A gradutae of a scientific discipline is NOT a scientist. If your opinion of scientists is based upon an observation of students, then obviously there is a huge flaw in your reasoning.
Here we go with the definitions again...
No. I won't play that junk. I said they believe it because it's what they were taught. You dispute this. You assert that there's a flaw in my reasoning, but you don't explain what it is.
Any 'scientist' is going to have to come from somewhere. If they don't come from schools I can only imagine you're invoking spontaneous generation of adults. If so, please provide some evidence. It could revolutionize biology.
The issue was: how could scientists come to accept evolutionism since their profession involves testing ideas? I explained how this happens. In my scenario, they're taught evolutionism before they are ordained.
Just when exactly do spontaneously generated 'scientists' obtain their knowledge of evolutionism?
Anyhow, either way we have our fully-fledged, ordained 'scientist'. He's not going to encounter macroevolution in his daily work, so he doesn't need to test it. Microevolution has nothing to do with the issue - it's been around forever. Tests involving microevolution generally say nothing about whether life was created or life evolved.
Anyone involved in life sciences is going to encounter evidence for creation in the form of elegant, highly organized systems; and some will realize the necessity of an ingenious designer. There's a good chance they'll have incidental contact with other types of evidence which has the potential to damage macroevolutionary concepts. They may notice these things, or they may have other issues on their mind. They may notice and find that evolutionism has an "answer". Unless they're greatly concerned, any answer will do. Everyone has a issues to deal with in life, and trivial oddities can't all be pursued. Besides, just look at the great bulk of "evidences from different fields of science" - surely one tiny gnat of evidence is meaningless next to the blue whale that's been accumulated.
So whence the question in the first place?
Creationists marvel at the wonders God has made, and have a hard time understanding how others can be oblivious to the evidence. Just as evolution is implied when one is trained to view and interpret the patterns in the fossils, so creation is implied when one looks for beauty and clever design in lifeforms.
It's very difficult to convince a creationist that life can be the result of chance. Regardless of how the basic ID argument is attacked, on an intuitive level it's dug in like a tick. On the other side, evolutionists don't seem inclined to look for different patterns and interpretations of the fossil records. I can't say how much beauty they find in them. "Is it science?" doesn't apply terribly well to either case because these are things people are involuntarily inclined to believe.
A vast, all-encompassing conspiracy? Not really. A multitude of dupes? More like a multitude of people who have other priorities. A key ingredient of evolutionism is that it has no practical application in normal scientific endeavours. Nobody butts heads with it - and it's not falsifiable in the normal scientific sense, unless one goes out of one's way to make it so. (I'm not sure if they've ever managed the trick yet. I know they've been trying.)
The conspiracies aren't secret, either. The X Club was not a secret, and the various evolutionist organizations of our time aren't all that hard to spot.
X Club - Wikipediahttp://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/guide3.html
And it's no big secret what happens to anyone who makes a stir and is perceived as a threat to evolutionism. They better get ready to find another job, because there's always an attempt to attack one's livelihood.
There are indeed hard-core fundamentalist evolutionists who will do or say anything to support their religion. In behaviour, they're more akin to politicians than scientists. The leaders of fanatical evolutionists are no better than the televangelist charlatans they habitually denounce. And they love the publicity that comes with any 'red alert' situation.
But there's good news: Roughly half the kids graduating high school ("U.S.") are rejecting evolutionism to one extent or another. The per centage was much worse not too many years ago. It's shifting rapidly. Considering the longstanding monopoly, and increasing requirements that the religion must be taught as if it were an established fact, this is really something!
I think I see a pattern. 10 or 15 years back (I forget) a major campaign was launched to get evolutionism into lower grades. Books were re-written to stuff it in at every opportunity, and teachers were given special training. But it's backfired spectacularly. Young kids are much smarter than the evolutionists thought. And they have a lot of free time, a luxury not often found in the adult world. The earlier they encounter the idea, the longer they have to question it. And it's banished by scrutiny.
What we need is an International Evolution Week. A week off work for all scientists to "celebrate Evolution". That'd get 'em a free little time, and draw their attention. I know it'd help the leaders of the movement raise money with special events & TV programs, but in the long run I think they'd lose a lot of ground.
™ Version 4.2
