I quite enjoyed reading your blog post; and “Almighty science?”. I think they’re both reasonably balanced and I didn’t think Belz was condescending or promoting a cynical view of science.
This is a loaded question. It suggests people are skeptical, or not, of science as a whole; if you’re skeptical about one scientific theory then you’re skeptical about science. But science is field composed of many parts and people can be skeptical about parts, and to different degrees, while being quite confident in other parts of science. You don’t need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I have lived through several changes in dietary advice from scientists and while when younger I eagerly embraced the latest advice I now am somewhat skeptical to the latest pronouncements. I won’t be in the least surprised if dietary advice changes again in the near future.
One distinction that is sometimes made is between operational and historical science. Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
Operational science gives us air travel, computers, colour television, safe bridges (mostly) and many other benefits. Laws and experiments are appropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.
Indeed it is scientifically healthy to be skeptical. Any scientific theory should in principal be open to questioning, review, and if found wanting, discarded. The history of science is littered with discarded theories.
Now if you’re really looking for science skeptics go to the post modern SJW’s. Objectivity is “cultural discrimination” (or sexist), Newtonian physics is exploitative, mathematics is a “dehumanizing tool” (if not white privilege), and algebra creates hurdles for disadvantaged groups. And mavericks in science are a problem because they tend to be wealthy, white, and male.