Why do some creationists see science as a big conspiracy?
470163
The good thing about science is, it allows being questioned over and over again. Science classes should teach science, not religion. Religion do not accept being questioned, being put to proof and to replicate the exercises that lead to any theory. Science can make mistake and lead to false conclusions, yet, it's supposed to be continuously examined. \n\nReligion is about faith, not about a scientific method, and should be managed as what it is, religion, and taught were it should be taught, home, church, temple, etc.\n\nThe belief that the earth was flat wasn't science, it was a belief, just to be redundant.\n\n"One thing I have learned in a long life: All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have. " - Albert Einstein
377609
There have never been any forgeries in the science of evolution, only a few hoaxes (such as Piltdown man) that were exposed by evolutionary scientists as hoaxes.\n\nThe only evil conspiracy attempting to impose it's twisted world view on the world is the Creationists who oppose evolution because they are uncomfortable with the idea of thinking that God may have operated in a fashion other than what is literally spelled out in the bible.
1174074
They're trying to give 'scientific' proof of their religious beliefs. There is no logic in it, only rationalizing.\n\nTheir understanding of evolution is nil, they draw their conclusions from a caricature of evolutionary theory presented by creationism proponents.
376960
There's many scientists in this field who are also Christians.\nDon't focus on the "how the cosmos came to be" that they teach, but on studying them as now.\n\nI had a Biology teacher, who said in the beginning of his class, "I realize there are students who are Christians here. My goal is not to argue the merits of either evolution or creationism. My job is to teach you what is in our textbooks.  Please leave your faith out of what's being taught in class. Answering the questions in the books with what is written there won't endanger your faith. It will assure that you will pass this class".
88621
Many scientists avoid the subject of religion and rather simply try to gather evidence, build models (hypotheses or theories), test them, keep the ones that succeed, throw out the ones that fail, rinse and repeat.\n\nAs one accumulates these evidence, it lends credence to the probability to the models (theories) being true.  This means that these models are consistent with what evidence is collected with respect to the past and that it may predict new kinds of evidence that may be found in the future.\n\nThe problem is that some people get into semantic word play with the word "theory" and think that demonstrating a flaw or a lack of explanation in the "theory" invalidates it totally making it false.  If you replace the word "theory" with model (which maybe scienstists should do), it reduces the ability to attack it.\n\nAnd, as for the "Big Bang", there are models which, if correct, say that the "Big Bang" was not necessarily the beginning.\n\nI think one problem people have with these "theories" is that they lack the experience, study, and knowledge of the evidence to appreciate their validity or not and so reject them simply out of hand because they are not consistent with their own belief system.\n\nHere's the problem.  If I say that the grass outside my window is green and you say "I don't believe you", that does not invalidate the fact that the grass outside my window is green.  It just means that you refuse to accept the evidence.  Your statement of disbelief does nothing to disprove the evidence.\n\nNow, given that the stories in Genesis are inconsistent with the evidence of the universe, you have a choice.  Accept them as allegorical and still find value in the teachings of the bible or whatever your religion might be. Or, you can see it as an attack on a literal interpretation of the bible.  But, these scientists didn't set out to attack the bible or religion.  They just set out to interpret the evidence and found that words in the bible didn't provide sufficient explanation to intepret the evidence and create consistent models.\n\nIt is only folks that think a word for word literal interpretation of the bible is required to be religious that find that science is an attack on religion.\n\nIt is possible to interpret the bible as guide for how to live one's life without ascribing to a word for word literal interpretation.  It just depends on your interpretation.
299471
ID has managed to turn creationism into pseudo-science, it so craves the endorsement of the scientific community, \n\nFortunately the pseudo-scientists who came up with the pseudo-scientific hypothesis they call ID have only managed to garner total rejection and scorn from the scientific community.
1085537
A holistic approach to cancer and the environment is bigger than science but when done well, science meets nature, meets God & man. Many a scientist today would kill 80%of mankind today to save wildlife from extinction and there are many who would destroy 80 % of the world to save only themselves and the few who believe as they do. There is a bigger truth than Science and CNN... Scientsits and religioists both have something to offer mankind and the world but it is much overstated. Scientists manipulate data to make it say whatever their anti-theology beliefs are and theoligans use religion to enslave mankind for greedy men. There is place in the middle that is so hard to find. I never found a way to get to that place within the Atheistic World of Darwinian Science and I never found my way to truth on Fox News either. There is a God but God is not angry with Muslims or \nwith the People of New Orleans. There  is a place for science but when science creates deadly poisons and calls them vaccines or uses science to fool the masses into believing chemo therapy is the only answer to cancer then science and an angry God are neither going to give me any hope that they have found the truth. Just because a scientist or Hannity said it, doesn't impress me much.
