Fact Checked: No Conspiracy Here (But a Lot of Fallacies There)

Responding to “Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory”

by on
Share:

What a way to begin: the title, “Why Creationism Bears All the Hallmarks of a Conspiracy Theory,” of a Snopes article reprinted from The Conversation is a question-begging epithet fallacy. Such an attacking title with emotive language lets us know what The Conversation’s and Snopes’ religious beliefs are up front. Our hope is to challenge their religious beliefs in this response. We are used to being hated and attacked. Jesus even said:

"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” (John 15:18 NKJV)

Nevertheless, we want readers to know that we love and care for those at Snopes and The Conversation, regardless of their views against us, and would love to see them repent of their sin and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation. Our response is said with a caring heart, though there will be times where we will be bold.

In the US today, up to 40% of adults agree with the young Earth creationist claim that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve within the past 10,000 years.

At Answers in Genesis, we are a little more precise in that it is technically about 6,000 years ago. There is about 4,000 years between creation and Christ.

This article about creationism is republished here with permission from The Conversation. This content is shared here because the topic may interest Snopes readers; it does not, however, represent the work of Snopes fact-checkers or editors.

We recognize that it was not the direct work of the Snopes team (it was actually Professor Paul Braterman). However, the Snopes team failed to fact-check it, while at the same time affirmed it should be on the website; thus they publicly agreed with it to give it prominence on their website. From here on out, we’re going to be speaking to readers.

Many people around the world looked on aghast as they witnessed the harm done by conspiracy theories such as QAnon and the myth of the stolen US election that led to the attack on the US Capitol Building on January 6.

We would like you to notice the setup here. It is a guilt by association fallacy.

Yet while these ideas will no doubt fade in time, there is arguably a much more enduring conspiracy theory that also pervades America in the form of young Earth creationism.

This is an arbitrary assertion by the author. One could just as easily have said “evolution” instead of “young-earth creationism” (YEC) and thus pit the evolutionists as conspiracy theorists.

Although, we prefer the term “biblical creationists,” because the idea of an ancient earth that is about 6,000 years old comes from reading the Bible in a straightforward fashion. But then in the late 1700s and early 1800s, people began stretching out the age of the earth to ungodly spans because of misinterpretations of rock layers due to the religious viewpoint that includes naturalism, materialism, and atheism.

Sadly, many today are still deceived into believing that gradual accumulations of rock layers over millions and billions of years (neglecting that major catastrophes like the flood of Noah) laid down the geologic rock layers.

But notice something else. This author has not proved that YEC is a conspiracy theory. He just states it arbitrarily and hopes you blindly believe him. It is just a mere opinion by an author who is openly anti-theistic.

And it’s one that we cannot ignore because it is dangerously opposed to science.

This is an equivocation fallacy combined with an emotive language fallacy (yes, it is possible to do multiple fallacies of logic in one sentence!). First, the authors equivocate on the word “science.” We love science at Answer in Genesis. In fact, it was a young-earth creationist, Francis Bacon, who came up with the scientific method. And most fields of science were developed by Bible-believers! So clearly, believing in YEC is not “dangerously opposed to science.”

But we want readers to understand what the author did here. They subtly get you thinking of good science, based on the scientific method (i.e., operational science), and switch you to the religion of naturalism and Darwinism. There are multiple definitions of the word science, and they switch you to their more recent definition of science being that of the religion of naturalism.

In the US today, up to 40% of adults agree with the young Earth creationist claim that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve within the past 10,000 years.

Again, 6,000 is more accurate.

They also believe that living creatures are the result of “special creation” rather than evolution and shared ancestry.

Yes, but . . . those within the same kind (Hebrew: min) can share the same ancestry.

And that that Noah’s flood was worldwide and responsible for the sediments in the geologic column

Most, but not all. We have had rock layers since the time of the flood.

(layers of rock built up over millions of years),

Here the author stated his religious conviction. He just tried to argue that creationists “dangerously” oppose science and therefore stand in opposition—but to his view of what is scientific. Prof. Braterman just made another huge error. Science, in the scientific method, must be observable and repeatable.

Did anyone observe or repeat the rock layers being laid down over millions of years? No. That is a religious claim from this author interpreting rock layers in the present assuming his naturalistic and humanistic religion.

