For about the thousandth time in a row (with the possible exception of Robert Gentry's Polonium Halos) there was nothing there but smoke.
As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."
That was one of his two arguments. The other was just as weak. Here's the response I wrote on his blog:
What's true is that if all scientists agree on a theory, then it's very, very likely to be scientifically accurate.
Imagine if …
… you could build a professional Web site and drive thousands of warm, targeted, open-to-buy visitors to it, every day? Now imagine doing it …
- all by yourself, regardless of subject or business
- with a simple all-tools-in-one-place process
- for less than a dollar a day.
You can make this happen …
(One of my web sites gets over 400 visits per day and is still increasing. I've never been able to get close to that kind of readership on my own, which is why I'm excited enough to create and publish this ad.)
Scientists are a large and diverse group of people, from young earth creationists like John Baumgardner to outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins. Their specialties vary, and their general knowledge of their specialties vary.
As a result, their biases vary, too.
For a scientific theory to gain acceptance, it has to make predictions and have those predictions tested over and over. Each time a prediction is tested, the method and results of the test has to be published in a journal that scientists of that specialty read.
This allows other scientists to reproduce the experiment and verify or falsify the conclusion.
The only way you are going to get almost all scientists agree is if you have excellent evidence and excellent reasoning from that evidence that silences all or almost all opposition.
And there will be opposition. The fact is, any scientist who could prove that evolution could not have happened would be gloriously rich and famous. Sure, he might face opposition and even harrassment at the outset, but in the end, he's going to be rich, famous, respected, and honored.
Anti-evolutionists have not been able to do this. I've been looking for a good, strong anti-evolution argument for 15 years—and I'm a committed Christian, a member of a Christian community, a part-time missionary, and a full-time Bible teacher.
I can answer, easily and in language laymen can understand, almost all the arguments presented by ICR, AiG, and others against evolution. It's not even very hard.
That's why scientists agree evolution is true. They agree because the evidence is extremely convincing. That's the only reason that almost all scientists agree on a theory, and it's also the reason that their agreement will usually turn out to be scientific truth.
Basically, unless you're extremely biased against evolution, the discovery of DNA basically put the nail in the coffin of arguments against evolution. There was the mechanism. Change the DNA in the cell—and we know it changes through mutation—and you can turn any living cell into any other living cell. Simple as that.
Combined with the order of fossils in the earth, the consistent geographical location of those fossils and their relation to living creatures, there's really no argument against evolution left.
As a result scientist agree, and as a result—of the evidence that made them agree, no as a result of their agreement—the idea of evolution is almost certainly scientifically true.
Post a Comment
Feel free to comment, and I'll even let links be posted, particularly on the subject of evolution from either side. No spam, and no pointless links. The comments are moderated.