Google for "calories in an ear of corn". It will answer directly: 606 calories, which is wrong. There's no popular vote or underlying conflict, just a falsehood that Google presents as the truth, endowed with their authority. Are you OK with that? What if the question were "how much tylenol is safe?" Getting this stuff wrong has actual consequences.
And the most trusted web page happens to be that page.
That's a great argument about Tylenol, and if those answers have the possibility of being incorrect they should not be shown at all, since an algorithm will determine what is shown. A "sensitive information" classifier could point out "Ask your doctor, etc." on relevant questions.
But what about the consequence of not showing answers about creationism? My statistically average person decides my site sucks and moves to DuckDuckGo, and I've lost a source of revenue. Not good.
One cup of corn is about five ears' worth of kernels.
Google's job is to give us the most relevant results, and as stated in the article, a large part of the US believes in creationism and thus it's relevant to them.
So statistically speaking, you are more likely to want to read that page for that search term.
Google is not a search engine for scientific facts, it is an advertising platform. Who should be the judge of what type of information is presented? You? How about we put it to a vote? That vote has happened, and these are the results.