This is just what I like to call the “flat earth” principle, based on an essay by Isaac Asimov called “The Relativity of Wrong.”
I live on the island of Montreal. It’s a rather large island, throughly developed, and only rarely (say, once every 2 months) do I find myself leaving it. If I were convinced the Earth was flat, how significant an error would that be?
Remember, I’m asking how significant the error would be. If I spent the rest of my life on this island, never planning any lengthy trips, never needing to navigate using maps or stars or GPS, what practical difference does it make to me if the Earth is round or not? If my life changes, though, and I do have to make long trips, I’ll have to accept the Earth is round if I expect to use maps with any accuracy, and if I expect to understand time zones and whatnot.
Now, in my day-to-day life, how important is it that I understand all the laws of physics as described my modern scientists? It isn’t, really. I keep track of the ones I need, involving electricity, because I work with electronic devices and have to be aware of the risks involved. Knowledge of atomic theory isn’t required for my day-to-day life, but if I started working with radioactive substances, my long-term survival may depend on me learning the appropriate theories and procedures.
This pattern is always going to be true: a lay person knows as much “science” as is required for their day-to-day routine. If they know less, relying on instinct or good luck, they will perform their routine badly or dangerously. Whole speheres outside that day-to-day routine exist, but are functionally irrelevant. Inaccurate beliefs about these fields is neither fatal nor important. The point of science teaching in elementary and high schools is not to give a student extensive knowledge of ideas they will never apply (as often may seem the case to a student who wonders if this class on valences will ever be useful) but to impress upon that student that other fields of science do exist and if you ever need them, you will have some idea how to reacquaint yourself with them.
The idea that science is concealed from the so-called “common man” is ludicrous. If the common man can read, very little is hidden from view. Every school has a library and every town has a school. Someone who believes that scientists are deliberately concealing knowledge to preserve their own position should have the argument turned back on them: what do you do for a living? Is it skilled labour? Could a person with no prior knowledge of what you do walk in off the street and replace you? Does what you do require years of training and/or experience? The scientist is in the same position. If a lay person wants to know everything a scientist knows, that person must be prepared to dedicate years of study, as the scientist did. You can forego the years of study and take advantage of the scientist’s final discoveries, if you like, but then it becomes important to know what scientist to listen to. You will presumably want the one whose theories have been supported by the greatest amount of evidence, and whose theories have been thoroughly examined and challenged by other scientists to find any flaws or omissions.
A religion requires you to take certain concepts as fact on pure faith, believing them though no evidence can be presented. Science also offers up certain concepts as fact, but things that are accepted as true without some damn good evidence are extremely rare. Not all scientists believe in Big Bang theory, but if they (or you) study the ongoing debate, there is some evidence supporting the theory and no real evidence contradicting it. The scientist who finds solid contradictory evidence can become famous, so there is a strong impetus to do so, despite claims that scientists are dogmatic and unwilling to accept contradiction. Big Bang theory itself is less than a century old, and it has risen to prominence because it provides a (mostly) satisfactory explanation for an expanding universe and no-one has yet discovered anything that thoroughly undermines it.
If any scientist wanted to challenge Big Bang theory or any other theory (and fields that are blindly accepted are extremely rare, again because the person who demolishes an existing theory and replaces it with something else has a sure ticket to fame), they will be subject to peer review. Challenging an existing and accepted theory requires some damn good evidence and science has inertia, only moving when it has to. Nevertheless, it does move.