The YEC enterprise and grooming conspiracy theorists

I don’t have a problem with this. I would be interested in hearing from you in the private discussion that was opened. I had a post deleted that had nothing to do with partisan politics. It had nothing to do with abortion, or homosexuality, or trans rights. Or anti-vaxxers. Or climate change deniers. Or election deniers. etc etc

Why does the OP introduce the concept of grooming?

Does it have anything to do with the objection to “grooming” of children?

This is what no one said:

No one said people won’t get vaccinated because they are young earth creationist or because they are Christians.

I think it is true that people won’t get vaccinated or won’t trust climate science or won’t wear masks because of their political affiliation, and there is an inexplicable link in some people’s mind between being Christian and being Republican, but I don’t think they are the same thing. I am not aware of any young earth creationist or climate change deniers or anti-vax Democrats serving in Congress. It’s Republicans talking about Jewish space lasers starting forest fires and sharing Q Anon posts on social media. This isn’t a politicallly partisan opinion I’m expressing, it’s just an observation about the facts in our current society.

It’s not just people refusing vaccines because of their political affiliation that wories me, it’s the conspiracy theories around Ukraine where Russia is benevolent and Putin is a hero, and the conspiracy theories around voter fraud that are threatening democratic processes, and the conspiracy theories around child trafficking and the cabal of blood-drinking elite, and 5G turning you into zombies, and all manner of nuttiness that I have heard repeated by alleged Christians, some of them elected officials representing highly Christian constituencies who should know so much better than to spread such nonsense and lies. I don’t think being a Christian or a YEC makes you a nutjob. But I think the conspiratorial thinking that is used to peddle YEC innoculates people in ways that make them miss obvious red flags.

It is political in the way that anything that affects our social life together is political. But I don’t think it should be considered a politically partisan assertion to say “we shouldn’t vote for conspiracy theorists” and “Christians should not be a paranoid, anti-science, anti-reality group.” I am not advocating for any party’s platform, I’m saying Christians shouldn’t groom conspiracy theorists. Do you disagree with that? Do you think the assertion Christians shouldn’t groom conspiracy theorists is somehow a politically “liberal” thing to say? If so, I don’t even know how to respond.


A few tend toward the “Woo, is Natural and medicine isn’t.” type of thinking, I believe, but not a huge number.


Yes, the granola hipster crowd definitely does veer this way. Essential oils cure ADHD. Who needs antibiotics when you have crystals? Drink “raw” water, it’s more natural. I guess I was thinking more about elected officials.


It’s an appropriate use of the word. See sense number 2.

1 Like

I’ve encountered two different researchers who have concluded from interviewing many hundreds of offenders that “intention” does not belong in the third definition because there is a large category of offenders who don’t set out to lead to anything illegal or immoral – noting that if you list what constitutes “grooming” it matches very well with what constitutes being a friend.

1 Like

Yes, I thought that I had heard of a few Senators or House Reps who tended that way, but not as much as some constituents.


When I was a kid, I was really into hip hop. I listened to anything I could get my hands on. I liked the popular stuff but I really liked the stuff you couldn’t find on the radio. I spent a lot of time arguing in defense of that music and never really met anyone at school that knew about it or cared.

When I got to college I finally met some people who were into the same underground music. I also finally had access to real Internet and found a massive community of fans. It felt amazing and we would spend all of our time digging into it and getting super snobby about any music not from that scene. It was the first time I wasn’t the black sheep of whatever community I was involved in.

This is what believing in conspiracy theories gives you! A real community of like-minded friends who all “know something” that most people don’t. It’s why lonely white guys fall down the white supremacy and/or incel rabbit hole. America - especially - spends so much time cultivating a “bootstraps” mentality that a lot of Americans have. It sends people into a selfish spiral where they forget what it’s like to have a community of connected people.

Conspiracy theories invite people to be part of a club where everyone is accepted no matter how wild their beliefs are. I mean, think about the feeling you got when you first started exploring “controversial” Christian ideas and met people who also secretly shared enjoyed exploring them! It’s a total rush!


You do have a point. I think that is sort of what it was like to discover Biologos and realize you were not alone in the world. Of course, in that case, for those of us who were raised in more fundamentalist backgrounds, you come to realize that where you came from was the outlier, and accepting an old earth and science was actually mainstream. But the need for community is the same.


There is a definite link between the YEC perspective and the tendency to believe conspiracy theories. They require an active imagination and a subliminal need for some conscious entity controlling the grand scheme of life. It represents a basic insecurity of the conscious human mind to accept the reality of life as both a random existence in time and place and a desire for purpose. Everyone deals with that according to their aptitude and experience and there is little anyone can do to change the mind of another person. The effort to do so is just a dimension of life that satisfies purpose.

1 Like

Thanks Fred,

This report titled Quality contact curbs conspiracy beliefs has appeared in the British Psychological Society’s Research Digest.

Quality contact curbs conspiracy beliefs.

It may offer some hope as to how conspiracy theories can be addressed.


As if all politics isn’t partisan. And rules don’t say anything at all about whether it’s partisan politics. You’ve decided to list some specific cases: abortion, homosexuality, trans-ideology. One could equally argue that these are all likewise “affect our social life together” and that these issues are not politically partisan.

And did you even bother to look at the poll numbers? The issue is quite obviously partisan. So that rationalization for why the OP is allowable in spite of it’s obvious violation of site policy is unequal to the task.

So a moderator can violate the rules in creating an OP, but I can’t even post something within that thread which does not violate the rules, and that post gets deleted.

