, many of which dealt with the issue of bunk and its debunking.
k
