…and this is a 
I'm assuming many conservatives are embarrassed by Conservapedia
Category: Creationism • Politics • Stupidity
Posted on: February 21, 2007 10:45 AM, by PZ Myers
At least, I hope so. The "conservapedia" is supposed to be an alternative to Wikipedia that removes the biases—although one would think the creators would be clever enough to realize that even the name announces that Conservapedia is planning to openly embrace a particular political bias. Unfortunately, that bias seems to be more towards stupidity than anything else.
In fact, reading through it leads me to wonder if it isn't actually a parody site. Some people are getting the same impression of Overwhelming Evidence, the Intelligent Design site that was set up to cater to the teen crowd, but is also looking like a magnet for parodists; the rebuttal to Ian Musgrave's summary of the evolution of the clotting pathway, for instance, is an amazingly subtle thing that basically puts the IDists on the side against any detailed discussion of molecular pathways. It's also obvious that the people behind OE are completely oblivious to the sneaky undermining that is going on, largely because it is so close to their actual positions.
I predict that Conservapedia is going to experience the same problem—I look forward to seeing devious examples of the conservative position being delicately exposed as inane. You can't find a better example than their tirade against the biases in Wikipedia, which I suspect was written by a sincere conservative, but reads like something out of The Onion. Among the things they find objectionable:
The use of "BCE" and "CE" instead of BC and AD in dates.
Wikipedia has lots of articles about trivia, like music and movies.
Some articles use the British spellings for words.
They just want more credit given to Jesus for everything.
The whole worldwide community of English speakers edits Wikipedia; they're going to emphasize American (by which they mean not liberal) opinions.
Too many Wikipedia entries are "gossipy" or sound like something from the National Enquirer.
You know, if someone wanted to just go with it and pretend to be the most obnoxious, sanctimonious, narrow-minded blue-nosed prig, you could probably have a ball writing all kinds of sneering articles for Conservapedia. I predict that the history pages are going to be great fun to read, as the editors egg each other on to be more and more outrageously reactionary.
But of course, the most amusing bits on that page are the anti-evolution tirades.
Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.
This is a point in Wikipedia's favor: there is some quality control. Since these so-called "facts" creationists try to introduce are typically lies, distortions, and error, I think it's a good idea that Wikipedia has informed editors. Conservapedia, on the other hand, will encourage absolute idiots who know nothing about the subject to frolic. Here's their entry on evolution, complete with misspellings.
The Theory of Evolution, introduced by Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, published in 1859, is the scientific theory that explains the process of evolution. The basic principle behind evolution, called natural selection, states that in the struggle for life, fitter organisms will survive thus saving 'good mutations' and discarding 'bad mutations' enabling a species to become more specialized.
There are two parts of evolution: Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution refers only to change within a speicies; e.g. a dog can be bred for certain traits but never can become a cat. Macroevolution is the theory that species can add information to their genetic makeup and therefore change into a different species; e.g. men and apes originating from a common ancestor.
Pathetic. The old "dog into cat" canard is such a silly idea, it really doesn't belong in any serious definition of evolution; no one promotes it other than creationists. And this is all they can say about evolution, that it's in two parts, macro and micro? Look at Wikipedia's definition, which goes on and on and talks about evidence and mechanisms and history.
Here's their justification for including tripe about science:
For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of evolution, Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.
Well, it is true that if you poll ignorant people, you can get the most amazing ideas…but it doesn't imply that those opinions are valid. Again, it seems to be saying that while Wikipedia has benefited from knowledgeable people taking part, Conservapedia is going to go with the gut instincts of Joe Sixpack on science.
Then there is this kind of foolishness:
The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
You really won't find that much about Piltdown in old textbooks. It's mentioned, but often with a quizzical air. I understand it was a bit more heavily promoted in old British textbooks, but in the American books I've looked at there's usually an expression of dubiety—it just didn't fit well with other known fossils. Complaining about the dating methods is weird: when the technologies that allowed dating were developed and applied to the fossils, they exposed the relative recency of the bones. All the Wikipedia entry says about the dating is that methods to accurately date the skull were not available when it was discovered.
