Question 56 – Why do most people believe in evolution?
If there are strong arguments pointing to the scientifically unsustainable basis of the theory of evolution, why do the majority of scientists accept this theory so uncritically? How is it that so many intelligent minds champion and teach what are perceived as fairy tales and falsehoods? Surely, it can't be that so many scientists are simply mistaken, many might ponder.
I must confess that this question puzzled me as well. However, when you listen to the life stories of scientists who once defended evolution but later rejected it, you discover some intriguing observations. Often, we can peek behind the curtain of their thinking and learn what led them to believe in this theory. We learn about the atmosphere (and sometimes fear) that prevails behind the scenes in the scientific community. For the general public, the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution is logical – we are systematically indoctrinated with it at every turn. There seems to be no documentary on nature that is not closely linked to evolutionary interpretation. In schools, we are taught in the same vein, and when looking at the scientific community, the layperson dares not meaningfully oppose and assumes that "those smart gentlemen" must be right. But what about the scientists themselves? Why do they believe in evolution when scientific facts often contradict it? I believe that even here, a black-and-white and straightforward answer cannot be provided. Numerous factors often play a role, and it is challenging to determine which one has a greater or lesser share in this worldwide scientific disorientation. I will attempt to briefly outline a few of them.
1) Liberation to Be Our Own God
"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that." – Thomas Nagel, philosopher [49]
In simple terms – many people (not just scientists) have rejected God, His authority, and His claims. Ultimately, they want to be their own god. Evolutionary explanations provide people with an escape from responsibility, understood internally (God-given conscience). This conclusion is sometimes openly admitted even by proponents of evolution themselves. For example, the confession of Aldous Huxley, an atheist and supporter of evolution, in his article "Confession of a Confessed Atheist" states:
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, I assumed it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." [50]
Yes, let us do as we please. Let us live as we like. Let us be swayed by our desires and instincts, and let no one have the right to interfere in our lives. I believe this mindset is one of the crucial psychological motives leading to various forms of disbelief (especially under the label "science"). Biochemist Michael Behe said about it:
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day." [3]
Besides, the idea of the theory of evolution serves as an anchor for many, whose abandonment would be painful, humbling, and radical. For understandable reasons (perhaps often subconsciously), they avoid this — despite the evidence that undermines their belief. I don't know, maybe they fear losing control. Biochemist Dr. Hans Gaffron said about chemical evolution:
"No shred of evidence, no single fact whatever, forces us to believe in it. What exists is only the scientists' wish not to admit a discontinuity in nature and not to assume a creative act forever beyond comprehension." [16]
2) Persecution of Believing Scientists
One of the strongest reasons why there appears to be so much support for the theory of evolution among scientists is the existence of powerful and systematic opposition suppressing all counterarguments. Numerous instances exist where scientists were dismissed from universities, had their grants revoked, or were ridiculed for criticizing the theory of evolution or its specific aspects — essentially ousted from professional circles, their careers destroyed. Many scientists thus simply fear publicly expressing their doubts. When the mainstream scientific community sets a standard (albeit incorrect) that "evolution is a proven fact, and those who question it are ignorant and backward," few dare to confront this view and risk trouble. Molecular biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells commented on this topic:
"Critics are then labeled unscientific; their articles are rejected by mainstream journals, whose editorial boards are dominated by the dogmatists; the critics are denied funding by government agencies, who send grant proposals to the dogmatists for 'peer' review; and eventually the critics are hounded out of the scientific community altogether. In the process, evidence against the Darwinian view simply disappears, like witnesses against the Mob. Or the evidence is buried in specialized publications, where only a dedicated researcher can find it. Once critics have been silenced and counter-evidence has been buried, the dogmatists announce that there is no scientific debate about their theory, and no evidence against it. Using such tactics, defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy have managed to establish a near-monopoly over research grants, faculty appointments, and peer-reviewed journals in the United States." [27]
Many scientists testify that even their (albeit non-believing) colleagues doubt many aspects of the theory of evolution (or the whole), yet they do not publicly express such views. Wells adds:
"The truth is that a surprising number of biologists quietly doubt or reject some of the grander claims of Darwinian evolution. But—at least in America—they must keep their mouths shut or risk condemnation, marginalization, and eventual expulsion from the scientific community. This happens infrequently, but often enough to remind everyone that the risk is real." [27]
The Nobel Prize laureate Sir Fred Hoyle said:
"Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run against a paradigm and the editors will turn it down."
It is worth watching the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (2008), which highlights several cases of persecution of scientists who stood against evolutionary theory in some manner.
Thus, it can be concluded that the theory of evolution isn't supported by an overwhelming scientific community majority as it might initially appear. If there were no pressure and persecution and if there were genuine freedom of opinion, we might be surprised at how this popular theory truly stands among scientists.
Strong Indoctrination and Deception
Another equally important factor in answering our question is that the monopoly on the educational system is in the hands of evolutionary materialists. Textbooks are written by proponents of evolution. What happens to any student who wants to gain a professional education in the field of natural sciences? From primary school, through secondary school, to all levels of higher education, they are systematically and continually bombarded with statements like "evolution is an indisputable fact," and rarely are any objections against it presented. The theory of evolution is thus presented as truth, and any significant criticism is often systematically suppressed and ridiculed (see the previous point). Dr. Zillmer, nominated as International Scientist of the Year 2002, cites numerous examples of manipulation or concealment of inconvenient information in his book "Evolution – The Fraud of the Century." He describes this situation as follows:
"There is a filter in science that sieves out undesirable material. This filtering of knowledge has been happening since the late 19th century and continues to this day. Findings contrary to established scientific opinions are rejected without thoroughly investigating the material of the find. Once it becomes known in the scientific community that a specific finding is considered non-serious, most scientists find it sufficient to dismiss the dubious material further. Then it is veiled in silence. Young scientists don't even hear about the existence of controversial theories or finds in stark opposition to prevailing views and believe — are intensely convinced — that they have learned everything necessary from university tomes..." and further "Scientists who present explosive evidence and wish to discuss it are labeled as untrustworthy, blocked from pursuing a professional career, or even suspended." [28]
In practice, this might appear such that scientists acquire a specific specialization in their field, where they may not see any irrefutable evidence for evolution, yet they assume evolution is true because "everyone else says so," relying on the assumption that colleagues from other fields possess the evidence. Wells affirms this with an example:
"A few years ago, Berkeley law professor and Darwin critic Phillip E. Johnson was discussing evolution with a well-known cell biologist. The biologist insisted that Darwinian evolution is generally true, but acknowledged that it could not explain the origin of the cell. 'Has it occurred to you,' Johnson said, 'that the cell is the only thing you know anything about?" [27]
In the book "The Twilight of Evolution," Dr. Morris once noted an idea that many creationist scientists still confirm today:
"The most remarkable paradox of modern scientism is that the system of evolution could ever have obtained such nearly universal acceptance while being so utterly devoid of any genuine scientific basis.Having discussed this subject with hundreds of people, I am convinced that the main reason educated people believe in evolution is simply that they were told that most educated people believe in evolution! Rarely can such a person do more than repeat a few clichéd "proofs of evolution," and hardly ever have genuinely considered what it all truly entails." [50]
Let us conclude with a comment from prominent anti-creationist philosopher Michael Ruse:
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." [51]
Summation
The theory of evolution has gained universal acceptance for various reasons. One of these is strong indoctrination involving the repetition of unproven and speculative conclusions falsely presented as proven facts. Other reasons may include the persecution of opponents, moral liberation from sexual and other rules, and so on.