This article was originally written for Question Evolution Day 2020.
By far the most common reason given for believing Evolution is that 99% of scientists (a highly exaggerated figure) believe in it too. This argument is fallacious enough on its own, but it becomes so much worse when you look deeper into why belief in Evolution seems so prevalent among scientists.
The first thing to note is that it is so prevalent among people in general, because they are raised with the idea. Even the most capable scientists start off as children, and what you teach children in their youth becomes hard to unteach them when they are old. No scientist comes to believe in Evolution based on evidence, and in fact evidence, more often than not, is how they become liberated from the idea.
At the risk of making one of Dawkins' more prominent fallacies, if a scientist is raised in a particular region, that same scientist may believe the Qur'an is full of scientific miracles. This is a common argument Muslims make for the truth of the Qur'an. So, let's imagine Islam becomes the dominant religion worldwide, the schools start teaching it, it becomes the dominant claim in the media, and suddenly, 99% of scientists believe the Qur'an is the world's most scientifically accurate book. Would this be a valid argument in favor of the Qur'an? No, it would prove that at least one generation was raised to believe the Qur'an, and some of them grew up to become scientists. They carried their beliefs with them into their career.
In like fashion, Evolution is drummed into children almost as soon as they are able to speak. It's not like the moment you become a scientist, you become a perfectly objective robot. No, you have thoughts, you have feelings, you have biases, and yes, you do carry your beliefs into your scientific career, and so of course you're going to find a lot of Evolutionists in science. You'll find a lot of Evolutionists on a bus, never mind a lab or an observatory.
But what's worse than the way Evolution gains followers is the way it keeps followers. My friends, the wrath of an atheist mob is a scary thing. Some people, like me, are lucky. I have nothing riding on my beliefs, and so the worst I have to deal with is some snotty brat calling me horrible names on the internet. But atheist trolls are not confined to their mom's basements. Some of them are in positions of power or influence, and unfortunately, this is especially the case within the scientific community. In the scientific community, there is heavy pressure to either accept Evolution, or at the very least not say anything negative about it/positive about alternatives. To quote Dr. Stuart Burgess, "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". (1)
This fear is not unfounded. I challenge you to name just one Bible believing scientist, no matter how qualified, no matter their achievements, who isn't ridiculed viciously by atheists. The more outspoken they are, the more undeserved ridicule they receive. It's like the jester joke in reverse. In the king's court, the jester is the only one who is allowed to tell the truth about the king. In the Evolutionist court, the only ones who tell the truth about king Evolution are labelled jesters.
And this isn't limited to just Creationists. Agnostics also fall under heavy attack if they dare to criticise Evolution, or even just allow it to be criticised. 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. Though an agnostic, he was described as a "closet Bible thumper".
But let's suppose he was. Why would he have to remain in the closet? If that's the treatment he received when people assumed he was secretly reading the Bible (oh what a horrible crime), what would have happened to him if he'd come out and said "well actually, I've examined the evidence, and come to the conclusion that Genesis provides an accurate history of the earth"? We see, then, how legitimate the fear is of the media and the atheist lobby. If you are a scientist, but you do not accept Evolution, you either shut up, or get shut down.
When a religion makes itself so immune to criticism that there are real world consequences for failure to adequately support it, it's really not surprising that people are hesitant to criticise it. But one has to wonder how things would be if that immunity was removed. If scientists weren't so scared of ridicule, if scientists were allowed to question Evolution, if scientists were even allowed to express their sympathy for Creationism, would it be even remotely possible to pretend 99% of scientists believe in Evolution? I think it is far more likely that within just one year, Evolution would fall very quickly into disrepute in the scientific community. If we removed the fear and dread of the atheist lobby and put Evolution on an even playing field, it would soon be shown to be the fraud it is.
References
1. Burgess, Stuart - Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham - Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's scientific era? (link)