The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution (Harvest House, 1993), pp. 15-16
Why do materialistic scientists accept evolution?
In Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Drs. Clark and Bales document that “men often accept evolution because the only alternative is creation by God.”* Put another way, if evolution is not true, materialistic scientists would be uncomfortable with the implications because they would be confronted with evidence for the existence of God. Because they are unwilling to accept a concept of divine creation, “They frame whatever hypotheses are necessary to sustain a hypothesis of evolution.”*
Thus, many frank scientists have confessed that the reasons behind their belief in evolution are primarily philosophical, not scientific. Nowhere is this better illustrated than by citing Nobel prize-winning biologist of Harvard University, Dr. George Wald, who once confessed,
One only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.*
But a year earlier, Dr. Wald stated what evidently was the problem:
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural 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…. Most modern biologists, having viewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.*
*For documentation see The Facts on Creation vs. Evolution.