Marco-evolutionists will constantly claim that the ‘science is settled.’ Or that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on macro-evolution. While, it is true that a majority of scientists support macro-evolution, this is practically meaningless. (There are many, many anti-Darwinian scientists! We’ll get to that later in this article.)
First off, science is never capable of proving anything. It cannot prove a fact, and beyond that: It certainly cannot prove an idea! This is because science can be, has been, and will be wrong in the future. And not rarely, either. For instance, spontaneous generation was a scientifically well-accepted theory. Until it was found to be dead wrong. A geocentric (Ptoelmaic) model of the solar system was accepted for centuries. Not a few scientists thought the earth was expanding at one time, and the idea that the universe wasn’t expanding was highly supported by Albert Einstein, among others!
And that’s a sampling. Someone might claim that science doesn’t make mistakes like that anymore. Wrong. Science is always making mistakes and changing and developing. That’s science. For instance, there is some evidence in existence that has even many macro-evolutionists doubting the validity of the Big Bang. Science changes.
But more than that, science has been known to be stubborn very often in the face of overwhelming evidence. Think of the geocentric model of the solar system. For countless years it was held up as a ‘fact’ and defended by the scientific world. But that is because of the Church, right? Partially, but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Many brilliant scientists were in support of the idea, and it wasn’t exactly a Christian scientist who had come up with the idea!
That said, the Catholic Church was a major proponent of the geocentric system, and may have held back science. This proves only one thing, however—Science can be affected by politics! Most Christians no longer believe in the geocentric system, and it is not clearly stated in the Bible. For more on the subject of the Bible and geocentricism, check out this site: https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/geocentrism-and-creation/
The question now is: Could there be a prevailing political opinion on whether macro-evolution should be believed? Could politics be hindering science today?
Taking all that into account, let us now move onto the YEC scientists—or at least scientists who believe macro-evolution is far from factual. They are not non-existent as macro-evolutionists would have you believe. People of knowledge and learning can be doubtful of Darwinism. A few sources then:
This is a list of over 800 prominent scientists (most have PHDs) who have signed a statement declaring they doubt the truth of macro-evolution: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php
I had people complain that there are few biologists (or scientists from a similar field in this list). That is ridiculous. First of all—there are well over a hundred biologist who have signed the list. Second of all, am I supposed to believe that physicists, chemists, mathematicians, doctors, and other such scientists aren’t smart enough to understand if there is evidence for macro-evolution? If macro-evolution explains life, than it should be evident in every major field of science.
Other sources for YEC scientists or those doubtful of Darwinism: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html, http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation, http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13188, http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm, http://www.evolutionnews.org/, http://www.oocities.org/promo777/quotesof.htm, https://answersingenesis.org/, http://www.icr.org/
(Note: There may be some repetition within these lists. Due to the volume, I cannot read them all.)
This all, of course, is a limited list of what I could find online—with a fairly small amount of research. There are probably hundreds of other scientists who doubt Darwinism that I could not find. I rest my case.