See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329780971

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories: How Theologies Evade Science:

From Genesis to Astrobiology

Chapter · December 2018

DOI: 10.1142/9789813235045_0007

CITATIONS READS
5 2,968

1 author:

Taner Edis
Truman State University
48 PUBLICATIONS 411 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Taner Edis on 12 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

1
2
3
4
5
6
Chapter 7
7
8
Cosmic Conspiracy Theories: 9
How Theologies Evade Science 10
1
Taner Edis 2
3
4
Abstract 5
Theological responses to scientific challenges can usefully be compared 6
to conspiracy theories in order to highlight their evasive properties. When 7
religious thinkers emphasize hidden powers and purposes underlying 8
a seemingly material reality, and claim that these hidden purposes are 9
revealed only through special knowledge granted to initiates, they adopt 20
conspiratorial attitudes. And when they charge mainstream science with
1
corruption or comprehensive mistakes, so that science becomes a plot
2
to conceal the truth, the resemblance to a conspiracy theory deepens.
3
Theologically conservative denial of evolution often exhibits such
features, but some liberal theologies also border on conspiracy theories. 4
Intelligent design creationism, however, is sometimes less conspiratorial. 5
6
7
8
Hidden powers pulling strings 9
30
It is often useful to describe theological responses to science as falling
1
along a conservative-to-liberal spectrum. Conservatives emphasize
2
traditional understandings of religious doctrines. They tend toward literal
3
readings of their sacred texts, and they insist that clear signs of supernatural
34
intervention abound in nature. Therefore conservatives also risk making
35
claims that violate modern scientific descriptions of how the world works.
36xy

143

b3326_Ch-07.indd 143 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

144 T. Edis

1 They invite conflict with scientific institutions. In contrast, liberals tend to

2 grant science an independent authority in describing nature. They
3 emphasize how sacred texts are interpreted by fallible humans, and seek
4 ways to adjust traditional beliefs so that they are more compatible with
5 science. For liberals, supernatural intervention is rare or elusive. Many
6 theologians and ordinary believers, naturally, do not occupy the
7 conservative or liberal poles, but stake out various moderate positions in
8 the wide middle.
9 Monotheistic responses to Darwinian evolution, for example, fall on
10 just such a spectrum (Scott, 2005, pp. 57–67). Conservatives deny
1 evolution, affirming the special creation of species, or at least Adam and
2 Eve, as described in Genesis or the Quran. Liberals accept the billions of
3 years of biological evolution and seek ways to describe evolution as an
4 expression of supernatural purpose. And the moderates who fall in
5 between mix evolution and divine intervention to varying degrees, often
6 settling on a form of divinely guided evolution where all life is related by
7 common descent, but the process was supernaturally guided to eventually
8 produce human life.
9 The picture of a spectrum works well, especially in political contexts.
20 American school boards or Turkish education officials face pressure from
1 conservatives to favor creationism, while liberals want them to leave
2 science alone. Moderates offer various forms of conciliation or
3 compromise. However, the image of a spectrum can also be misleading.
4 Theological responses to both the results of science and scientific ways of
5 thinking have been considerably more complex than what a spectrum
6 suggests. Some conservatives oppose the claims of science precisely
7 because their style of religiosity has a more empiricist flavor. And many
8 liberals are happy to allow science autonomy only because they think that
9 science has a limited scope, so that beneath the material facts on the
30 surface, there is a level of religious meaning that is not accessible to
1 scientific probing.
2 To highlight some of these complexities in religious attitudes toward
3 science, it may help to do something unusual: compare various religious
34 ways of deflecting science-based criticism to the outlook found in
35 conspiracy theories. After all, conspiracy theories center on hidden powers
36xy controlling events from behind the scenes. Secret societies such as

b3326_Ch-07.indd 144 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 145

The Illuminati shape world events; governments cover up visits from 1

space aliens; unseen cabals assassinate presidents or ensure the success of 2
politicians. Ordinary ways of explaining events are supposed to be 3
superficial: they miss the deeper forces driving what happens. But there is 4
also a special knowledge, available to initiates, that reveals the true 5
purposes that shape events. Now, theologies are obviously not conspiracy 6
theories; if nothing else, they rarely exhibit a similar sense of paranoia. 7
The hidden powers pulling strings need not involve a group of agents 8
conspiring together. And conspiracy theories have typically been focused 9
on political rather than religious concerns (Coady, 2006). Nonetheless, 10
religious responses to materialist tendencies within modern science seek 1
ways to affirm supernatural agents that are hidden to science, but who 2
nevertheless direct events according to purposes revealed by religious 3
forms of knowledge. Theological perceptions of nature tend toward views 4
that there are no coincidences, that nature can be read as a collection of 5
divine signs, and that there are deep purposes behind the superficial chaos 6
seen in nature and history. There is a sense in which conspiracy theories 7
are explanations gone wrong (Keeley, 1999), and when religious claims 8
appear similar to conspiracy scenarios, we might suspect similar problems. 9
Therefore, focusing on instances where theology adopts themes 20
familiar from conspiracy theories can usefully highlight some of the 1
means by which religious thinkers evade science-based criticism. 2
Sometimes theology will take on the form of a cosmic conspiracy theory: 3
though invisible to scientific investigation, supernatural powers ultimately 4
control events. And sometimes, the conspiratorial element in a religious 5
response to science identifies scientific institutions as forces that are 6
concealing the truth. Mainstream science, religious apologists may 7
suggest, has been corrupted by materialism, and hence it is oblivious to, 8
or actively hides, the truth about a divinely designed universe. Popular 9
religion is full of stereotypes of university professors who, angry with 30
God, invoke science to undermine the faith of students. 1
Controversies over evolution provide some excellent examples of 2
such conspiratorial elements in religious responses to science. The theory 3
of evolution presents supernatural religion with multiple challenges. 34
Theological conservatives and liberals on a spectrum are distinguished by 35
how they respond to these challenges, so we can start by listing them: 36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 145 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

