Monday, October 8, 2012

Jesus vs. the scientific consensus and evolution - Jesus wins! Charles Darwin loses!

The issue of the scientific consensus and the origins issue recently came up by someone making a comment on one of the articles at our Question Evolution! Campaign blog.

I thought I would conclusively demonstrate that when it comes to  Jesus vs. the scientific consensus and Darwinian evolution - Jesus wins and Charles Darwin loses!

Jesus always triumphs! The Apostle Paul eloquently wrote: "But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and manifests through us the sweet aroma of the knowledge of Him in every place." (2 Corinthians 2:14).

20 thoughts and resources related to the scientific consensus and the evolutionary paradigm:

Below is some information, questions and general observations related to the scientific consensus:

1. Are there cases where the scientific consensus was wrong and the Bible was correct?

See: Lions and the Bible  and Ants and the Bible

2. Are there multiple cases where the consensus of scientists was wrong and the Bible was right or the Bible was ahead of its time? See: The Bible being ahead of its time

3. Did someone recently win a Nobel prize in chemistry after having difficulty getting his work published in peer reviewed science journals?

4. Giving examples from the history of science, please give me notable examples where consensus of scientists was wrong. See also: Some examples of the scientific consensus being wrong

Alchemy was at one time considered to be a reputable scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Roger Bacon, and Gottfried Leibniz. See: Who were the alchemists? and Roger Bacon - Encylopedia Britanica

5. Are there entire fields of academia where the consensus has been wrong for decades which has caused significant problems as of late? Clue: Did the consensus of academics in university economics departments predict the 2008 financial crisis? Economics is part of academia and it is a social science. "The dismal science" is a name for economics created by the historian Thomas Carlyle in the 19th century.

6. Are there downsides of consensus science and when is the scientific consensus of scientific consensus of scientists invoked in a pernicious way?

Dr. Crichton had a career in science and medicine before he became a famous writer.

I quote Crichton:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” Source: Crichton on the scientific consensus
7. What are the main problems and limitations of consensus science?


 Main problems and limitations of the scientific consensus

 A significant problem related to peer-review

Scientific breakthroughs and breakthroughs in other fields are often the result of being a creative contrarian and not being slavishly obedient to the consensus.I have had instances where I have done things novel in a field of human endeavor and had breakthroughs. Have you? If you have not, perhaps you should be less of a slavish conformist and be less ruled by consensus.

8. 700 scientists have joined the ranks of scientists from around the world publicly stating their doubts about the adequacy of Darwin's theory of evolution.

See: 700 scientifsts public dissenting from Darwinism - Discovery Institute List

In although belief in evolution is much higher among those who have been indoctrinated with it in university, there are still over 100,000 scientists (Gallup may have included engineers) worldwide who reject the evolutionary explanation. And this is despite widespread suppression of alternative views and even efforts to deny believers of alternative views positions in academia. See: A Storehouse of Knowledge - Main page and  American scientists and support for evolution vs. creation

The reason I said over 100,000 is due to the widespread persecution of scientists who have dissented from Darwinism documented the movie documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Involved and other sources.  In short, many scientist are less vocal about evolutionism due to not wanting to face persecution from Darwinists.


Expelled: No Intelligence involved

Slaughter of the dissidents

How the Scientific "Consensus" on Evolution is Maintained

Martin Gaskell and the Argument From Scientific "Consensus

9. Medical science extensively uses the biological sciences and medical doctors can oppose evolutionism with less repercussions in terms of  persecution. For example, many doctors have private practices plus an aging Western World population has created a significant demand for doctors (especially in rural areas and for primary cary doctors).

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution.

See: American medical doctors and evolutionary belief - survey

10. Are you claiming that one's worldview has no effect on one's interpretation of the scientific evidence? If so, how do you explain the fact that the Scientific Revolution occurred in Christianized Europe and not elsewhere?


Biblical Christainity and origins of science

The fall and the inspiration of science

False conflict of Christianity vs. science

Christianity and the Scientific Revolution

11. Are various populations holding different worldviews equally honest? Do you think that one's worldview affects one's public stance on issues, including scientific issues?

For example, what are your views on the evolutionist/agnostic Richard Dawkins and the events surrounding the Rabbi Boteach incident? See: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Boteach

What are you view on the various scientific frauds associated with the evolutionary paradigm?

For example, noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote regarding Ernst Haeckel's work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

"Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution... Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology... Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts.... [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!"

Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically".

See: Haeckel's embryos

Ironically, the March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the "celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism." See: New York Times on Ernst Haeckel

Since World War II a majority of the most ardent defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists/agnostics.


12. Please read what Vox Day has to say about science and the issue how self-correcting it is or isn't at Science and self-correction and Other articles on science and self-correction

13. Unreliability of many scientific experiments done by scientists even those that are considered among the group of experiments in the gold standard category of scientific experiments


Unreliability of many scientific experiments

Significant problem of replicability

Poor reliability of much of peer-reviewed scientific research

Virtually every scientific journal and medical journal has recently been humbled by publishing findings that are later discredited.

In his essay, A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready? , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."  See: A paradigm shift: Are we ready?

