Conservapedia: Providing aid to the Obscurationists

March 14, 2007 | By | 9 Replies More

I just found out about Conservapedia, an online service started to combat the educated, generally well-researched, illuminating, and therefore Left-wing, Liberal postings at Wikipedia.

Read about what a Democrat really is, in a way that even Fox News wouldn’t claim.
Read about Evolution, which begins with the chapter “Lack of Any Credible Transitional Forms”

Big Bang contains this dominant section: “Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views”. Just what every scientific theory needs.

It’s always good to keep an eye on the opposition when trying to educate the public.

Share

Tags: , , ,

Category: Bigotry, Culture, Evolution, History

About the Author ()

A convoluted mind behind a curly face. A regular traveler, a science buff, and first generation American. Graying of hair, yet still verdant of mind. Lives in South St. Louis City. See his personal website for (too much) more.

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. grumpypilgrim says:

    Creationists must figure that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. The real world of science won't support their superstitutious beliefs, so they'll invent an imaginary one that does. If they haven't created one already, they will no doubt publish their own "science" journal — something that includes the word "science" in the title, but not the word "creationism." Then all their crackpot ideas will find a home in this journal, which they can cite as evidence that creationism is a "scientific" theory.

    The other terms that Dan mentions confirm that the "conservapedia" is nothing more than a blog for ignorant fools who want to rant at each other. Given where the Republican party appears to be headed (the word "implosion" comes to mind), they probably need a place to vent their frustrations.

  2. Vicki says:

    I'm sure you'll be glad to know that conservapedia is doing its bit in the war against un-American spelling:
    http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archiv

    Personally, I try to conserve my pedias as much as I can.

  3. Erich Vieth says:

    I favour Wikipedia's style rules over Conservapedia's.

  4. Ben says:

    Christianpedia has been under scrutiny from the folks at scienceblogs, and vice versa. One nice feature of Christianpedia is that you can make edits to it, just like Wikipedia. The only difference being that, you can make up stuff to put on Christianpedia, and it will stay there, even if it is fiction/slander.

  5. Dan Klarmann says:

    Christianpedia.com is a sponsored links site, and for sale. I couldn't find any actual content there.

  6. Ben says:

    I guess my pet name for Conservapedia hasn't quite hit the mainstream yet. Anyway what I was talking about was this "game" atheists are playing by seeing who can get the most outrageous crap to stick on Christianpedia. Unfortunately, the vandalism can backfire, unless it is REALLY REALLY crazy. Maybe the best solution is just not to visit Christianpedia, unless you are planning on vandalizing it with some real tact.

    http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/02/fame_or_the_chttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/im_asshttp://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/02/fun_with_the_http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02/27/conservap

  7. grumpypilgrim says:

    I still can't get over the fact that conservatives want to write their own encyclopedia. What's next, a conservative dictionary? Or, maybe conservative road maps? Or, how about conservative grocery stores and conservative gas stations? Or what about conservative pharmacies…oh, wait, they are already pursuing those (see http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1056). Conservative bookstores…no, wait, they have those, too (http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=603).

    Now I get it. These are the same people who invented "separate-but-equal" apartheid laws in America's Deep South (along with things like slavery and the KKK). They are the same ones who prefer separate-but-equal health insurance over universal medical care, and separate-but-equal teaching of creationism in parallel with evolution.

    Conservapedia isn't an encyclopedia; it's today's generation of right-wing crackpots trying to refight the Crusades, the Civil War, the Scopes "monkey" trial, Roe v. Wade…. If Wikipedia exposes their long history of hypocrisy, stupidity and failure, they will just wave their magic "separate-but-equal" wand and write their own, more complimentary, history. There is a word for this: fiction.

  8. Dan Klarmann says:

    Ben's personal pet name for this dangerously silly site is unlikely to catch on, given that the name is already in use elsewhere.

    I tried the Moon entry tonight. He's locked it to prevent anyone with a background in astonomy, geology, or selenology from modifying it.

    Schlafly says that the moon must be no more than 1,000,000,000 years old (close enough to his cherished 10,000, I suppose) based on the current rate of tidal friction and orbital slowing. He denies that any theory exists explaining how it got where it is, and then goes on to try to refute the most supported of those non-existent theories.

    He claims that the observation that the moon contains only as much iron as the Earth has in its crust denies the current theory that the moon formed from some collision-ejected crust. He claims that the fact that the moon's lack of angular velocity is something miraculous, instead of the expected result if the moon was collected from matter ejected from the Earth.

    His final line is my favorite:

    Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God.

    Most systems have only one sun. Check the nasa web site, or any other 19th or 20th century source.

    He could be right about the rarity of an inner planet with a single moon, but there is no data one way or the other. Our system's moon count goes zero-zero-one-two. I'd bet this is typical of small, inner planets.

    Finally, most cultures historically have used the Sun and the moon to prove that there are (at least) 2 gods, not one.

Leave a Reply