99% of scientists believe in Evolution, therefore we should too, right? Well, no. Science isn't a democracy. Scientists have been quite horribly wrong in the past, and these errors have only been corrected by the 1% who, though a minority in their time, were quite right to swim against the current.
Take, for example, Galileo Galilei. In his time, there were two main models of the solar system: geocentrism and the tychonic system, both of which stated that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. Galileo, and his predecessor, Copernicus, by contrast, proposed that the Earth actually orbits the sun.
Despite scientific consensus being that the Earth is the centre of the universe with everything orbiting it, we now know that Galileo was right. The sun is the centre of our solar system, and the Earth orbits it, with the moon orbiting us.
Another example occurred in 1921, when Theophilus Shickel Painter announced that humans have 48 chromosomes. We now know that we only have 46, however it was 30 years before scientific consensus finally caught up with this fact. Textbooks from the time even show photographs of the 23 pairs of chromosomes, yet the captions still confidently asserted that there were 24.
In Galileo's day, scientists weren't dishonest, they just couldn't see that they were wrong. Their observational power was limited by the absence of any substantial technology. Keep in mind that Galileo may have actually seen Neptune before its official discovery in 1846, however he thought it was a star, his telescope was that weak. So it's understandable that in the 17th century, Galileo would be a minority. Similarly, in 1921, scientists admittedly didn't dare question Painter's obvious mistake, but that seems to be more out of respect for his intellect. To my knowledge, disagreement with him wasn't seen as a thought crime, and no one faked anything to try to vindicate him.
By contrast, there is a far more sinister reason for the large number of scientists who believe in Evolution. Evolution's history is riddled with fakes, many of which still show up in modern textbooks. Ernst Haeckel's theory of embryonic recapitulation, for example, was proven to be a fraud almost as soon as Haeckel faked the drawings of those embryos. Haeckel confessed, though he blamed someone else, and he died in 1919. Yet as I originally wrote this article, I had a testimony from a man who was taught this fraud as fact in 1960 right in front of me. I have seen examples from much more recently of students being taught it as well. This is just one fraud that was disproven in the 19th century, but is still being taught as fact in the 21st.
As well as blatant fakes lining Evolution's history, and the indoctrination 99% of scientists will have endured during their childhood long before they even got into science, Evolution is so cultish that it's actually quite difficult to disagree with it, even intellectually. There are two sides to this: those so entreched in Evolution that no amount of evidence can convince them it's not true, and those who aren't so convinced, but are afraid to voice their dissent lest they incur the wrath of Darwinian minions.
An example of the first is Mary Schweitzer, an Evolutionist who discovered one of the most famous evidences against Evolution. Schweitzer discovered soft tissue in tyrannosaurus bones, and described it as "exactly like looking at modern bone". (1) This should be enough to convince her that Evolution is false, or at least that dinosaurs fit into it differently, but aside from her being told she couldn't possibly have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones (i.e. cult-like Evolutionists firmly denied the observational evidence because it strongly suggests their religion is wrong), Schweitzer herself asked how it could be possible. After all, the bones are millions of years old, right? At least, in Schweitzer's view. Evolutionists come up with a range of whacky stories about how the soft tissue could possibly be that old, but they're all just ad hoc stories which don't hold up to scrutiny.
The latter is just as common. As Stuart Burgess testified in a debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, "I find that many of my colleagues in academia are sympathetic to the creationist viewpoint, including biologists. However they are often afraid to speak out because of the criticisms they would get from the media and atheist lobby". (2) The documentary "Expelled" shows exactly how realistic these fears are. Producer Walt Ruloff stated that he was stunned "by both the arrogance and brutality of the Darwinist establishment, and the lack of solid scientific evidence for their views". And for good reason, as the documentary explores several cases of honest academics whose reputations and careers were destroyed simply for going slightly against the grain of Evolution.
Biologist Richard Sternberg, for example, was the victim of a smear campaign designed to intimidate him and get him fired. His crime? He allowed a peer reviewed research paper to be published in the scientific journal "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington", which described the evidence for intelligent design. The backlash against Sternberg was so vile, including threats, insults and even deliberate attempts to create a hostile work environment to make him want to resign, that it actually gained the attention of the Office of Special Counsel, a group that investigates cases of federal employees who have been unfairly treated or dismissed. (3)
Sternberg's case is just one of several described in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which is just a handful of many more cases not covered by the documentary. Long story short, Evolutionists can be a vicious bunch when it comes to dissent. Creationists aren't fighting an intellectual war, but a spiritual one. One not based on evidence for Evolution, but on intolerance against dissent. One that doesn't rely on reason to defend Darwinism, but on sectarian attacks against anyone who so much as hints at a less than 100% dedication to the gospel of the monkey men. And of course, what else can we expect from those who believe they are nothing more than intelligent apes? No God, no ethics.
So about that 99% of scientists...
Majority opinion, even when based on honest mistakes, can often be wrong. That has been the case since science began, with the majority of scientists believing one thing before a small minority, or even a single individual, proves the reigning paradigm wrong. But Evolution is not an honest mistake. Its acceptance is based largely on fraud, indoctrination, brainwashing and even Stalinist censorship tactics. While incomplete evidence leads to false beliefs which are soon put to rest by new evidence, Evolution has gasped and died a thousand times, only to come back as a mutated monster more immune to evidence than it was before. The 1% of scientists who reject it, regardless of how accurate that number is, ought to rest safe in the knowledge that they are correct, and that their view is based more on the evidence than on the false opinions of the elite.
References
1. Schweitzer, Mary - Montana State University Museum of the Rockies; cited on p. 160 of V. Morell, ‘Dino DNA: The hunt and the hype’, Science 261(5118):160–162, 9 July 1993
2. Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's scientific era? (link)
3. Sheppard, Pam - The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy, Cast doubt on Darwin, get cast out, creation.com, August 22 2005 (link)