Why Are So Many Creationists Conspiracy Theorists?

[Scuba Pete]

That's fair, since I don't have a problem with a creator who designed a world such that it has all the characteristics of a world not so designed.

He sure made it look easier than it is! I have a hard time just remodeling my house!

 

[Sunstone]

Do we have figures on how many of these creationists ascribe to these views?

I've run across creationists who hold the view scientists are in some kind of conspiracy to hide the weaknesses of evolution.

Or is this merely a red herring designed to impugn all creationists with a broad brush?

Re-read the OP and see if I say "all creationists".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He sure made it look easier than it is! I have a hard time just remodeling my house!

:bow: shalom, my friend :bow:

 

[Scuba Pete]

"So many" is the term I used, and usually it makes one think of "most". Some is a far better descriptor unless you are trying to be contentious.

I could start a thread with "Why do so many atheists beat their wives?" or "Why are so many atheists rude?", but knowing that this would add unneeded baggage to the discussion I would refrain from doing so.

However, how many is "Many" for you? 10? 100? 1000? or more? Possibly you could express this in terms of percentages for us? Maybe it's %5 or possibly %95? But, if your assertion is "many", please allow us to try and determine not only your criteria for this denominator but your motivation as well. This clarification will make a difference in how "many" of us will respond to the OP.

 

[Sunstone]

"So many" is the term I used, and usually it makes one think of "most". Some is a far better descriptor unless you are trying to be contentious.

I could start a thread with "Why do so many atheists beat their wives?" or "Why are so many atheists rude?", but knowing that this would add unneeded baggage to the discussion I would refrain from doing so.

However, how many is "Many" for you? 10? 100? 1000? or more? Possibly you could express this in terms of percentages for us? Maybe it's %5 or possibly %95? But, if your assertion is "many", please allow us to try and determine not only your criteria for this denominator but your motivation as well. This clarification will make a difference in how "many" of us will respond to the OP.

Pete, this is a side issue. But if you want to know, my impression is most creationists would need to concede that their notion of how "evidence is swept under the rug", "ignored by scientists", or "dismissed" implies that scientists must be in some kind of conspiracy to hide weaknesses in evolutionary theory -- they would need to concede that if they ever thought through what they are saying. However, I don't think most creationists think through what they're saying well enough to realize they are implying scientists are in a conspiracy to deny the weaknesses in evolutionary theory.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Thanks for your candor.

I would suggest that "most" creationists could care less about creationism or are so confused as to WHO to believe that they keep to what is simple. It would be my unsupported belief that you have arrived at your conclusion from hearing the VOCAL minority of creationists who are worried about losing some of their faithful.

If they were asked directly if they believed in such a conspiracy, I am confident that most of them would wonder what you were actually talking about. Unless of course, if you used a very narrow view of "creationist"

 

[rocketman]

But if you want to know, my impression is most creationists would need to concede that their notion of how "evidence is swept under the rug", "ignored by scientists", or "dismissed" implies that scientists must be in some kind of conspiracy to hide weaknesses in evolutionary theory -- they would need to concede that if they ever thought through what they are saying.

Ok, "most": Now we know how many you meant. My 'impression' is that most creationists do not see evidence being swept under the rug but rather being interpreted differently, as per the quote I gave from their leading website. My 'impression' is that one or two who have a radical view give the rest a bad name. My 'experience' tells me that you are very wrong. My 'instincts' tell me you are wrong but you mean well.

However, I don't think most creationists think through what they're saying well enough to realize they are implying scientists are in a conspiracy to deny the weaknesses in evolutionary theory.

I don't think you have thought through well enough what you are saying. Many creationists think that mainstream science is less than energetic in confronting some of the less well understood aspects of TOE. I quoted one scientist who is energetic about it and he thinks others should be too. So obviously scientists vary in their willingness to admit the levels of weakness with the theory. Now where in all of that do creationists point to a deliberate conspiracy?

There is a big difference between noting that scientists hold dogmatically to their lens of interpretaion vs declaring that there is a full-scale fully-planned organised sinister conspiracy going on behind the scenes.

 

[Draka]

I think the biggest problem here is that there are different kinds of creationists. You can't really put all in the same boat. There are those who believe that the forces of nature and science are what were used to gradually create the universe and our planet and our lives over billions of years, and that some deity controls those forces. By definition, that is still creation. There are also those creationists who can be referred to as literal bible creationists. The ones who adamently believe in a young earth. It is those creationists that so often have to try to debunk scientists in order for their ascertations to hold water.

So maybe it would be better to ask why do so many "Young Earth" creation proponents want to say that scientists are in some kind of conspiracy. Because there are a lot of creationists that have no problem with their idea of creation working through the laws of science...that their deity created.

 

[rocketman]

I think the biggest problem here is that there are different kinds of creationists. You can't really put all in the same boat.

Good point.

So maybe it would be better to ask why do so many "Young Earth" creation proponents want to say that scientists are in some kind of conspiracy.

I'll repeat my quote from earlier, which comes from the leading YEC website:

" ...creationist or evolutionist, have the same evidence; the difference is the presuppositions that are used to interpret that evidence. All reasoning is based on presuppositions. "

Shouldn't they be saying that science is hiding the evidence if they believe there is a conspiracy? There seems to be a serious lack of knowledge out there about what most YECers really think, even though they spell it out plainly. I think people don't understand the interpretations framework and how that sets the view of young earth creationists. I fully understand how a casual reading of some of their works cause some to believe they are alluding to a conspiracy theory, but is that what they actually mean?

Of the things I have heard: I know that the now jailed Kent Hovind had some conspiracy theories about it, as well as some about the governement and cancer cures etc. There are one or two trivial home-made YEC websites out there that use the word conspiracy, but the word is used far and away more by those who make the claim against creationists. I have seen two books called "The Evolution Conspiracy" and "The Moth Conspiracy". The former does not offer any real evidence of a conspiracy and it's choice of words for the title can be considered a minority view, and the latter merely points out some alledged shoddy science that was long ago part of the discussion.

I would be interested if anyone could point out to me where the larger mainstream YEC gang have formally declared that there is an ill-meaning conspiracy, or perhaps some solid supporting evidence that falls outside of the 'interpretations' framework.

 

[Draka]

Good point.

I'll repeat my quote from earlier, which comes from the leading YEC website:

" ...creationist or evolutionist, have the same evidence; the difference is the presuppositions that are used to interpret that evidence. All reasoning is based on presuppositions. "

Shouldn't they be saying that science is hiding the evidence if they believe there is a conspiracy? There seems to be a serious lack of knowledge out there about what most YECers really think, even though they spell it out plainly. I think people don't understand the interpretations framework and how that sets the view of young earth creationists. I fully understand how a casual reading of some of their works cause some to believe they are alluding to a conspiracy theory, but is that what they actually mean?

Of the things I have heard: I know that the now jailed Kent Hovind had some conspiracy theories about it, as well as some about the governement and cancer cures etc. There are one or two trivial home-made YEC websites out there that use the word conspiracy, but the word is used far and away more by those who make the claim against creationists. I have seen two books called "The Evolution Conspiracy" and "The Moth Conspiracy". The former does not offer any real evidence of a conspiracy and it's choice of words for the title can be considered a minority view, and the latter merely points out some alledged shoddy science that was long ago part of the discussion.

I would be interested if anyone could point out to me where the larger mainstream YEC gang have formally declared that there is an ill-meaning conspiracy, or perhaps some solid supporting evidence that falls outside of the 'interpretations' framework.

One does not need to formally declare anything by specifically using the word "conspiracy". It is the constant ellusions to inproprieties when analyzing scientific data that hints at the YEC's view of scientists. You talk of "interpretations" and you are, in a way, right. The main difference lies in the fact that one group is using scientifically proven facts that have been tried and tested hundreds of times over by scientists all over the world throughout the ages, while the other camp is using the bible-made rose-colored-glasses to analyze the information through, in such a fashion that it backs up what they already believe.

