"Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." - Michael Crichton
The science for Evolution is anything but solid, and so naturally, their go-to argument is usually consensus. Almost all scientists believe in Evolution, and so it must be true. You're stupid (or evil) for even trying to disagree. Some Evolutionists even go as far as to claim that any scientist who does not believe in Evolution, especially if they dare go so far as to trust in the Bible, is not a real scientist. This is a fallacy known as the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Several quick points to remember:
- Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundium) is one of the most basic fallacies you can make, and it is frankly embarrassing that anyone old enough to work behind a till uses it.
- Creationism was actually the consensus before Darwin, and he received more criticism from the scientific community than from the Church (which may actually be why he was such a success). Reality isn't a Democracy, and so just as consensus would have been a bad argument for Creationism, it is a bad argument for Evolutionism.
- The geocentric model was also once consensus, and Galileo was persecuted for testing it, providing another example of when consensus lead to error.
- It took 30 years to correct Theophilus Shickel Painter's incorrect estimation of the number of chromosomes in the human genome (he said 48, the real number is 46) in spite of literal photographic proof that he was wrong. This is a case of when consensus even came about legitimately, but was maintained dishonestly, even despite the lack of philosophical implications.
- Not all scientists work in relevant fields, making them effectively laymen. Their opinion on Evolution is as worthless as someone who never worked in science.
- Scientists who oppose Evolution, particularly for sake of Creationism, are often persecuted, motivating dissenters to keep quiet.
- Evolution is a myth about history; it cannot be scientifically tested. Therefore, if anything, it should be the historians who lead the debate.
- Historians of all religious beliefs are virtually unanimous on the historicity of several aspects of the Bible, particularly some very inconvenient (for atheists) facts about the New Testament, yet these same atheists who argue consensus for Evolution are willing to reject consensus when it suits them.
- It doesn't matter if 99% of experts believe something if the 1% have better arguments. Given that the 99% so often argue based on the fact that they are the 99%, I'd say this, in itself, is evidence that they're probably lacking.
- Consensus science hinders actual science, whereas daring to question established dogma leads to scientific progression. Therefore, arguing from consensus is a good way to ensure we stay stuck with the wrong answer.
- Evolutionists of all professions and educational backgrounds tend to be resistant to evidence, to the point of denying, and even actively censoring any evidence contrary to Evolutionary dogma. Thus, their opinion is less trustworthy than even their opinions of other, less philosophically relevant areas of their fields.
- Even Evolutionary scientists are conveniently dismissed when the things they say are harmful to Evolution. Why trust them on Evolution if we selectively distrust them when it's convenient?
- Consensus, when used as an argument, can trump any amount of evidence of any quality (as shown by the aforementioned Painter fiasco). If consensus overrules evidence, what use is it?
- Biblically speaking, we would expect the "wise men" of any age to be Christianity's most vocal opponents. 99% of Pharisees believed Jesus was a false prophet who was either empowered by the devil, or possessed great skill in magic tricks. That a majority of "experts" are opposed to God is to be expected, and thus cannot be used as an argument against Him.
- The same is true for the human race. Man is opposed to God because of sin, not intellect, and so any random collection of 100 people will naturally contain mostly unbelievers, and even false believers.
All of these facts show that the argument from consensus is embarrassingly weak. When Evolutionists use it, they are telling you everything you need to know about their case. Namely, they are telling you that they have few to no valid arguments in defence of Evolution. These Evolutionists could not argue their way out of a speeding ticket, much less defend the absurd idea that a man and a monkey share any common ancestry. Furthermore, they are revealing that they are no less religious than the Creationists they so frequently call sheep. They are just as incapable of defending their religion, and are accepting it mostly because their preferred authority told them so. Creationism, by contrast, need not appeal to scientific consensus, neither is this even an option available to us. Instead, we appeal to the evidence, which is so compelling that it often converts those who seek to disprove it.
By far the strongest piece of evidence for Creationism is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the human incarnation of the Creator Himself. Needless to say, it is impossible for a dead man to get up and walk, and yet Jesus did exactly this, in front of many witnesses. In my humble opinion, it is infinitely wiser to trust just one man who walked out of his grave than to trust a billion people who are heading to theirs.