Poor conservatives. I almost feel sorry for them for the way this kind of rank idiocy is getting tagged to their political position, but I am looking forward to many opportunities for satire.
Comments
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." -John Stuard Mill
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 21, 2007 10:49 AM
That's "Stuart". Note to self- use preview!
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 21, 2007 10:50 AM
And of course, they're completely full of fossilized trilobite poop when they claim most of "the rest of the world" rejects evolution. The US is highly unusual among developed nations for its rejection of what is known to be one of the most robust theories in all of science. The only country that falls below the US where acceptance of evolution is concerned in hyper-Islamic Turkey. Rejection of evolution is tied directly to the level of religious fanaticism, not education, in a culture.
Posted by: Martin Wagner | February 21, 2007 10:53 AM
I see they are off to a good start:
God
God is the all-loving creator of the universe, who created man in His image. His creation of man is described in the Book of Genesis.
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/God"
Posted by: George | February 21, 2007 11:08 AM
The thing I just love about Conservapedia is the inconsistency and hypocrisy of it all. It's all their on their "bias in Wikipedia" page:
Mmm-kay. Doesn't sound like a bloke who believes in a free market of either goods or ideas. In fact, much of the "bias" complaint page is inconsistent or just downright incoherent. (The complaint about Wikipedia lacking "elementary proofs" in math articles is just goofy, and as I wrote over in Brayton's thread, the jibe about a thousand articles on "Moby songs" depends upon selective presentation of the evidence.) They say that Wikipedia focuses too much on celebrity gossip and other trivialities beneath the notice of a serious encyclopedia, but in their own Conservapedia Commandments, barely a breath after demanding that statements be "true and verifiable", they insist upon BC/AD dating and American spelling! They whine about Wikipedia giving too much space to Hollywood and pop music, and then with barely a pause they say that Wikipedia gives too short shrift to creationism — because most of the country believes in it!
This kind of illogic doesn't stem from a coherent philosophy. It comes from the gut. Here we see ideas being accepted based on their emotional appeal and ideological fitness, rather than their logical consistency.
When these folks say "conservative", the word you and I should hear is authoritarian.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 21, 2007 11:08 AM
Edit: replace first "their" with "there" — where's my caffeine, dammit?
Their examples of Wikipedian bias would better serve as textbook cases of poor thinking, selection bias and obfuscation. To pick just one:
First, saying that topics are "beneath a regular encyclopedia" rather begs the question, doesn't it? And then, a quick site-specific Google search reveals 697 pages containing the words Moby and song, some of which are organizational in nature ("Category: Moby songs"). Other mentions are incidental, such as a list of all songs named "Beautiful". Giving the impression that all of the 600-odd hits are full-fledged encyclopedia articles is disingenuous at best. Since any further refinements to the search would reduce the amount of material returned, I wonder how they got their figure of 1,075.
Let's try a control experiment. Performing the same search on the words Beethoven and symphony returns 1,340 results! There are more hits for Mozart concerto than for Moby song, and hundreds for Bach fugue. Plainly, the good stuff is there, if you look for it.
Bah. I've wasted enough ATP on this.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 21, 2007 11:13 AM
What a fitting time to use this word:
Nincompoops.
Noun 1. nincompoop - a stupid foolish person
ninny, poop, simpleton, simple - a person lacking intelligence or common sense.
I reject empirical reality and substitute my own. Yay!
Posted by: Alex | February 21, 2007 11:16 AM
Aha - no bias here!
Abortion
The word abortion, in connection with pregnancy, can be defined as "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."[1] Thus, the word includes miscarriage, but commonly refers to induced abortion; that is, the intentional performance of a procedure which causes the death of a living organism. Most Christian conservatives regard human life as beginning at conception and consider abortion to be the murder of innocent babies while in the womb of their mother.
Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Prior to 1973 it was illegal, usually criminal, and considered to be serious medical misconduct. The U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade[2] decision ruled that abortions are permissible, as a woman's choice, up to the point at which the fetus becomes able to survive outside the womb.