Scientists use data and analysis of that data to find a "how" and a possible "why" regardless of any religious belief they may have. YECs manipulate data to fit into what they already believe is the "how" and "why" because their religion dictates it as so. Now because of this adament belief most YECs look upon scientists as somehow against the bible and it's literal translation. Some have gone so far as to create entire websites and write books with the sole purpose of debunking true science. If that's not the actions of people "fighting a conspiracy" I don't know what are. They elude to the belief in a conspiracy by their actions. Plain and simple.

 

[rocketman]

One does not need to formally declare anything by specifically using the word "conspiracy".

So we can agree then that it is a word not often used by YECers?

It is the constant ellusions to inproprieties when analyzing scientific data that hints at the YEC's view of scientists.

YECers speak of scientists sometimes having a humanistic agenda, one where the facts perfectly fit their presumptions. (When leading evolutionists write books agaisnt religion it becomes more than plain science). And if you are going to try to tell me that you can reason without a presumption then I'll know you don't understand the difference between citing an agenda and claiming a conspiracy. Big diff'.

Mentioning that the YECers aren't engaging in science does nothing either way to prove that they consider regular science to be a conspiracy.

You talk of "interpretations" and you are, in a way, right.

So, what, are you saying that they have invented evidence and that it's more than a case of their presuppositions? You'll need to show me that. (I'm talking the major groups, not the Kent Hovinds).

They elude to the belief in a conspiracy by their actions. Plain and simple.

Your accusation; but in the spirit of scienctific endeavour, can you back it up with proof?

Peace.

 

[rojse]

"So many" is the term I used, and usually it makes one think of "most". Some is a far better descriptor unless you are trying to be contentious.

I could start a thread with "Why do so many atheists beat their wives?" or "Why are so many atheists rude?", but knowing that this would add unneeded baggage to the discussion I would refrain from doing so.

However, how many is "Many" for you? 10? 100? 1000? or more? Possibly you could express this in terms of percentages for us? Maybe it's %5 or possibly %95? But, if your assertion is "many", please allow us to try and determine not only your criteria for this denominator but your motivation as well. This clarification will make a difference in how "many" of us will respond to the OP.

But for you to post up a question about atheists and wife beating, or atheists and rudeness, you would want to know that no Christian does the same thing, and that is where your analogy breaks down. Sure, there may be atheists that do not beat their wives, or are extremely rude, but there are many that do not, and there are some. Christians that beat their wives, too, or are rude, so I do not see an analogy between the two.

How many atheists believe in an evolution conspiracy theory?

And, does it really make a difference whether the word is some, a group, many, or so forth? Does it diminish the relevance of the question posed?

 

[Scuba Pete]

But for you to post up a question about atheists and wife beating, or atheists and rudeness, you would want to know that no Christian does the same thing, and that is where your analogy breaks down. Sure, there may be atheists that do not beat their wives, or are extremely rude, but there are many that do not, and there are some. Christians that beat their wives, too, or are rude, so I do not see an analogy between the two.

So your premise is that ALL atheists understand in and believe in evolution? Do you have any statistics to back this up?

And, does it really make a difference whether the word is some, a group, many, or so forth? Does it diminish the relevance of the question posed?

It made a difference to me and I applaud SS for being forthright.

 

[rojse]

So your premise is that ALL atheists understand in and believe in evolution? Do you have any statistics to back this up?It made a difference to me and I applaud SS for being forthright.

I never said that, what I said was that there were no atheists that dismiss evolution to a conspiracy to dismiss the truths of creationism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

As I said, it made a difference to me and to others as well.

 

[Draka]

So we can agree then that it is a word not often used by YECers?

YECers speak of scientists sometimes having a humanistic agenda, one where the facts perfectly fit their presumptions. (When leading evolutionists write books agaisnt religion it becomes more than plain science). And if you are going to try to tell me that you can reason without a presumption then I'll know you don't understand the difference between citing an agenda and claiming a conspiracy. Big diff'.

Mentioning that the YECers aren't engaging in science does nothing either way to prove that they consider regular science to be a conspiracy.

