Science is not a Democracy
Updated: Nov 3, 2019
Time and time again, dissenting or opposing views in science are shamed and silenced with ridiculous arguments like "97% of scientists agree..." But there are several issues with such arguments. First, the number of scientists presented that "agree" is usually greatly inflated in order to appear much more conclusive and definitive. Secondly, the histories of science is riddled with theories that at one time were generally agreed upon and were later found out to be utterly incorrect and thirdly, the physical universe doesn't conform to consensus. Just because the majority of scientists agree on something doesn't mean it's actually true- democracy doesn't dictate reality.
In climate science, the 97% figure is paraded around all the time despite several investigations (see here, here and here) into that number proving it was created using cherry-picked and often even false data. A more reliable study has shown the number of climate scientists who believe in AGW to be more around 52% and only 37% of professional forecasters hold the view. But AGW proponents still like to use the fraudulent number to bully and intimidate those who dare to question the current scientific dogma. This is also the case with another scientific religion- macroevolution. When actual empirical evidence cannot be presented, adherents simply invoke democratic rule to defend their pet theory against skepticism. This argument is of course the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, but logic is often a victim in these debates, so it's par for the course.
The reality is that both Anthropogenic Global Warming and macroevolution lack any empirical evidence to justify their existence and neither have models with any degree of predictive accuracy. They are however the status quo in the scientific community and there is a great deal of pressure on scientists to publish data that supports those narratives. H.S. Lipson, a professor of physics at the University of Manchester once said, "In fact evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." ("A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol 31, May, 1980, p. 138). The issue is funding- most scientific studies are made possible via grants which have a tendency to be granted to mainstream or politically expedient views. Want to fund research investigating the possibility of intelligent design? Good luck securing a grant for that. If you do manage to secure a private grant through an institute with an open mind or biblical leanings, the next challenge will be actually publishing your results in a scientific journal- it will most likely be rejected by the editors who have simply assumed that macroevolution is a fact. To that notion, Dr. T.N. Tahmisian of the US Atomic Energy Commission said, "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."
So let's stop falling for the appeal to authority fallacy and stop assuming science has proven certain things to be fact. Dare to question, think critically and actually investigate claims. Because if you don't, chances are you'll be duped into the fickle popular opinions of "experts" rather than standing firm on biblical truth. As the famous philosopher Malcom Muggeridge once said, "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the greatest jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."