Pharyngula

At least, that’s how Andy Schlafly characterizes Conservapedia in a New Scientist article. I called it “shallow and useless or downright wrong,” if you’re interested in an alternative position on it.

Josh Rosenau wasn’t any more charitable.

They are re-defining their own truth and seem to think facts are malleable.

Strictly speaking, I guess Schlafly was correct: if you’re redefining facts and making up nonsense as you go along, you certainly are presenting a new way of learning.

Comments

  1. #1 Dustin
    February 26, 2007

    I’ve been getting the distinct impression that ASchlafy is a little more than just “conservative”. Particularly when it comes to Einstein. They hate Einstein, and I don’t know why, and try to give credit for relativity to other people (like Ponicare, never mind that his formulation isn’t consistent with the Michaelson-Morely experiment), and are generally hostile towards him. I can understand maybe pointing out where Einsteins contributions were, and where he got them from other people, but some of the things I saw were completely irrational.

    And then I read that Holocaust entry and figured it out: Einstein was a Jew, and ASchlafy is probably a goose-stepping, propaganda spouting, Jew-hating Nazi asshole.

  2. #2 Ichthyic
    February 26, 2007

    what in the hell is going on with new scientist that they felt a compelling need to give conservapedia even the briefest of mentions?

    I swear, the pop science mags seem to get worse every year.

  3. #3 Dustin
    February 26, 2007

    Apparently, conservatives think that’s a lot of hippie crap.

    Same goes for conservatives and vaccinations. I guess they’re more into the Intelligent Design approach to medicine (that’s the one with rattles and beads).

  4. #4 Jillian
    February 27, 2007

    Well, the real hatred of Einstein probably has a lot to do with him having been something of an atheist and a good deal more of a socialist.

    The A Beka people are convinced that free market capitalism is given unto us by God, and any turning away from it is a turning to Satan and his evil works.

  5. #5 abeja
    February 27, 2007

    See, there you go getting touchy.

    Jeez, I guess the very mention of the word holocaust sent me into fits! Those good folks at conservapedia must be right. :)

  6. #6 Doc Bill
    February 27, 2007

    At Insane-o-pedia under the heading “What’s wrong with Wikipedia” the authors bring up British spelling. Yes, articles about British subjects might spell the word “color” as “colour” and that’s just wrong! It’s downright un-American!

    Insane-o-pedia uses only American spelling.

    That’s telling ‘em!

  7. #7 Tukla in Iowa
    February 27, 2007

    …and the database is stored on cassette tapes.

  8. #8 Warren
    February 27, 2007

    I suspect that any Catholic who stumbles into a discussion with Schlafly should try a tactic not available to most of the readers here: start praising Jesuits with great enthusiasm. It would probably give him apoplexy. A useful service to the world, though maybe an unChristian thing to do.
    Posted by: Porlock Junior

    No, it’s Christian. Jesus allegedly kicked out a bunch of world-pushing nitwits from the synagogue. I think argument could be made that the Conservapedia inbreds are being as disrespectful of (at least a conceptual) sanctuary.

    As for Jesuits — this is a good idea. Mendel rocked!

  9. #9 Blake Stacey
    February 27, 2007

    Dustin wrote:

    I’ve been getting the distinct impression that ASchlafy is a little more than just “conservative”. Particularly when it comes to Einstein. They hate Einstein, and I don’t know why, and try to give credit for relativity to other people (like Ponicare, never mind that his formulation isn’t consistent with the Michaelson-Morely experiment), and are generally hostile towards him. I can understand maybe pointing out where Einsteins contributions were, and where he got them from other people, but some of the things I saw were completely irrational.

    I don’t know if it’s directly relevant, but a few years back John Farrell wrote an article in Salon called
    Did Einstein Cheat?“, exploring the seamy anti-Einstein underworld of the Internet.

    If you’re tired of hearing about creationists and the war against Darwinism, you might be surprised to learn that another pillar of modern science, Einstein and his theory of relativity, is under attack.

    An underground of “dissident” scientists and self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and on the Web, exchanging ideas in a great battle against “the temple of relativity.” According to these critics, relativity is not only wrong, it’s an affront to common sense, and its creator, Albert Einstein, was a cheat.

    A review of anti-relativity proponents and their publications reveals a plethora of alternative theories about how the universe really works. In spite of their many differences, common themes do emerge: resentment of academic “elites,” suspicion and resentment of the entire peer-review process in the mainstream scientific journals and a deep strain of paranoia about government involvement in scientific projects.

    [...]

    Could these attacks on Einstein be related to the Christian right’s opposition to Darwin? A cursory search through creationist Web sites shows that a few actually embrace relativity as a tool in their speculations about the true age of the universe. Earlier opposition to relativity did show strains of Christian reaction to the idea that God’s absolute space and time had been somehow dethroned. But classical Christian tradition is more in line with Einstein, if St. Augustine’s ruminations can be taken as indicative.

    As to politics, it can’t be said with any confidence that anti-relativity types are registered Republicans either. For example, the editor of [Petr] Beckmann’s anti-relativity newsletter told me that her contributors cover the entire political spectrum.

    On the other hand, Brad DeLong, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, points out that for many conservatives, “The admission that measurements of time and space depend on the motion of the observer is in their minds somehow tied up with the erosion of traditional cultural ‘absolutes,’ and scientific truth should be sacrificed to cultural order whenever necessary.” He cites the writings of Bethell as an example.

    Loonballs who don’t know physics, to put it briefly. The article concludes as follows:

    Whatever motivates the anti-relativity fringe, it certainly isn’t science. When Isaac Newton first advanced the idea of space and time as entities existing absolutely and independently of matter, his arch rival, Gottfried Leibnitz, challenged him to prove it. Newton couldn’t. His spokesman, the Rev. Samuel Clark, tried to cover for his master with the contention that space and time were absolute in the mind of God. Leibnitz replied that such a statement was scientifically meaningless.

    Not to anti-Einstein cranks. They have no trouble hopscotching between philosophy and science whenever it suits them. They remain stubbornly nostalgic for what they believe is a “simpler world,” one where space and time are hallowed absolutes. And they are happy to subordinate science at whatever cost to the limits of a mirage.

  10. #10 Kagehi
    February 27, 2007

    Nah. Its hosted on an Apple III. For those not knowing this gem, it was their attempt at a *business machine*. It only ran CP/M applications (those old pre-8086 CPU programs), required extra hardware to run AppleII applications, and then only if you first “booted” through a special disk. They where pieces of total crap. And, he’s probably using the joystick port on it to “fake” a serial port (standard practice in some, “make your own device”, concepts for the early Apple computers). The standard model didn’t come with any ports at all, if I remember, and you had to add those seperately too. All in all, the III was a boat anchor and even the better high res that later became standard on the Enchanced IIe and II+ was virtually impossible to actually use unless you had pre-existing software from them, like a crappy picture editor. Not even the Pascal language disks came with “proper” libraries for it. lol

  11. #11 David Marjanovi?
    February 28, 2007

    And I won’t tell the story here about the Franciscan, the Dominican, the Benedictine and the Jesuit at dinner

    Please do!!! Pretty please!

  12. #12 David Marjanovi?
    February 28, 2007

    And I won’t tell the story here about the Franciscan, the Dominican, the Benedictine and the Jesuit at dinner

    Please do!!! Pretty please!

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.