God, unlike Prof. Braterman, was there and eye-witnessed it, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, revealed it to us in Scripture. So by what authority can Prof. Braterman oppose the absolute and supreme authority of God’s Word that there was indeed a flood that covered everything under the whole heavens (Genesis 7:19)? A lesser authority—thus, this is a faulty appeal to authority fallacy (i.e., a false authority fallacy).

such as those exposed in the Grand Canyon.

Yes, Noah’s flood is responsible for those. For more, please read about some of the Grand Canyon flood evidence.

Such beliefs derive from the doctrine of biblical infallibility, long accepted as integral to the faith of numerous evangelical and Baptist churches throughout the world, including the Free Church of Scotland.

Yes, the author has this correct. Any church that believes God’s Word the way it is written should hold to a biblical creationist worldview and a global flood. Bible authors did; Jesus did.

But I would argue that the present-day creationist movement is a fully fledged conspiracy theory.

Yet he agreed that creation was an ancient position just before. Going back to the early church’s views on scriptural infallibility, church fathers often affirmed the infallible authority of Scripture as far back as the first and second century AD. We have records of early church fathers holding to creation. We have records of reformers holding to creation.

Yet in striking contrast, Prof. Braterman, The Conversation, and Snopes are pushing for a neo-Darwinian worldview (one of the latest forms of Darwinism). That modern form of evolutionary religion has only been around for less than 150 years. Furthermore, that evolutionary religion has an age of the earth of about 4.5 billion years old (which was first proposed in 1956).1

Now take this in for a moment. Prof. Braterman, The Conversation, and Snopes are presuming their new arbitrary view, that cannot be observed or repeated, is true and scientific and thus creationists, like those who came up with science in the first place, are conspiracists. This is technically a contrary to the fact conditional error fallacy. One would think sites that promote such back-to-front things were satire like Babylon Bee or The Onion!

It meets all the criteria,

Let’s see about that.

offering a complete parallel universe

We all live and do science in the same universe. That would be a straw man fallacy.

with its own organisations

They are called churches, and creationist organizations are subsets of the worldwide church at large. Keep in mind that evolutionists have organizations too. Is this saying that evolutionists also fit this criterion of Prof. Braterman’s arbitrary definition of conspiracy theorists?

and rules of evidence,

Not so. We share the same rules of evidence with evolutionary scientists. What we do not share is the same worldview by which we interpret this same evidence.

and claims that the scientific establishment promoting evolution is an arrogant

Where have we done that? This is an unsubstantiated allegation. Besides, several of us at Answers in Genesis have many evolutionary colleagues we have worked side-by-side with: excellent and brilliant ladies and gents. Yet when it comes to origins, we can starkly disagree yet hold them in high regard. We are open and upfront that we would love for any evolutionist to repent and, most of all, receive Christ as Lord as Savior if they have not. Some of us have struggled with evolutionary ideas either before we got saved or repented of it as believers who learned to trust God’s infallible Word in its entirety.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is that many creationists are part of the scientific establishment. Creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian invented the MRI. Creationist Dr. Stuart Burgess worked on the EnviSat and helped engineer efficient bicycles to help the Brits dominate in the Olympics. We work with thousands of scientists all over the world who are creationist. And several of our scientists at Answers in Genesis are still contributing to scientific knowledge in all sorts of fields, while doing ministry.

and morally corrupt elite.

Where have we claimed this? This is an unsubstantiated allegation. Again, many creationists were once evolutionists, and we have a love and desire to see more of them have their eyes opened or get saved out of that religion.

But let’s discuss morality, which is a Christian concept where God, the ultimate Lawgiver, is the very standard of what is morally acceptable and what is not. I love it when unbelievers accept morality. It shows an inconsistency within their professed worldview (which cannot account for morality’s existence) by which they jump off of that worldview and casually accept the Bible as the truth on moral subjects at hand.

Let’s face it: if everything came from nothing (which is what big bang/cosmological evolution really declares), and we all evolved from mere particles (i.e., chemical and biological evolution), then why would anyone think there is such a thing as absolute right or wrong? Famed evolutionist Jeffry Dahmer, a serial killer by the way, said,

If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing . . .2

Leading evolutionist Dr. Richard Dawkins agreed there is no such thing as morality in his worldview when debating fellow evolutionist Jaron Lanier:

Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”

Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.”3

It makes sense why Prof. Dawkins continues to publicly state that he supports “mild forms of” pedophilia.4

This so-called elite supposedly conspires to monopolise academic employment and research grants.