My suggestion is, if it’s your thread, and one of the other moderators doesn’t see fit to take action to delete my post, you should not take action. You may just be biased.

So what. It’s inflammatory. And You didn’t provide any scientific basis for the claim. The OP is essentially a rant. It doesn’t invite serious discussion, as the true “fact” of the matter is clear from the OP, and likewise from the deletion of an alternative perspective.

1 Like

Of course I’m biased, but you know what, it’s fine. BioLogos as an organization has goals and being neutral on every topic isn’t one of them. I try my best as a volunteer to support their goals as I express my personal opinions here and as I enforce the guidelines myself and others have developed for maintaining civil discussion here. There’s a point where stuff is left to our discretion, and if you don’t like the way we run the site that you use for free on the organization’s dime, than you are more than welcome to hang out elsewhere on the internet.

Yep, you could. But it’s beside the point. We decided, perhaps somewhat arbitrarily but with reason, that certain topics brought out bad behavior and we just weren’t going to be the place where people discussed those topics. The decision is already made, we’re sticking with it, and we’re going to delete stuff that veers into that territory when we see it and we don’t have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was fair. Human moderation is always subjective, somewhat inconsistent and involves judgment calls. It’s not really our goal to be perfectly objective or fair all the time, our goal is to maintain a site where people can discuss things civilly. People think I moderate poorly on occasion. I sleep fine at night.

If you want to complain more about how we run the forum, do it via PM. I’m going delete any more posts from you that keep harping on this issue. You don’t have to participate in this thread if the topic bothers you.


Rest assured Christy speaks for all the moderators. It is indeed somewhat subjective in nature, but that just comes with the territory.

1 Like

Yes phil but subjective should be rational, well reasoned. Simply.deleting responses to a thread that should have never been allowed in the first place suggests neither of the above were the thinking.
This entire question is preposterous and does nothing more than incite negative debate and deep robust responses. Its a fools errand to have let it go on past the first minute of being posted. Its a hate campaign and does nothing to provide a balanced view. We should be able to fairly debate both sides here…otherwise yours is no less indoctrinating than mine. Given the deep theolgoical flaws in the TEist view, its no better than the deep scientific problems in YEC. Therefore both arguments are necessary so that individuals may fairly choose between theology and science. Sometimes they may go one way, others times the oppsosite direction…but its sbout allowing for educated choice.

Many of us, Adam, are seeing the concerns of this OP play out right in front of us as our friends, relatives, and loved ones become more susceptible to all the lies and disinformation (including conspiracy theories) that continue to be sold to them by wolves. And when so many evangelicals become so misinformed, they begin to reject the very voices of truth they could be learning from and give their hearts over to those very voices that know how to manipulate and groom them for purposes that … are not God’s to say the least! When we’ve become so bad at sniffing out the real wolves and instead invite them in as our trusted voices, we need to sound the warning. We are complicit and irresponsible if we don’t. We need a whole lot more of this. Not less.


I understand that Mervin, however, one must keep in mind thst you are the ones who decided to attempt to overthrow the millenia of belief in a young earth. The lie here is thst TEism is an ancient world view…that is complete nonsense…that is the lie. Its easy to prove historically and biblically. The genealogies and accounts of the kings of israel make it difficult to claim those ancient writers believed in and ancient earth. They did not…nor did any of the new testament writers.

The single biggest problem that TEism face is that it is trying to overthrow a philosophical theology with a scientific contradiction. This results in a theology that is in tstters…its incoherant, full of holes, and sends religion to the domain of fairytales.

I do not believe any religion outside of christianity would accept that their philosophy is determined through the eyes of corruption.

For example, one of this forums moderators ( and im trying my best to be direct without being hurtful), made the claim that Satan cannot know more about science the humanity does. She does not believe that jext to God, Satan knows more about science than anyone.

I have to make the point in the strongest possible terms that such a view is attrociously deficient in its understanding of the bible…how can any moderator on a Christian forum believe such a thing and then put it out in the public domain of said forum where those who look for guidance on such issues may read it and believe its biblical?

What would you do, Adam, if you, by virtue of being attentive to both scriptures and reality - and having listened to many voices who had proven themselves reliable because they too are attentive to reality; if it is then a matter beyond doubt for you that your loved ones have been led astray on some facts, and are now giving themselves and their understanding of scriptures over to the lies that they now accept as being scriptural … how would you react to that Adam? And I’ll note that this is not hypothetical, even for you here. There have been voices (at least one that I know of) in this forum who now firmly believe the bible teaches the earth is flat and unmoving. And they have bundled that with God’s truth, and teach this to others as being God’s biblical truth. How do you respond to them, Adam?


Unfortunately, the theolgical position of the bible is not one that teaches the earth is flat. The arguments used to support that view are attrocious and very very poor theology.

That is a side issue in any case because teaching the earth is flat is a far cry from completely removing the reason why Christ died physically on the cross as atonement for sin.

By saying that suffering and death were already in this world for millions of years before Christ, you have just destroyed the entire bible narrative. The plan of salvation is absolutely pointless.

That is my answer and your dilemma.

Btw…when Elijah was in the cave, he did not find God in the howling wind, the thunder, the earthquake…it was the still small voice. In our reality that is where we find God. You eont find him by scientifically proving his existence. Satan has corrupted that pathway…the bible is the only place where we can study Gods word. Yes we can observe the glory of God in nature and the sky…but that is not where we learn about him.