Essay talk:The Anti-creationist conspiracy theory
You get this with pretty much every conspiracy theory. For any of them to happen, events have to be implausibly contrived, so many people to be exceptionally dedicated, and for human nature and all sense to be completely abandoned. In this case, it's not just a special case of scientists wanting to spread the truth, pretty much anyone in the position to tell-all will, eventually, tell-all. After all, this is how real conspiracies get leaked, and observing real conspiracies shows that the larger the conspiracy, the faster it falls. Paranoid conspiracy theories are often the largest, extrapolation would suggest they would last about 5 minutes before being blown wide open. 
theist 08:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the logic behind the suppressed cancer cure conspiracy theories. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not forget free energy suppression. sshole 08:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not forget free energy suppression.
- All good points. However you are missing the most important aspect, I was bored and at work, and by writing my draft of this on a company template people assumed I was being productive. Anyway, there didn't seem to be an essay arguing this point (or at least that I have found so far) so it seemed like a worthwhile topic for my first essay. Cheers Voxhumana (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's a worthwhile essay topic. I like a good hard rant and you're right about it being a neglected point; often we get so bogged down in technical details of conspiracy theories that we forget exactly what has to go on for them to be correct. theist 09:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's a worthwhile essay topic. I like a good hard rant and you're right about it being a neglected point; often we get so bogged down in technical details of conspiracy theories that we forget exactly what has to go on for them to be correct.
- All good points. However you are missing the most important aspect, I was bored and at work, and by writing my draft of this on a company template people assumed I was being productive. Anyway, there didn't seem to be an essay arguing this point (or at least that I have found so far) so it seemed like a worthwhile topic for my first essay. Cheers Voxhumana (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Interesting story...[edit]
...but completely out-of-touch with the actual creationist position. I am sure you could find some fringe dweller who actually thinks like this, but it is not at all typical. LowKey (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, the "darwinism is a religion/scientists are too scared or too intimidated to speak the truth" angle seems pretty ubiqitous across most creationist sites. Here's one easily found example. VOXHUMANA 06:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm, you did exactly what I described and found a fringe dweller. Not only is that not a typical creationist site, it's actually not even a creation site but rather a advocacy of USA becoming a church-state. Learn what creationists as a whole claim, "conspiracy" is not even it. "Ruling paradigm" might be a good search term for you. LowKey (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I know you are in with the presuppositionalist crowd, but numerous creationists do take the evidentialist position. Andrew Schlafly, you will recall, accused Richard Lenski of fraud rather than quibbling over whether the observed mutation was "beneficial" or not, as CMI did.
ListenerXTalkerX 08:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Actually, you can't know that about me because it is not true. Presuppositionalism is a horse of a whole nother colour. You confuse (and this is a common error) a creationist recognition of the existence and role of presuppositions and the Presuppositionalist apologetic which is in fact not an apologetic. Are you claiming Andrew Schlafly is a typical creationist? I wasn't aware that he was a typical anything. I don't recall the details of CMI's position regarding Lenski, can you point me at it? I did think it was more interpreting Lenski's evidence differently, but then creationists are also not allowed to do that, else we are accused of misrepresentation and fraud. This is part of the heart of the matter, surely some creationists do hold this position, but then surely some evolutionists hold that creationists attempt exactly the same kind of conspiracy described here. Neither is actually the typical position of either side, so arguing against it is not addressing the other side's real position. LowKey (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here is CMI's position paper on the Lenski research. When I said you were "in with the presuppositionalist crowd," I was talking about your and PJR's primarily using CMI, which follows the presuppositionalist line, as a resource.
- Although Mr. Schlafly was probably not the best example, the Lenski affair happened before he launched into his more egregious bouts of crazy. the CMI camp are about the only creationists I know of who are not into some conspiracy-theoretic thinking, which features very strongly in American creationism (e.g., Kent Hovind). ListenerXTalkerX 04:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)Actually, you can't know that about me because it is not true. Presuppositionalism is a horse of a whole nother colour. You confuse (and this is a common error) a creationist recognition of the existence and role of presuppositions and the Presuppositionalist apologetic which is in fact not an apologetic. Are you claiming Andrew Schlafly is a typical creationist? I wasn't aware that he was a typical anything. I don't recall the details of CMI's position regarding Lenski, can you point me at it? I did think it was more interpreting Lenski's evidence differently, but then creationists are also not allowed to do that, else we are accused of misrepresentation and fraud. This is part of the heart of the matter, surely some creationists do hold this position, but then surely some evolutionists hold that creationists attempt exactly the same kind of conspiracy described here. Neither is actually the typical position of either side, so arguing against it is not addressing the other side's real position. LowKey (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I know you are in with the presuppositionalist crowd, but numerous creationists do take the evidentialist position. Andrew Schlafly, you will recall, accused Richard Lenski of fraud rather than quibbling over whether the observed mutation was "beneficial" or not, as CMI did.
- Hmmm, you did exactly what I described and found a fringe dweller. Not only is that not a typical creationist site, it's actually not even a creation site but rather a advocacy of USA becoming a church-state. Learn what creationists as a whole claim, "conspiracy" is not even it. "Ruling paradigm" might be a good search term for you. LowKey (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is John D. Morris a "fringe dweller"? [1] Peter HFB2 08:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, yes what he is claiming there sounds mighty like conspiracy but he is talking about attacks against his organisation which is not what is under discussion here. This is about evidence being unearthed and then intentionally buried in order to maintain belief in TOE. Not that the other isn't an interesting discussion itself, but it is not th etopic under discussion. LowKey (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
(OD) Actually, disregard. Sorry for the intrusion. I shouldn't have started something I don't have time to finish. Nothing to see here. LowKey (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Bradley is good people. Fucking weird creationist sure, but you shouldn't judge him on that anymore than you would judge a man with a cleft palate for not being able to talk properly. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 10:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant essay[edit]
Just saying. 
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)