|The divine comedy|
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
Some creationists claim that, in general, scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma. This statement is backwards, given the nature of science.
 Evolution has become unquestionable
Creationists Henry Morris and Ben Wiker 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.
First and foremost, evolution is constantly changing as the understanding of the mechanisms of genes, gene expression, etc. are 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). But, if the evidence is strong enough 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 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 evidence that will potentially contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible.
 Scientists lie about evolution
- "Lying" implies that the person knows better. Even if YEC is true and evolution and old earth are false, scientists could just be mistaken.
- Scientists are disincentivized to lie, since they can be publicly called out and ostracized as a result. Attacking scientists is a flawed method of proving creationism.
- 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.
- It's just as realistic (if not more realistic) to assert creationists are the ones lying.
 Flat Earth
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.
- This is irrelevant to the truth of evolution.
- Greek geographers had indeed realised that the earth was spherical by the 5th 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.
- The idea that medieval Europeans believed that the earth was flat originated in the mid-19th 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.
- 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.
- There are flat-earth advocates even to this day, often with religious justification for their theory, suggesting some causal link between past religious interpretations and today.
- Mark Isaak's page for this claim 
- Ethical Atheist, 2001, The Flat Earth: A Detailed Study of Personal Bias and Historical Thinking. 
- Jeffrey Burton Russell summary 
 See also
- Evolution The Greatest Lie EVER Told !!! Evolution Debunked by White Rabbit of The CTN, Vigilant Christian
- ↑ Morris, Henry M., 2001 (Feb.). Evolution Is Religion--Not Science. Impact #332.
- ↑ Wiker, Benjamin D., 2003. Does Science Point to God? Part II: The Christian Critics.
- ↑ Jack Chick, It's Coming!, Chick Publications. http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5002/5002_01.asp.
- ↑ Wells, Jonathan, 1999 (Oct. 20). "Evolution: Teaching the Controversy", debate at Burlington-Edison High School, sponsored by Skagit Parents for Scientific Truth in Education.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Schadewald, Robert, 1999 (Oct. 24, 16:15). "Re: Wells speech at Burlington Edison High School", USENET post to talk.origins, Message-Id <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Jeffrey Burton Russell, 1991. The Myth of the Flat Earth, New York: Praeger.
- ↑ http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm