Without wishing to put the cat among the pigeons, I think there is some merit in establishing that scientific thought isn't the be-all and end-all.
I agree very strongly that such thinking shouldn't be used as a means of promoting any political agenda, let alone one that could be seen as favouring ignorance and laziness. But sometimes it's important to realise that theories are just theories, however well they have worked up to now, and that science doesn't have all the answers.
This seems to me be to be at the heart of the problem - extremism. One extreme is the deified scientist/technocrat (a laAsimov's Foundation series). The other is the ludicrous POMO who seems to suggest that there can be no such thing as objectivity, without considering the paradoxical nature of such a statement.
I admire the commitment to the pursuit of knowledge that most scientists display, but I would never assume that an inclination toward more structured, logical thinking processes somehow confers immunity from human foibles like bias, selfishness and susceptibility to external influences. Rather than treat scientists as almost infallible demi-gods, or dismiss them as proponents of some bizarre elitist conspiracy, why not simply applaud the contribution that science and its practitioners have made to our society and recognise that others have equally valid contributions to make? This seems especially true since the very objectivity that science values can cause problems. The ability to work on issues in a moral vacuum has seen scientists produce monstrous weapons of mass destruction, viewing them as simply exercises in applied science. A quote from the chaotician in Jurassic Park stuck with me in connection with the attitude apparently shared by many scientists: "You were so concerned with whether you could, you didn't think whether you should"