This isn’t a conspiracy; it is just the case. How often do evolutionary organizations like the NSF give creationists grants? How often are creationists offered jobs at state-funded, evolution-promoting institutions? Perhaps this is a question to ask them why this religious criterion is so important.

Its alleged objective is to deny divine authority,

Again, where do we say this? The link provided shows a quote by an evolutionist Richard Lewontin who made such a claim—not Ken Ham. This is a straw man fallacy by the way.

and the ultimate beneficiary and prime mover is Satan.

God says he gives the minds of unbelievers over to Satan (see passages below). At most, Satan is a secondary mover, not the prime mover as God is the prime mover, where Satan is a deceptive counterfeit mover at best.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting. (Romans 1:20-28 NKJV)
To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. (Titus 1:15, NKJV)
This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind. (Ephesians 4:17 NKJV)
In humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:25-26 NKJV)
He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. (1 John 3:8 NKJV)

Bear in mind that creationists love when God uses unbelievers to do good research! The problem is that we continually have to sort out the good research from the evolutionary storytelling.

Let’s stop here for a moment and analyze these alleged marks of conspiracists of which Prof. Braterman claimed we met “all the criteria”:

  1. Parallel Universe: False; straw man fallacy
  2. Our own organizations: Both evolutionists and creationists have organizations; thus irrelevant
  3. Our own rules of evidence: False; straw man fallacy
  4. Claims that the scientific establishment promoting evolution is an arrogant elite: False; straw man fallacy
  5. Claims there is a morally corrupt elite: False; straw man fallacy
  6. Claims this elite supposedly conspires to monopolize academic employment and research grants: False; straw man fallacy, though it can happen in certain individual instances (e.g., see Slaughter of the Dissidents)
  7. Claim that this elite’s alleged objective is to deny divine authority: False; straw man fallacy
  8. Claim that we say the ultimate beneficiary and prime mover is Satan: False; God says he gives people’s minds over to Satan, though Satan is falsely displayed as the prime mover.

So even by these alleged arbitrary marks, they are fallacious to make the case of conspiracists even by Prof. Braterman’s own assessment.

Creationism re-emerged in this form in reaction to the mid-20th century emphasis on science education.

Creation has always been around, even through the migration over to the religion of naturalism “take-over” in the 1800s and early 1900s (mainly the 1870s). Consider the scriptural geologists in the 1800s for instance.

Its key text is the long-time best seller, The Genesis Flood, by John C Whitcomb and Henry M Morris.

Actually, the Bible has always been the key text. What The Genesis Flood did was challenge the uniformitarian and naturalistic belief system that had permeated Western education. It prompted people to return to God’s Word as the basis for science. Though much research has been done since this time, The Genesis Flood was a turning point to stop letting the religion of naturalism be the ruling dogma.

This provided the inspiration for Morris’s own Institute for Creation Research, and for its offshoots, Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International.

There are actually massive numbers of creationist organizations all over the world now, continuing to do great research; but again, they are just a small part of the church. Answers in Genesis encourages scientific research into our world, but obviously we oppose the evolutionary story into which many evolutionary researchers try to fit their research.

Ken Ham, the founder and chief executive of Answers in Genesis, is also responsible for the highly lucrative Ark Encounter theme park and Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Funny how the secular press has been saying for years that we are “sinking” and losing money (e.g., here and here)!

Yet our income pales in comparison to $1 billion dollars+ funding that the evolutionary Smithsonian budgets each year, including federal appropriations.5 The Ark Encounter doesn’t get free money from the government like the Smithsonian where they can promote their religion using tax grant dollars.

As a visit to any of these websites will show, their creationism is completely hostile to science, while paradoxically claiming to be scientific.

Once again, this is a bait and switch fallacy. To reiterate, we love science, but not the religion of naturalism. So it is not a paradox at all. We love and use science (i.e., scientific method, scientific observations, etc.), but we do not hold to the naturalism (what Dr. Braterman’s terms science is in this instance). Of course, we do not hold to that religion.

Demonising and discrediting

Demonizing? It is interesting that the concept of six-day creation, a global flood, and demons, all come from God’s Word. Even “discrediting” (i.e., something being false) is predicated on God and his Word being true. As a matter of philosophy, why is demonizing or discrediting wrong? Those are biblical concepts. By using this terminology, the author is inadvertently arguing for the truthfulness of the Bible!

