• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Argumentum ad populum

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well let's assume that God did it. Several lines of investigation arrives at the same conclusion. Do you object?
We have been through this before.
Back to the OP. Any further objections. Your point / argument has been challenged. What say you, in response.
The problem with "God did it" is that all of the evidence tells us that evolution was a natural event. Then you have the problem of a dishonest God that planted false evidence, or a lying God. If God lies why believe him when it comes to heaven or hell or who even is the good guy or bad guy in the conflict with Satan. Remember according to the Bible the Serpent was the only one that told the truth in the Garden of Eden myth.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
The point is, ERVs are not the supporting factor, in your argument.
If you want to argue from another angle, so be it.

You seem to honestly think you are clever.
Is that question suppose to be suggesting that you are more clever... madam?
ERVs are not supporting of what? Common descent? The idea that other species of ape are the ancestor of man - which is evolution at its most fundamental? ERVs are evidence of this without appeal to a "concensus." Are you thinking I am arguing something else? If so, what is it?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Science necessitates that results be reproduced. That doesn't make it a fallacy or in error, because the more often results have been reproduced the more confidence we can in saying they are correct. For example, how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop has been scientifically studied, with results consistently showing great variance. Because the results aren't really close to each other, it let's us know there may be methodology issues leading to such wide discrepancies. With children's science experiment kits, they are based on the results of numerous experiments and thoroughly demonstrated physics, so we know those will work because it has been demonstrated repeatedly.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know how you arrived at the OP saying, "the *primary* means of supporting evolution is the argument from authority...".

I was addressing the post that I quoted where you note that people criticize having the argument by authority being the primary source for a position.

I am pointing out that is NOT the case for scientific claims.

And in the case of claims by research scientists, the argument from authority is not fallacious.

Perhaps you can show me which part of the OP makes that suggestion.

No, you did not address the argument against your claim.
Perhaps there is some misunderstanding.

Look at the post of yours that I quoted.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The same way the assumption that LUCA did it, led to those specific predictions.
NOBODY claims the LUCA did it alone. Or that the existence of the LUCA resolves all questions in biology. ALL it does is explain the fact that all life has certain common characteristics. Furthermore, we can use the modern biology from our labs to discuss the biochemistry of that LUCA. The hypothesis of a God doesn't allow anything like that.

Naturalism does not check for God, so we do that ourselves - our methods.

What methods? What *testable* prediction does the 'God hypothesis' make that cannot be made without it?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I was addressing the post that I quoted where you note that people criticize having the argument by authority being the primary source for a position.

I am pointing out that is NOT the case for scientific claims.

And in the case of claims by research scientists, the argument from authority is not fallacious.



Look at the post of yours that I quoted.
There are two versions of the argument from authority. The first and most obvious is the argument from false authority:

"John told me that I should be using high octane gas in my car and he should know. He is a doctor after all"

John's knowledge about the human body is not too likely to transfer over to knowledge of automobiles. He is a false authority in the matter of car. Strangely creationists tend to love this one. An amazing number of dentists "disprove" evolution.

The second is the appeal to a single authority with no other evidence. Quite often if only a single authority is referred to one can find quite a few that oppose that authority. Of course on the evolution side not only are there endless authorities that tend to generally agree with each other (there will be differences on the specifics and that debate is how science often advances) but we can and have posted evidence. In fact while trying to claim an argument from authority it looks like the OP is denying the slam dunk evidence of ERV's.

I wonder what the name of the logical fallacy of denying all evidence would be?
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
What does this have to do with anything? Does this contradict the evidence present in the comparison of ERVs in DNA of other ape species and humans? That's the only way you get to claim relevance to my post.

The tachytely rate of human development show even allowing only positive mutations at a faster rate, we have go through 100 million plus years of evolution in just a couple of million year

This point to engineered from apes, not naturally evolution from apes
 

ecco

Veteran Member
The tachytely rate of human development show even allowing only positive mutations at a faster rate, we have go through 100 million plus years of evolution in just a couple of million year

This point to engineered from apes, not naturally evolution from apes

I guess that's all the evidence you need.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
So why do persons continue with it? :shrug:
Does it establish truth? No.

We now use Look and See Science.

It's easy. Just get some fancy letters after your name and then whatever you look at becomes real. It's a form of magic but first you must rise high enough in the scientific pecking order that no one would dare question your judgment. Then it must be voted on by all the Peers and this even includes the et als. Of course et als that don't agree are more easily excommunicated. Peers can be shamed back into line.