146 T. Edis

1 1. Evolution contradicts the creation stories in sacred texts, and presents a

2 sense of deep time not anticipated by monotheistic traditions (Greene,
3 1996 [1959]).
4 2. Humans are related to other life forms, rather than having a status in
5 between mere animals and the divine. Humans are not the culmination
6 of evolution (Nee, 2005).
7 3. Darwinian evolution is driven by blind variation and selection. It does
8 not anticipate the future; it does not follow a plan (Dawkins, 2006
9 [1986]).
10 4. Variation-and-selection is part of a broader naturalistic picture,
1 including modern physics, where nature is understood as being
2 wholly constituted by processes combining chance and necessity
3 (Edis, 2002; Edis and Boudry, 2014).
4 5. Darwinian explanations are vital in understanding our own brains,
5 cognition, and creativity; including the psychology underlying
6 supernatural beliefs (Nelson, 2006; Atran and Henrich, 2010).
7
8 Due to such an escalating series of challenges, Darwinian evolution
9 has become an important driver of science-based doubt about the reality
20 of supernatural agents. Indeed, as recognized by its opponents (Nagel,
1 2012), Darwinian thinking has become a centerpiece of modern
2 materialism. On each point, religious responders either deny that the
3 materialist claim is correct, or argue that the science supporting the claim
4 can still be plausibly interpreted to allow a supernatural reality invisible to
5 the science in question. Religious thinkers may argue that the materialists,
6 and perhaps even the bulk of scientists, are seriously mistaken and are in
7 effect concealing the truth. Or they may argue that the scientists are
8 superficially correct, but that the purposes of a supernatural agent,
9 working through the natural mechanisms identified by scientists, provides
30 the deeper explanation of the course of events.
1 If we look for such conspiratorial elements in religious responses to
2 evolution, we find that liberals as well as conservatives make use of
3 evasive strategies. And if we take conspiratorial tendencies to be a sign of
34 a style of thinking that often stands in opposition to science, we find that
35 conservatives on the theological spectrum are not quite as anti-science as
36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 146 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 147

often portrayed, and that liberals are not as consistently friendly toward 1
science as our stereotypes suggest. 2
3
4
Creationism 5
One possible religious response to evolution is to completely adopt a 6
conspiratorial perspective: Satan is responsible for the fossils and any 7
other evidence for evolution. This is not a popular theological position; it 8
appears mainly in small ultraconservative Protestant communities, or in 9
those dark corners of the Internet where all conspiracy theories flourish. 10
The closest it comes to a serious articulation is with a version of the “gap 1
theory” where “Being jealous of God and His creative power, the Devil 2
took germs of life from elsewhere and long before creation week tried on 3
this earth to imitate God’s creation. Most of the geologic column was 4
developed over long ages before creation week, and the organisms in it are 5
the result of satanic experimentation” (Roth, 1980, p. 75). This view is 6
only interesting as an extreme case. Not only does it claim a cosmic 7
conspiracy that attempts to deceive everyone, but it gives full expression 8
to the paranoid element in conspiracy thinking. 9
Conservative views become more interesting when the conspiracy is 20
not quite as overwhelming. For example, the 19th century theology of 1
Gosse’s Omphalos has the Christian God rather than Satan responsible for 2
the fossils and other signs of a very old universe. In Gosse’s view, the 3
created universe had to be fully functional, and therefore had to include an 4
appearance of age. Trees, for example, would have to have been created 5
with rings in them (Gosse, 2003 [1857]). Without the knowledge granted 6
us through special revelation, we would naturally interpret the signs of age 7
as evidence for a past that never actually happened. In a backhanded way, 8
Gosse’s theology achieves compatibility between science and scripture. 9
There are variants of Gosse’s view in today’s theology, such as the 30
possibility that in the context of a strange and physically very dubious 1
metaphysics of time, the Christian God could have arranged for both the 2
literal Genesis story and the modern scientific account to be true (Hudson, 3
2014). As with Gosse’s scenario, the only motivation we could have for 34
thinking this to be the case would be a prior belief in scripture. 35
36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 147 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

148 T. Edis

1 For a more obviously conspiratorial view, however, we have to look at

2 aspects of Gosse’s view that resurfaced within 20th century Protestant
3 creationism and continue to attract believers. In some instances, young-
4 earth creationists resort to claims of creation with an appearance of age,
5 but as a limited evasive device rather than as a centerpiece of their
6 alternative to mainstream science (Snelling, 2009, pp. 653–661). Since
7 today’s young-earth creationists are committed to an argument that
8 science, if practiced properly, affirms special creation rather than
9 evolution, they have to emphasize evidence-based arguments for creation.
10 Therefore, they do not present a complete cosmic conspiracy theory. They
1 still, however, believe that the theory of evolution is massively mistaken.
2 Such comprehensive error means that mainstream scientific institutions
3 act to conceal rather than discover truth. To explain how science has gone
4 so wrong, creationists often exhibit conspiratorial forms of thinking. The
5 scientific community must have come under the spell of materialism or a
6 pagan form of religion. Satan’s influence can be discerned behind the
7 scenes of the long war against God represented by evolutionary thought
8 (Morris, 2000).
9 Much of young-earth creationism, then, structurally resembles a
20 conspiracy theory. Science, which in modern secular societies often
1 represents commonly accepted knowledge, has gone terribly wrong.
2 Mainstream science may seem convincing, but this merely testifies to the
3 depth of its corruption and the power of the forces working to conceal the
4 truth. Evolution is The Lie (Ham, 2012 [1987]). The true story, concealed
5 by what we are duped into thinking is knowledge, is one of supernatural
6 purposes shaping the world. And the key to discovering the truth behind
7 the deceptions is to recognize the literal truth of scriptural accounts.
8 As with most conspiracy theories, the plausibility of the claimed
9 hidden powers and purposes depends on the appeal of the alternative
30 scenarios and alternative channels of true information available to the
1 initiated. Sacred texts already have this built-in appeal. But the conspiracy
2 theory also has to deflect criticism. A Gosse-style theology, for example,
3 is vulnerable to the objection that its God is a deceiver. More convincing
34 scenarios provide answers to such objections. Protestant tradition has
35 elements that emphasize the unique trustworthiness of scripture as a
36xy personal communication from God. We have an innate sense of the divine,