[edit]Abortion and Breast Cancer
The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.[3] However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the controversy around this finding, which suggests that data linking abortion to increased breast cancer risk is not yet conclusive.[4] Some of the reasons for the difficulty in verifying these studies include:
The number of cases observed; a very small number may not be reflective of the general population)
The type of abortion: induced versus spontaneous (also called miscarriages)
Accounting for other lifestyle or genetic factors that may influence breast cancer risk
The amount of time between abortion and breast cancer occurrence
Data limitations due to the changing legal status of abortion (for example, an American woman's abortion history may not have been reported before 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion).
Recall bias (women may not accurately report their reproductive history)
Emotional and/or socio-political factors
[edit]Political Action Committees
The most powerful political action committee (PAC) is EMILY's List.[5]. EMILY's List contributes money to Democratic candidates who support abortion-on-demand, including forced taxpayer funding of abortion. EMILY's List candidates also oppose regulations such as:
providing health information to abortion patients;
requiring that the abortionist have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case there is a complication; and
providing parental notification if the patient is a teenager.
Due to the influence of the abortion industry and EMILY's List, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and senatorial candidate supports abortion-on-demand. "EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee, continues to be the dominant financial resource for Democratic candidates," its above-referenced website declares.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion
Posted by: George | February 21, 2007 11:17 AM
"Cerebral hygiene" is alive and well.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 21, 2007 11:21 AM
Apparently reality has a strong liberal bias.
Posted by: Alex Whiteside | February 21, 2007 11:24 AM
Looks like the site is already down. I'm getting a bunch of "connection refuseds."
Checking the registration records for the domain, I see it registered to a "Andrew Schlafly" of New York, NY.
A quick google search for that name says that the guy was an attorney in the Terri Shiavo case, as well as writing articles saying that there's a link between abortion and breast cancer.
Classy!
Posted by: Strange Forces | February 21, 2007 11:29 AM
A finer example of Newspeak I've never seen. Orwell would be proud.
Posted by: SteveF | February 21, 2007 11:33 AM
Posted by: Mike | February 21, 2007 11:35 AM
What is the purpose of a site like this anyway? It's not like you're going to win any left-right arguments by referring to the Conservapedia definition of "abortion," e.g. Is the idea just to form a completely self-contained world, utterly divorced from reality, in which to formulate disastrous policies to be forced upon an unsuspecting populace?
And wasn't there a Spiderman comic about that?
Posted by: Jessica Guilford | February 21, 2007 11:38 AM
"When these folks say "conservative", the word you and I should hear is authoritarian."
Bumper sticker!
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 21, 2007 11:40 AM
I just tried searching their site for "global warming", and it immediately came back with "connection refused".
Coincidence? I think not. :)
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 21, 2007 11:40 AM
I wonder if their server can't handle being ScienceBlogged. ;-)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 21, 2007 11:49 AM
I'm not sure how many of the conservatives I know would be embarrassed by conservapedia. Unfortunately, most of them would love it.
I wish I could go there and have some fun checking it out, but the page won't display for me either. :( I wanted to look up all sorts of fun things.
Posted by: abeja | February 21, 2007 11:52 AM
Well, I for one am extremely embarrassed at the whole thing. Every entry I have read has poor writing, poor content and even poorer creationist teaching. Most of it isn't even logical and wouldn't be usable in any situation, let alone as a alternative to Wikipedia.
I suppose there is something to be said for wanting to build a site that refutes some of the evolution claims elsewhere, but at least try to get it to sound good. Put a little effort into it or something.
z.
Posted by: s. zeilenga | February 21, 2007 11:56 AM
Actually, as far as I know the choice of the American alternate spelling for many English words was often intentional, part of a conscious effort to distance the new country from the old, through the (manufactured) need for locally-written textbooks for use in schools. The American textbooks would of course reflect the values of the Revolution, shaping young American minds to embrace those values.
Mr. Noah Webster is to be blamed (or cheered, according to taste) for playing a very large role in this process, and incidentally pissing off many millions of future non-native English readers...
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | February 21, 2007 11:56 AM
When I could get thru, I compared the George W. Bush entry (two sentences, three facts given, one of them wrong) to the Bill Clinton entry (must be read to be appreciated). Good stuff, I can always use a laugh.
