Firstly I do not agree with a premise that if one denies evolution - he denies most of sciences. There are some structures. Almost none of the sciences is based on evolution - only slightly some minor ones with minor to non-existant results and achievements. So it is irrelevant if one cut down the top sick and dry branches - in that case evolution, for a health of a tree. It is nothing else but some irrelevant offspring of some other misunderstandings based on a proper science.

Every lie breeds more lies. Every evil breeds more evil. For most part evil is not needed to have any purpose.

If one agrees with evil - it is as good as he had made evil himself. So if you soak a bunch of people in an enviroment when they have to comform to things they have to agree else something bad will happen to them - you create a people soaked with evil.

And do you think anyone that had spend their lives learning about evolution - and that is generally all they know - Will they admitt to themselves that it is a crap? No ofcourse not.

It is called a selfaffirmation - a very strong tendency within a carnal human mind. It is very strong tendency within a scientific community. Once I was in university I was told it was a very common in reaserchers to have a bias towards the desired hyphotesis. This urge is so strong that it is obvious many frauds will be committed.

The scientific community is just swarmed with confirmation biases. The whole system need to be deeply reformed as it is deeply ineffective.

P.S BTW. Your constant use of 99% of scientists is funny to me as I am a sociologist in degree.

Firstly. There must be some honesty in picking up the population we describe. There is no such a population as "the scientists" it is not a homogenious organisation. How could one construct such a population? Take a one guy from each field and ask him about the evolution? Most of the guys does not give a fuck about evolution.

If you construct a population based on evolutionists ,obviously without answering them, they will say they believe in evolution. When you would call them the population of "scientists" that would be insincere and unscientific describtion of a sample of the population that is related to reality.

Another funny thing about your 99% of scientists is that no honest sociologist would say 99% of some population do something, or believe in something because 5% is a degree of error. You must assume you are wrong to a degree of 5% else there is something wrong with your research.

There is one funny thing as well. You probably assume 99% agree because they do not react. You cannot do that. Honest sociologist would just assume that if a person does not do something - like acting on behalf of protest against the work of another scientist, there could be various of other factors than his believes. Like fear, comformity, lack of confidence, confirmation bias, friendship, group of interest, black mail etc etc.

His believes could only be as close to honesty as possible if it is done annonymously and based on his own words.

And the answers about the evolution cannot be honest in nature because most of the answers from the community of scientist would be - I don't know. Probably.

There are various of other problems in picking up the population we research if we are talking about scientists. You just cannot say that one scientist is the same level of importance as the other, so making assumptions based on the number of people and not their validity of arguments would not do you any good. Scientific community is not democratic.

Other issues with the population is that - you can't assume every scientist is in his lab or university, and outside of the lab or university there are no scientists. Those at the university are the most mainstream ones. So if you only take notice with the university type of people you do dishonesty to your research.