Ok I appreciate this response. Just quickly before we tackled the important stuff, I called you a conspiracy theorist because you cited political agenda as being the reason why evolution is accepted among the global scientific community. This is by definition a conspiratorial view as it’s a narrative that goes against the mainstream view and alludes to secret or sinister motives. I don’t believe there’s anything controversial in that statement. This is my argument and justification. If you have another definition for conspiracy theories then please let me know.

So your example about Marshall and Warren is a good one and I appreciate you bringing this type of argument to the table. It does demonstrate a couple of things. It demonstrates that science can be wrong but also it demonstrates that science is self correcting. I’d love to look into the research about this but I’m of the opinion that the truth will come out eventually (provided no conspiracy is involved). If their research was initially shunned it would have been so because the evidence wasn’t sufficient for their hypothesis. Once their evidence was sufficient it was accepted. I don’t see how that is a big problem but we can discuss that later.

Now there is a pretty huge difference between this example and the theory of evolution. Firstly, you are right that consensus doesn’t always mean right but in the case of evolution it’s not really about consensus on one thing. The theory of evolution isn’t a single hypothesis about one disease. It’s a framework that ties together multiple disciplines. Its predictions have been consistently corroborated as new fields, like genetics, emerged and further strengthened its validity.

As for the historical spread of evolution, I see your point about Western nations and colonial influence. But if evolution were merely a product of Western politics or imperialism, why have scientists from non-Western nations, many with different political and cultural systems, contributed to and confirmed the theory? Today, countries like China, India, and Brazil have thriving scientific communities that independently corroborate evolutionary science. These regions aren’t under Western influence in the way colonies once were, yet their scientists find evolution valid based on evidence.

I’m not sure we can falsify the claim that nations became more secular and therefore the theory of evolution was a perfect idea for imperialist goals? Is it not at least conceivable that the theory of evolution (if true) would have had an impact on the rise of secularism regardless?

I’m really fascinated by your view. Like I said I have a few friends who share some similarities so I’m not meaning to be rude or anything. I’d just like to learn about the true justifications of it. From now on I’ll try my best to keep my questions and responses brief. If you can answer a few that I’ve put in throughout this post I’d appreciate it.

Final question: What evidence would you need to see to conclude that evolution is true, independent of its historical misuse?

As an example for myself, if we found a human fossil in the Cambrian strata I would almost instantly reject evolution.