These are common conspiracy theory tactics at play. Creationists go to great lengths to demonise the proponents of evolution,

It is interesting that the author has written this entire article in an effort to demonize creationists. If demonizing is a conspiracy theory tactic, then the author has implicated himself. This is called a double standard fallacy.

Besides, our goal has never been to demonize proponents of evolution. We would love for them to get saved and to accept God’s Word as written. In the same way that many creationists were once evolutionists (Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Dr. Gary Parker, Dr. John Sanford, etc.), we want to share that same heart with our unbelieving evolutionary colleagues.

and to undermine the overwhelming evidence in its favour.

This article hasn’t produced a single piece of evidence for evolution. Thus, it is an insufficient evidence fallacy to jump to such a conclusion.

We have the same evidence the evolutionists have. We look at the same dinosaur bones and the same DNA. We both use the Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We look at the same rock layers and same fossils. We both look at Lucy's fossils and casts, and so on. We have the same evidence.

There are numerous organisations, among them Biologos, the American Scientific Affiliation, the Faraday Institute, and the Clergy Letter Project, which describes itself as “an an endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible”, that is, promoting evolution science within the context of religious belief.

These are syncretistic religious organizations. What does that mean? They are trying to mix two different religions—the religion of naturalism/evolutionism and the Bible. The way they do it is largely by tossing out what God says in Genesis (heavily reinterpreting it in light of secular, humanistic ideas like naturalism, evolutionism, and uniformitarianism) and replacing Genesis with the naturalistic religious origins account (i.e., big bang, evolution, etc.)—with one major exception: they try to tack God onto it somehow.

Naturally, this undermines the character of God, undermines the gospel, and shows a very low view of Scripture. It is reminiscent of what the Israelites did, such as Solomon (Nehemiah 13:26), when they repeatedly mixed their godly religion with Baal worship and other false Canaanite “gods.” Judgment often followed if they did not repent. Why would we want to follow such an example? That is illogical.

Evolution is nothing new: it is an ancient Greek mythology promoted by the Epicureans. Paul argued against them in Acts 17. Besides, if Dr. Braterman thinks it is wise to mix Christianity with the evolutionary religion, why didn’t he give up his anti-God and anti-Bible views and merely mix that with his evolution? Would Prof. Braterman be willing to argue that evolution occurred by God beginning about 6,000 years ago from a single-celled organism? I doubt it.

Yet he is arguing that Christians should give up much of their foundational beliefs to mix it with the religion of evolution.

Even so, creationists insist on linking together the separate topics of evolution, materialist philosophy, and the promotion of atheism.

The fact of the matter is that atheism is built on materialism, and evolutionism is born out of naturalism and humanism. For instance, how could an atheist say there is no spiritual God if he affirms that there is a spiritual realm where God could be? It would no longer be atheism. Thus, is it predicated on materialism. How could an atheist argue for naturalism if they leave open supernaturalism? They are intrinsically linked as foundational points.

When compromised or syncretistic organizations do this, it is done inconsistently—usually by throwing out what God says to hold to the false religion.

According to Answers in Genesis, evolution science is a work of Satan,

Where do we say this? This is a straw man fallacy. We often attribute evolution as a human-based philosophy (e.g., humanistic). What we know about Satan comes from God’s Word. God never revealed that Satan was behind evolution. Could he have been? Great question, but any answers would only be speculative.

Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), but due to sin, man’s heart is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), evil from youth (Genesis 8:21), lying and sinful (Romans 3:4, 3:23). So did evolution come from Satan, or man, or both? We don’t know. What we know is that evolution came through the mind of men; thus we can say it was humanistic.

while former US Congressman Paul Broun has described it as “a lie straight from the pit of hell”. When he said that, by the way, he was a member of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Someone would have to ask Congressman Paul Broun to comment on this.

Let’s discuss science for a moment. Science is observable and/or repeatable in scientific methodology based on the scientific method (often called operational science, repeatable science, observable science). If we talk about unobservable or nonrepeatable history, such as the religion of naturalism’s origin account or the biblical creation account, we dive into origins science or historical science (using the operational science in the present to help understand the past).

As for good operational science, no one has ever observed or repeated:

  1. Cosmological evolution in a big bang;
  2. Geological evolution (millions and billions of years of slow geological processes accumulating into what we have today;
  3. Chemical evolution (where matter, naturally and on its own, organizes itself into reproductive biological life);
  4. Biological evolution (where single-celled organisms change into cows over millions of years)

This rehashed Epicurean idea is without good scientific merit.