b3326_Ch-07.indd 148 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 149

which can be triggered by the Holy Spirit in occasions such as reflecting 1

on the Bible. But we are also Fallen creatures, and our sense of God is not 2
perfect. Our sin-darkened, rebellious intellect can lead us astray, unless 3
we submit to God’s revealed Word. Some conservative Protestants go so 4
far as to claim that trust in revelation must be presupposed to attain any 5
sort of reliable knowledge beyond everyday matters (Van Til, 1969). Such 6
elements of conservative theology can easily be pressed into the service 7
of a conspiratorial outlook. God may deceive some people, particularly 8
non-believers (Ezekiel, 14, p. 9; 2 Thessalonians, 2:11–12, Quran, 7:99). 9
But for those with faith, God is not a deceiver, having communicated 10
clearly to the elect through scripture. Initiates who want the truth have to 1
learn to interpret the evidence they encounter in the light of revelation. 2
Young-earth creationists often acknowledge that for them, scripture 3
comes first. The data produced by scientific means does not, on its own, 4
determine the correct theory. The evidence can be made to fit an 5
evolutionary explanation, or the data can also be interpreted in a manner 6
consistent with young-earth creationism. Radiometric dating, for example, 7
can produce ages of billions of years. But such large ages depend on many 8
assumptions, such as a constant decay rate for radioactive nuclei. Young- 9
earth creationists propose to explain much of geology as a product of 20
Noah’s Flood, which was a catastrophic supernatural intervention that 1
interfered with the normal operations of nature. Therefore, an alternative 2
way of accounting for the data would be that the Flood invalidates 3
evolutionary assumptions such as constant decay rates (Snelling, 2004). 4
All this is a very conspiratorial way of thinking. Accelerated radioactive 5
decay during the Flood produces no end of scientific problems (Heaton, 6
2009), but creationists remain focused on making the evidence fit their 7
scenarios. A conspiracy theory can be made consistent with almost any 8
evidence, since the hidden powers interfere with the publicly available 9
information. Evidence that might appear to go against the conspiracy just 30
signifies the magnitude of the plot. 1
Conspiracy theories can be plausible because they shift our attention 2
to a story: they explain events in terms of agency and purpose, even in 3
domains where social and psychological forms of reasoning about agents 34
and motivations might not be applicable. They impose meaning onto 35
chaos. Much the same can be said about the supernatural beliefs in 36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 149 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

150 T. Edis

1 religions (Guthrie, 1993; Boyer, 2001). Therefore, it should not be

2 surprising to find close affinities between some styles of religiosity and
3 conspiracy theories. There is insufficient research about whether similar
4 psychological mechanisms are deployed for belief in conspiracy theories
5 and for paranormal and religious beliefs, though it has been found that
6 intuitive thinking styles are associated with both religiosity and conspiracy
7 beliefs, and analytic thinking reduces both (Gervais and Norenzayan,
8 2012; Swami et al., 2014). Conflicts with science often invite responses
9 that deploy more intuitive, conspiratorial thinking. Developing these
10 reactions further, conspiratorial theologies invert the secular view where
1 mainstream science is characterized by progress and agreement, while
2 religion is a realm of faith commitments and unstable interpretations.
3 They place trust entirely in what they consider the Word of God, and
4 protect themselves from science-based criticisms that can only express
5 deception.
6 Conservative Protestant rejection of evolution is a particularly clear
7 example. But similar conspiratorial themes can also find expression
8 within other traditions. Much popular Islamic creationism, such as the
9 Harun Yahya material, adopts a matter-of-fact tone while describing the
20 supposed errors of evolution. Conservative Muslims have much less of a
1 sense of being a beleaguered minority within their culture (Edis, 2007),
2 even while conspiracy theories intertwined with apocalyptic beliefs have
3 become increasingly popular among Muslims (Filiu, 2011). Still, Muslims,
4 no less than Christians, feel a need to explain why mainstream science has
5 been led into a massive mistake. And Harun Yahya’s accounts are full of
6 materialist plots and Masonic conspiracies to degrade religion and conceal
7 the truth (Yahya, 2011; Solberg, 2013, pp. 75–93). Traditional Muslim
8 theology does not include a human Fall, and it claims that our created
9 human nature is such that we naturally come to appreciate the truth of the
30 Quran. This natural understanding, however, can be blocked by improper
1 training and through godless ideologies. Hence Muslim creationism also
2 makes generous use of conspiratorial elements.
3
34
Intelligent design
35
36xy Creationism is popular. It offers devout but modern populations, who
depend on technology in their lives, a way to harmonize faith and science