Posted by: Lambo | February 21, 2007 12:00 PM
I suppose there is something to be said for wanting to build a site that refutes some of the evolution claims elsewhere, but at least try to get it to sound good.
--s. zeilenga
Not possible.
Posted by: abeja | February 21, 2007 12:02 PM
If you are able, I suggest checking their entries on biological structures and phenomena. The source must be seen to be believed.
Posted by: Brian | February 21, 2007 12:06 PM
Please Z.
Enlighten us.
What are some of the claims of evolution that have been refuted and what is the evidence for those refutations.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 21, 2007 12:06 PM
I finally got a connection. Looked up "vaccine". Got back (this is the whole article)
Very deep. So, conservapedia is the encyclopedia for people who can't be bothered to read more than one sentence.
But wait, there's one more thing. Here's the reference cited for the article.
That's a fundie homeschool textbook. The book cited, by the way, has such wonderful parts as:
"Inconclusive evidence: The geological column"
"The details of the fossil record: evidence against macroevolution"
"Molecular biology: The nail in macroevolution's coffin"
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 21, 2007 12:10 PM
In the "Conservapedia Commandments" the first commandment is : 1.Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
Too late. I am a craetionist and I can't even believe this statement. :) heh.
z.
Posted by: s. zeilenga | February 21, 2007 12:11 PM
Checking the registration records for the domain, I see it registered to a "Andrew Schlafly" of New York, NY.
As in son of the famous Phyllis "Judge Jones should know which side his bread is buttered on" Schlafly? Andy, who with brother Roger, were for a time the Creationist Dumb & Dumber act of talk.origins? That explains everything.
As for the amount of "fluff" on Wikipedia, so what? It's free, and contains whatever people contribute. If it were a dead-tree encyclopedia being flogged door-to-door for kilobucks by high-pressure conmen, then it might be relevant that it had a high fluff content -- the editors have cheated the buyers who thought they were getting an educational resource. But as it stands, if I want some quick background on a bit of science or history or philosophy, I go to Wiki and look it up. The fact that there may be (say) 100 articles on Britney Spears and only one on Aristarchus needn't bother me, as I never even see the former. As long as Aristarchus is there, and reasonably accurate, that's all that matters.
(I bet Andy would approve of the political articles in my 1965 World Book Encyclopedia ;-).
Posted by: Steve Watson | February 21, 2007 12:18 PM
The book cited, by the way
Whoops ... my bad. Those sections are in their biology textbook, and Conservapedia's actually referenced a lower-level "general science" textbook. Here are some samples from the fundie homeschool textbook that Conservapedia actually cited:
"Failures of the Scientific Method"
"Evolution: Another Weakness of Uniformitarianism"
It's not really an improvement. :)
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 21, 2007 12:20 PM
Once you've clicked on a few random pages, you soon begin to realize that most of it was written by grade schoolers. It really is that embarrassingly amateurish in style and content.
Posted by: tacitus | February 21, 2007 12:31 PM
Once you've clicked on a few random pages, you soon begin to realize that most of it was written by grade schoolers.
Rather, that most of it was cribbed from fundie homeschool textbooks for 7th-10th graders. If Conservapedia stays up long enough to allows you, search for "Wile" (the author I mentioned above).
473 entries, all from that "Exploring Creation" series of books.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 21, 2007 12:36 PM
This is my new hobby! I'm actually making existing articles readable--adding grammar, structure, coherency, and so on. It's fun.
Posted by: Xocolotl | February 21, 2007 12:38 PM
If you really want to spoof Conservapedia, here's a standard to shoot for: http://jonswift.blogspot.com/ Like conservative political thought, this stuff is tough to parody...
Posted by: les | February 21, 2007 12:40 PM
Steve C - The comments section of PZ's blog is no place to have any kind of debate, especially one that will range from cosmology to biology to zoology to history. We couldn't have a good discussion even if we did want one here.
We can talk later sometime.
z.
Posted by: s. zeilenga | February 21, 2007 12:44 PM
From "Overwhelming Evidence":
So does a lobotomy.
