Shadow1980 said:

So in other words you really don't understand what is meant by "scientific consensus," just like many people don't understand what is meant by "theory" in science. Again, the consensus is not determined by vote. It happens when the evidence leads all or virtually all scientists in a field independently to the same conclusion. The consensus is reflected in the scientific literature, all the myriad journals that scientists publish their research findings in. And in all the journals relevant to the issue of biology, you will be hard-pressed to find any papers that reject evolution. And that's because evolution is incredibly well-supported by the evidence.

Shadow1980 said:

True, every standard theory didn't become standard overnight. Their proponents had to provide evidence to support them. Meanwhile, every theory that has been rejected was rejected for lack of evidence, or because it wasn't even science to begin with. Every scientist has to prove themselves. The reason why general and special relativity became so widely acceptable and so quickly was because convincing evidence was quickly furnished, though some theories took much longer to become the standard because the person who proposed the theory had yet to make a convincing case based on evidence (it took decades for Alfred Wegener to be vindicated, but his theory of continental drift was originally rejected, not because of bias or what have you, but because there was no real evidence at the time to support his case). Also, Einstein didn't necessarily seek to overturn Newtonian gravity, but rather fill in some of the gaps, so to speak. Newton's laws had shortcomings, being unable to explain things like the apsidal precession of Mercury's orbit, plus Newton never really had a working causal mechanism for gravity. But in most ordinary circumstances, Einstein's formulation of gravity is no different than Newton's.

And speaking of overturning things, when was the last time a "big picture" theory with a broad (esp. near-universal) consensus was completely overturned and replaced by something else? Not counting ideas that were mostly or entirely based on religious doctrine and thus their status as "science" is highly dubious at best (e.g., geocentrism and the Usher chronology), it's probably been a very long time, well before any modern instrumentation or standards of scientific rigor were in place. While science is always tentative by nature, and it's certainly possible for any theory, no matter how well confirmed, to be overturned, that doesn't mean that arguments that "Science was wrong before" (a favorite of pseudoscience and anti-science proponents) deserve to be taken seriously. Stephan Jay Gould once said "In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

Also, why have all the "alternatives" failed? If there was such a good case to be made by those alternatives (e.g., Steady State theory), then why doesn't the scientific literature reflect that? Could it be simply because there was no convincing evidence to support those alternatives, and/or that the alternatives had serious shortcomings and could not explain the observations? Why are so many alternatives pushed primarily or entirely by people who are either non-scientists, or people who do have some scientific training but whose credentials are of questionable applicability? Why do so many alternatives bear the characteristics of pseudoscience?

Standard theories in science are standard for a reason. There is a consensus behind them for a reason. It's not bias or some collective incompetence or because of some nefarious left-wing plot. It's because they work, and for no other reason than that. They're the explanations that have the best fit to the available body of evidence.

Shadow1980 said:

The Bell Curve was pseudoscientific trash that circumvented the peer review process, was written by two men who had no background in biology and who both had a clear right-wing bias, was based at least in part by "research" from the Pioneer Fund, and generally was dotted with warning flags that scream "This is not good science!"

Shadow1980 said:

As far as I'm aware, there isn't yet a general consensus on the safety of fracking.

Shadow1980 said:

Because creationism utterly rejects everything we know about biology, geology, cosmology, and much of physics, whereas concern over the safety of fracking and GMOs, or the economics of renewable energy, does not.

Shadow1980 said:

Are you really suggesting that there's scientific support for racialism? Please tell me you're not. If you are, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

Well... i really wish i sprouted wings so i could fly and the world would be so much nicer. Yet... it's very unlikely that will happen.

What you say though, is the exact reason why religion worked so well. Reality is too cruel so you can try and believe this story that makes it all feel better and worthwhile. I understand that and i know it's conforting to just let go and believe it. But, the religions in holy books are 100% bull because they were made up by humans. So, i do respect those that want to believe that there is a benevolant God, even though theres no proof of it. But religion is a tool used to control the masses. There is nothing good about it. Theres good people, sure, but there is no such thing as a good religion.