Changes

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.

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://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]</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://www.bcmj.org/premise/history-bloodletting History of bloodletting]</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>''A Paradigm Shift: Are We Ready?'' , Niranjan Kissoon, M.D.</ref>  

Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref><ref>http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos</ref> the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.

Also, in regards to modern medical science, in a 1991 [[BMJ]] (formerly called the British Medical Journal) article, Richard Smith (editor of BMJ at the time) wrote the following: "There are 30,000 biomedical journals in the world...Yet only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence, [[David Eddy]] professor of health policy and management at [[Duke University]], told a conference in Manchester last week. This is partly because only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1932964&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum]</ref> Next, [[Alchemy|alchemy]] was at one time considered to be a legitimate scientific pursuit and was studied by such notable individuals as [[Isaac Newton]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Roger Bacon]], and [[Gottfried Leibniz]].<ref>http://www.levity.com/alchemy/caezza4.html</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9011664/Roger-Bacon</ref> Given the aforementioned weaknesses in the evolutionary position and given that the history of science shows there have been some notable paradigm shifts,<ref>http://www.jstor.org/view/03697827/ap020019/02a00050/0</ref><ref>http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/2006/intheory.htm</ref><ref>http://www.easst.net/review/dec1998/bastos</ref> the scientific consensus argument for the macroevolutionary theory certainly cannot be called an invincible argument.