b3326_Ch-07.indd 150 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 151

(Eve and Harrold, 1990). The conspiratorial elements in creationism 1

sometimes only add to its populist appeal. But no religious tradition can 2
afford to lose educated elites and rely on populism alone. Moreover, not 3
every believer appreciates the more paranoid faithful-against-everyone-else 4
mindset. Therefore moderate positions, which promise to accept much of 5
science while retaining a religious perception of nature, are also attractive. 6
A literal reading of scripture, for example, is not necessary. When 7
devout people cannot agree about which texts are holy, and cannot agree 8
on a correct interpretation of any of the candidate texts, insisting that 9
proper knowledge depends on submission to a particular revelation seems 10
excessive. Moreover, if the friction between science and supernatural 1
religion is caused by the materialist aspects of theories such as evolution, 2
it may be best to narrowly focus on avoiding materialism rather than 3
dismissing vast parts of science. People with different faiths could then 4
work together to oppose only those aspects of theories such as evolution 5
that challenge the existence of spiritual realities. 6
In the early 2000s, just such an option appeared to be surfacing, in the 7
form of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. ID has roots in Protestant 8
creationism, but it does not demand any particular interpretation of 9
scripture. Instead, ID emphasizes one of the oldest and most attractive 20
arguments for a supernatural power in charge: that functional complexity 1
in nature must be due to design by an intelligent agent. In Christian terms, 2
ID shifts emphasis from special to general revelation. The divine hand in 3
nature is not hidden; the presence of design is knowledge available 4
through ordinary means of investigation that do not require prior 5
submission to a special revelation. Moreover, ID modernizes the intuitions 6
of design, attempting to formalize the creationist conviction that 7
information cannot be created by mindless material processes (Dembski, 8
2004a, 2014). Therefore, ID opposes unguided, strictly naturalistic 9
notions of evolution, but just as strenuously stands against materialist 30
views of minds linked to research in artificial intelligence or cognitive 1
neuroscience (Beauregard and O’Leary, 2007). ID offers a broad enough 2
anti-materialist position that could attract monotheists such as Catholics 3
and Muslims, but also Buddhists and mystics committed to the 34
immateriality of minds, and even the odd non-religious thinker who 35
objects to the arrogance they perceive in the enthusiasm for Darwinian 36xy
and materialist perspectives within science (Berlinski, 2008).

b3326_Ch-07.indd 151 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

152 T. Edis

1 Compared to old-fashioned creationism, then, ID is potentially less

2 conspiratorial. Since the fact that a divine power shapes nature is not
3 hidden, there is no cosmic conspiracy. ID proponents have had hopes to
4 develop a mathematically rigorous procedure to identify the presence of
5 design. When applied to a data set, this procedure would rule out mindless
6 processes such as chance and necessity, concluding that the information
7 in the data must have been produced by an intelligent agent (Dembski,
8 1998). While the math allegedly supporting ID may be arcane, and the
9 language of ID is full of information-age metaphors rather than more
10 traditional theology, the central ideas of ID confirm the basic intuition
1 available to almost everyone: that complex order requires an intelligent
2 origin (Newman et al., 2010). According to ID proponents, not only is
3 design intuitively obvious, it is supported by the technical apparatus of
4 science.
5 Indeed, ID aims to be compatible with almost all of modern science,
6 except for its notoriously materialistic elements. Even in biology, ID
7 focuses on denying the efficacy of Darwinian variation-and-selection in
8 producing creative novelties. The information in, for example, DNA must
9 ultimately have an intelligent origin. But since ID insists on a procedure
20 to detect design only, it does not produce any causal history of where
1 information comes from. An old-fashioned creationist might insist on the
2 divine creation of new information with each species. But some versions
3 of ID are also compatible with accounts that accept descent with
4 modification, or with the claim that all necessary information was injected
5 into the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Even aliens, rather than
6 gods, could have been the immediate agents of design. ID promises only
7 to validate a very common religious intuition about nature: that ultimately,
8 mindless material processes could not create complex order. Therefore ID,
9 even with its creationist history, could potentially position itself as being
30 compatible with notions of divinely guided evolution, which is the most
1 popular moderate means of reconciling common descent with supernatural
2 religion. The causal history specifying what supernatural power intervened
3 in the history of the universe in what manner could be filled in by various
34 religious traditions. The conflicts between rival religions would be
35 interesting, but with ID established and materialism overruled, those
36xy would be separate arguments.

b3326_Ch-07.indd 152 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 153

The ID movement has, however, also needed to explain the grip 1

materialist notions have had on the scientific community, and they have 2
regularly resorted to conspiratorial thinking. The ID literature contains no 3
end of complaints about materialism as a prejudice and an obstacle to 4
progress. Charges that academic “Darwinists” conspire to conceal the 5
fatal defects of Darwinian evolution and prevent ID from receiving a fair 6
hearing, even that science educators in effect collude in fraud (Wells, 7
2000) are common in ID material. But on occasion, ID proponents have 8
described opposition from mainstream science as being due to ordinary 9
conservatism and resistance to revolutionary new ideas (Dembski, 2004b). 10
In this milder form of ID rhetoric, completely naturalistic evolution is a 1
mistake, but a mistake that might have been understandable, partly due to 2
a 19th century lack of knowledge about the complexity of even the most 3
basic cellular machinery. 4
ID has, however, failed to persuade the scientific community that it 5
has any merit. Scientific critics consider ID to be a comprehensive failure, 6
especially its new elements such as its claims to have a mathematical 7
means of detecting design (Young and Edis, 2004). The notion that 8
Darwinian variation-and-selection cannot create information is simply 9
false. Even ID proponents no longer give center stage to their revolutionary 20
design-detection claims. More recent ID literature has put more emphasis 1
on alleged failures of evolutionary explanations, coming to more closely 2
resemble an older style of creationism that aimed to reinforce incredulity 3
about the creative powers of the purely material processes that drive 4
evolution (Meyer, 2009, 2013). A small minority of scientists continue to 5
have reservations about accounts of evolution that exclusively rely 6
on unguided processes of variation, selection, and neutral drift; some 7
even entertain some vague, undeveloped ID-like ideas (Dembski and 8
Ruse, 2004). But the ID movement has not been able to bring many into 9
their fold. 30
ID has also enjoyed very little success in producing a united religious 1
front against materialism in science. ID’s appeal beyond monotheists has 2
been very limited. And among monotheists, ID has met with some 3
theological resistance. Protestant creationists have always been suspicious 34
about the more ecumenical aspects of ID. In their view, speaking about a 35
designer without identifying it as Jesus Christ, or discussing information 36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 153 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

