I am a big fan of conspiracies such as the Bielefeld Conspiracy, because they represent something much more interesting than one might initially observe.
How much evidence do we decide is necessary before we accept something as truth? Evolution is often attacked in the states (and basically nowhere else) because there is not enough evidence, the skeptics feel, to make it more compelling than the “just because” doctrine they had been raised in.
However by that logic, how much evidence is there for the moon? Or the sun? These are far away objects in the sky, they could just as easily be facades, flat surfaces on a sphere that surrounds the Earth.
What of Madagascar? Have you, the reader, ever been to Madagascar? Do you know anyone from there? The only time I’ve ever had close interactions with such a place is in an animated film. If I’m just accepting places from films as true then I’ll be packing up my bags and moving to Hogwarts.
Most skeptics of the sciences they don’t understand still accept the broader scientific knowledge. The Earth being spherical is widely accepted while most people, effectively everyone, will never physically see the Earth from a distance to unequivocally support this truth. Likewise the mathematics used to prove it on land are no more complicated than the fundamentals of Evolution. If we are to debate one we may as well debate the other.
Gravitation has no real strong backing. Seeing as the universe is a façade on the innards of a sphere created by god, gravity is merely there. IT just is, created in the seven days and we experience it. We don’t float off the surface of the Earth because we are not meant to, simple as that.
For something more close to home, for many skeptics, what of North Dakota? Honestly, have you ever met a person from this far away place? Have you ever seen it? Smelt it? Stood upon its surface? It would seem to me that North Dakota is a great conspiracy, formulated by the same folks who brought you Global Climate change.
How many things in our lives do we truly experience to the fullest? How many things do we, ourselves, gather all the evidence for an assure ourselves of. Once we begin picking and choosing not what to critique but what to unequivocally deny or accept, do we have anywhere to go but down?
Our minds can only naturally comprehend the things that exist within the scope of our senses. The rest involves philosophy and abstract thought, we can only understand enough about the things outside of our sensory range in a functional sense. Electrons are smaller than the smallest observable tool can detect, but we know they are there, we can interact with them in different ways and their existence does not conflict with any scientific theory or observation.
If electrons, something totally unmentioned in any ancient tome, are acceptable, if the moon, the stars, gravitation, North Dakota, and Madagascar are all acceptable. What then is the foundation for extreme resistance to other deeply data heavy discoveries and theories?
Do we really think there is a conspiracy that doesn’t necessitate any sort of special treatment or funding to any agency? Who would design such a thing and why? What benefit would there be to making up evolution? Even global climate change does not necessitate a punishing change to our lives. So where then is the benefit? Where is the win?
Is it so common to peddle fantasy to minors that we think that everyone is doing it? Is it not possible that there is an actual branch of humanity that wishes to learn something instead of merely smugly saying they already know?
This is why I enjoy that conspiracy, it provides a seemingly outlandish premise but poses an incredibly powerful question. When is there ever enough information to appease all people?
Pictured: A government conspiracy.