I see an analogy here between a "war on psuedoscience" and a "war on terror". Both suffer from terminal definitional confusion, in which the thing you say you're opposed to is not the thing you're attacking.

Attacking individuals whose beliefs are psuedoscientific is as futile as trying to kill off terrorists one by one. They're the symptom, not the cause, and the more of them you kill, the more people are motivated to take their place. I think Bush's concept of a "war on terror" is fatally flawed because he's refusing to address root causes, and defining success lazily, in terms of bodycount. Pursuing a "war on psuedoscience" by attacking individuals is equally fruitless.

Pathologies such as Creationism and "Intelligent" Design arose out of backlash against the perception that science is "imperialistic", i.e., that it was out to destroy religion and take over the world for itself. That's an example of a genuine lie, of course, spread by unscrupulous/fanatic religious leaders to stir up their followers against science (and not coincidentally fill the collection plate--fearmongering works in religion as well as politics). The fact that it's false doesn't mean we don't have to be careful about inadvertently feeding the perception and hardening resistance to science, and thus strengthening psuedoscience.

I think this statement illustrates the crux of the problem:

The scientific method CAN make declarations of fact- it isnt like religion where you can argue and kill people over what person is the true messiah... it isnt like politics where you can argue forever about what is the best philosophy... THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY!

That's a very parochial position, because the statement has power only within the frame of reference of science. People who understand the scientific method and perspective accept it as a given, but outside of science, that position has no more power than any other unsupported assertion. To a religionist, it sounds, in fact, like nothing more than the belief of a competing religion. Everybody's belief system presents itself as The Truth, and just because science's is called "objective reality" doesn't carry any water with nonscientists.

It doesn't work to just demand that people accept science as an article of faith. That position not only has no juice, it's paradoxical within the frame of reference of science. If every proposition has to be proven against rigorous rules of evidence and logic, what in the world makes you think you can convert people to science simply by yelling at them to shut up and calling them names? Why should your "objective reality" get a free pass?

Thus we come back to the topic of this thread: How should science "spread the good news"? Outreach as it's currently conducted mostly comes across as a dog-and-pony show, intended to awe and dazzle the rubes and not coincidentlly maintain political support for science. The weakness is, of course, that everything else in the world these days is sold that way, and the induced emotion of wonder lasts only until the next CGI-laden movie or 30-second TV commercial.

We have to do the hard work of enrolling people in science and providing them with the genuine experience of participation and discovery. What we're taught we forget, but what we practice changes us permanently and becomes incorporated into our personal realities. There's zero energy in telling people to think like scientists. The only thing that works is to give people the experience of thinking like scientists, over and over, until it becomes second nature.

Science will always be embattled as long as it remains aloof from humanity. We win by expanding membership in the club until it's no longer a badge of elitism.

One final thought: Converting the world to the viewpoint of science involves more than explanation, persuasion, and outreach. It also requires setting a good example. A nonscientist might read your anger-filled SCREAMING posts, and think, "jeez, if that's what science does to a person, I don't want to go near it". It may not be "scientifically correct" to choose a belief system based on how it makes you feel, but in fact that's how humans work. Present science as something that's upsetting and makes people mad, and they'll look elsewhere for something to believe in. Get across the idea that science is nourishing for the soul as well as the intellect, and people will flock to our banner.