Posted by: Sonja | February 21, 2007 12:44 PM
Did y'all see this example of bias from their site?
"Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination, and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites."
(By the way, how do you do that cool blockquote thing in the comments here?)
That's not a typically politically conservative position. In the case of vaccines, it's usually the screwball fringe of the political left who are against good science, and the pro-corporate conservatives who take the correct side.
So it seems Conservapedia takes the stupid side of each issue.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | February 21, 2007 12:46 PM
That changed a bit with the advent of the HPV vaccine, since the screwball fringe of the political right thinks it's a license for premarital and/or teen sex.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 21, 2007 12:56 PM
As a conservative, I can say 'conservapedia' is a poorly designed site (-- Try navigating within it, but try not getting angry with all the error messages -- it's good practice) and the little I can see of their content offends me.
These people are cristo-fascists masquerading -- badly -- as conservatives.
Conservatives are for -- altogether now -- fiscal discipline, small government, limited intrusion into people's affairs, respect for the law and the Constitution, and tempered changes.
These wackos are radical zealots who want to change everything everywhere, they are ruining our past, present, and future, and they truly seem intent on seeing the world come undone in their own lifetimes, as if apocalypse would be the only thing that would give their lives meaning. Otherwise they'd be lost in the shuffle and forgotten in the sands of time.
Posted by: ColorMeSad | February 21, 2007 1:00 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 21, 2007 1:08 PM
I'm so glad to find a resource that is not biased at all. It gives us such gems as this (from the Today in History for Feb. 2nd):
Perhaps someone had better let all the other religions of the world know that they have no faith.
Posted by: Jason I. | February 21, 2007 1:08 PM
I guess social conservatives and traditional conservatives have a problem with each other.
The traditional conservatives let the socials take over in order to gain power.
Except that didn't really happen the way they wanted it.
I would prefer traditional conservatives would stand up and knock down the social conservatives down 3 pegs. At least then we could get on with the debate of how the country should be managed reasonably between progressives and conservatives.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 21, 2007 1:10 PM
ColorMeSad said:
"Conservatives are for -- altogether now -- fiscal discipline, small government, limited intrusion into people's affairs...."
When the conservatives tell me they have a right to, for example, legislate my behavior in the bedroom (between, or among, consenting adults), or make child-bearing choices for me, I don't consider that a "limited intrusion".
Posted by: abeja | February 21, 2007 1:11 PM
you copy-n-paste the bit you want to quote, then surround it with
tags.Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 21, 2007 1:11 PM
I'm guessing they'll also be telling us that the SI metric system is a tool of subliminal mind-control designed, in concert with fluoridation, to pave the way for godless communism and rampant gay sex.
Posted by: Don Price | February 21, 2007 1:13 PM
Fun's over.
Posted by: David Livesay | February 21, 2007 1:14 PM
"I am not sure if they know, but the British spelling for words, is actually the spelling they began with, the Americans took words like colour and turned it into color, probably due to laziness, not being bothered to write in the u."
An anti-American bias doesn't make you look smarter or liberal. The reason that we have different spellings is because in the early 1800's American English was a mess for spelling and slang. Noah Webster created an American dictionary to standardize spelling. The "u" in words such as favor and color he deemed extraneous. He made other changes, such as "s" in defense, "theater" as opposed to "theatre."
Our language made much more sense after that, and reduced the number of "outlaw" words that kids had to learn as they were learning to write.
This doesn't excuse Schlafly, though, as he fails to understand that Wikipedia is open to the entire web and not just to the United States.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | February 21, 2007 1:14 PM
okay, those tags got mangled somewhere in between previewing and posting; scienceblogs webmasters take note of that!
the tag name is "blockquote", and like all HTML tags it needs to get wrapped in less-than and greater-than signs; the closing tag, furthermore, needs a forward-slash ("/") sign in between its less-than character and the tag name.
let's see if this works:
<blockquote> ... </blockquote>
ah, i see what went wrong now; i hit "post" at the preview page when the preview looked good. i should have checked that the text entry box was also copacetic, and it wasn't. partly my fault, then.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | February 21, 2007 1:16 PM
Anything involving the Schlaflys has got to be a farce. For those of you born since the 1950's, Phyllis Schlafly, the mother of Andrew and Roger, has been a self-appointed voice of American arch-conservatism since Eisenhower's presidency (whom she incidentally viewed as a Communist dupe). She's now so ossified in hair spray, face-lifts, and ancient ideas that it's amazing she's still alive. I think she takes a general botox treatment for any public appearance, otherwise she'd resemble a prune, both physically and mentally, too closely to be believed. The Conservapedia is typical of the nonsense she and her clan have peddled for decades.
