Evolution conspiracy

The divine comedy Creationism

Running gags

Biblical literalism Young/Old Earth Intelligent design Creation scientists

Jokes aside

Dendrochronology Mitochondrial Eve Geology Paleontology

Blooper reel

Starlight problem Historical and operational science Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle A Dozen ID-Inspired Predictions

Evolutionism debunkers

Jack Cuozzo Daniel Neiman J. P. Holding Carl Baugh v - t - e

Many creationists assert that there is a conspiracy in science to maintain the truth of evolution. This is utterly ridiculous.

Scientists can't question dogma[edit]

Some creationists claim that, in general, scientists are pressured (possibly by some imaginary entity dubbed "the scientific establishment") not to challenge the established dogma. This assertion has it backwards, given the nature of science.

Evolution has become unquestionable[edit]

Creationists Henry Morris^[1] and Ben Wiker^[2] argued that evolution has obtained the status of sacred revelation and that to express doubts by bringing up the counterevidence to the theory is to brand oneself an intellectual infidel.

Responses[edit]

First and foremost, evolution is constantly changing as the understanding of the mechanisms of genes, gene expression, etc. is vastly expanded. The modern synthesis shows how much evolution has changed since Darwin's time, and how much more it may change.

The problem with this claim is that the premise is downright false; evolution isn't seen as sacred. The claimants seem to believe that if someone defends an idea, no matter how well established in science, they are defending it as though it were sacred. This is incorrect because they are only defending the facts. There is nothing sacrosanct about the evolutionary theory; it is defended in the same way that the Theory of Gravity or Heliocentric Theory is defended. It is only the action of scientists defending science and facts from non-science and interference.

As with all established theories in science, counterevidence is welcome, but presenting it does risk ridicule if the evidence turns out to be obviously misinterpreted (as most do). However, if the evidence is strong and plentiful enough, then the paradigm will shift.

Evolutionary theory has obtained its status through entirely scientific reasons. For the first 50 or so years, it was on the defensive against counter-claims, but it eventually won out because the evidence is on its side.

Regardless, this claim doesn't prove that the theory is untrue.

Finally, hypocritically, all creationist organizations require all of their employees to follow statements of faith in order to ensure that they do not uncover, accept, or present evidence that can potentially contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Scientists lie about evolution[edit]

Scientists who propose evolution and an old earth and oppose creationism are lying.^[3]

Responses[edit]

1. "Lying" implies that the person knows better. Even if YEC is true and evolution and old earth are false, scientists could just be mistaken.^{[note 1]}
2. Scientists are disincentivized to lie, since they can be publicly called out and ostracized as a result. Furthermore, attacking scientists is a deeply flawed method of "proving" creationism; even if such attacks are successful at damaging the credibility of scientists, this does not and cannot make actual evidence (such as the fossil record) less supportive of evolution and more supportive of creationism.
3. If all scientists who accept evolution were lying, this would be a world-wide conspiracy over a timespan of more than 150 years with hundreds of thousands of members, which is not believable.
4. It's just as realistic (if not more realistic) to assert that creationists are the ones who are lying.

Flat Earth[edit]

Claim[edit]

It is not true that the church used to teach that the Earth was flat. Only two Christian theologians (Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes) taught it, and they were largely ignored and uninfluential. The flat earth myth is a product of Darwinism meant to make it look like religion was the enemy of science when it was not so.^[4]

Responses[edit]

1. This is irrelevant to the truth of evolution.
2. Greek geographers had indeed realised that the earth was spherical by the 5^th century BCE, and the cultures dependent on Greek science (Roman, medieval Christianity, Islam) followed them. The medieval flat-earthers were a minority, but not as tiny a minority as Wells wants you to believe. Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabala are other theologians with the same leanings.^[5][6]
3. The idea that medieval Europeans believed that the earth was flat originated in the mid-19^th century. So this part of the claim is true. But the historian Jeffrey Burton Russell claims, as Wells does, that this was an intentional conspiracy, which goes not only beyond the evidence but also beyond credibility. For example, Russell's main villains, Antoine-Jean Letronne and Washington Irving, both died before Darwinism even existed.^[5][6]
4. Making religion appear as an enemy of science was not necessary for Darwinism. Galileo Galilei and creationism are enough to demonstrate that religion can be an enemy, at least of some scientific findings it does not like.^[5][6]
5. There are flat-earth advocates even to this day, often with religious justification^[7] for their theory, suggesting some causal link between past religious interpretations and today.

See also[edit]

For those of you in the mood, RationalWiki has a fun article about Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax.

• Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy

External links[edit]

• Evolution The Greatest Lie EVER Told !!! Evolution Debunked by White Rabbit of The CTN, Vigilant Christian
• CA611, Talk Origins
• Mark Isaak's page for this claim
• The Flat Earth: A Detailed Study of Personal Bias and Historical Thinking Ethical Atheist, 2001
• Jeffrey Burton Russell summary

Notes[edit]

References[edit]