The theistic evolutionists’ rationale for excluding scientific views [that are] critical of Darwinism from faith-evolution discussions seems to be that Darwinian Theory constitutes the consensus view of science, and questioning that consensus view supposedly demonstrates that one is “anti-science.” But this way of thinking betrays a strikingly unsophisticated understanding of science. The more one knows about the history of scientific enterprise, the more skeptical he or she is likely to be about equating the current consensus view of science with science itself. Science is a wonderful human enterprise, but scientists can be as blinded by their prejudices as anyone else. In the last century, for example, the nation’s leading evolutionary biologists at such institutions as Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and Stanford enthusiasticaly promoted eugenics, the “science” of breeding better humans based on principles of Darwinian biology. Eugenics was the “consensus” view of the scientific community for decades. That did not make it good science. Eugenics provides a stark reminder about the susceptibility of even mainstream scientists to junk science.
Far from being anti-science, dissenting views in the scientific community help science thrive by counteracting groupthink and sparking debates that can lead to fresh discoveries. It is not too much to say that today’s dissenting opinion in science may well turn into tomorrow’s scientific consensus. So it is disheartening to come across otherwise thoughtful pastors or theologians who blindly accept claims that the consensus view of evolutionary theory is all that matters, or who have been lulled into believing that onyone who dissents from modern evolutionary orthodoyxy is guilty of opposing science.
John West, God and Evolution, p. 60