I am Proud of Being a Conspiracy Theorist

Hold on a second. The Cambrian explosion is not a hole. While the causes of the Cambrian Explosion remain a topic of open and exciting debate, the continued fossil discoveries from the Cambrian and Precambrian Eras are bringing more clarity to the evolutionary puzzle. These fossils provide valuable insight, particularly for envisioning the common ancestors of diverse groups. For instance, both vertebrates (fish) and echinoderms (sea urchins, starfish) are part of the group called deuterostomes. Without fossil evidence, it is hard to envision what a common ancestor would look like for these very different creatures.

no I haven’t. You said there was a hole. Fossil evidence shows there isn’t.

The fossil proof shows they did. More than likely through the evolution of vision. This certainly isn’t a hole.

Computations done by Pat Robertson?

Stephen Meyer is a creationist (rebranded to "Intelligent Design")

He's member of the pseudo-scientific "discovery institute" and it's exposed below

Are you saying the parents need for comfort outweighs the health needs of the child, and the health system’s responsibility to provide the correct medical treatment?

Would you be comfortable with parents dictating to Doctors what treatment they feel is better for their sick kids? Do you not think there is a knowledge imbalance?

Nope, unfortunately already heard about him (and his cohorts) before.

One of the sources I provided is themselves, an internal document. Outlining their own religious and anti-science agenda.

Probably the most entertaining debunk on the group is the scientist I linked previously, in his videos he dismantles their "science" and exposes the grift. Below are links to his expose's of the other Discovery Institute figureheads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRxq1Vrf_Js - Casey Luskin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVQGQz-0Xeo - Michael Behe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFPHvvJWVAk - Gunter Bechley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SixyZ7DkSjA - the first of several on James Tour, an utter crank

If anyone has time, I highly recommend any of those videos

As for the conspiracy angle, as mentioned this has all the unmistakeable hallmarks of a conspiracy, a conservative religious think-tank basically posing as a "scientific institute" with an agenda to attack evolution using pseudo-science and get it out of US schools.

I once encountered a poster who seemed oblivious to the idea that the findings of FUNDED research could possibly be at odds with the associated scientists' personal opinions.

Think expert witnesses in a court case - the opinions of the prosecution's expert witnesses tend to sit, all nice and cosy, with the prosecution's contention.

Ditto, the defence.

Ya gotta independently sniff each case.

Anyone, anywhere can claim anything as true. Putting forward a "Truth" requires it's being evidenced as so by evidence.

The issue with many in the CT forum, is that there is a belief that saying something makes it true.

Veracity is not a matter of trust or faith. It is a matter of evidence. Be it physical, testamentary or experimental. That evidence is subject to test, review and scrutiny.

Without evidence?

There's no theory, there is someone telling a story and rounding it off with "trust me bro".

Much like your continue stance that the scientific method depends upon abductive reasoning. Were the scientific method wholly reliant upon philosophical reasoning? You would have a point. It isn't though, the practical sciences are wholly dependant upon practical proofs and repeatability of experiments and their verification by others.

There is no greater joy in scientific circles than disproving an axiom. It's a quicker path to fame and scientific noteriett than nodding along because someone made a good argument.

Science isn't based upon good philosophical points. It's based upon repeatable and provable and verifiable points. Theories aren't absolutes, they are the very best understanding of the evidence available. New evidence? Can and has disproven widely held theories, across a range of fields from linguistics, to archaeology and into the physical sciences.

Why would you assume that anyone is "punching down"?

Interesting that now rather than defend the veracity or robustness of CTs?

Either they are stories? Or are you alluding to them being allegories if a truth hidden? A special and secret knowledge that boards own group of potential Nobel laureates are determined to silence?

To use a little of your abductive and wholly unevidenced reasoning...

If suppressing a truth could win anyone on boards a Nobel? Imagine the kudos that would accrue to anyone within the CT community who could present the evidence to overturn that pervasive consensus? That creationism is true? That Mossad wired WTC to explode or that Sandyhook or a.n other school shooting is fake.

Surely the same incredulity you apply to what are "accepted" theories or consensus should also apply to those theories the mainstream deems incredulous? Or is your aim solely one of contrarianism?

Edit

Fixed "novel" to Nobel in 2nd paragraph.

So no discussion, ascribe to wokeness and smugness that which you don't like. The question of what I'm doing here?

Is engaging in discussion, trying to understand the evidence behind what are often at 1st glance outlandish claims. To see if any truth does underpin what many hold as unshakeable tenets of belief.

Yet despite that? In all the time I have frequented and engaged in the CT forum? I've yet to find that evidence.

Now if I was to go along with an earlier comment made here. I should really be approaching CTs as a folklorist or social historian. Although if that were the mode in which CTrs wish to post? Then surely, creative writing is the best place for such theories unless/until someone is willing to discuss the evidence on which their hypothesis hinges?

Why are you here? What brings you to the CT forum other than "anti-wokeness"?

Edit

I forgot to address your comment on your experience of the internet before it got all commercial.

I can only frame that response within the context of your 1 year old username. Unless of course you've had previous handles here? List them and let's see if we've spoken before, my own boards handle has been on use since 2007. So I'm not sure if you feel that is pre? Or post commercialisation?

So asking someone to back up their claims is now "wokeness".

Fuckin hell. 🙄

"the insufferable requests for evidence"

Its great banter. Claiming something incredible and then getting all snotty when asked for evidence to back it up.

Its bog standard garden variety conspiraloon behaviour.