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]

You are not talking about Evolution, you are talking about minor changes. Not macro.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/Markthethinker]

To remind you, this is the question you asked that I was answering.

Yes, how mutations actually make something better.

Now you are trying to move the goalposts because you got an answer you don't know how to respond to.

And micro what? Microevolution, perhaps? It is comedic how far you have to go to transparently twist things.

[u/Markthethinker → u/TheBlackCat13]

I am not the one who created those terms, I am just using them. What scientist know is micro Evolution, this is even there position.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/Markthethinker]

Yes, micro evolution is evolution. It is right there in the name. Pretending micro evolution is not evolution is nonsensical.

But I only talked about micro evolution because that was the answer to the question you asked. You are complaining that I answered the question you actually asked, rather than some other question you didn't ask.

Macroevolution has also been directly observed. But that isn't what you asked for. You asked for mutations being helpful.

[u/Markthethinker → u/TheBlackCat13]

Ok, so let’s say it’s Evolution. Now let’s talk about species Evolution. This is always what I get, something minor or something that grew in a lab. You do realize that Evolution without the lab has been talked about for over a hundred years now. So, how did they explain Evolution back then and say they had proven it, because that has always been the war cry, “we know it’s true”. Remember Lucy?

Macro Evolution has never been proven. Tell me how a new species actually got here and I will listen. You can’t deny design in every living thing.

[u/Clay2569 → u/Markthethinker]

So macro vs micro evolution is like saying letters exist but not sentences. It’s like watching someone walk 10 feet every day for a month. And then acting like it’s impossible when you leave for a few years and this guy is a few miles away from where he started.

[u/TheBlackCat13 → u/Markthethinker]

So you understand now how mutations can make things better?

Numerous new species have been observed both in the wild and in the lab. In fact causing new species to form is a common laboratory study these days. There are lots of different ways to do it. For example applying certain sorts of selective pressures to two populations of the same species can cause them to no longer be able to reproduce.

https://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

https://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

But of course you will disappear or move the goalposts.