I find it ironic when Evolutionists claim Christianity is a blind faith whose adherents cannot think for themselves only for those same Evolutionists to use the all too common argument that Evolution is true because 99% of scientists believe in it.
Citing the large number of scientists who believe in Evolution (which is not actually 99%) is a combination of the ad populum (argument from popular opinion) and the ad verecundiam (argument from authority) fallacies. The belief of many scientists does not determine, or even indicate truth. In order to claim it does, Evolutionists must make one of two insane claims:
1. Before 1543, the Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around it. Then, in 1610, the sun magically stopped in one place and the planets, including our own, started orbiting it instead. This, of course, is a very extreme view. Science doesn’t change when scientific consensus changes. It’s just that scientific consensus is often wrong.
2. Even though Aristotle’s geocentric model has always been 100% wrong, the people living before 1543 should have believed the geocentric model, and Copernicus should not have suggested otherwise. This view is almost as extreme as the previous view. To suggest that false views should be accepted just because they’re scientific consensus is intellectually dishonest, and to further claim that scientific consensus should never be questioned would hinder science.
Yet the second claim is exactly what the argument from scientific consensus implies. Saying we must believe in Evolution because almost all scientists believe in Evolution is exactly as daft as saying Copernicus should never have proposed the heliocentric model, and Galileo should never have attempted (successfully) to prove it. In order to be even potentially scientific, Evolution must be questioned. The problem is, scientific inquiry is to Evolution what a pack of wolves is to a baby goat. The poor goat will not be alive at the end of the day.
When Evolutionists bring up consensus, the simple response is to ask "how do you know they're right?" This takes Evolutionists out of their comfort zone, and forces them to do something they don't particularly like doing: Present evidence for Evolution. What you will often find is that the Evolutionist in question hasn't done much critical examination of Evolution, if any. At best, they will have swallowed whatever they were spoon fed in school, or they will regurgitate cliched and easily refuted arguments that can be found with a 5 second Google search.