154 T. Edis

1 without emphasizing the Word of God, is questionable at best (Morris,

2 2006). Some moderate monotheists appreciate the ecumenical appeal of
3 ID, but ID’s confrontation with scientific institutions has alienated
4 moderates who adopt guided evolution as a way of avoiding conflict.
5 Moreover, many theologians suspect that ID concedes too much to
6 a secular and scientific way of thinking: that it allows science too much
7 authority in matters of faith (Shanks and Green, 2011). If some form of
8 ID had worked, it might have been the best possible harmonization of
9 science and religion. Without any conspiracies, scientific investigation
10 and religious inspiration would have converged on a similar overall
1 picture of nature. But if religion must depend on revelation, mystical
2 insight, or some “other way of knowing” discontinuous with science,
3 ID starts to look too much like it brings a Wholly Other God down to
4 the level of creatures to be investigated by methods suitable for material
5 entities.
6 ID has often been described as a sophisticated form of creationism.
7 Such descriptions overlook how ID does not require any cosmic
8 conspiracy, and how much closer ID comes to a scientific manner of
9 thinking. But ID has, because of this, produced a picture of a God that is
20 not obscure enough for liberals, and too distant from revealed texts for
1 conservatives. And in public, precisely because ID has downplayed the
2 conspiratorial aspects of its theological tradition, it has been vulnerable to
3 its lack of scientific success.
4
5
6 Liberal views
7 Liberal theologians accept most, perhaps all of science, including those
8 theories that inspire materialism. Theology is not supposed to be a rival to
9 science. Instead, theology should supply a back story, adding depth and
30 meaning to the bare material facts revealed by scientific investigation.
1 Sophisticated academic theologies tend to conceive of science as an
2 autonomous enterprise that works independently of religious commitments.
3 And because of this, science is supposed to be limited: scientific methods
34 are suitable for discovering facts about the natural world, but the
35 “methodological naturalism” of science also prevents it from addressing
36xy supernatural claims (Pennock, 1999).

b3326_Ch-07.indd 154 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 155

Liberals, then, invariably endorse evolution. They go beyond the 1

grudging acceptance of common descent that some forms of ID offer, and 2
they do not stop with moderate half-measures such as the Catholic 3
insistence on a real Adam and Eve who were given specially created souls. 4
Darwinian variation-and-selection is acceptable, as long as evolution can 5
be interpreted as a progressive unfolding of divine purpose, or if the 6
seemingly painful and wasteful processes of evolution can be seen as the 7
result of the monotheistic God granting nature a large measure of creative 8
freedom (Haught, 2004, 2010). 9
Accepting science, however, also means reviving some aspects of a 10
cosmic conspiracy theory. After all, in the absence of a robust natural 1
theology, no one could infer a divine purpose just from their knowledge 2
of science. At face value, the current results of science fit materialist 3
expectations of mindless natural processes, where creativity as well as 4
everything else are due to combinations of chance and necessity. But 5
liberal theologies are still committed to a hidden power behind the scenes. 6
This power is not an alternative to evolution: unlike Gosse’s scenario 7
where science is understandably mistaken about the past, science is 8
supposed to be correct about the material details. Scientific knowledge is 9
merely incomplete; it is not corrupt, it does not act to conceal the truth. 20
And yet, the power and purpose behind the scenes is hidden to the 1
ordinary means of investigation represented by scientific efforts. As with 2
the conservative reliance on special revelation, liberals need some extra 3
source of information. ID proposes an openly visible design, but liberal 4
theologies have design by stealth. 5
Even liberal theologies need a way for hidden powers to pull the 6
strings from behind the scenes. Liberals do not want to change science, 7
and they are wary of the conservative willingness to countenance 8
supernatural violations of natural laws. One popular way to square this 9
circle has been to try to find loopholes in modern physics. Quantum 30
mechanical events happen at random, therefore all that physicists can 1
predict are probability distributions. Hence, important physical principles 2
such as conservation laws, in the context of quantum mechanics, concern 3
long-term average behavior. In that case, supernatural interference might 34
take place through the very occasional, rare determination of a quantum 35
event. For example, a supernatural agent might once in a long while tweak 36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 155 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

156 T. Edis

1 a random mutation so as to nudge evolution in the direction of creating

2 something like humans. No detectable violation of natural laws would
3 occur (Russell, 2009).
4 There are some technical problems with the physics of such claims
5 (Sansbury, 2007; Koperski, 2015). But even setting these difficulties
6 aside, the claim of interventions at the quantum level is not a trivial matter.
7 It is, after all, a claim that quantum mechanical predictions of randomness
8 are not correct, and that, if we cannot detect any deviation from
9 randomness, this is only because we cannot gather enough data.
10 Theologians are demanding substantial interference in the structure of
1 physics. Consider a casino operator who cheats, but only rarely, and only
2 in order to reward gamblers who belong to a favorite religious sect. If
3 done rarely enough, the signal of interference will be lost in the noise, and
4 the record of the games in the casino will not support the claim of non-
5 random interference. But if we are to believe that such cheating occurs,
6 we would need extra evidence such as mechanisms that would allow
7 occasional weighting of the dice, video recordings of casino employees
8 pressing a strange button on certain occasions, and so forth. Supernatural
9 interference in quantum events is, similarly, not an easy way of cheating
20 against natural laws without overturning modern physics. Knowledge of
1 such interference would demand extra evidence, which could, perhaps,
2 sustain an overall framework of an intelligently designed universe. But
3 since liberals reject ID-style confrontation with science, they do not claim
4 any other scientific evidence for intervention. Therefore such knowledge
5 would have to come through “other ways of knowing” such as mystical
6 illumination or special revelation. Apprehending the powers and purposes
7 behind the scenes still requires special knowledge to unmask the
8 conspiracy.
9 While liberal theologies retain attenuated versions of a cosmic
30 conspiracy, they are certainly less paranoid about science. But the liberal
1 affirmation of science has limits. One reason supernatural intervention by
2 stealth is so implausible is the overall current physical framework of
3 mindless natural processes, of chance and necessity, in which theories
34 such as Darwinian evolution are set (Edis and Boudry, 2014). Moreover,
35 modern science is ambitious. Materialist and evolutionary thinking tends
36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 156 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 157

