Creationists: Please explain the scientific conspiracy?

Question

I asked this before but got no meaningful responses, so let's try again.

The scientific community has accepted the Theory of Evolution as scientific fact for at least the last 50 years.


If evolution is a lie and we were created as we are now, then this must mean that the scientific community is lying to us, and has been for at least 50 years.

There must be a vast conspiracy amongst scientist to have started and maintain this lie.

Can you please explain how a community of thousands of people have managed to keep this vast conspiracy a secret? How come there have been no confessions from any of these thousands of people. How come thousands more have quietly joined the conspiracy rather than reveal it?

How do all these scientist and technicians keep publishing papers based on a false premise? Millions of papers have been published that are underpinned by evolution. How have this conspiracy been able to produce this vast number of documents without ever slipping up?

Meaningful answer please, no handwaves and excuses.

Come on. The scientific community FULLY supports the Theory of Evolution. Macro/Micro - there is no difference. Science says man evolved from primates and 99.9% of all biologists support this.

There are thousands of people doing research based on evolutionary theory. Either they would have proven it wrong, or they are part of a vast and incredibly complex conspiracy.

madbaldscotsman: Why? I know the scientific definition of a theory. You go look that up.

roxiecat4200: Please explain the mechanism that prevents Macro evolution. If I can walk a mile in 20 minutes, why can't I walk 1000 miles in 20 days? Evolution is a theory. Thousands of scientist claim it is a documented fact too.

Thousands of highly educated scientists, experts in the fields of biology think that creationism is totally wrong and that evolution from one species to another is a documented fact. Either they are right or they are lying. If they are all lying it is a conspiracy.

Joshua B. the vast majority of scientists fully support evolution and say creationism is wrong. I did not say all scientists. The discovery institute tricked a lot of scientists into signing a vague statement that was then trumped as saying evolution was wrong. - the statement actually said that it should be questioned. All scientific theories are constantly being questioned. If you are into numbers, there are more scientist named Steve who say you are totally wrong than there are in your list - See http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

So all all these scientists are atheists? I know that more educated people are more likely to be atheists, but 100%? Sorry, there are lots of Christians and Muslims and other religious people in there - they have concluded that the evidence supports evolution not creationism.

Answer 1

Theory:
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%

Answer 2

Ha ha.. this is funny stuff.

Creationists are just a hoot.

People believe what they are taught to believe. It is really difficult to let go of something that everyone who has had an impact in your life says is right.

It's hard to "prove" anything, though. Even in mathematics, everything is based on an assumption (and mathematicians consent to this fact). That's why they have proofs. I remember an intro. math class I had when I started college that was the FIRST thing our teacher said.

You have to look at the situation objectively, to understand the other side. While you argue that there have been no slip ups in this supposed conspiracy, creationists would say the same thing. Even if a flaw is found in their logic, some explanation will be found to explain it. Evolutionists do the same, it's called theorizing. When something no longer works with the knowledge we have, we change it. I mean, the world was flat, other ethnicity's weren't human... and Pluto was a planet.... :)

So we don't know everything, no one does. So for my own sanity, I believe what I believe and I will not condemn someone for their beliefs, even if they are far fetched to me.

It would be nice to have a few more answers, but until then, I try not to discount or follow any one elses.

Answer 3

You're asking a question that has an answer much deeper than I believe you are willing to investigate. But I respect your effort to seek out a new opinion that may challenge your own. So here it goes.

I don't think most scientists believe there is a "conspiracy," they just are accepting what they've been told to be fact. But just because something has been called "fact" for the last 50 years, doesn't make it so. Like I said, this answer is going to be hard to swallow, but this is it: in life, there is good and evil. Look at the creationst worldview, it says that mankind started out perfect, but that we are leading toward decay unless we reach out for God to save us. Evolution on the other hand, says man started as nothing but slime, is evolving into something greater, and doesn't need god because one day man will be his own god. It is the COMPLETE opposite. It has been accepted because the majority of man does not want to admit that he needs a god to save him and refuses to believe in one. Man wants an alternative.

I would love to see this evidence you claim is out there that supports evolution, cause I've dug and dug and everything I've found has crumbled. Why do evolutionists say the universe is evolving when science clearly shows that it's falling apart? How can evolution even call itself science when, technically, it is not even classified as a theory.

Here's the bottom line: SCIENCE IS - anything that is testable, demonstratable, repeatable and observable. Evolution is none of those things. For it to even be a theory it must have a plausible formula that produces a similar result time and time again. It does not.

