I can see why you'd say this. But I'd like to offer this as an alternative explanation (and you don't have to reply, for this is kind of a musing as well):
Modern scientists are punished for 'big picture' thinking. How? Publications and grants, the methods by which scientists are incented, are strictly driving the increasing discretization of scientific disciplines.
Scientists are discredited and scorned if they make declarative statements outside their 'discipline'. Thus, they are dis-incentivized to be broadly educated. This is a fact, and bona fide autodictats w/i science (or any discipline) are rare.
The ignorance of scientists is less a tragedy, and more of an intentional outcome of a cultural decision by cultural decision makers.
It is purposely designed into the system, just like hollywood is very structured, just like the MSM is extremely structured.
I wouldn't be surprised if a manual exists which documents the Cultural Purpose of Credentialing Institutions. Relatively, organizations which produce research, but do NOT also at the same time issue credentials .... virtually non existent. And I think that is by design.
The real product at heart is a 'credentialed' individual, not the research of the supervising scientist. The politics of Credentials are the essence of why 'modern science' is so limited compared to where it could be.
Thus, it is not an accident either when you witness from afar all these seemingly different disciplines result in identical, lock-step, political points of view.
Which makes so many of these evo debates here so suspect to me.
We have self-proclaimed 'conservatives' ardently defending ToE, and ferociously attacking YECs and what not. The party line is that 'we' are hurting the real GOP b/c ordinary folks won't believe what the GOP says b/c Christian creationists sound nutty. Something doesn't make sense regarding this published motive.
We have freeper, self-appointed, angels of "true" right wing thinking swooping down and aggressively attacking the thinking of folks like me - and why? All for the reason of protecting the true ability to 'reason' just so that the GOP itself can be more trustworthy by the 'masses'?
I just don't believe it. Initially, I did. But after the sex stuff, which I initated, came up on the other threads over the last few weeks, and especially the stuff about the movie Dr. Stranglove, which many on the other side cackled about with great hilarity, the issue of false-flagged folks came to mind. The motives of these thoughtful 'right' wingers I am very very suspicious of.
Especially when at least one of them used anti-christ stuff from a Bush-Hating website to defend .... reasonable scientifically-based evolution.
I certainly agree with you about the degradation of science by political and ideological "correctness". The method of recognition and funding fosters a hive mentality and eschews the out-of-the-box thinkers.
If Darwin or Einstein had to meet today's criteria of peer review to be published they would probably have failed as have a number of Nobel prize winners since their day. Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
I also agree that there is little tolerance around here among parties when one side or the other - or both - are making an argument with theological import. And I assert that atheism is a religion, too and would thus include its proponents among those who can become brutal or become brutalized.
IMHO, there are only two solutions - either (a) ignore the provocations and junk posts or (b) forgive them and respond with patience and loving kindness.