The beauty of this new "science" is that it no longer requires experiment at all. It was getting real hard to invent new experiments and they tended to be exceedingly costly anyway. So why bother? Just take a vote and to determine whether enough fossils existed to constitute gradual changes in species. Easy peasy and no messy beakers and petrie dishes to clean. Modern science is pure genius. The money goes to whomsoever gets the most support. Since science is now heavily politicized this allows lobbyists and Congress to vote their pocketbooks on what is real and what is not. There's lots of money to be made funneling cash to ADM and others who wreck the environment and waste resources so everyone wins. Meanwhile those who believe in a clockwork universe and those who believe in a clockwork universe set in motion by a Creator argue the facts without ever noticing that every single thing done by politicians in the name of "global warming" makes things worse instead of better and makes the few wealthier while damaging everyone else. But it's no matter because we'll all get trickled on in the long run. So long as business is happy we are all happy.

We are fast entering a new dark ages where thought is no longer allowed. Eventually everything will disintegrate following Tower of Babel 2.0

This new one will be brought on by the disconnect between reality and scientific belief and the inability of anyone at all to understand how systems work.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
We are fast entering a new dark ages where thought is no longer allowed. Eventually everything will disintegrate following Tower of Babel 2.0

This new one will be brought on by the disconnect between reality and scientific belief and the inability of anyone at all to understand how systems work.
Do you really believe in the Tower of Babel?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Do you really believe in the Tower of Babel?

Yes!

Not the way it's written in the Bible though. I believe that the story is a misinterpretation of the reality which was the change in the nature of language. A virtually identical failure of language is in our future. The first time the language became too complex for the average man to understand so we changed to a language with no tie to reality. Now our systems and science are becoming so complex that there will be too few people to operate them. It's not so much the language that will collapse this time as it is that the operation of the systems (including even scientific systems)(as evidenced by the advent of Look and See Science) and understanding of how they fit together.

There is no simple solution to this coming catastrophe but there are ways to mitigate the worst of it. It will be too late after the fact.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We now use Look and See Science.

It's easy. Just get some fancy letters after your name and then whatever you look at becomes real. It's a form of magic but first you must rise high enough in the scientific pecking order that no one would dare question your judgment. Then it must be voted on by all the Peers and this even includes the et als. Of course et als that don't agree are more easily excommunicated. Peers can be shamed back into line.

The beauty of this new "science" is that it no longer requires experiment at all. It was getting real hard to invent new experiments and they tended to be exceedingly costly anyway. So why bother? Just take a vote and to determine whether enough fossils existed to constitute gradual changes in species. Easy peasy and no messy beakers and petrie dishes to clean. Modern science is pure genius. The money goes to whomsoever gets the most support. Since science is now heavily politicized this allows lobbyists and Congress to vote their pocketbooks on what is real and what is not. There's lots of money to be made funneling cash to ADM and others who wreck the environment and waste resources so everyone wins. Meanwhile those who believe in a clockwork universe and those who believe in a clockwork universe set in motion by a Creator argue the facts without ever noticing that every single thing done by politicians in the name of "global warming" makes things worse instead of better and makes the few wealthier while damaging everyone else. But it's no matter because we'll all get trickled on in the long run. So long as business is happy we are all happy.

We are fast entering a new dark ages where thought is no longer allowed. Eventually everything will disintegrate following Tower of Babel 2.0

This new one will be brought on by the disconnect between reality and scientific belief and the inability of anyone at all to understand how systems work.


This is simply not true. Just because you are unable to understand modern day science or to see how it still follows the scientific method that does not mean that others have the same failing.

What makes you think that there are no more experiments? You are in effect bearing false witness against your neighbor. What does the Bible say about that?
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution.

There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...


What has that got to do with anything?
Especially in a debate, why is that relevant? It's nothing but a fallacy.

Argumentum ad populum
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority

climatism-97-consensus-e1519688447625.jpg


...you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual - and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

quote-historically-the-claim-of-consensus-has-been-the-first-refuge-of-scoundrels-it-is-a-michael-crichton-6-72-80.jpg

“...I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

― Michael Crichton

quote-finally-i-would-remind-you-to-notice-where-the-claim-of-consensus-is-invoked-consensus-michael-crichton-43-33-36.jpg


Consensus Science and the Peer Review
It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “[I would remind you to notice where the claim of] consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).

http://www.aei.org/publication/for-...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
...the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

When the Earth Moved
When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience
One hundred years ago, a German scientist advanced the shocking idea that the continents were adrift, and the giants of geology ridiculed him. But nobody’s laughing now...

