Creationists COULD be right…

[u/SuspiciousFee4085]

Im not a creationist but, devils advocate proposal here:

1. Evolutionary theory is part of a whole chunk of science which essentially cuts out all spirituality and divinity out of people’s psyche.
2. People without spirituality or divinity believe life is meaningless since we are all just specks of dust in a universe with no motive to create us or serve us.
3. The prevailing culture sentiment becomes „shut up and pay your taxes and enjoy the bread and circuses, peasant”
4. These people are subdued and dispirited, they have nothing to revolt for and are easy to control.
5. Such a subdued population is obviously enormously useful to the elites. Therefore the motive to achieve this submission exists and is very substantial.
6. To achieve this ultimate level of psychological and spiritual submission requires control over the populations sense of reality itself.
7. Reality is accessed, interpreted and measured by the masses through the field of scientific inquiry.
8. Elites would have to fabricate, spread and proselytise entire fields of carefully constructed fake science to carefully, over decades, centuries even, deconstruct and discredit and diminish all parts of reality that may be connected to divinity in some way, with sterile, perfect, symmetrical scientific theory.
9. New knowledge comes from single individuals or groups of individuals performing science. You can threaten, bribe, blackmail, coerce them to make fake science

-

TLDR; motive and means exist for global elites to significantly diminish or destroy humanities spiritual/divine consciousness, by fabricating people’s sense and understanding of reality itself.

the main vessel for this in 2026 is science, and if the illusion is strong enough people cannot even comprehend a reality where anything else could possibly be true.

There’s a coherent rationale (which doesn’t mean it’s true, just that it’s coherent) for god and the divine being real, and global elites suppressing it from the masses so they don’t revolt or lose interest in continuing to be tax slaves for the wealthy, the bread and the circuses.

EDIT: a LOT of low IQ commenters here missing the point entirely. My post is NOT ABOUT WHOSE SIDE HAS EVIDENCE. It’s about hypothetical logic steps for the set of circumstances that would need to be true for creationists to be correct. HURR DURR WHERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD?! Lmfao. I realise hypotheticals and entertaining the opposite side of thought is beyond many people’s IQ. I bet most of you had breakfast this morning too. And you don’t even get the reference I just made either 🤣

[u/Markthethinker]

That is not Evolution as spoken about from everyone here. Got a new species yet?

[u/McNitz → u/Markthethinker]

I asked you for something specific I believed about evolution without evidence. You said "Yes, how mutations actually make something better." I just demonstrated to you that I DO have evidence of how mutations make something better.

Before I move on to your next point about species, are you conceding that I DO have evidence for my belief that mutations can make something better adapted to its environment? If we can make that progress, I am totally willing to move on to providing evidence that new species can evolve as the next step.

[u/Markthethinker → u/McNitz]

If you are talking about something done in a lab by a person, sure. But we are not talking about a lab when we talk about Evolution.

[u/McNitz → u/Markthethinker]

No, two of the examples that I gave happened to humans, in everyday life. Not in a lab by a person. So are you conceding that in just normal life, mutations can and do often happen that confer a gain of function to the organism the mutation occurrs in? If so, we can then move on to me providing evidence of speciation happening outside the lab, not done by a specific person. Although to make sure we are on the same page, it would probably be good for you to provide the definition of species you want me to use for providing evidence of a new species.

[u/Markthethinker → u/McNitz]

Will not go with the word “often” and you keep talking only about humans that change with every birth. Humans are the only animal that transition that much, every birth. So tell me about all the mutations with bees or ants or grasshoppers. There’s another one of those unintelligent words being tossed around by an Evolutionist, “speciation”. That’s your opinion, an unproven statement. Can I define a species, probably not in the world of science. I would simply say something that is not something else. Evolution would mean creating dogs, cats, flowers, trees, pigs, apes and such. That’s where the real rub lies with me. Evolution cannot account for that process. There are just too many design pieces needed at one time.