Hmmm... I don't think the OP got its fair share of criticism.
First, it's overly preoccupied with politics. While it is true that there is a degree of political interference in any human endeavor, the very heart of the scientific method is that it provides
functional reasons to prefer a given explanation over another.
There is an interesting anecdote regarding relativity; A theory that faced grave criticism early on, because it challenged some very entrenched ideas about how the universe works, at a certain point Hitler said that he could line up over 100 reputable scientists that disagreed from Einstein. The famous response was: "if I was wrong, one would be enough".
But Einstein is a convenient example to the opposed spectrum, because it's hard to imagine a stronger political pull than the rejection, from Einstein, of a Scientific theory, when he was at the peak of his popularity, having had amazed the world with his re-writing of natural law. And that is
exactly what the probabilistic explanation of quantum physics got; Einstein dedicated the last two decades of his life to try proving that quantum physics could not be probabilistic, and he even created some darn smart experiments that would prove that explanation was wrong (I would recommend reading about the Einstein/Podowlsky/Rosen Paradox, for those interested).
But, as results always favored the probabilistically explanations when the dust settled (be it the Copenhagen, the "many worlds" or the Feynman theories of the quanta phenomena), not even the unrelenting pull from the man who held sway over the popular opinion on scientific matters at the time could stop the triumph of the functionally better explanation.
Even when we assume science at it's very worst; the most conspiratorial perception, of a cabala of petty, out-of-touch man in white coats, worried with nothing but having their ideas prevailing; and at the same time we imagine religion at it's very best, as an honest effort to give good explanations to the world around (ps.: I do think the other way around is much more commom); still, science have in its DNA that virtuous quality, that golden principle that will allow effective, demonstrable criticism of bad ideas. Just like the impersonal system of Government created in western societies, there is no need that we have angels instead of man working the theses, the checks and balances are hardwired into the system itself.
As religion lacks such control, for being unable to offer function that gives context and relevance for their explanations, that system is hopeless, and can't separate the wheat from the tare, ending up stuck with random and dissociative thoughts instead of coherent and robust constructs. Nothing but tradition bases religion's disproportional representation in our public discourse... because unfortunately, people wanted answers long before we had effective ways of getting them. So the bad ways of the past stuck.
Anyway, because he said it much better than me, I would like to offer to the thread this inspired talk from the physicist David Deutsch, exactly on the topic of how to differentiate a valid explanation from an invalid one.
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_a_new_way_to_explain_explanation
I would say that his choice of a religious myth as an example of a bad explanation is a coincidence, but I would be lying.
As an anecdotal response to the other main criticism on the OP, I wanted to say that science is hard, but never inscrutable. You can always go there and understand the process behind the conclusions. I am an example of that; as a Lawyer, I have no formal training in physics beyond high-school level. Nevertheless, I decided to learn about particle physics, relativity, and Superstring theory on my own, and today I can describe many of the current physics on these (I am yet to catch up on quantum gravity loops, though).
So, the trust in the chain of knowledge is just a pragmatic part of the process. If every person had to enunciate every single scientific principle on his own, we would still be stuck at the stone age; the advancement of knowledge is a collective methodical process, in contrast to the "revelations" of ready knowledge from religion. In a quote from another scientist that needs no introduction, Sir Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."
In the end, though, the chain of trust is respected, because anyone can look at it and shake it's foundations. The great scientists of mankind are exactly the ones who did just that.
Try to question the word of prophets, though.
Regards
.
The scientists running as fast as they can from a creator turned the miracle of the cosmological constant into the casino of the multiverse of infinite dead universes but running from the holographic universe is just not going to happen. There is no far fetched long odds convoluted unproven escapist dogma to run to this time. If none of this is real that may force reality to dawn on science. That reality discovered by science itself! If it has become the purpose of science to prove God doesn't exist it is failing miserably I'm happy to say. What an interesting source for a new revival of faith! While this generation looks upon the faith of preceding generations as mumbo jumbo, future generations may look at this one which rejects the creator as ignorant of the scientific facts.
