How can so many scientists be so wrong?
Many people often point to how many scientists there are who accept the evolutionary hypothesis, and then claim, "Surely, they all can't be wrong!" Well, let's take a look at some possibilities why they might be wrong.
When Darwin's book The Origin of Species was first published in 1859, it caught on like wild fire. The intellectual community embraced Darwin's hypothesis as though it was certain because of the alleged evidence that he proposed. He made what was largely considered unreasonable in the time before him* seem reasonable by proposing an alleged mechanism for evolution; natural selection and descent with modification. Once this new intellectual revolution began, it became standard to teach it in public high schools, colleges, etc. Even though the people of Darwin's time were clueless about the composition of the cell (they new nothing about DNA), they were still sure of the fact of evolution. They just assumed that Darwin was right about organisms being able to increase in complexity from more simpler forms. So, now that evolution had been deemed a fact by most of the 19th and 20th century intellectual influencers, it would be hard to reverse the flow of intellectual thought, even if it could be shown that very simple-to-very complex evolution (as Darwin proposed) was an impossible feat for natural processes. And, with the discovery of genetics, that is exactly what happened, evolution was shown to be very unlikely.
But evolution was still the dominant teaching in education, and the establishment of naturalism to explain all things wouldn't be broken up so easily. In 1941, at a meeting of the Geological Society of America, a group of influencing naturalists from various fields of science got together and attempted to rebuild many of the problems that the relatively new science of genetics posed. This new, revised theory of evolution said that mutations was the cause of the variation that moved organisms up the ladder of complexity. But today, we know that mutations are the result of accidental changes in genes in the DNA copying process, causing detriment to an organism, not enhacement. This process is hopeless in producing the incomprehensibly massive changes that the evolutionary theory would need to work. Mutations are the back bone of the evolutionary theory, so if mutations can't produce evolutionary complexity, then nothing can.
But as I alluded to earlier, the revolution that Darwin started in the 1800s hasn't been broken, even if it should have been. The breeding of evolutionists still takes place today, as young people are continuing to be taught in school that evolution is factual. Shallow, meaningless facts such as bio similarity is the main evidence presented to high school students for evolution, combined with outright story telling, like showing them a graph of a knuckle walker gradually morphing into a modern man. Moreover, our whole society has been saturated with the myth of evolution, not only the school system. TV shows, museums and other things constantly refer to it as a fact, even though it's not possible. People are left to believe that something has been proven when it's really the opposite, it's been disproven! The intellectual flow has never been overturned, so we are still left with many growing up in the scientific establishment being basically brainwashed into evolutionary doctrine, even though it has been shown that evolutionary advancement from simple** structures to complex can't take place. Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they do too, even if they don't know all the details themselves. It is a circular cycle. The young ones being brought up believing evolution are left with an unshakable faith in some very shakable "evidence."
Why not creation?
"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, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together."^
Notes and References:
*Contrary to what many people think, there were actually many people who proposed evolutionary ideas prior to Darwin. But the scientific community rejected them.
**I say simple, referring to a cell. Such a structure is amazingly complex, so imagine the incomprehensible complexity that an organism such as a human has.
^http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/wrong.htm