Posted by: Keanus | February 21, 2007 1:19 PM
When words become poisoned so badly that they need to be abandoned...
Back when I lived in the UK, I was a paid up member of, and activist for, the Conservative party. Of course, that was when being "conservative" meant things like commitment to balanced budgets, minimising state interference in peoples everyday lives and such stuff. Where did that go? I always think it's odd that people now call me a "liberal" notwithstanding the fact that my views on the role and limitations of government haven't actually changed substantially. When anybody tells me they're a conservative these days, I tend to start wondering (possibly incorrectly) whether they're some kind of wacko.
It's probably also worth pointing out that when Benito Mussolini coined the term "fascism", he never intended it to be a pejorative either.
Posted by: Millimeter Wave | February 21, 2007 1:20 PM
this is, of course, their answer to the dkosopedia, the liberal encyclopedia, on dKos.
Posted by: cleek | February 21, 2007 1:24 PM
"Facts have a well known liberal bias"
Stephan Colbert 2006.
Posted by: Bert | February 21, 2007 1:32 PM
You do the blockquote thing with the
tags.
Posted by: Reality Czech | February 21, 2007 1:36 PM
Dammit, the preview didn't preserve the escapes. (Bug report!) You do blockquotes with the
tags.
Posted by: Reality Czech | February 21, 2007 1:38 PM
Some people are getting the same impression of Overwhelming Evidence, the Intelligent Design site that was set up to cater to the teen crowd, but is also looking like a magnet for parodists
Parodists? *she said innocently* Sock puppets? Subtle undermining? At the expense of clueless moderators?
Mais non! Surely you jest. ;-)
Posted by: Kristine | February 21, 2007 1:44 PM
Snort.. They had something on the Discovery channel the other day that I found real funny. It was talking about Nixon. If you overlooked his blatent lying about and hiding of shit that Bush is trying to do as well, with less success and more openness (i.e. illegal wire taping, unlawful searches, etc.), he did a lot of good things, which also contrasted to Bush, is a major difference... Not to meantion the comment, "Nixon liked to know *exactly* what caused things, drilling down farther and farther, until he found the true cause of a problem, then addressing it." Just wish the guy hadn't been such a fracking idiot when it came to hiding how agressively stupid various agencies came in their zeal to support him. He might have ended up being the best we ever had, instead of the worst.
But anyway, I found it damn funny how people *in* the Republican party that worked near and around him lamented in 1-2 cases about how, "Back when Nixon was in office you didn't have as many of these 'conservatives' in the Republican party, whose ideals have nothing to do with Republican values." In other words, even they know that at one time the Christo-fascists where not running things and that the situation, and the political climate in the party, has changed drastically since.
Its like a lot of people have said, the problem isn't that the country has gotten more liberal and lost its way, it is that the right has stampeded so much farther right that you can't go much farther without looking like a fascist dictatorship, and sadly, the main party for the left has stumbled farther right to try to preserve some sort of narrower gap, which they can claim is the middle ground. The public meanwhile has mostly gone along for the ride, blisfully unaware of the massive techtonic shift that just happened. Then again, a lot of the left is in places like California, so they are used to earthquakes. A lot of whom probably did the same thing during the political earthquakes as they do with real ones, and just waited until the shaking stopped, before going back to their business, blythely ignoring the new cracks in the walls.
Posted by: Kagehi | February 21, 2007 1:52 PM
Speaking as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, a lot of us are really trying our damnedest to keep pseudoscientific and nonscientific crap out - and by and large, we do a good job. Our article on Evolution is really well done and doesn't give undue weight to the "creationist viewpoint".
