Bren, it is rare to argue that we should not follow consensus, but in fact that is not what I am arguing. In fact I said it might be reasonable to do so. And it might also be reasonable not to do so. It may be reasonable to find people doing both, on opposite sides of the argument. That is what I basically was saying. There is justification for both. In the end, however, consensus is the opinion as to whether something is right, or whether something works, or whether something will work, or whether it cannot work.
Gravity is not true because of consensus. The world is not round because of consensus. Bacteria do not cause disease because of consensus. The light bulb was not invented because of consensus. Yet, if the consensus is that bacteria can cause disease, it seems reasonable to believe that bacteria can cause disease. But if the consensus is that the world is flat, it is better not to join in the consensus. If the consensus is to use leeches to cure most illnesses, then it is better not to join the consensus. If the consensus is that the appendix is a vestigial organ with no function, then it is better not to join the consensus.
It had been for centuries the consensus that farmers should till the soil to grow a crop. If we only went by consensus, we would be stuck in that “scientific” paradigm forever. However, today we find farmers conserving moisture, reducing soil erosion, and growing better crops with less fuel, without using tillage.
It had been the consensus for ages that man could not fly. Today that consensus has been destroyed by planes, jets, ultralites, and hang gliders. The point is that consensus can be used as a show-stopper. Scientifically, that is simply not valid.
When we come specifically to evolution, then we see a lot of consensus. We also see misdirected predictions. However, this does not invalidate evolution per se. Any theory, and any scientist could make inaccurate predictions. But when looking at why the predictions were made, we begin to understand the limitations of the theory. It seems to me it can predict everything and nothing at all at the same time.
Obviously, we can predict where we find some fossils. This is based on where we actually find fossils, the layers, formations, etc. But the theory proponents assume that mere similarity of formations and layers cannot lead to the same predictions as the theory, regardless of what you call them. On the other hand, the theory has believed various fossils to be extinct; the coelecanth fish is an example of that… it was prehistoric, and presumed extinct due to lack of fossils in many layers, but then found still existed in real life. So this reveals a basic flaw in the interpretations of fossils in general which is based on the absence of fossils in some layers. We know that the absence of fossils cannot prove absence of species. We have proof of that. Therefore it cannot be used as a foundation for the theory. Yet it continues to do so, by consensus.
The theory predicts vestigial organs and non-functional dna. True? True. However, some “vestigial organs” were found to be very useful, and therefore cannot be called vestigial. True? True. On what basis then do we judge whether an organ is vestigial? There must be a criteria outside of the theory itself, otherwise it is no proof of the theory, and no evidence to support the theory. How do we know whether we have enough knowledge to judge whether it is actually vestigial or not? Often we know what we don’t know, but sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know.
Do I think that evolution is brainwashing? Not always. Not intentionally. But in a consensus situation it probably is to some extent. Especially for the non-expert. I do not believe there is a conspiracy… it’s just a consensus. I do not believe that the consensus is there to disprove God. I also don’t know how Sarfati sees himself, and it is really not relevant to the truth of the points he makes.
Your conclusion that a biased or motivated scientist is unreliable, is generally unjustified and incorrect. If not incorrect, then motives could be attributed to everyone. The main motive is who would want to be judged as an outlier? Who would want to be judged as “not mainstream”? Who would want to be accused of being one of those accursed creationists? Peer approval is a huge motivator for the consensus and the status quo.
Some will say that if you prove evolution wrong, everyone will praise you and give you the nobel prize. They will say that science corrects itself, as in the case of the discovering that many proposed ape to human intermediates were not so, and that Haeckle’s drawings of embryos were false, or that several vestigial organs were not vestigial, and then use that as proof that evolution is not inviolable. Hopefully they are right, that it is subject to critique and evaluation. But the emotional attachment to it goes far beyond mere science. So in that sense I agree with you, the motivations can make it less credible.
So, I try to look at the actual statements and evidence being presented. Why does a theory sometimes make wrong predictions. Are there other possible answers for natural phenomena. Is there only one way to interpret the data. What about conflicting data. Are the assumptions correct. Are they reasonable. I do not accept everything every creationist expert says, just because he says it. It must make sense to me. I do not accept every criticism of evolution theory, but I must say that many of them are valid criticisms.