This one has been around for almost a year now, but if you're getting tired of Conservapedia, take a stroll through the CreationWiki. It doesn't generally have that tone of having been written by a gang of third-graders, but there's plenty of stupid on display.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
[Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 5]
Recent Posts
- Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
- Apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islamic countries
- Mr Deity brings me solace and hope
- The Deep Rifts simply call us unto the breach once more
- Correcting Ken Ham's standard omission
- Evolution in two minutes
- The cameraman speaks
- Mary's Monday Metazoan: What's pink and tubular?
- We're doomed. It's another sign of the apocalypse.
- A wonderful debate
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- RobertL on The Deep Rifts simply call us unto the breach once more
- darkwin on Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
- Crewvy on Apostasy is a crime punishable by death in Islamic countries
- dnebdal on Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
- Bruce Gorton on Another of those polls that should be 100%:0%
- gaypaganunitarianagnostic on Rudeness required
- Feynmaniac on The Deep Rifts simply call us unto the breach once more
- 98cmim1g5x on Solution: blame scientists, add fluff
- Crudely Wrott on The Deep Rifts simply call us unto the breach once more
- jellay on The Deep Rifts simply call us unto the breach once more
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« "Intellectual Conservative" seems to be an oxymoron | Main | A love song for Pharyngula »
CreationWiki
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 1, 2007 12:15 PM, by PZ Myers
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/34550
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Comments
Posted by: diehard_TH | March 1, 2007 1:45 PM
Oh.....my.....diety.....i only looked for some wierd fascination, but wow, just wow. I just clicked on the general term galaxy (i'm more familiar with astro-physics) and you get this, 7.5 lines, about 100 words. Is that it? Jeebus. The real Wiki by contrast has this, it's got 88 references alone.
Just staggering in their banality. I also just love their little html logo, an upsidedown Darwin fish, says it all really. Pathetic.
Posted by: diehard_TH | March 1, 2007 1:49 PM
damn html tags! Shoul be creation galaxy and Wiki galaxy
Posted by: CalGeorge | March 1, 2007 2:14 PM
Part of the entry for Earth is completely, classically, creationist bonkers. Too bad Dustin won't be able to do a little job on this...
[snip]
The next question is one of inference: did these planets come to be arranged in such harmonious motion by chance and natural law, or by design?
Neither the origin of the planets, origin of the sun, or origin of the moon have been explained naturalistically. Further, as we discover more facts about their harmonious motion, many aspects of it appear to defy the known facts of astrophysics. Therefore, while naturalistic explanations may someday be shown to be true, for the moment, they are not science but mere speculation, and many of them are not even reasonable speculation, because they are demonstrably impossible.
On the other hand, the history of Genesis states that the sun, moon, and other stars (including the planets, which were known as stars in ancient times) were put into place to keep time and report the years and seasons. While this fact cannot be observed or tested, it is consistent with the evidence. That is to say, if someone did put the planets into orbit, we would expect exactly what we see now: planets in a harmonic, delicate, and beautiful orbit whose origin cannot be explained naturalistically. That is what we see.
Therefore, while there is no hard scientific "proof" of either view, some inferences are more reasonable than others:
Naturalists infer that the Earth and solar system originated naturalistically, despite the absence of evidence or explanation to support their claim;
Creationists infer that the Earth and solar system were designed, due to their beautiful, harmonic, and aesthetic motion, based on the golden ratio, ancient histories which affirm the creation of the Earth by God, and the absence of any functional alternative;
[snip]
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 1, 2007 2:20 PM
CreationWiki's "galaxy" entry, in its entirety:
Common creationist tropes run through this like summer rain through a willow tree. "It is not known why X," they say, without bothering to explain what is known, what the big outstanding questions really are, and the tentative answers people have proposed for them. "Unobserved, undescribed, and unexplained 'dark matter'" is, quite simply, a lie. We've observed it, and we've even mapped out how it is distributed! Just listen to Phil Plait:
"Unobserved" is a bald-faced lie, and "undescribed" is at best an exaggeration. The question on the table now is, "What is dark matter made of?"
Note also CreationWiki's appeal to profound order and structure. One can almost hear the whisper of "design" which they were either too cautious to type or, more likely, felt unnecessary to set down.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 1, 2007 2:23 PM
Wow!
Quick, somebody tell Mark Chu-Carroll!
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 1, 2007 2:37 PM
I suppose the Creator also put our ears in place to keep eyeglasses on.
Posted by: sparc | March 1, 2007 2:46 PM
At least there is some truth in creation wiki's definition of ID:
and it directly links toPosted by: David Marjanović | March 1, 2007 4:13 PM
Are they insinuating there's a mistake in Scripture!?!
Posted by: MartinM | March 1, 2007 4:57 PM
Good grief, if you think those entries are bad, you probably shouldn't even bother reading this one:
http://creationwiki.org/The_universe%27s_energy_can%27t_come_from_nothing
Quite possibly the single worst creationist mangling of physics I've ever seen.
Posted by: Susannah | March 1, 2007 9:57 PM
MartinM; Warn a body, please! This: "Good grief, if you think those entries are bad, you probably shouldn't even bother reading this one:" isn't adequate -- that entry is seriously dangerous to one's health. I almost choked to death!
Posted by: Greiner | March 2, 2007 12:27 AM
Perhaps you brought this up for a little subtle vandalizing eh eh? Of course any vandalism of the site could be seen as an improvement. I'm considering replacing the Jesus entry with this one. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Posted by: Mike B. | March 2, 2007 10:28 AM
Well, it's gone now - I get a "403" when I try to go there. Too bad, too, as this seemed like the sort of sideshow comic wackiness that I normally enjoy...
Huh?
Whattya mean their serious?
Posted by: Keith Douglas | March 3, 2007 4:55 PM
More evidence that there really is a cultural hijack going on. Bleah. I wish I knew what to do here.