to invade our favored explanations of our mental lives, including religious 1

beliefs and experiences. Attempts to limit the reach of science-based 2
criticism by imposing “methodological naturalism” and other dictates are 3
philosophically arbitrary (Boudry et al., 2010). In that case liberals, no 4
less than conservatives, will find instances where they perceive science to 5
overstep its legitimate bounds. 6
With liberals, the signs of mistrust of science appear when theologians 7
condemn “scientism,” where scientists allegedly overreach and deny that 8
there are forms of knowledge, often represented in the arts and 9
humanities, that are discontinuous with scientific practices of investigation 10
and explanation. Theology, in such a view, represents a humanistic, 1
holistic form of knowledge that enjoys a certain immunity to scientific 2
forms of criticism. Some religious thinkers go so far as to suggest that 3
scientism is an alternative religion to be combatted in the name of what 4
is truly spiritual (Roy, 2005), or in a less overheated fashion, that science 5
is, like theology, a cultural product, and as such does not represent a 6
constraint on theology (Smith, 2015). As a result, scientists and 7
philosophers who argue for a broader materialism that incorporates 8
evolutionary challenges to supernatural religion regularly encounter 9
accusations of scientism (Coyne, 2015). The conviction that when 20
science generates criticism of religious supernatural beliefs, science 1
must have been hijacked by materialist prejudices, or that it might not be 2
science conducted properly, is found in liberal as well as conservative 3
theological circles. But since for liberals, the lines that science must not 4
cross are drawn more generously, the need to activate conspiratorial 5
impulses to evade science-based criticism arises less often and in 6
narrower contexts. 7
Elements of conspiratorial thinking are less visible in sophisticated 8
academic theology than in doctrinally more conservative creationist 9
thought. Nonetheless, some liberal responses to the more ambitious 30
aspects of evolutionary theory come close to conspiracy theories. There is 1
still a peculiarly hidden power pulling the strings of nature, who is actively 2
trying to remain hidden, and who can be known only through special 3
means available to initiates. And when science appears to cast doubt on 34
such powers, it still must be because science has gone off the rails. 35
36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 157 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

158 T. Edis

1 Embrace, confront, or evade

2
3 Much of science is not relevant to supernatural beliefs: it is hard to
4 imagine any discovery in polymer chemistry attracting much religious
5 attention. But when science becomes relevant, defenders of supernatural
6 beliefs have to respond. They can embrace the science, confront it, or try
7 to evade its consequences.
8 There have been a few instances where modern science has appeared
9 to support religious conceptions of nature. The standard Big Bang
10 cosmology of a few decades ago, for example, might fit a conception of
1 creation ex nihilo better than the tradition of an eternal universe that has
2 historically appealed to dissenters from monotheism. Even some
3 conservative religious apologists who criticize evolution but accept the
4 immense age of the universe have argued that the Big Bang is a creation
5 event that requires a creator (Craig and Smith, 1993). Their arguments
6 appear outdated in the context of today’s physical cosmology (Carroll,
7 2005), but they at least illustrate that some modern science can be
8 embraced by theology.
9 More often, the science embraced by religious apologists turns out to
20 be dubious. In its 19th century heyday, psychical research attracted liberal
1 religious thinkers who thought it might produce a modern, scientifically
2 valid affirmation of a spiritual realm. Even today, some liberal religious
3 thinkers continue to be attracted to the anti-materialist implications of
4 parapsychological claims (Griffin, 1997; Tart, 2009). Nonetheless,
5 mainstream science has mostly rejected psychic powers, considering
6 parapsychology a failed research enterprise.
7 So today, modern science presents an important challenge to
8 supernatural religion, especially because of its important conceptual
9 frameworks that often support a materialist conception of nature.
30 Dependence on chance and necessity is fundamental in modern physics,
1 and creativity emerging from mindless processes combining chance and
2 necessity is central to Darwinian evolution. It is hard to argue that
3 materialism is an extraneous addition to such frameworks.
34 In that case, especially conservative religious thinkers will feel
35 compelled to confront science. In cases such as creationist resistance to
36xy evolution, the confrontation with mainstream science often relies on a

b3326_Ch-07.indd 158 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 159

style of thinking familiar from conspiracy theories. Science becomes 1

“science falsely so called” (Whitcomb, 2008), which functions as a plot to 2
divert attention from the path of salvation. Instead of science, the key 3
to the meaning of events lies in special religious forms of knowledge, 4
which reveal the true supernatural purposes beneath surface appearances. 5
A cosmic conspiracy prevails. 6
Science can be confronted, however, without resorting to a conspiracy 7
theory. The ID movement has been associated with the moderate to 8
conservative part of the religious spectrum. But particularly in the early 9
days of ID, ID proponents were optimistic about their ability to detect a 10
clear signal of design that was not reducible to chance and necessity. 1
There was a cosmic design, and it was not hidden. Mainstream science 2
was severely mistaken, but not necessarily corrupted. While just as much 3
a political nuisance for science and science education as its creationist 4
counterpart, ID briefly represented a less conspiratorial way of confronting 5
science. Indeed, in a peculiar way, the ID movement exhibited something 6
of a scientific temper. More recently, however, ID has shown signs of 7
lapsing into a more standard form of creationism. 8
Evasion, then, is perhaps the most promising religious strategy. Many 9
scientists and liberal religious thinkers have long avoided conflicts, looking 20
for compromise between institutions and hoping to carve out separate, non- 1
overlapping intellectual spheres for science and religion (Gould, 1999). In 2
highly religious countries such as the United States, liberal religion has 3
been vital in blocking conservative pressure on science and science 4
education. The liberal manner of evading science-based challenges, 5
however, still depends on some conspiratorial elements familiar from the 6
more conservative end of the spectrum. The cosmic conspiracy of invisible 7
powers and purposes remains in place, as does the reliance on special 8
knowledge available only to initiates. Liberals want to evade science, so 9
they do not associate science with obstacles to the knowledge necessary for 30
salvation. Nevertheless, liberals still want to limit the materialist ambitions 1
often associated with modern science. Therefore they occasionally resort 2
to an attenuated form of conspiratorial thinking when accusing science- 3
based critics of supernatural religion of scientism. 34
The conservative-to-liberal spectrum of religious responses to science 35
is still a very useful description, especially in political contexts. Even so, 36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 159 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

