Changes

Poll results regarding the amount of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp</ref>  

Poll results regarding the amount of scientists who are skeptical or opposed to the evolutionary view could be underreporting the actual amount of scientists who are skeptical of the evolutionary view or hold the creation science view.  Poll results may not be as precise as they could be as creation science organizations report widespread discrimination against scientists who hold the creation science view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp</ref>  

On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840</ref><ref>http://www.expelledthemovie.com/</ref>  

On April 18, 2008 a film documentary by [[Ben Stein]] entitled ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]!'' was released to the public which documents the [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution|suppression of scientific freedom of scientists who are critical of the evolutionary position]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57840</ref><ref>http://www.expelledthemovie.com/</ref>  

Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.<ref>http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html</ref> In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.

Such suppression is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.<ref>[http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx Scientists and belief]</ref> In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref> Given this state of affairs, a future [[paradigm shift]] from the theory of evolution to a creation science position could be slow given the worldviews of many scientists.

[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]

[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|left|19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]

Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/Text/5d.html</ref> In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."<ref>http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm</ref>  

Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The [[History of science|history of science]] shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, [[bloodletting]] was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s.<ref>http://elane.stanford.edu/wilson/Text/5d.html</ref> In his essay, ''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D. wrote the following: "...history is rife with examples in which our best medical judgment was flawed. The prestigious British Medical Journal begun in 1828 chose the name Lancet to signal its scholarly intent and cutting edge therapy."<ref>http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2000journals/may2000/editorial.htm</ref>