244532
I think it's so funny that so-called scholars believe in evolution.  I say let them believe, that just shows how stupid they are.  If evolution were true, I ask who caused it to start, I would still give God the credit.  If there was a "big bang", then it was God that caused it.
14612
My view is the same as the scientific mainstream.  Evolution is by far the best explanation for the change of life through time and for most similarites among organisms seen today.\n\nSince creationism is in the news today, I'll add this:\n\nA religion is a set of beliefs and practices that are believed in despite the fact that they cannot be proved to most people's satisfaction. Adhering to a religion requires a "leap of faith" by its adherants.\n\nScience is a set of self-correcting methods for discovering how nature works, and the body of knowledge developed using those methods. A theory is a concept that has been tested against scientific knowledge and does a good job of explaining it. Most people agree upon the explanation given by a scientific theory.\n\nEvolution does not explain the origin of life. It explains how life developed over time. Evolution has nothing to say about the existence or nonexistence of God or any other supernatural being. A large proportion of scientists, including evolutionary scientists, believe in Christianity or another religion.\n\nEvolution is in conflict with Genesis Chapter 1, the other creation stories in the Old Testament, and with the creation stories of other religions. That is not because creation stories claim to explain the _origin_ of life; evolution does not address the _origin_ of life. It is because creation stories explain the origins of species, or "kinds," or whatever terminolgy you use, separately from each other and evolution explains that each species arose from an earlier species by natural selection acting upon random mutations.\n\n(Did you know that the Old Testament contains several versions of the creation story and that these versions are in conflict with each other?)\n\nIntelligent design is a variety of the pseudoscience of creationism, which was created by Christian fundamentalists.\n\nThe Christian doctrine of creation, as understood by mainstream Christians, teaches that God created and sustains the universe. It does not specify whether the original creation was accomplished by divine creation (creation ex nihlo), the Big Bang, or by another means.\n\nFundamentalists believe that the Bible is inerrantly and infallibly true. They fear that if any aspect of the Bible is not "literally true" (that it doesn't mean what they interpret it to mean), then the salvation promised by Jesus was a lie.\n\nThis extreme belief, coupled with general knowledge of science, has led fundamentalists to create a set of beliefs to rationalize their interpretation of the Bible with their knowledge of science. That set of pseudoscientific beliefs has evolved from creationism to scientific creationism, to intelligent design.\n\nBy far, the large majority of Christians do not link the factual correctness of the Bible to the spiritual truths it reveals and the promise of salvation made by Jesus.\n\nThus, by a wide margin, most Christians believe in the doctrine of creation, but do not believe in the pseudoscience of creationism, whatever name it goes by.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
430259
I used to think it was enjoyable making fun of creationists.  Their ideas are so wacky, and they are almost completely ignorant of any scientific advance of the past 50 years.  But after a while you realize people like that are just going to believe what they want to believe.  I think it's interesting that when it comes to ANY other branch of science (medicine, computers, genetics, etc.) religious people have no problem accepting science.  ONLY when science contradicts their own unfounded beliefs (creationism) do religious people challenge science.
1174196
Many Christians and others feel like scientific evidence is mocking the bible, which states that God created the Earth, and all the people.
106520
Creationism was created to protect Fundamentalist's belief in the inerrancy of scripture.  As they see it, the Bible is inerrantly true and if any small part of the Bible, even one word, were to be proven false, then all of the rest of the Bible, including it's spiritual truths, would be called into question.   \n\nThis understanding of the Bible does not make sense to very many people.  Most everyone can see that the Bible is full of inconsistencies, contradictions, myth, and legend.  Further, hardly anyone believes that an error in the Bible's statement of fact casts doubt on its expression of spiritual truths.\n\nThe Fundamentalists and their ilk, the Evangelicals, are way out in la-la land on this.