So, what, are you saying that they have invented evidence and that it's more than a case of their presuppositions? You'll need to show me that. (I'm talking the major groups, not the Kent Hovinds).

Your accusation; but in the spirit of scienctific endeavour, can you back it up with proof?

Peace.

Not using the word "conspiracy" does not make them any less of conspiracy theorists. You just said it yourself. YECs believe that scientists have an agenda. Duh, that's pretty much validating the whole conspiracy idea right there. It's not a big difference. Especially when YECs go out of their way to take validated science and twist it to their own beliefs and then turn around and say that scientists have an agenda. Even if scientists have a "humanistic" agenda, and I'm not saying that they do, isn't that the big shiny freshly painted black pot calling the old faded kettle black???

And I never said anything about inventing evidence. YECs take evidence, disregard a lot of it by saying it's faulty with no real science to back up that claim, and twist the rest of it all up to fit into their nice little box of their belief structure. Then they adamently declare that all these highly educated scientists around the world are all working through the same "agenda" (I'll use your own word there so you really see how it sounds) to cover up the real origins of the world that "God" created. How on this green Earth is that NOT a belief in a mass scientific conspiracy???

Oh, and the bit about "leading evolutionists" writing against religion...are they writing against all religion and religious ethics and principles...or against the idea of a miraculous creation that happened just a few thousand years ago? Hmmmm...let's think why they might do that...because it's been proven many times over to have been impossible? That that idea has been proven false on so many levels that some find it absolutely amazing that anyone can really believe that still? It's like believing the Earth is flat in this day and age.

 

[rocketman]

You just said it yourself. YECs believe that scientists have an agenda. Duh, that's pretty much validating the whole conspiracy idea right there. It's not a big difference.

Please be more careful with your reading. I said: "YECers speak of scientists sometimes having a humanistic agenda.." This of-course refers most often to scientists at the individual level, like Dawkins, and not science as a whole. YECers do like to point out any collaboration between anti-YECers of the same agenda, but that's about it. The word agenda was the closest thing I could find to 'conspiracy' amongst their literature, even though it is a long way off. The word means "list of things to do", usually refering in these cases to arguments that are made by scientists about religion that fall outside of the testable realm, which is a fair enough call.

Compare that with the definition of conspiracy: "a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act". Perhaps you have some examples where mainstream YECers talk like this about science?

I think 'conspiracy' is too strong a word. Sunstone asks how it is that everyone involved, including grad students, could have kept it covered up. Is that REALLY what creationists think happened? Including the many who have PHDs in biology and sat through as grad students themselves? The premise of this thread is somewhat ludicrous (but interesting!).

Even if scientists have a "humanistic" agenda, and I'm not saying that they do, isn't that the big shiny freshly painted black pot calling the old faded kettle black???

If you wish. I don't have an opinion on this. I'm trying to stick to the OP. Both sides are capable of having an agenda (the creationists have admitted theirs) but it would not prove that either side was engaged in a conspiracy, or claiming one.

And I never said anything about inventing evidence.

I asked if that's what you were getting at for a reason. If you are saying it's more than a question of interpretaion then you are by extension saying that they are doing something naughty with the evidence. Conversely, if you do accept that it is simply a matter of different interpretations (this thread is not about wether those interpretations are right or wrong), then the statement from the YECers that I quoted should be sufficient for you, in the context of this thread, and in the absence of solid supporting evidence on your part.

Then they adamently declare that all these highly educated scientists around the world are all working through the same "agenda" (I'll use your own word there so you really see how it sounds) to cover up the real origins of the world that "God" created.

They do? Your unsupported accusation sounds sounds silly to me. Especially in light of their official position which claims that scientists are doing nothing wrong and just starting with a different viewpoint.

Occasionally YECers (and even OECers) will take note of a scientist who selects evidence from the available choices solely because it is the best 'fit' within the standard framework. Scientists (who are sensitive human beings after all) then get very upset and think that creationists are accusing them of being unscientific, which is simply not the case. It's an example of reasoning from a presupposition. Nowhere in all of that are claims of full blown conspiracies.

How on this green Earth is that NOT a belief in a mass scientific conspiracy???