Like other conspiracy theorists, creationists immunise themselves from fact-based criticism.

False: this is a straw man fallacy. Creationists actually have several peer-reviewed journals to do just that—the ARJ, for instance.

They label the study of the past as based on unprovable assumptions,

False: this is a straw man fallacy. There are provable assumptions about the past. God’s Word is that absolute standard of provability.

thus disqualifying in advance the plain evidence of geology.

We use the same plain evidence in geology. The majority of the fossiliferous rock is from the flood. We use it over and over again.

They then attack other evidence

This is another straw man fallacy. We don’t attack evidence. We have no problem refuting false understandings and misinterpretations of evidence. This is why it is a worldview debate. We are not debating the evidence. We are debating the understanding of the evidence, particularly in regards to the past (i.e., historical science).

by focusing on specific frauds, such as Piltdown man – a hoax skeleton purportedly of a missing link between humans and other apes that was debunked more than 60 years ago – or the dinosaur-bird amalgam “Archaeoraptor”, discredited by sharp-eyed scientists before ever making it into the peer-reviewed literature (although not before making it into National Geographic).

But these are well-known fakes. It is other massive numbers of newer fakes that need to be addressed in more detail. Remember that non-Christians have no basis to be honest with evidence—it is very Christian of them when they do—but why be honest in a secular religion where people decide for themselves what is right and wrong?

Did you realize the incredible numbers of faked fossils that are out there now? And people are getting better at it! We lament this problem with the Scientific American when discussing Chinese fossils, they wrote:


Another much more serious problem, however, is posed by forged, faked and manipulated specimens – such as National Geographic’s Archaeoraptor – which are becoming increasingly common. Farmers who dig for fossils do so to supplement their meagre incomes and are well aware that complete and spectacular specimens are worth far more than the fragmentary remains.

Some don’t even realize they are faking specimens and combine pieces of different fossils found at the same locale. In the most extreme cases, this manipulation is intentional, involving fossils found at disparate locations. It sounds crude, but even the experts have to look carefully to detect the trickery when master forgers have been at work. Fossils can be faked in a variety of ways. Sometimes they’re hewn from parts from the same species but come from different individuals, so you might have a Microraptor skull, tail and body all from different individuals. Another method involves combining the parts of different species to make a complete fossil that appears to be a new animal. ‘Dinosaurs are very similar to birds, so sometimes these fossils combine different birds, different dromaeosaur specimens, or even birds with dinosaurs’, Xu says. But the most extreme kind of forgery takes fragmentary fossils and carves out the missing parts from the stone.6

An investigative report published in Science in 2010 revealed that as many as 80 per cent of marine reptile fossils on display in Chinese museums had been altered or manipulated.7


The sad part is that people are getting better at their fakes. One danger of fakes is that people are misled into believing something about the fake (even if they know it is faked) that may not be true. Back to Dr. Braterman:

One favourite target is Ernst Haeckel, whose pictures of embryos, published in 1874, are now considered to be seriously inaccurate.

One of the reasons Haeckel has been dealt with for so long is that even though his fraud was found out early, people keep using it. Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell wrote, “Sylvia Mader’s 2010 edition of Biology, for instance, features colorized Haeckel-ish embryos and teaches, ‘At these comparable developmental stages, vertebrate embryos have many features in common which suggests they evolved from a common ancestor.’”8

However, they do correctly draw attention to what most matters here: the features shared during development by different organisms – including humans – such as gill arches, a long tail, and eyes on the side rather than the front of the head, confirming they have a common ancestry.

This is Haeckel’s fraud. It is sad that Prof. Braterman is promoting Haeckel’s faked claims, even after acknowledging them as fakes! Furthermore, it is sad that The Conversation and Snopes agreed to promote this well-known fraud. The real images help reveal the fraud:

Hackel's Fake Drawings

Humans don’t have gill arches or a long tail, for instance. We have developing throat pouches and a backbone in development. Common design is actually an argument for common designer as opposed to common ancestry. Note how a false worldview leads to a false conclusion.

Haeckel’s name appears on the Answers in Genesis website 92 times.

Add another here: If Haeckel’s fraud is going to continue to be promoted (like it was in this Snopes article), then we will continue to deal with it.