Posted by: Cyde Weys | February 21, 2007 1:53 PM
Hey, some Schlafly's are cool! There are Schlaflys in St. Louis who run a lovely microbrewery. They are cousins of some sort to Phyllis Schlafly's husband, but not to blame for her nonsense.
Posted by: nm | February 21, 2007 2:06 PM
Conservatives are for -- altogether now -- fiscal discipline, small government, limited intrusion into people's affairs, respect for the law and the Constitution, and tempered changes.
Interesting... where can I find one of these strange creatures?
They certainly don't exist in government.
Posted by: George | February 21, 2007 2:16 PM
Whether this thing is real or not, the self-righteous act on the part of conservatives is beyond old. It really needs to be asked: "What ARE conservatives conserving?"
I just can't get over the mental image of peoples' brains shrinking under the load of a cancer of lies, when these people open their mouth about pretty much anything. It's like watching acid eat through metal.
Let them make their "conservopedia". It'll be wrong back to front on everything but most of the spelling. If reality-minded people stay active and true to history, we'll outshine them.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 21, 2007 2:18 PM
Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Prior to 1973 it was illegal, usually criminal, and considered to be serious medical misconduct.
Illegal where? Abortion wasn't illegal in all 50 states until 1967, and by 1969 Ohio, North Carolina, New York, and California changed their laws. So it was illegal for what, two years?
Conservapedia: conserving ignorance, one hick at a time.
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | February 21, 2007 2:25 PM
This doesn't excuse Schlafly, though, as he fails to understand that Wikipedia is open to the entire web and not just to the United States.
Indeed. A medievalist colleague of mine once spent an entire evening arguing on Wikipedia with a bunch of nationalist Québécois who thought that Clovis was the first king of "France" and kept vandalizing the entry.
.
Posted by: Grand Moff Texan | February 21, 2007 2:34 PM
Conservatives are for -- altogether now -- fiscal discipline, small government, limited intrusion into people's affairs, respect for the law and the Constitution, and tempered changes.
This is the central issue that pisses me off when crap like "conservapedia" gets put up. The name is a lie.
Conservatives of the type described by ColorMeSad are great people to have around. I can have a reasonable, stimulating discussion about a wide range of topics with such a person. I like reading articles and blogs written by such people. I'd vote for someone like that with no qualms in an election should I find the competition lacking in someone more closely aligned with my own views - which often happens (the lacking, not the appearance of proper conservatives).
But the word "conservative" got hi-jacked by a bunch of ignorant anti-elitist rabid religious wackos, and now triggers a quite different definition in my mind: a raving lunatic who is incapable of recieving further knowledge input on any issue. It's both sad and frustrating.
ColorMeSad, please continue to visit here, along with the rest of us. I assure you that any future disparaging remarks I may aim at "conservatives" are NOT aimed in your direction.
*****
Steve C - The comments section of PZ's blog is no place to have any kind of debate, especially one that will range from cosmology to biology to zoology to history. We couldn't have a good discussion even if we did want one here.
We can talk later sometime.
z.
Very politely put, but total bullshit. When has Pharyngula not been a site for good discussion? Ranging across cosmology to biology to history (hint: zoology is a sub-discipline within biology) sounds great! Doesn't that happen here pretty much every day?
Z, your comment looks distinctly like "I don't want to play with you anymore! I'm going home!". You were challenged to provide ONE piece of evidence that, even in some small way, refutes the Theory of Evolutionary Biology. You can't, we all know you can't, so you whine about appropriate context and leave.
Posted by: TheBrummell | February 21, 2007 2:52 PM
I'm just agog at that abortion entry. Nothing like absolutely frakking up BOTH law and science in one handy article!
The more time you spend pregnant and/or breastfeeding, the lower your breast cancer risk - ergo, abortion causes breast cancer, right.
Posted by: Christine | February 21, 2007 2:55 PM
I've noticed that many of zeilenga's comments seem to consist of little more than excuses for not addressing a point.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 21, 2007 3:01 PM
(Aside: When I worked in Lindon UT, I had a co-worker, who never voted, but donated to Ron Paul's campagin, despite not having lived in Texas for many years.)
