Besides, who are we to argue with the combined weight of science? Can a plumber reveal more about DNA than a biologist? Can an accountant provide a better explanation on the workings of the brain than a neuroscientist? Surely we are simply setting ourselves up for an embarrassing fall which will bring God, the Bible and our community into disrepute. Why don’t we simply trust scientists to do science and humbly submit to the fact that God will always tell the truth in the divinely written, physical record he left us and science is best placed to interpret that record for us.
Sounds like a very plausible argument, however it is built around the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. Whether or not someone finds it impossible to believe that qualified and decorated experts could be fallible is incidental to the very distinct possibility that qualified and decorated experts could well be fallible.
After all how are these matters decided in human society? When all the forensic experts, the homicide detectives, the professors, the psychiatrists and eye witnesses have had their day in court and submitted their findings and presented their theories. Who decides the truth of those testimonies. Experts? No!
Plumbers, accountants, cleaners, gardeners and even podiatrists. Ordinary, everyday people armed with nothing more than common sense and reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt…..reasonable doubt.
Or in the case of deciding a clear verdict of guilty or innocent, beyond all reasonable doubt.
No judge or jury would reach a verdict by counting the number of experts on both sides and awarding the verdict to the side with the most qualifications. Neither does the prosecuting lawyer rail against the jury for their lack of qualifications and cast doubt on their ability to use common sense to weigh the validity of an argument and rightly divide between for and against.
So stepping aside from the logical fallacy that an expert will always be right and thousands of experts cant be wrong, let us re-examine this from another perspective.
When we look at what Dawkins described as an overwhelming impression of purpose and design in creation, an impression that is also overwhelmingly confirmed in the Bible. Does the scientific explanation, limited as it is by the philosophy of naturalism, provide grounds for reasonable doubt? Let Dawkins answer the question for us.
"Darwinian natural selection can produce an uncanny illusion of design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant."
Based on that expert testimony the jury would then need to decide if what appeared to be overwhelming design was just an illusion because of a prejudicial belief in origins through natural unguided processes. Or whether the inclusion of a designer, something science can neither confirm nor deny, would remove the illusion leaving only design. Such a question is completely unscientific in its scope and implications, but it is certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt.
Objection your honour science has evidence, lots of evidence, peer reviewed evidence, evidence which enjoys the consensus of 99.9% of the scientific community.