Lets take a look at the "REAL" motive for supporting evolution.

In the last few decades, numerous scientists have publicly admitted that their real reason for accepting and promoting the theory of evolution (ToE) is that, although the scientific evidence for macro evolution is non-existent, the only logical alternative was special creation by God.

Since that biblical alternative was absolutely unacceptable to their atheistic convictions, thousands of scientists chose to ignore the evidence they encountered in their own field that proved that chance and mutations could never explain the marvelous design and biological complexity that life displays

Prof L. T. More, with the university of Cincinnati, spoke of the "faith" in evolution when he acknowledged the conflict between personal belief and scientific evidence; "Our faith in the doctrine of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation." Prof More acknowledged the profound philosophical problem faced by scientists when they confronted the overwhelming problems now facing the ToE.

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation [evolution] ; [for] the only alternative, is to believe in a single, primary act or super natural creation, there is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity."

Significantly, British astronomer Prof Fed hoyle acknowledged that enormous problems existed with the ToE. Holye actually admitted that the only reason the ToE is still so wildly accepted in the scientific community, despite the virtual lack of scientific evidence, is due to the need of atheistic people to deny the scientific evidence that God created the universe. Remarkably, Prof Holye wrote that the ToE survived despite that lack of evidence because the theory is "considered socially desirable and even essential to the peace of mind of the body politic."

How can all those scientists be wrong?

Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word is commonly used to describe two very different things:

1. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing trait.

2. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.

Some other considerations include:

1. Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.

2.  Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even if it is not obviously seen in his own.

3.  Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.

4.  Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.

5.  Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together.