Posted by: llewelly | February 21, 2007 3:08 PM
This seems like a good thread to bring this up... the corrupting of the term "conservative" to mean "religious yahoo".
By any measure of the term that does not involve yahooery, I am conservative. I resist wanton change, preferring instead that change occur when necessary and after due thought and consideration. I resist change for change's sake because I don't think it is in the best interest of anyone.
And yet, I'm an atheist.
These so-called "conservatives" who would have us regress to the dark ages are not conservative as I understand the term. They resist change for the sake of RESISTANCE, not because the changes are bad. They would turn the clock back on centuries of progress to further their own perverse ends, and they do so in the name of their favourite invisible sky god. That's not conservatism, it's regressive, and it's lunacy.
And to be fair, there's a good many religious people who have their invisible sky god and still want progress at a pace that makes sense when such changes can be shown to be in the best interest of society at large. They can be conservative, as I understand the term, without being regressive.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | February 21, 2007 3:14 PM
He does the same thing on his myspace site. He's a YEC, claims to have about a "thousand" reasons for being a creationist, but can't be bothered to tell us what those reasons are.
Posted by: Jen | February 21, 2007 3:19 PM
I wonder when they'll be putting in the climate change contrarians, like Soon, Baliunas, Pat Michaels and Roger Pielke Jr.?
Posted by: Thom | February 21, 2007 3:32 PM
It seems that the internet itself has been embarrassed by the existence of Conservapedia, as the site is down.
Posted by: Dustin | February 21, 2007 3:35 PM
*Chuckle!*
Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example... yadda... This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
Yeah. Wikipedia is really going to advertise, "But our product has zero educational value!" Actually, this nation being as enthusiastic about intellectual endeavors as it is about the Brussels Sprouts Crash Diet, that probably would be a good PR move. But if these fist-shaking neo-Commies (oops, neo-Cons, well, it is hard to tell the big diff anymore) were to set foot anywhere near academica (just look me up, I'll hold your hand), they would discover that Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly resource, and is not to be cited in undergrad or grad papers, etc. Of course it's not to be trusted, although I have been pleasantly surprised at the amount of good information that can be found there.
Posted by: Kristine | February 21, 2007 3:37 PM
Posted by: Joe | February 21, 2007 3:39 PM
Hey, can anyone here explain what this means?
* Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions.
Posted by: archgoon | February 21, 2007 3:43 PM
Posted by: Steve Watson | February 21, 2007 3:53 PM
The comments on this thread, maybe so--since the discussion's a little off-topic. But PZ's blog is a great place to have a debate about lots of things, including the topics you mention. There are lots of knowledgeable people who post here and enjoy going back and forth on different topics, and you have to really work at it to get banned (i.e., repeatedly and deliberately troll the site, etc.)
Posted by: Leon | February 21, 2007 4:01 PM
Ya know, they use German spellings for some of their beer names, instead of American. I realize now that they are fifth columnists and Hate America. I'm sure glad I found out in time.
Posted by: nm | February 21, 2007 4:02 PM
You think that is weird?
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,62484.shtml
... Featured speakers include: -- Lee Strobel, journalist and bestselling author of The Case for a Creator. -- Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director, Center for Science and Culture (CSC) at Discovery Institute, and co-editor of Darwinism, Design, and Public Education -- Dr. Michael Behe, Lehigh University biochemist and author of the bestselling book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, and CSC senior fellow -- Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet, and CSC senior fellow"
I know it's just a Press Release from Disco, but COME ON!
Posted by: daenku32 | February 21, 2007 4:10 PM
Kristine:
Pretty much anything on WP that isn't particularly controversial is going to be reliable, if not always entirely comprehensive. The problem that I found, however, isn't so much one of reliability, but rather one of clashing egos. Some editors who were deeply invested in their completely, objectively wrong piece of information drove me away almost a year ago (my last edit was on 10 May, 2006).
Posted by: Dan | February 21, 2007 4:25 PM
Heh, I realize it sounds like that. I knew someone would say that the moment I commented. I think I remember Steve C accusing me of the same thing in another post. But really, I don't want to dra