He is also the subject of a lengthy chapter in Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution; Science or Myth?. This book, which even has its own high school study guide, was what first convinced me, back in 2013, that creationism was a conspiracy theory. It is a splendid example of creationist tactics, using long-rectified shortcomings (such as those in early studies on Darwinian evolution in peppered moths, in response to changing colours following reduced pollution) to imply that the entire science is fraudulent.

How odd. Jonathan Wells is not a biblical creationist but is a leader in the Intelligent Design Movement. The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM), though they may borrow from creationist design arguments from time to time, are not in our camp. Interesting that we get the blame when we wouldn’t endorse the book either. In fact, there are even a few evolutionists in the IDM camp. But trying to align us with the IDM is a guilt by association fallacy.

Wells has a real PhD in biology,

The use of “real” here is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

a PhD acquired with the specific goal of “destroying Darwinism” – meaning evolution science – from the inside.

I’m pleased that Dr. Braterman has openly admitted that the religion of Darwinism is what he means by science. But it is conspiratorial to assume there is an “inside” of science—hence a projection fallacy. Science is a methodology and Darwinism is a religion. Darwinism is a subset of secular humanism where the human idea of naturalism is applied to biological development. The secular and atheist religions are discussed in detail in World Religions and Cults, Volume 3.

Wells is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a conservative thinktank which promotes creationism under the banner of “Intelligent Design”, and is also linked to other conspiracy theories, such as claims that the consensus on climate change is bogus, and that last November’s US presidential election was stolen.

Again, Wells is not a biblical creationist, and so someone would have to bring these things up directly with him. But do not assume that ID is our position. We have publicly pointed out the problems with that movement.

What next?

Conspiracy theories are always driven by some underlying concern or agenda. The theory that Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery, or that the 2020 US election was stolen, are about political legitimacy and will fade as the politicians promoting them fade from memory. The idea that COVID-19 does not exist is proving a little harder to dislodge, but scientists, such as those behind Respectful Insolence, are organising to fight back on science denial and misinformation.

Once again, these claims are a guilt by association fallacy.

I fear that the creationist conspiracy theory will not be so short-lived.

Creation has been around since…creation. But Prof. Braterman, Snopes, or The Conversation have not proved it to be a conspiracy theory—even by their own standards. The article is filled with logical fallacies, and trying to associate creation with known conspiracy theories is illogical at best.

But why the “fear”? Perhaps it is misplaced. Proverbs 1:7 says:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction. (NKJV)

Consider what God says in Matthew 10:28:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (NKJV)

And for those who don’t realize it, God is a creationist, and he is going to judge all people. God points out,

And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment. (Hebrews 9:27 NKJV)

My hope is that anyone outside of Christ reading this would repent and turn to Christ, believing in his death, burial, and resurrection before they die.

It is driven by a deep-seated power struggle within religious communities, between modernists and literalists; between those who regard scripture as coming to us through human authors, however inspired, and those who regard it as a perfect supernatural revelation. And that is a struggle that will be with us for a long time to come.

This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories and is irrelevant. This has to do with ongoing religious debates. By this standard, Prof. Braterman would be arguing that the majority of the world is full of conspiracy theorists—including the secular religions (that he is part of) who also vie in this religious power struggle. This is inconsistent and thus illogical. But God wins, and it is his will that endures for eternity.

Footnotes

  1. C.C. Patterson, “Age of Meteorites and the Age of the Earth,” Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta, 10 (1956): 230–237.
  2. Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, November 29, 1994.
  3. “Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,” Psychology Today, January/February 1997, 62.
  4. Abby Ohlheiser, “Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again,” The Atlantic, September 10, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/.
  5. The Smithsonian Institution Fact Sheet, Smithsonian, February 13, 2020, https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/factsheets/smithsonian-institution-fact-sheet.
  6. John Pickrell, “How Fake Fossils Pervert Paleontology” [Excerpt], Scientific American, November 15, 2014, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fake-fossils-pervert-paleontology-excerpt/.
  7. Ibid.
  8. Elizabeth Mitchell, “Recapitulation Theory: Repackaged & Re-Applied,” Answers in Depth, July 31, 2013, https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/piltdown-man/recapitulation-repackaged-and-re-applied/.

Newsletter

Get the latest answers emailed to you.

I agree to the current Privacy Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to helping Christians defend their faith and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Learn more

  • Customer Service 800.778.3390