If only they would research it without a political bent. We're constantly told that 97% of scientists worldwide agree that humans cause climate change, but we never hear how that percentage was tabulated. There have been several surveys on the subject - below is a video that breaks it all down. I know you won't watch it, so I'll just describe how only one of them went; About 10 years ago, a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent out an on-line survey to 10,000 earth scientists, with two questions; 1) Do you agree that earths overall temps have increased since the pre 1800's, and 2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor? They got 3146 responses, and of those, 90% said yes to first question, and 82% said yes to the second. Yet among those who were meteorologists, only 64% said yes to the second question. And among only 77 of those respondents who claimed to be climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question, so 75 out of 77, YES!! that's the 97% that we hear trumpeted today. Only 77 people, out of those who bothered to respond, are claimed to represent science the world over! This is how misleading, and phony climate alarmists are in trying to state their political case. There are more details of scientific surveys in this video.
They argue this one with evolution as well, it's popular to use the, "majority of scientists believe" card, as an INDIRECT ARGUMENT.
Indirect arguments don't count as direct arguments and the, "most scientists believe" card, is just argumentum ad populum. (an appeal to popularity).
Most evolutionists use two ploys;
1. The "most scientists believe" card. 2. The "science denier" ad-hom personal attack (so that people will stereotype anyone who doesn't accept the popular conclusion of mainstreamists.)
The main reason why the "most scientists" statistic is a poor argument, is because basically it's pretty much a tautology that if someone is a scientist, that joins science with a philosophy of methodological naturalism, and accepts science, and has the philosophy that all science is put through the method is accepted, is then going to accept what science says.
Think about that for a moment. Is a person that believes in science, goes into science, believes all theories put forward are of the same value, then going to accept what science officially puts forward?
The probability of that is like asking this; "Are you against rape?" Person; "Yes". "Then would you be against me raping you?"
Hmmmmmm, I wonder if evolutionists would think it an impressive statistic if we were to show them that all people against rape would say, "yes".
OF COURSE most secular scientists accept what secular science says. This is not only expected, it's so banal and tautological it tells us absolutely NOTHING about the veracity of the claims within secular science.
THE MODIFIED ARGUMENT:
The evolutionist usually then modifies the argument to; "but all evolutionist scientists would say evolution is factual".
Does this count as telling us more? What are the chances a person that studies evolution, goes into that field, believes it to be true and believes in science?
It tells us nothing really. We might as well just respond thus; "but all creationist qualified scientists reject evolution".
These things tell us little, they are just part and parcel of the evolutionists dependence on indirect argumentation. The reason evolutionists depend upon indirect argumentation is because direct argumentation never favours their theories.
"But mike all science is equal being put through the method".
NOPE. That's a non-sequitur, just as it would be a non-sequitur to conclude that because a Ferrari car and a Skoda car both passed a vehicle inspection test for road legality, that therefore the car brakes are of equal performance. In fact the ferrari would bury the skoda.
It's the same with exotic air, forces, germs. They all BURY evolution, because we can deduce and repeatably induce the same results for air, forces and germs. But what you can't do even once is show us that the science fiction of primordial blobs can naturally form. In fact every experiment so far is not even 1% of 1% of 1% close to showing any abiogenesis, and all experiments have confirmed biogenesis.
CONCLUSION: 5 trillion times in a row I can show germs exist, exotic air, and downforce, but evolution and abiogenesis cannot be shown even once.