127020
Popular opinion on these matters tend to be cyclical.  It's on a conservative swing right now, but it'll go back.  I don't see it as a threat to the scientific community as the people who don't believe in evolution wouldn't be scientists anyway.  However, I don't think it bodes well for the general poplation that they are more inclined to accept religious dogma than actually consider the evidence in front of them.\n\nI'm a little suspicious of the statistics you quoted.  While I don't doubt that more people believe in the virgin brith than evolution, the numbers seem a bit extreme.  I think further inquiry into the methodology of the study may be warrented...\n_____________\nBowser, while evolution has not been conclusively proven, there is a proponderance of evidence to support it, and none to suggest it does not occur.  There is, however, no reliable evidence to support "intelligent design."
412786
Thank you I am so glad someone asked that question. You are so right on that. If you think about it, yeah evolution is scientifically proven so there's no denying that. But if you are arguing on the side of creationism than you have to realize that there really is no denying science. You can't deny a fact such as gravity exists. It's just there and no bible can disprove that. So if you combine both theories there shouldnt be an ragument at all. God created the universe; that's the explanation for the "big boom" and then he created humans. Humans and all other cretures of the universe naturally evolved from his creation. Now how hard is it to accept the fact that that's probably the most logical explanation out there?
399298
When your own position holds no water and is based on fairy tales, your only recourse is to pigeon hole other positions as being of equally poor footing.\n\nCreationists spend most of their time trying to discredit evolution, which is the same thing evolutionists do.  Creationists are acting as scientists by doing so, and have actually contributed to the strength of evolutionary theory in that way!\n\nWhere creationists fail is by not realizing that attempting to falsify their own theory is what they should be trying to do in order to count as science.  Instead, they spend their time coming up with clever apologetic answers to the blatant problems in their position.  \n\nEvolution ultimately rests on the extremely simple observation of what replicators do in nonlinear systems.  \n\nCreationism has reams and reams of answers to specific problems people have discovered in their position, because there are no general principles.  Creationism has no predictive value whatsoever, it's just a hodge podge of apologetics.
642658
I find it interesting how everyone ASSUMES the writer is religious just because he disagrees with evolutionary theory.  Actually, belief in God (yes, it's capatilized) is more reasonable than belief in no higher being.  See the gamble in philosophy: if there is a God and you believe you get your reward, if you believe and there is no God then the same thing happens to you that happens to everyone, if you don't believe and there is no God you have the same situation as above. Finally, if you don't believe and there is a God you're SCREWED - yes, that's the technical term).  \n\nEvolution is definitely NOT proven, in fact, I have not seen any convincing evidence for the theory and it has turned out to not be very predictive. Unlike the theory of Gravity, which has not had any evidence against it yet and therefore is a good theory, evolution is a bad theory because it does not explain the observed facts.  Yes, here comes the wailing about the fossil record, finches in the Galapagos, etc...\n\nConsider this for a minute:\nThe Miller Experiment produced a racemic mixture of amino acids whereas living systems take almost primarily L-amino acids.  It is also extremely difficult to produce polypeptides in the lab without the required enzymes.  Plus, it has been accepted that oxygen was in the early atmosphere.\n\nThere are no known transition forms in the fossil record (maybe the winged lizard which I don't know how to spell).  If Darwinian evolution occurred the fossil record should be full of transition forms, but it's not.  Instead, it is characterized by rapid appearance of fully-formed organisms (like the Cambrian explosion or the appearance of flowering plants).  This led to theories like puntuated equilibrium, which is just an evolutionary form of intelligent design/abrupt appearance.\n\nThere is not a single proven mechanism by which ANY biological system has formed from inorganic matter.  How did an eye form?  What about just a bacteria?  These are much more complex than previously thought and is not a "lower" organism.\n\nFinally, most (if not all) mutations are either harmful or have no affect on the organism due to junk DNA.  It is unlikely that the great diversity present at this time could have occurred due to accumulation of mutations.  The age of the earth as accepted by most scientists do not give enough time for this to have occurred (I think it's about 4 billion years or something like that).\n\nYou want to know why it is still taught?  It is a pseudo-religion of materialistic atheists and allows atheists to comfortably believe there is not a God.  This is the same reason why there was resistance to the helocentric model of the solar system depsite the accumulating evidence.  People liked the earth and our civilization having a special place in the universe.