Is the "Creation" story conspiracy theory?

Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#1
Most conspiracy theories follow a few rules:

1) They are based on seemingly imagined Data.
2) They seem to lack tangible, or verifiable fact.
3) They require ever more creative interpretation as they are examined.
4) They are of an incredulous nature from the onset.
5) Those that believe them are not swayed by logical argument.
6) They are generally meant to question or refute established fact.

Given these criteria, does the story of creation fall under the label of Conspiracy Theory?
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#3
The Creation story you speak of must be the Big Bang theory.
You think the Big Bang is based on 0 evidence? Well that shows your lack of objectivity quite clearly.


As for the question of the thread, I'd say no because it isn't meant to be a cover up.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#4
Haha, you think the Big Bang is based on 0 evidence? Well that shows your lack of objectivity quite clearly.


As for the question of the thread, I'd say no because it isn't meant to be a cover up.
I left that out of the criteria, as it does not apply to most conspiracy theories.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#6
Moon landing conspiracy~ no cover up...instead, imagined dishonesty
9/11 conspiracy~ no cover up...instead, imagined alternative perpetrators

I suppose these could be seen as a cover up, though they would be trying to cover up things that did not exist until the conspiracy theory made them up.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#7
Moon landing conspiracy~ no cover up...instead, imagined dishonesty
The government faking a moon landing for political reasons is not a cover up?


9/11 conspiracy~ no cover up...instead, imagined alternative perpetrators
Again, the government would be the one covering it up.

I suppose these could be seen as a cover up, though they would be trying to cover up things that did not exist until the conspiracy theory made them up.
The conspiracy theories consist of coverups though. Whether or not they are plausible is another issue- most conspiracy theories are not.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#8
Okay...I see.

I misunderstood your meaning.

I suppose under this criteria the creation story is not conspiracy theory, and instead falls under myth. There is no attempt to cover something up, yet the other aspects hold true.
 
Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#9
You think the Big Bang is based on 0 evidence? Well that shows your lack of objectivity quite clearly.
Who said anything about 0 evidence?

It's like you're trying to prove that I'm right that the criteria of the OP applies to the creation story of the Big Bang.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#10
Who said anything about 0 evidence?
"1) They are based on seemingly imagined Data.
2) They seem to lack tangible, or verifiable fact."

That sounds like 0 evidence to me. The Big Bang has a very large body of data and findings supporting it.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#11
Who said anything about 0 evidence?

You most certainly implied it.

It's like you're trying to prove that I'm right that the criteria of the OP applies to the creation story of the Big Bang.
Lets just put the Big Bang theory to the criteria test.

1) They are based on seemingly imagined Data.
Based on verified and tested Data.
2) They seem to lack tangible, or verifiable fact.
" "
3) They require ever more creative interpretation as they are examined.
Interpretation through scientific principle and multiple verifications.
4) They are of an incredulous nature from the onset.
No longer incredulous, due to advanced study.
5) Those that believe them are not swayed by logical argument.
Developed due to logical thought.
6) They are generally meant to question or refute established fact.
Is based entirely on the established fact
 
Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#12
Moon landing conspiracy~ no cover up...instead, imagined dishonesty
9/11 conspiracy~ no cover up...instead, imagined alternative perpetrators

I suppose these could be seen as a cover up, though they would be trying to cover up things that did not exist until the conspiracy theory made them up.
Where's that "roll eyes" icon.... I mean the extra-big icon!

The cover-up is an intimate part of all conspiracy theories, more so than the criteria you listed. And, all conspiracy theories require that the real events be covered up, to make room for the imagined alternative.

The criteria you listed basically applies to any two people disagreeing on any subject.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#13
Where's that "roll eyes" icon.... I mean the extra-big icon!

The cover-up is an intimate part of all conspiracy theories, more so than the criteria you listed. And, all conspiracy theories require that the real events be covered up, to make room for the imagined alternative.

The criteria you listed basically applies to any two people disagreeing on any subject.
Perhaps then, you might present us all with a criteria that represents this genre of thought superior to my own...as it is obviously lacking, and inferior to that which you will produce?

By the way....you may have missed it, but I just agreed with the reality of cover up being integral to conspiracy theory.
 
Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#14
Lets just put the Big Bang theory to the criteria test.

1) They are based on seemingly imagined Data.
Based on verified and tested Data.
2) They seem to lack tangible, or verifiable fact.
" "
You noticed that points 1 and 2 are redundant of each other. So, where's the data for the Dark Force? For Inflation? Etc.?

3) They require ever more creative interpretation as they are examined.
Interpretation through scientific principle and multiple verifications.
And, hence the creative addition of the Dark Force, Inflation, etc.

4) They are of an incredulous nature from the onset.
No longer incredulous, due to advanced study.
The whole universe appearing from nothing then growing bigger and more complex over time is no longer incredulous???

5) Those that believe them are not swayed by logical argument.
Developed due to logical thought.
You're caricature of your own argument!

