Scientists do not make this stuff up. It's observable, testable, verifiable, makes predictions, and most importantly, is falsifiable. It is an accurate documentation of reality and how it functions. It is not a conspiracy against any religion, and it is not an attempt to subjugate the parents; it is an attempt to understand the nature of our universe. To have any group of people simply deny the observable facts of nature is absolutely outrageous, and potentially dangerous.
The number of people in America that share this mindset is growing at an unnerving rate. It wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't trying to get into politics and mix their religion with government. Think about it for a second: we are electing people to offices, including the god damn presidency, who believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old! They make laws for us, they decide some of our curriculum, and they ban stem cell research and want to make abortions illegal. Why do we let it happen!
This is why I feel it is my personal duty to point out the bullshit. The term "Atheist" is such a broad grouping, because it isn't a doctrine; it only makes one claim, that god, in any form, does note exist. We hold so many different religious and political beliefs, ranging from Buddhism to communism, that we have a very hard time uniting. This is why you don't see very many big atheist or agnostic lobbies, because you can't get us to agree on anything but God. I feel that if I don't point this shit out, even to the one person who reads this, then it is allowed to self-replicate and gain even more power.
So, we have come to the final myth of Evolution. The myth: that all scientists agree on evolution. This, according to us "evolutionists", proves our "worldview" correct.
This definitely deserves the top spot, because it is CLEARLY the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard.
First thing's first, it needs to be said that the belief of the majority does not PROVE anything. Having a lot of scientists who accept evolution does not prove evolution, and I don't believe anyone has ever made that claim (except maybe creationists).
It must also be said that the Theory of Evolution is not a matter of belief, just like any other science. It is a matter of acceptance, that is, you see the evidence that is proposed and accept the theory as an explanation for that phenomena. We do not BELIEVE that evolution is fact. We ACCEPT evolution as fact.
And where did this idea that only scientists who accept evolution are "real scientists" start? Probably with creationists, but that's besides the point.
No one that I am aware of regards only those who accept evolution as "real" scientists. This is ridiculous, because there are scientists at universities and in labs who don't accept evolution. There might even be some who aren't religious, but who knows. What needs to be understood is that most of the evidence for any theory comes from people who try to prove it wrong, and this is precisely what happend to evolution in the early stages of its development. There are some who still think it is wrong, that's okay. More power to them actually, because it takes some gall to reject a claim that is so heavily supported with evidence.
I would also, once again, like to revisit the idea that there is no such thing as an evolutionist. So, when AiG claims that, "The argument, then, essentially boils down to this: evolutionists agree that evolution happened. This, of course, is an absurd argument, and we could just as easily say that creationists agree that creation happened", you need to know that it is null and void from the start, because there is no such thing as an evolutionist. But if you want to play that game, then that quote is EXACTLY RIGHT. "Evolutionists" do agree that evolution happens, just as much as creationists agree that creation happened. Neither of those statements don't prove anything, but . . . oh what the hell, you get it.
For the rest of the article, AiG points out the same shit that I just pointed out: that a majority opinion does not act as proof of something. They also write that the history of science is filled with minority views being incorrect. I don't know what that second one meant because evolution is accepted by the majority, but whatever. This is better, at least they're thinking semi-rationally for once.
"Secondly, many scientists accept evolution because the only alternative is design, which is against their naturalistic beliefs."
Okay, really? The ONLY alternative is design? Are you god damn kidding me? No it isn't, this isn't some battle between naturalism and design. It's a battle between the natural and the supernatural (or rather, fucking reality versus something someone made up 3000 years ago). Scientists do not accept evolution because they don't want to believe in design, it's because evolution is WHAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO! There is no "prior committment to keeping any miraculous interaction out of their worldviews". God, I was getting my hopes up for no reason.
Apparently, according to AiG logic, there is also a growing number of scientists who reject evolution. Wow, if your bullshit meter didn't just go off, you need to see a specialist. In fact, the trend is exactly the OPPOSITE: more and more scientists and people are accepting evolution, because the evidence is so plentiful.
The proof of evolution comes not from majority opinion. It comes from the 150 years of solid evidence that supports it. In that 150 years, there has not been a single piece of reliable evidence (meaning, non-creationist) that has contradicted the theory of evolution. As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of Evolution".
We do not wish creationists to go away. Well, for the most part. We just want you to learn a bit about reality and get the fuck out of politics.