160 T. Edis

1 it will not do to uniformly associate conservatives with a suspicion of

2 science and portray liberals as friends of science. By heavily investing in
3 attempts to evade materialist challenges rooted in science, liberals can end
4 up promoting scientifically dubious ways of thinking. And conservatives
5 who confront materialist aspects of science can do so by presenting clear
6 claims and taking the risk of defending falsehoods. So far, when examined
7 in a scientific context, supernatural claims appear likely to be false (Edis,
8 2002). But science can learn from falsehoods, much more than from
9 efforts at evasion and cheap claims of compatibility with science.
10
1
Acknowledgments
2
3 Thanks are due to Maarten Boudry and Stefaan Blancke for helpful
4 suggestions.
5
6 References
7
8 Atran, S. and Henrich, J. (2010). The Evolution of Religion: How Cognitive
9 by-products, Adaptive Learning Heuristics, Ritual Displays, and Group
Competition Generate Deep Commitments to Prosocial Religions.
20
Biological Theory 5(1), 18–30.
1
Beauregard, M. and O’Leary, D. (2007). The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s
2
Case for the Existence of the Soul. HarperOne, New York.
3 Berlinski, D. (2008). The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.
4 Crown Forum, New York.
5 Boudry, M., Blancke, S. and Braeckman, J. (2010). How Not to Attack Intelligent
6 Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological
7 Naturalism. Foundations of Science 15(3), 227–244.
8 Boyer, P. (2001). Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious
9 Thought. Basic Books, New York.
30 Carroll, S. (2005). Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists. Faith and
1 Philosophy 22(5), 622–635.
2 Coady, D. (2006). Conspiracy Theories: The Philosophical Debate. Ashgate
Publishing, Burlington, Vermont.
3
Coyne, J. A. (2015). Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are
34
Incompatible. Viking, New York.
35
Craig, W. L. and Smith, Q. (1993). Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology.
36xy Oxford University Press, New York.

b3326_Ch-07.indd 160 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 161

Dawkins, R. (2006). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution 1

Reveals a Universe Without Design. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. 2
Dembski, W. A. (1998). The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through 3
Small Probabilities. Cambridge University Press, New York. 4
Dembski, W. A. (2004a) The Design Revolution : Answering the Toughest Questions 5
About Intelligent Design. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
6
Dembski, W. A. (Ed.) (2004b). Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find
7
Darwinism Unconvincing. ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware.
Dembski, W. A. (2014). Being in Communion: A Metaphysics of Information,
8
Ashgate, Burlington, Vermont. 9
Dembski, W. A. and Ruse, M. (Eds.) (2004). Debating Design: From Darwin to 10
DNA. Cambridge University Press, New York. 1
Edis, T. (2002). The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of Modern Science, 2
Prometheus Books. Amherst, New York. 3
Edis, T. (2007). An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam, 4
Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY. 5
Edis, T. and Boudry, M. (2014). Beyond physics? on the prospects of finding a 6
meaningful oracle. Foundations of Science 19(4), 403–422. 7
Eve, R. A. and Harrold, F. B. (1990). The Creationist Movement in Modern 8
America. Twayne Publishers, Boston.
9
Filiu, J.-P. (2011). Apocalypse in Islam. University of California Press, Berkeley.
20
Gervais, W. M. and Norenzayan, A. (2012). Analytic thinking promotes religious
disbelief. Science 336, 493–496.
1
Gosse, P. H. (2003). Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. 2
Routledge, London. 3
Gould, S. J. (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. 4
Ballantine, New York. 5
Greene, J. C. (1996). The Death of Adam: Evolution and its Impact on Western 6
Thought. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 7
Griffin, D. R. (1997). Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern 8
Exploration. State University of New York Press, Albany. 9
Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. Oxford 30
University Press, New York. 1
Ham, K. (2012). The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years. Master Books, Green
2
Forest, Arakansas.
3
Haught, J. F. (2004). Deeper than Darwin: The Prospect of Religion in the Age of
Evolution, Westview, Boulder, Colorado.
34
Haught, J. F. (2010). Making Sense of Evolution: Darwin, God, and the Drama 35
of Life. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky. 36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 161 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

162 T. Edis

1 Heaton, T. H. (2009). Recent developments in young-earth creationist geology.

2 Science and Education 18(10), 1341–1358.
3 Hudson, H. (2014). The Fall and Hypertime. Oxford University Press, New York.
4 Keeley, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. The Journal of Philosophy 96(3),
5 109–126.
Koperski, J. (2015). Divine action and the quantum amplification problem.
6
Theology and Science 13(4), 379–394.
7
Meyer, S. C. (2009). Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent
8 Design. HarperOne, New York.
9 Meyer, S. C. (2013). Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and
10 the Case for Intelligent Design. HarperOne, New York.
1 Morris, H. M. (2000). The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the
2 Creation/Evolution Conflict. Master Books, Green Forest, Arizona.
3 Morris, H. M. (2006). Intelligent Design and/or Scientific Creationism. Acts and
4 Facts 35(4).
5 Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian
6 Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press,
7 New York.
8 Nee, S. (2005). The great chain of being. Nature 435: 429.
Nelson, R. (2006). Evolutionary social science and universal darwinism. Journal
9
of Evolutionary Economics 16(5), 491–510.
20
Newman, G. E., Keil, F. C., Kuhlmeier, V. A. and Wynn, K. (2010). Early
1 understandings of the link between agents and order. Proceedings of the
2 National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107(40),
3 17140–17145.
4 Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New
5 Creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
6 Roth, A. A. (1980). Implications of various interpretations of the fossil record.
7 Origins 7(2), 71–86.
8 Roy, R. (2005). Scientism and technology as religions. Zygon 40(4), 835–844.
9 Russell, R. J. (2009). Divine Action and Quantum Mechanics: A Fresh
30 Assessment. In F. L. Shults, N. Murphy and R. J. Russell (Eds.), Philosophy,
1 Science and Divine Action. Brill, Boston, pp. 351–403.
Sansbury, T. (2007). The false promise of quantum mechanics. Zygon 42(1),
2
111–121.
3
Scott, E. C. (2005). Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. University of
34 California Press, Berkeley.
35 Shanks, N. and Green, K. (2011). Intelligent design in theological perspective.
36xy Synthese 178(2), 307–330.