6) They are generally meant to question or refute established fact.
Is based entirely on the established fact
<big roll-eyes icon>
 
Last edited:
Jan 6, 2012
1,975
4
Texas
#15
Most conspiracy theories follow a few rules:

1) They are based on seemingly imagined Data.
2) They seem to lack tangible, or verifiable fact.
3) They require ever more creative interpretation as they are examined.
4) They are of an incredulous nature from the onset.
5) Those that believe them are not swayed by logical argument.
6) They are generally meant to question or refute established fact.

Given these criteria, does the story of creation fall under the label of Conspiracy Theory?
No, I don't think that creation stories are conspiracy. They are stories, they serve a cultural purpose, mainly a beginning of the world, they are never inspired by fact, but inspired by spirituality. Which is why I really see no conflict between the Bible and science.

That being said many people who take folklore as fact and deny all evidence that says that folklore is not fact are similar to conspiracy theorists.

Every culture told tales of the origins of the earth, or the species, some are fantastic fiction, others are similar to the generally accepted academic account.

We are a culture that is entertained by fiction, novels, TV, video games, they may not be factual in their fabrication but their value shouldn't be measured on their accuracy. Story telling has been part of humanity for eons, where the occurrence the stories are told about may not have happened exactly a they are described, the value is not in the events but perhaps in the plot. One such fable comes to mind, the grasshopper and the ant, there was a purpose to that story, it wasn't that grasshoppers and ants compare in their ability to plan for the future.

Just like the plot of the various origin stories.

Honestly who cares that people believe things like Genesis actually occurred, what harm does it cause? It absolutely has not encumbered the advancement in the understanding of science such as evolution, frankly it has been a quite modern that we do have a fact based scientific notion of the origin of the universe, planets, and life. If I am not mistaken Charles Darwin was the first to formulate the origin of the species based on fossil records.

In most origin fables the basics are true, if you omit all the details and things which are metaphor, they all say the same thing, once there was nothing, now there us something, this is a truth that the big bang theory, evolution, coalescence, and any other beginning agrees with, so no, I don't think it can be called a conspiracy theory, a story, fable, folklore, legend, myth perhaps, but a conspiracy, to what end?
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#17
Honestly who cares that people believe things like Genesis actually occurred, what harm does it cause? It absolutely has not encumbered the advancement in the understanding of science such as evolution, frankly it has been a quite modern that we do have a fact based scientific notion of the origin of the universe, planets, and life. If I am not mistaken Charles Darwin was the first to formulate the origin of the species based on fossil records.
There is an argument that it has caused harm by hurting scientific progress. Sometimes to the magnitude of halting an entire culture and millions of people. Check out this if you haven't yet, it is exactly the topic Tyson talks about: http://www.politicalfray.com/showthread.php?t=3384

In most origin fables the basics are true, if you omit all the details and things which are metaphor, they all say the same thing, once there was nothing, now there us something, this is a truth that the big bang theory, evolution, coalescence, and any other beginning agrees with, so no, I don't think it can be called a conspiracy theory, a story, fable, folklore, legend, myth perhaps, but a conspiracy, to what end?
They do not all say the same thing. If you look at Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, maybe, but they are far from the only religions. Throw in Hinduism and Buddhism and the similarities start to quickly erode. Put in other, older religions (or newer- Scientology), and even more so.

And when the Bible claims that the Earth was made in seven days or when the church claimed the Earth was the center of the universe, how did that not conflict with science?

I agree it is not conspiracy, but it also is not an logical alternative to scientific fact. I could care less what others want to believe even if they are dead wrong, but my issue is when they take that to the level where they interfere with others lives through what policy positions they support or denying things like evolution and thinking my kids should be taught creationism, a fairy tale, next to fact-based evolution. That is my bone to pick in this issue. If they want to believe in fairies and goblins in the privacy of their own lives, I could care less.
 
Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#18
There is an argument that it has caused harm by hurting scientific progress.
That's what Bill Nye "the science guy" said, when he pointed out that Creationism is the most popular in the US and that the US is the most advanced science. Nye seems too stupid to do the simple math and that guts his (and your) argument. Then the idiot says that parents should support having schools teach their children things the parents don't believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

And when the Bible claims that the Earth was made in seven days or when the church claimed the Earth was the center of the universe, how did that not conflict with science?
The alternative, the Big Bang theory, is even less scientifically tenable than accepting that God created. See post #14 for an example.

I agree it is not conspiracy, but it also is not an logical alternative to scientific fact.
There is not one scientific fact that Creationists reject. Your blind allegiance to doubtful "theories" doesn't make them fact.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#19
The word "theory" is used differently colloquially and scientifically. I am not going to justify the rest of your post with an answer though because you seem incapable of not making character assassinations.
 
Nov 13, 2012
141
0
USA
#20
The word "theory" is used differently colloquially and scientifically. I am not going to justify the rest of your post with an answer though because you seem incapable of not making character assassinations.
No competent scientist uses the word "theory" as a synonyme for "fact". And, neither did Darwin.
 

Similar Discussions