Because most of them have an agenda (and, no, truth is not the agenda). The agenda is usually tied to things like continued funding and anything which will help them get tenure.
The Myth of Objectivity is a very interesting subject on which to speculate.
You are so far off I don't know where to begin.
Most scientists are lab rats and don't even know you exist. There is no agenda. They want only to see what is around the next bend in the trail (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor).
In my graduate training (half of which was evolution and related subjects) there was no agenda. There was only "figure out what happened." "How did we get from there to here?"
On these threads I have found those with the agenda are coming from creationism and are determined to shout down scientists who may come up with facts and theories that they do not approve of--for religious reasons.
Where is the "Objectivity" now?
"Most scientists are lab rats and don't even know you exist. There is no agenda. They want only to see what is around the next bend in the trail (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor)."
As I said, the agenda has to do with funding and tenure. For example, ever heard of global warming? That's an idea in search of funding if ever there were one. I have no idea whether you personally have an agenda or not, but there are many high-profile scientists who do. That should help answer your question about antipathy toward scientists.
"You are so far off I don't know where to begin."
Allow me to explain further. Human beings don't really possess the ability to be objective when they have a vested interest in an outcome. That's why people get counsel (i.e., financial counsel) from people who can remain detached and objective.