Welcome to the forums, Hyperviolet.
As a stauch atheist and general skeptic for the most part i feel almost dirty being "conspiracy theorist" haha.. though i have to be honest with myself and beliefs.
It was this part of your post that caught my attention, because I find that the evolution vs creationism/ID debate is almost identical to the 9/11 conspiracy debate.
The '9/11 conspiracies' are just like creationism and ID.
Both creationism and 9/11 CTs have no concrete foundation, they simply are based on attacking the oposition. Creation arguments say "evolution isn't possible, therefore it must have been Creationism/ID". CTs say "The official story isn't possible, therefore it's an inside job". Neither creationists nor CTs have come up with a full explaination of their theory.
Both creationism and 9/11 CTs attack the 'holes' in the other position. Creationism attempts to exploit the 'missing' fossils as proof that evolution isn't true, just as CTs attempt to exploit 'missing' details of the official account (How come nobody knows how WTC7 collapsed? It's a conspiracy!)
Both creationism and 9/11 CTs have an extremely small handful of experts. Creationism has Behe and Dembski. CTs have Jones and wood. These experts appeal to the public through books and websites, rather than publishing their findings for peer-review. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution and the official account of 9/11.
Because of this, both creationists and 9/11 CT experts are largely ignored by the manistream scientific community. And, of course, this is spun by these camps to mean that the scientists are 'afraid' of these contradictory ideas, when in reality the scientific community disregards them so as not to lend them credibility. If their were valid arguments from creationists or cts, they could easily be submitted for peer-review, but they never are.
Both creationists and 9/11 CTs present the same arguments, over and over agian. Arguments that have been debunked over and over continue to resurface and take on a new life with each new individual. Neither creation nor 9/11 cts will be any closer to fact in 5, 10, or 100 years.
Both creationists and 9/11 CTs are immovable in their beliefs. Most will admit that NO evience can sway them that they are incorrect (I'm looking at you Dylan). Whereas, evolution can be disproven by a great number of things (scrambled fossil records, etc). The official 9/11 account can also be disproven in a number of ways (explosives found in buildings, verifiable insider confession, etc).
Both creationists and 9/11 CTs rely on the ignorance of the masses to further their 'theories'. They oversimplify their arguments and make it palatable to the masses. Creationists say things like "look at how comples the eye is! It was obviously designed", except that with the exception of a small few, the scientific community does not believe this to be so. CTs say "look at WTC7! It was obviously a controlled demolition.", except that with the exception of a small few, the scientific community does not believe this to be so.
Both creationists and 9/11 CTs knowingly lie to make their point. Creationists use quotes out of context to imply that mainstream science questions evolution, or that a top scientist believes in creation. CTs use quotes out of context to imply that bombs were seen in the buldings.
The list of similarities goes on and on. At some point, Hyperviolet, sit back and ask yourself what makes you accept evolution and reject Creationism/ID. Apply that same logic, that same thinking to the events of 9/11. You'll find that 9/11 Cts and creationists are very much alike.
I will ask you only one question: What evidence would convince you that 9/11 was not LIHOP or MIHOP?
Once again, welcome to the forum.
