On January 17th 2003, Michael Crichton gave a speech at the California Institute of Technology, in which he utterly demolished the lazy and deceptive debate method of appealing to consensus. He made several powerful statements, including "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." This, he followed up with "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right", and "Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough."
Although this is the kind of thing you would expect to hear from a Creationist, Michael Crichton sadly carried his Evolutionist views to the judgement seat of God in 2008. Nevertheless, it can be hoped the words he left behind will help direct others off his fatal path.
See, consensus is, without any form of competition, the most common argument for Evolution. "99% of scientists accept Evolution." "All those scientists can't be wrong." "Why would they all give their lives to a lie?" But how do you know they're right? As Crichton said, science requires only one investigator who happens to be right. Galileo is an obvious example, being famous for challenging the consensus of his day. He was vindicated, and we know a lot of what we know about astronomy to this man.
Time would fail us to go through all the examples, both before and since, of when consensus has been incorrect. It would also fail us to list the large number of times wherein Evolutionary dogmas have been challenged and overturned by researchers who were not content to obey the orders of the magisterium.
My go-to example is the discovery of Synergistes Jonesii, a bacteria that allows ruminants, such as goats and cattle, to digest an otherwise toxic shrub called leucaena. Because of its toxicity, Australian livestock would eat it and get sick. However, a goat population in Hawaii was notably able to eat it without getting sick. Thus, Dr. Raymond Jones suggested there was a difference in the bacteria in their rumen. For this, he faced heavy criticism and opposition, and was even forced to self-fund his research. But he was vindicated through this research, as he was proven absolutely correct. Australian livestock are now able to eat the shrub as easily as the Hawaiian goats.
When asked the question "How would you react to people who say that evolution must be right because most scientists agree with it?", Jones replied "I don’t think it’s very sensible to say that. Major breakthroughs in science often occur when people don’t believe what the rest believe. Science progresses as new ideas replace old ones. It’s the radicals who often make the breakthroughs." Being among the alleged 1% of scientists who reject Evolution, favoring the Biblical 6 day history, it is all too easy for Evolutionists to dismiss him as a scientist. But you can't argue with results.
Or rather, you shouldn't argue with results. Unfortunately, as humans lack omniscience, we are stuck with the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". We are, sadly, incapable of proving our beliefs beyond unreasonable doubt. It is absolutely unreasonable to appeal to consensus, as that is actually circular reasoning. You are expecting people to believe an idea is consensus because it is true, yet your way of showing it is true is that it is consensus. How does that make any sense?
Furthermore, how does it allow for any real progress? The argument from consensus is the absolute antithesis of science. Science has never submitted to human authority, because human authority is significantly more fragile than objective truth. Science is the pursuit of truth. But the argument from consensus blocks that pursuit with the assertion that we already have it. "Forget new evidence. Forget repeatable results. The majority of scientists believe the sun revolves around the Earth, so you need to shut up, you faithless heretic".
The argument from consensus is exactly as weak in defence of Evolution as in defence of the geocentric model. But Evolutionists must continue to appeal to it, because while it is weak in logic, it is not weak in the heart of the people. As a species, we desire to fit in, and do not like to feel alone. Thus, we can be manipulated into believing certain things if we're told all the smart people believe it too.
But can Evolution actually produce the results required for it to merit consensus status? In truth, no. The evidence consistently and reliably opposes Evolution. The evidence they need is missing, the evidence they present often gets refuted later on, they often resort to fraud, their predictions fail miserably. By contrast, there are huge amounts of evidence for the Christian faith.
The evidence is even more in Christianity's favor when you stray from science and look, instead, to history. From there, not only do we see things like dragon legends, which strongly suggest man did live contemporaneously with dinosaurs, but also we see the strength of Jesus' claims to be the Creator God.
I'm willing to say, with absolute confidence, that Evolution stands or falls on the resurrection. If Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead, His claims to be God are authentic, and therefore the fact that He is a die-hard, rise-hard, live-hard Creationist makes Evolution utterly ridiculous. As I like to say, better to believe one man who walked out of His grave than 99% of scientists who are heading to theirs.
Interestingly, science is one area that helps us know Jesus really died. Little details about the crucifixion, such as the water that flowed from his side when he was stabbed by the spear, tell us exactly what happened to Him. I won't go into much depth on that in this article, but I thought it was an interesting side note, helping us to establish that He really did die.
But did He really rise? Ultimately, it is on you to decide how you respond to that question. How true is the testimony of those who, under threat of death, testified that they had seen Him alive? How likely is the alternative explanation given by His enemies at the time, that the Apostles somehow overwhelmed highly trained Roman guards and stole His body? What could possibly convince Paul, a violent persecutor of Christians, to become a martyr for the faith? It is far more likely that 99% of scientists may, for their own reasons, erroneously accept Darwinian fiction, than that such a diverse group of witnesses would give up their wealth, their freedom, their loved ones, even their very lives, for a lie they could only profit from if it was actually true. So you tell me, is Christ risen? Your eternity depends on you picking the right answer.