Hard-line creationists often voice the concern that there is an overarching conspiracy of atheist scientists to deny the (biblical) truth. Some go as far as to view the whole enterprise of science as inherently corrupt and not worth engaging with. Others seem to adopt a weaker line, and believe either that any conspiracy is localised to certain problematic disciplines, and still more believe in an even weaker unconscious bias on the part of scientists; that is, that in order to preserve their mental equilibrium scientists must keep on believing in broken ideas like natural selection in the face of the evidence.
Since it is impossible to disprove this claim of an unconscious conspiracy, it is the ultimate fall-back position for people who make such a claim. In effect it is an unassailable stronghold, but at the same time it remains pretty unpersuasive. The same claim might legitimately be made against those who claim it.
So the focus of this discussion isn’t so much the weak position, but the stronger position that might be supported by evidence or perhaps falsified.
With regards to the stronger position, I have a couple of doubts. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it seems likely that if anyone found a half-decent way of falsifying an old earth or evolution they would be lauded as scientific geniuses, not garrotted by the science mafia. (I can’t be utterly sure of this however.)
It isn’t the intention of this topic to discuss the supposed evidence that disproves evolution, but rather to consider the merits of these conspiracy theories, and discuss the evidence that might support them, what shape it might take, and how people might go about gathering it. It would also be appropriate to consider how the strong belief in a malevolent conspiracy by the science community might be falsified.
The reason why this topic seems relevant is that it strikes me that if some variation of the conspiracy theory isn’t in place, then there isn’t a really good reason to stop creationists’ engagement with science and scientific method.
(I realise that many contributors to this site are scientists, and rest assured I will make a special effort to scrutinise their arguments for evidence of disingenuousness or other forms of badness that might suggest they are trying to cover their tracks.)
What does anyone else think?
This message has been edited by Tusko, 04-16-2005 08:03 AM
This message has been edited by Tusko, 04-16-2005 08:05 AM
™ Version 4.2