Er, because they don't ever mention that scientists are deliberately and conspiratorily working all to the same agenda in some massive secret organisation? Unless you care to show me where they do say that....

Oh, and the bit about "leading evolutionists" writing against religion...are they writing against all religion and religious ethics and principles...or against the idea of a miraculous creation that happened just a few thousand years ago?

Are you serious? It happens all the time. eg: Dawkins is a leading evolutionist and has certainly written extensively against religion quite apart from evolutionary basis and far removed from the testable world of peer reviewed bodies of work. The man would appear to have a humanistic 'list of things to do'. It does make some people wonder about motives. Both sides are human after all. This is natural, and not the stuff of paranoid conspiracy theories.

 

[painted wolf]

YEC'ers don't use the word conspiracy?
The Evolution Conspiracy (scientists are out to get you!)
The Evolution Conspiracy
Table of Contents for The evolution conspiracy book
Evolution the extensive conspiracy...(we're everywhere!)
EVOLUTION: PROBLEMS WITH THE CONSPIRACY
Evolution is a Jewish conspiracy... ( :tsk: )
Christian Hate: Evolution is a Jewish Conspiracy

This just scratches the surface. After this its Humanist conspiracy's, Athiest conspiracy's, and on and on.
I'm sure that not ALL people subsribe to ID are conspiracy theorists, but a great many of the leaders seem to be and a lot of the followers seem content to beleive what they are told.

wa:do

 

[rocketman]

YEC'ers don't use the word conspiracy?
The Evolution Conspiracy (scientists are out to get you!)
The Evolution Conspiracy
Table of Contents for The evolution conspiracy book
Evolution the extensive conspiracy...(we're everywhere!)
EVOLUTION: PROBLEMS WITH THE CONSPIRACY
Evolution is a Jewish conspiracy... ( :tsk: )
Christian Hate: Evolution is a Jewish Conspiracy

I have already mentioned that first one. It is actually more about 'Satan' hijacking things than anything else. The second one is not creationist at all, it is making fun of them - read it carefully and also go to the home page there. The last one is just plain weird and offers no evidence that creationists used the word conspiracy or are against jewish people (actually racism of any kind is usually a massive no-no under creationism); but it does mention Kent Hovind so who knows what he was going on about.

I think we all agree that there are a handful on the fringe who might actually think there is a conspiracy. So...

This just scratches the surface.

...ok then, it shouldn't be too hard for you to show me where the larger groups claim an organised conspiracy by scientists (as opposed to satan). Thanks.

 

[painted wolf]

so then the Evolution Conspiracy is about scientists being in league with satan?

"Evolution comes across clearly as the anti-Christian way of thinking. Its evil roots are exposed, as are its awful fruits. Truly there is an Evolution Conspiracy, and it can no longer be ignored by God's people."
John D. Morris
Institute for Creation Research

*emphasis mine
This also sounds very conspiracy thoery to me. From John Morris

Second, perhaps due to the popularity of the creation message these days, but also to a bitter hatred of Christianity, it seems that many individuals and powerful organizations have aligned themselves in a united front to destroy ICR. Those specifically involved include most of the major humanistic, atheistic, skeptic, and civil liberties groups (you could name most of them) as well as the so-called "intellectual elite" in higher education. Their goal is total control of education—total mind control.

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

"For many years the world has not had a square deal in connection with such discoveries as these. There has been a conspiracy of silence, by which all discoveries that did not accord with the popular theory of evolution have been systematically ignored and put on the top shelf, while every little item of evidence tending to support this theory has been proclaimed from the housetops, and broadcasted over the world by a syndicated press." George McCready Price

Kent Hovind has so many conspiracy theories he gets a whole page.
QUACKY QUOTES ABOUT CONSPIRACIES

"Indisputable evidence — long hidden but now available to everyone — demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," "This scenario is derived concept-for-concept from Rabbinic writings in the mystic 'holy book' Kabbala dating back at least two millennia." Atlanta Rep. Ben Bridges

just a few, I'm sure with more time and more careing a flip, I'd find more.

wa:do