I know what you're thinking, neither does creation. And that's true. But when you really examine the evidence, you'll find that the Bible's account of creation is more in line with the condition of the world today than evolution has EVER been.

Answer 4

You've kinda answered your own question there.

It is the THEORY of evolution. It is the best idea we have at the moment, if new scientific evidence arises, the theory will change.

Scientists are willing to change their ideas and move with the times. Unlike religions where everything is set in stone and if you don't agree you are going to hell/not a good christian/muslim etc....

It is not a conspiracy, it is a theory devised using all the scientific evidence and technology available at this time. It may have been first written about 50 years ago but not much has fundamentally changed since then, the fossil record remains pretty much the same.

Answer 5

I can't wait to read the answers to this one.

For those that say it's a theory there are plenty of things in science that are well believed that are "just" theories. Hell gravity is "just" a theory too as are atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based).

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena"

To Earl down there, you do realize that evolution takes place over time, and there are fossil records that support it. Show me video of god doing... well anything and then you can use that argument.

To Joshua B I look at that list and you know what scientific field I don't see represented? Biology, you know the field of study that evolution actually falls under. Then you go on to list a bunch of scientist who came before the theory of evolution, the methods for testing it, or the evidence supporting it. That proves what exactly?

Anyone who wishes to read about evidence supporting evolution and counters to creationist claims read the link below.

Answer 6

You speak of conspiracy. Satan has blinded many people to the truth. All scientists do not believe in evolution. Check this out:
-----------------------------------------------------

Name: The Case For A Creator DVD
Product Detail: As a high school freshman, Lee Strobel became convinced that God did not exist. Only the hard, empirical evidence of science could be trusted--and it appeared to point to a universe created by purely materialistic processes. Time, chance, and Darwinian evolution. This atheistic worldview deeply influenced Strobel’s academic years and early career as an award-winning journalist for the Chicago Tribune. Then, in 1980, his wife’s conversion to Christianity led him on an intensive search for the truth about God. Not surprisingly, he began with science. What do the discoveries of modern biology, physics, cosmology, and astronomy really tell us about the origin of life and the universe? When objectively considered, does contemporary scientific evidence point toward or away from a supernatural Creator? Strobel interviewed scientists and scholars from a wide range of disciplines for the answers. Based upon a New York Times best-seller, The Case for a Creator is a remarkable film about
Features: Author: Lee Strobel
DVD
Audience: General

Topic: Intelligent Design (ID)


I HOPE YOU FIND THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.

Answer 7

It is a theory, not a fact. But so is gravity. You can't really prove either.
But its true, the scientific community is in agreement about evolution in general. There are differences on the specifics, but your point is correct.
There are "scientists," some of them with degrees even, who will write books and articles arguing for creationism. Why do they get published? Because creationists will read them. Why do they do it? Some actually believe what they're writing, but do not have the credentials to be writing scientific dissertations. Others do it for the money.
This only strengthens creationists' conviction that their beliefs are correct.

Answer 8

i don't think its conspiracy. what i do think is that science is like a religion. both science and religion try to explain the world around us. sometimes they butt heads a bit. me i think they can coexist peacefully. why can't god have created the universe with the big bang and his plan is slowly control the development of the universe through time and laws of nature ie physics thermodynamics. science is black white religion is a little gray. i think why religious people attack science so often is that most of the theories are attacking their cores beliefs or at least they feel that way. same way with scientist they think religion is silly because its not based on fact its based on faith. something they cant figure into their equations. personally i think everyone needs to stop worrying about who created what and when and deal with the issues that are facing us today. like poverty lack of education in most countries. the hopeless needless wars that go on. and lets not forget the most important issue of the day Paris Hilton's jail term.

Answer 9

I don't believe there is a conspiracy by scientists to deceive the public. I'm convinced these scientists actually BELIEVE what they tell the public because it justifies their disbelief in a Creator. The same holds true conversely; Creationists genuinely believe in Creationism because of their belief in a Creator.

"Evidence" is always subjective. A person who doesn't believe in God is going to perceive a shred of evidence differently than someone who believes in God, because they have totally closed their mind to the possibility of Creator. If a particular shred of evidence seems to prove evolution wrong, it will either be reinterpreted or discarded all together. Since, in their mind, there is no God, the "evidence" cannot prove the only non-spiritual process of existence wrong.

Answer 10

Theory - here's your definition, please read BOTH!

In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition

Source: Wikipedia, Google it