More than one mathematician has concluded the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis. Are you a mathematician or are you just one of the faithful who refuse to believe any evidence that works against darwinism?
There have always been scientists that REJECT darwinism from its beginning. There is hardly a scientific consensus. The reason darwinism holds so much power is because the power of the U.S. government (as well as intimidation in the scientific community) is wielded to enforce it. Lord Kelvin and Louis Pasteur are two shining examples. In 1864, 717 scientists, including 86 members of the Royal Society signed a manifesto entitled, "the Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences." The manifesto affirmed the Bible's scientific integrity.
All the probability calculations for abiogenesis I have seen are based on faulty premises. For example a very common type of flawed calculation involves working out the probability of 100 amino acids spontaneously falling into the right sequence to form a specific protein, and annoucing the improbable result shows abiogenesis is impossible.
There have always been scientists that REJECT darwinism from its beginning. There is hardly a scientific consensus.
There is a scientific consensus for evolution within the scientific community. A scientific consensus doesn't require the consensus of every scientist, just a large majority. Otherwise there would be no scientific consensus on anything as all it would take is one wackjob with a pHd to destroy the consensus by denying the Earth orbits the Sun.
In the case of biologists over 99% accept evolution is the best model for explaining the diversity of life. That is a consensus.
The reason darwinism holds so much power is because the power of the U.S. government (as well as intimidation in the scientific community) is wielded to enforce it.
The theory of evolution is accepted by biologists all over the world, not just in the US. The theory of evolution holds so much weight because it is accepted by the vast majority of biologists. This came to be because the theory has so much predictive and explainatory power that it became the prefered model for explaining the diversity of life on earth.
Over 600 scientists named steve have signed the following statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
They weren't made to sign it, they could have politely made an excuse not to if they didn't agree with the statement. They choose to put their name next to it.
There have always been scientists that REJECT darwinism from its beginning. There is hardly a scientific consensus. The reason darwinism holds so much power is because the power of the U.S. government (as well as intimidation in the scientific community) is wielded to enforce it. Lord Kelvin and Louis Pasteur are two shining examples. In 1864, 717 scientists, including 86 members of the Royal Society signed a manifesto entitled, "the Declaration of Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences." The manifesto affirmed the Bible's scientific integrity.
Look at my post #42. Explain to me how the series of coin flips I got, which was statistically improbable, retroactively didn't happen even though it did.
Any evidence to back this wild conspiracy theory?
If we teach creationism in school, should your conspiracy theory be given "equal time" with creation?
There is hardly a scientific consensus.
A 1996 Gallup Poll held that among scientists (across all fields) that the percentage of scientists who acknowledge evolution is in the high 90-percentage range. In the biological and earth sciences, this number is almost 100%. Looks like a pretty good consensus to me.
You argue that the case for common descent is hastily drawn from DNA evidence. I might give you that this is a hasty conclusion if this was the only evidence supporting the theory. When data from the fields of paleontology, biogeography, zoological morphology and genetics all lend credence to the same conclusion, though, as they do, your perspective seems to have want for explanation.