Well I am... laughing my head off.
Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.

So why do persons continue with it? :shrug:
Does it establish truth? No.

That statement is just a shortcut instead of having to post research from thousands of individual scientists which will be ignored yet again. It is an invitation to go out and read what these scientists have to say. Once you have bothered to do the homework, you can come back and counter any of the tens of thousands of research papers in numerous scientific disciplines if you wish.

It's just that the posters understand that
1. the evidence is readily available
2, It has been presented numerous times to numerous evolution deniers
3. It is too much material to be posted on a blog
4. It will most likely be ignored.
5. It is folly to think that a blog poster can overturn over 200 years of accumulated scientific evidence and prove the overwhelming majority of scientists in numerous fields of research to be wrong.

But you go ahead......
 
Last edited:

ecco

Veteran Member
We are fast entering a new dark ages where thought is no longer allowed. Eventually everything will disintegrate following Tower of Babel 2.0
There is no simple solution to this coming catastrophe

Now our systems and science are becoming so complex that there will be too few people to operate them


I guess if language is going to become too complicated, it's a good thing we won't be allowed to think. Thinking in languages that are too complicated would lead to insanity.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member

Argumentum ad populum:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it,


Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

If you see the difference between the two, you will see how fallacious your argument is.

If you do not see the difference between the two I would suggest you try to stick to monosyllabic words and avoid Latin phrases at all costs.
And the beauty of scientific consensus is that, if you could be bothered, you could learn the relevant disciplines yourself, then go look at the same evidence and the same tests -- even try to replicate them yourself -- and then, either join the consensus, or make a case for another view!

What you don't get to do is declare the consensus "false" on the basis of personal predilection. Or even on the basis of scripture or authoritative-sounding Latin.
 
Last edited:

sealchan

Well-Known Member
How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution.

There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...


What has that got to do with anything?
Especially in a debate, why is that relevant? It's nothing but a fallacy.

Argumentum ad populum
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority

climatism-97-consensus-e1519688447625.jpg


...you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual - and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

quote-historically-the-claim-of-consensus-has-been-the-first-refuge-of-scoundrels-it-is-a-michael-crichton-6-72-80.jpg

“...I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

― Michael Crichton

quote-finally-i-would-remind-you-to-notice-where-the-claim-of-consensus-is-invoked-consensus-michael-crichton-43-33-36.jpg


Consensus Science and the Peer Review
It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “[I would remind you to notice where the claim of] consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).

http://www.aei.org/publication/for-...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
...the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

When the Earth Moved
When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience
One hundred years ago, a German scientist advanced the shocking idea that the continents were adrift, and the giants of geology ridiculed him. But nobody’s laughing now...

Well I am... laughing my head off.
Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.

So why do persons continue with it? :shrug:
Does it establish truth? No.

Consensus may not be a purely logical basis for establishing truth, but it is a frequently winning strategy especially when the cost for self discovery is high.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution.

There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...


What has that got to do with anything?
Especially in a debate, why is that relevant? It's nothing but a fallacy.

Argumentum ad populum
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority

climatism-97-consensus-e1519688447625.jpg


...you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual - and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

quote-historically-the-claim-of-consensus-has-been-the-first-refuge-of-scoundrels-it-is-a-michael-crichton-6-72-80.jpg

“...I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

― Michael Crichton

quote-finally-i-would-remind-you-to-notice-where-the-claim-of-consensus-is-invoked-consensus-michael-crichton-43-33-36.jpg


Consensus Science and the Peer Review
It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “[I would remind you to notice where the claim of] consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).

http://www.aei.org/publication/for-...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
...the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.

In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.

Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.

The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

When the Earth Moved
When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience
One hundred years ago, a German scientist advanced the shocking idea that the continents were adrift, and the giants of geology ridiculed him. But nobody’s laughing now...

Well I am... laughing my head off.
Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.

So why do persons continue with it? :shrug:
Does it establish truth? No.

Not only is there a scientific consensus that the ToE is valid, but the ToE has more verifiable evidence to back it up than virtually any other scientific theory ever proposed. If you agree that there is a scientific consensus that the Earth orbits around the Earth then surely you have no problem accepting that there is a scientific consensus that the ToE is valid.
 
Top