In a 1991 BMJ (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, David Eddy professor of health policy and management at Duke University, told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all." Source: BMJ (British Medical Journal): Where is the wisdom?
14. Scientists showing very poor knowledge of areas outside their fields even in areas that are important to understand and simple to understand plus the problem with many explanatory models:

Please see:

Scientists showing very poor knowledge of areas outside their fields even in areas that are important to understand and simple to understand

Problem with many explanatory models

Can we trust the experts? - Chapter 13 - God's truth

15. What is scientism and what are some of the notable problems of scientism?  Do many evolutionists hold this illogical false worldview? Do many evolutionists  inordinately rely on the scientific consensus in terms of what is true or untrue?.
see: Scientism and the god of evolution and   Carl Sagan: Prophet of scientism and The trouble with scientism

16. Current scientific community and fraud

Major case of scientific fraud and the current state of the scientific community and fraud

Scientific fraud occurring at a level many scientists don't want to admit

Detected scientific fraud increasing

Schon case

King Solomon wrote: "Many a man proclaims his own loyalty, But who can find a trustworthy man?" (Proverbs 20:6).

17. Physics versus other sciences and the issue of corruption and scientific community:

 Physics vs, other scientific disciplines and corruption within the scientific community
18. We know that believers in biblical creation easily win debates with evolutionists. Around the 1970s, prominent evolutionists lost hundreds of debates at colleges, universities and other public places. As a result, they are now largely afraid to publicly debate. See: Creationists generally win the creation vs. evolution debates

The evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott said:

"During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.

Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate." See: Eugenie Scott and creation vs. evolution debates

(Eugenie Scott is an atheist)

19. Why isn't the appeal to the scientific consensus concerning the evolutionary paradigm illogical?  See: Appeal to authority logical fallacy and Ad populum logical fallacy (bandwagon fallacy)

See also: Evolution is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

20.  Who tends to be more illogical/superstitious?  Bible believers or irreligious and/or liberal evolutionists?

Baylor University did a study showing that irreligious people and theologically liberal people were significantly more superstitious than evangelical Christians. Another study also confirmed this matter. You can read about this matter in the Wall Street Journal article: Look Who's irrational now

Are liberals and the irreligious more likely to believe in evolution. I think we both know the answer to that question, don't we? See: CBS Poll: Evolutionary belief and liberalism

See also: Study: academia really does discriminate against conservatives

The acid test of the storm:  The house built on scientific consensus vs. the house built on the rock

You have seen how tenuous arguments via the scientific consensus often are.  How solid is Christianity? Can Christian withstand close examination?

Jesus said: 
Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.’ - Matthew 7:24-27
For information related to Christianity being true, see: Christianity is true: Evidence, arguments and information and Good news

Related articles

Jesus vs. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers - Jesus wins!

Round 2: Jesus vs. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers - Jesus triumphs again! Onward Christian soldiers!

Question Evolution! campaign and related resources

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15

Refuting evolution

Jesus is the winnaman - Lester Lewis & Singing Rose Ministry


  1. I love the fact that there are no comments. Goes to show how very few people agree with your views. Whoever wrote this article knows nothing about science. Evolution, the greatest show on Earth :)

    1. Alexxmiglia,

      1. See #20 above. Are you familiar with the ad populum logical fallacy? Are you being illogical? Are you making my case that evolutionists often practice illogical "thinking"? If not, why not?

      2. How do you know that I know nothing about science? Did I receive an above average grade in the last science course I took at university/college? Hint: Yes!

      3. Did you know that Creation Ministries International has full time P.h.D scientists on staff? Judging by your comment, I am guessing they know more about science than you!

      4. Is the Question Evolution! blog going to be highly promoted at a key point during the wide dissemination phrase of the Question Evolution! Campaign within the Christian community and the public at large? See: Will this promotion use blog promotion best practices? After the blog is heavily promoted, do you expect there to be more Christian creationist comments or less? If less, why?

      5. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: )
      via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

      If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room:,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at

      If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

  2. "Dr. Crichton had a career in science and medicine before he became a famous writer."

    If you mean Michael Crichton, are you aware that he described creationism as "just wrong"?

    1. Fergus,

      Two points:

      1. How does that in any way invalidate the statements that Crichton made concerning consensus science?

      Just because Crichton is right in one area, does that make him right in all areas? Because I cite someone about one topic, does that mean I have to agree with them about all topics? Are you being logical in your complaint?

      2. Are you aware of the value of hostile witnesses in a court of law? Can hostile witness testimony be one of the best forms of evidences one can have? If not, why not?

      See hostile witnesses and the truth of Christianity:

  3. Wait, so is it good or bad that 700 scientists dissent from 'Darwinism'? That's point 8, but some of your other points make it sound like the fact that a group of world leading experts believe something for well over a century indicates that that belief is inevitably and entirely false.

    BTW, most philosophers of science would not define alchemy as a science and many would also not define economics as science. Excepting Kuhn maybe, whom cultural relativists adore (and I don't get the feeling you are a cultural relativist).

    1. Unknown,

      I don't think you are making much sense in the first part of your comment.

      Second, economics is a social science. Academia considers it a social science and so do authoritative reference works like Webster.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.