b3326_Ch-07.indd 162 7/16/2018 8:35:50 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 163

Snelling, A. A. (2004). Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another 1

Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology. Acts and Facts 33(10). 2
Snelling, A. A. (2009). Earth’s Catastrophic Past, Institute for Creation Research, 3
Dallas, Texas. 4
Solberg, A. R. (2013). The Mahdi Wears Armani: An Analysis of the Harun Yahya 5
Enterprise. Södertörns Högskola, Huddinge.
6
Smith, J. K. A. (2015). Science as Cultural Performance: Leveling the Playing
7
Field in the Theology & Science Conversation. In R. N. Williams and D. N.
Robinson (Eds.), Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, Bloomsbury, New York,
8
pp. 177–191. 9
Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran U. S. and Furnham A. (2014). Analytic 10
thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition 133, 572–585. 1
Tart, C. T. (2009). The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal is 2
Bringing Science and Spirit Together, New Harbinger Publications, Oakland, 3
California. 4
Van Til, C. (1969). A Christian Theory of Knowledge. Presbyterian and Reformed 5
Publishing Company, Philadelphia. 6
Wells, J. (2000). Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why so Much of What We 7
Teach About Evolution is Wrong. Regnery, Washington, DC. 8
Whitcomb, J. C. (2008). Science “So Called.” Answers Magazine Oct.–Dec.
9
2008, pp. 102–103.
20
Yahya, H. (2011). Darwinist Propaganda Techniques. Global Publishing,
İstanbul.
1
Young, M. and Edis, T. (2004). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique 2
of the New Creationism, Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, New 3
Jersey. 4
5
6
7
Taner Edis is professor of physics at Truman State 8
University, Kirksville, MO, USA. He obtained his 9
PhD in condensed matter physics in 1994 from the 30
Johns Hopkins University. Since then he has done 1
research not just in physics but also the philosophy 2
of science, particularly concerning science and 3
religion, and pseudoscientific challenges to 34
mainstream science such as creationism. His books 35
include The Ghost in the Universe: God in Light of 36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 163 7/16/2018 8:35:52 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

164 T. Edis

1 Modern Science, and An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in

2 Islam. His latest, Islam Evolving: Radicalism, Reformation, and the
3 Uneasy Relationship with the Secular West, was published in 2016.
4
5 
6
7
8
Comments by Editor Richard Gordon:
9 As we discovered in our previous compendium (Seckbach & Gordon,
10 2008), no religion has a monopoly on creationism. Physicist Taner Edis
1 shows us an interesting point of view, that to a significant extent
2 creationists can be regarded as conspiracy theorists, where the conspiracy
3 is of the Devil, scientists, or even God, to deceive us from “The Truth”.
4 It has always amazed me that many creationists invoke science to defend
5 their point of view, as if, tacitly, they recognize science as the higher
6 authority. For example, “creationists remain focused on making the
7 evidence fit their scenarios”, which is not the same as ignoring or denying
8 the evidence. Since scientists, especially in interdisciplinary problem
9 solving, attempt to bring many different kinds of evidence to bear in trying
20 to construct a solution that fits all of the evidence, alternative theological
1 interpretations can readily get boxed in. This leads to theological cherry
2 picking of evidence, or combing the literature for doubts expressed by
3 scientists that they have fully solved a problem, to justify creationism. As
4 doubt is usually a sign of a good scientist, this plays into the “gotcha” of
5 creationists. Edis brings up the notions of intuitive versus analytical
6 modes of thinking, blaming the former for “religiosity and conspiracy
7 beliefs”. However, there are parallels between “deep learning” and
8 simulation of logical deduction in artificial intelligence (AI). The AI
9 community “has been jolted by the extraordinary and unexpected success”
30 (Carron, 2017) of deep learning algorithms, which use neural networks
1 with many levels (as 150, instead of the usual 3 levels, with the increasing
2 power of computers). For AI, simulated “intuition” trumps analysis.
3 Perhaps for humans, reasoned analysis is a newcomer, and not yet
34 widespread. For example, most of us were taught theorem proving in high
35 school math, but few of us indulge in it as adults. From AI we thus learn
36xy that intuition may be of greater fitness than reason. The superior survival

b3326_Ch-07.indd 164 7/16/2018 8:35:52 PM

 9”x6” b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 1st Reading

Cosmic Conspiracy Theories 165

value of intuitive thinking may be a reason why religions persist (Hinde, 1

2010) despite Edis’ observation that: “So far, when examined in a 2
scientific context, supernatural claims appear likely to be false”. 3
4
5
References 6
Carron, I. (2017). Sunday Morning Videos: Deep Learning and Artificial 7
Intelligence symposium at NAS 154th Annual Meeting http://nuit-blanche. 8
blogspot.ca/2017/05/sunday-morning-videos-deep-learning-and.html 9
Hinde, R.A. (2010). Why Gods Persist: A Scientific Approach to Religion. 10
London, Routledge, 2nd. 1
Seckbach, J. & R. Gordon, (Eds.) (2008). Divine Action and Natural Selection: 2
Science, Faith and Evolution. Singapore, World Scientific. 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
34
35
36xy

b3326_Ch-07.indd 165 7/16/2018 8:35:52 PM

 1st Reading b3326   Theology and Science: From Genesis to Astrobiology 9”x6”

b3326_Ch-07.indd
View publication stats 166 7/16/2018 8:35:52 PM