The reasons put forward by evolutionists used to argue, "99% of scientists accept evolution", are the reasons that as a theory it is real solid, and the evidence is all there, and that is why they accept it.
The real reasons behind the statistic are NOT those reasons.
There are two reasons why most of the scientific community accept macro-evolution, and perhaps a third one.
1. People that enter science, by definition accept the tenets of science, and one major tenet of science is that methodologically natural answers are the only acceptable kinds of answers science can produce. This means they are PREDISPOSED to accept evolution. (primed to, like a vegetarian is primed to only accept vegetarian meals).
2. Because they only accept naturalistic answers, causes, and see any others as non-scientific, they dismiss the alternative argument to evolution, (design), because they categorise it as religion, and to their minds, "science doesn't do religion". Which again primes them to not properly evaluate the design/creation argument, but rather to dismiss it.
And the final reason is that the small facts of evolution theory make it seems as though macro-scale evolution are true. To their minds if micro-evolution is true then so is macro-evolution. But in fact micro-scale changes don't prove macro-evolution but they don't critique it to the level that would allow them to see this, because again, they accept what science says.
CONCLUSION; This is a prime example of how popular arguments used by atheists, are actually of very little worth when you properly analyse them. This particular popular bit of propaganda to support evolution, is almost tautologically useless in that it is almost definitional that scientists will accept what science says. (Weak, proves nothing.)
