Public understanding of science is definitely getting better.

200 years ago, 100% of all the people in Europe believes the world was created 6000 years ago. Today, that percentage is slightly less than 100%. See, it is improving?

Besides, not all religions insists that the world is 6000 years old.

Anyway, it is fashionable to position science as diametrically opposed to religion. Science is supposedly anti-religion. It's one or the other. Either you believe science or you believe religion. I do not think this is reasonable. You can believe both, you can believe neither, or you can believe parts of both.

People's beliefs are not always logical. They can hold conflicting beliefs, without having to resolve every single conflict. They will just tell themselves that perhaps they do not understand either well enough, and just "temporarily" put the conflict aside. "Temporary" is in quotes because the frequently do not go back to it later.

You also cannot argue people out of their beliefs by pure raw logic alone. If you consider your father an honourable man who never lies, when presented with actual evidence that he has lied, you will not start calling him a liar. You will simply make up an excuse to explain away that one instance. Perhaps he did it to spare someone's feelings. So he was actually being kind ... This is why pointing out conflicts between science and the bible (or within the bible itself) will not turn a strong christian into an atheist.

Yes, some people believe in telekinesis. That does not mean ALL people believe in telekinesis. If the fraction who does not is changing, that shows there is change. But I do not agree that simple believe or disbelieve in telekinesis shows a greater or lesser understanding of science. You will have to ask each person why they believe or disbelieve telekinesis is possible or not possible. Their answer will show how much science they understand. If you ask a person who do not believe in telekinesis, and the best he can come up with is "it's not scientific", this is hardly any better than the person who believes, but cannot explain why. They both show an equal lack of understanding.

Anyway, the average person today definitely knows more science than the average person of 200 years ago. It might be still very shallow, but it is certainly an improvement.

Scientific evidence today shows that the earth is probably a lot older than 6000 years old. But everything in science is provisional. It is true until a better theory comes along. We should also not close our mind to things we do not yet understand. For an example, I point you at the direction of the moon. In the middle ages, scientific theory as it stood then says that celestial objects are perfect and without blemish. Yet, you and I can look at the moon today and see that it is definitely not perfect. We do not need telescopes. 600 years ago, without all the pollution, the view would have been clearer.

When there is disagreement between theory and actual observation, do you disbelieve your observation or amend your theory? The strongest argument against homeopathy is not a scientific explanation of why it wouldn't work. It is actual observation. Proof (or the lack thereof) of it's efficacy.

That's because the supermarkets are full of dung-free chocolate. The real world is not like that. When all chocolate has dung in it, you're forced to choose.

To "abandon" requires that first they accept it, and then reject it later. My point is they were never with you to begin with.

There is this well know problem about proving negatives. Just because you've never seen a purple cow is not proof that there isn't one in a small farm in a remote village somewhere. Proving that Uri Geller is a fraud is not the same thing as proving that paranormal phenomenons are all fake or impossible. Maybe another person could really do it? We leave the door open, give them the opportunity.

Of course, after a while, people get sick of the negative results and may be reluctant to give their time to listen to yet another claim. But we keep the door open, which is why Steorn's Orbo got so much publicity and money.

IIRC, last year, there were people in Malaysia selling this device that attach to car engines. It uses electricity generated by the car to break water into oxygen and hydrogen, which is later recombined to generate energy. Supposedly, you'll save a percentage of your fuel consumption. This even got on TV. After a while, the whole thing was quietely forgotten.

It is their right to choose what they want to believe in. It is their life. You are counting believers, but I am counting only understanders. If they understand and still do not acknowledge it, I count them amongst the rank of people who understand science. One of *MY* guys.

That's the idealized scientist. But they are people too ...

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "
— Max Planck

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/107032.Max_Planck