Official Comment Count: 1,035,580
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
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)
"Well, why did the Puritans come to this country?" a teacher asked his history class. "To worship in their own way and to make other people do the same" was the reply.
[Frank Zindler]
Acoelomorph flatworms and precambrian evolution
Symmetry breaking and genetic assimilation
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Can you stand another dose of KKMS? | Main | A weird poll to crash »
Category: Kooks
Posted on: May 24, 2008 8:50 AM, by PZ Myers
Seriously. And if you want to see the very definition of 'clueless git', watch this video of Andy Schlafly droning on. Would you believe he accuses wikipedia of bias, and then says that he founded Conservapædia to strengthen Christian faith?
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Yes, easily.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 24, 2008 8:55 AM
Conservapedias article on atheism is one of the worst written and worst researched pieces I have ever read!
Posted by: Thone | May 24, 2008 8:55 AM
At least by their definition, they recognize that we are all atheists.
Posted by: rightsaid | May 24, 2008 8:56 AM
"Conservapedias article on atheism is one of the worst written and worst researched pieces I have ever read!"
Then you can't have read the other thousands of articles on Conservapedia. They're ALL awful.
Posted by: Martin | May 24, 2008 8:57 AM
Why are you people all misspelling Conservapædia? Remember, it's always written "Conservapædia". They hate that British English stuff -- it's unamerican.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 24, 2008 9:02 AM
Interestingly, they have the #5 Google search result for a search on [atheism]
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | May 24, 2008 9:15 AM
Do you think Phyliss Schafly ever compares her own skills as the leader of a movement with those of her son and has doubts about the anti-feminist nonsense.
Conservapedia was stupid from the start, and not just in the obvious way. If you wanted an encyclopaedia suitable for home-schooled conservatards you could do it easily enough: GPL, a few committed activists copy and pasting from Wikipedia but censoring and changing where needed, start spreading the word once it has built up a bit. Instead they tell the whole world they are going to take on the pinkos at Wikipedia. Even the sheltered kids in that video should have known that they would get more Colbert wannabes than honest editors.
P.S. I went to Google to check the name of the competant, evil Scafley and this was the text of one of the links
"Phyllis Schlafly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just don't see why some people don't hit Phyllis Schlafly in the mouth. I don't think she would be damaged seriously, but I don't think it would hurt if ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly - 73k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this"
OTHEIRG BIAS!!!!111
Nothing like that in the article now though.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 24, 2008 9:17 AM
They also have the #5 Google search result for "kangaroo" :)
Posted by: jpf | May 24, 2008 9:18 AM
Current top ten most viewed pages at Conservapedia, by their own statistics:
1. Homosexuality (3106655 views)
2. Main page (2711655)
3. Wikipedia (403511)
4. Homosexual agenda (333741)
5. Arguments against homosexuality (333339)
6. Ex-homosexuals (318162)
7. Homosexuality and choice (312466)
8. Federal Bureau of Investigation (300896)
9. Examples of bias in wikipedia (298716)
10. Homosexuality and health (293359)
Discounting the main page, the first of those has had 77 times as many views as the next most popular page. I think the message of those figures is pretty clear: Conservapedia readers use the site mainly for, uh, research on one topic of particular interest to them, and it isn't atheism.
Posted by: Moggie | May 24, 2008 9:25 AM
Why would the "article of the year" require a special page dedicated to promoting public awareness of it?
Posted by: Austin Cline | May 24, 2008 9:39 AM
Wow, what utter twaddle. If that is the site's "article of the year", I can only imagine what the rest look like. Clearly these Christards are very, very afraid of anyone who dares to laugh at their little reindeer games.
And frankly, I don't get the name "Conservapedia". There's nothing "conservative" about being superstitious and confusing fantasy with reality. I'm really not sure where that came from, but at least I'm glad they didn't try to usurp the label "liberal" instead.
Posted by: Paul Ferguson | May 24, 2008 9:39 AM
Favorite quote from the atheism article (so far):
Uh, what? In the conservapedio universe, "was exactly counter to the party line" means "played a prominent role". Well now I know that.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | May 24, 2008 9:51 AM
(delurking)
Wow. Talk about setting the bar very, very low. What is this, online wiki limbo?
Thank you for the early morning laugh, Dr. Myers!
MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: The MadPanda | May 24, 2008 9:53 AM
I am Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise. He contradicts himself right at the start? I give a shit, tell me more! ;)
Posted by: Colwyn Abernathy | May 24, 2008 9:56 AM
OK, I really have to ask, other than the nonsense from Leviticus and a few other places, what IS the problem with homosexuals? As far as I can recall, it is not mentioned in the gospels at all, you know, the words of Jesus (I am sure someone will correct me if wrong, and welcome it). Really, why the big fear of homosexuals? Why do so many of these fundie types worry about it being "forced down their throat", yes, we all see the imagery and psycho-sexuality of that phrase.
All kidding aside, I really do not understand this issue. Can anyone make any sense out of it other than, 'my gawd said it were bad"? I just do not understand the fear of the different.
Ciao, y'all
Posted by: JeffreyD | May 24, 2008 10:01 AM
They have a section entitled "Biblical statements regarding Atheism". Turns out the Bible is not in favour of atheism. Who'd have thunk it?
Why no section on statements about atheism from the Bhagvad Gita, or the Koran, or Dianetics, though?
Posted by: wintermute | May 24, 2008 10:03 AM
Yes, I would believe Assfly would say something like that, it's very in character.
And of course they picked it as their best article; it reflects perfectly their own beliefs on the subject.
Posted by: wazza | May 24, 2008 10:06 AM
Yipes.
Just yipes.
If the illogic of these articles isn't enough to make you lose sleep, just imagine these nitwits voting.
Posted by: Spook | May 24, 2008 10:13 AM
oy... what a tool... of Jebus...
~Dan
Posted by: Dan | May 24, 2008 10:17 AM
I knew the thing's content was dreck, but the atheism article is completely incoherent -- I mean, to the point I couldn't tell what their point was in a lot of the topics.
I put on my safety equipment and braced for impact when I went over there, but OMG, the stupid, it burns my eyes! These goggles, they do nothing!!111!
(I got to use the meme. Yay me!)
Posted by: Leigh | May 24, 2008 10:21 AM
Everyone does realize that Andy's older brother, John, is homosexual, right?
Andy, you know that, don't you?
fusilier, who lost to John, in 1970, when running for the Notre Dame YAF chapter presidency
Jmaes 2:24
Posted by: fusilier | May 24, 2008 10:22 AM
It's still sensible to wear the goggles when reading blogs and news items. You never know. :-)
Posted by: Kseniya | May 24, 2008 10:23 AM
Wait, I always thought Conservapædia was a joke site. Is it pretend lunacy, like the Colbert Report, or is it actual lunacy?
Also, lol @ comment #9
Posted by: Jay | May 24, 2008 10:23 AM
@Jay #22: A little from column a, a little from column b, and their is no way of anyone telling which is which. This leads to them going nuts and banning each other as suspected parody vandals. A lot of the enjoyment of that site is on the talk pages.
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 24, 2008 10:30 AM
Sure, sure. All you need to make an argument these day are: 2 cups equivocation, 1 argument from consequences, and 1 famous historical bogeyman. Add blatant disinformation to taste. Simmer over low heat, stirring vigorously, until warmed-over. Serves your agenda and thousands of ignorant fools.
Posted by: Kseniya | May 24, 2008 10:31 AM
Conservapædia, your complete information source for the conservative alternate reality.
Posted by: Joel | May 24, 2008 10:32 AM
i must say i'm surprised their "top article" didn't involve homosexuality.
Posted by: alex | May 24, 2008 10:40 AM
JPF posted: "They also have the #5 Google search result for "kangaroo" :)"
The last half of the "Kangaroo" article is particularly loony. And for another treat, take a look at "Baraminology."
Posted by: Paul Burnett | May 24, 2008 10:40 AM
"Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the "Dreamtime" [8] and the evolutionary view that kangaroos and the other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago"
Posted by: Matt Heath | May 24, 2008 10:44 AM
Including some at the arithmetic, I'm afraid - I think that figure should be 7.7.
Conservapaedia was a new experience for me. I particularly enjoyed the part that explained that atheists are guilty of self-deception; we all believe in god really, apparently.
Posted by: Vole | May 24, 2008 10:45 AM
All kidding aside, I really do not understand this issue. Can anyone make any sense out of it other than, 'my gawd said it were bad"? I just do not understand the fear of the different.
Gender and the maintenance of masculinity. "Real Men" don't get penetrated, that's what women are for. Can't have men being penetrated, turning them into women. A fate worse than death, apparently, having something shoved down your throat--again, that's what women are for because femininity is by definition about being penetrated.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 24, 2008 10:47 AM
If I remember correctly, the reason they accuse Wikipedia of bias and then makes something even more biased is because they believe it's impossible to make an online encyclopedia without bias. So, they think that people should have the opportunity to see both biases.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | May 24, 2008 10:50 AM
Hee hee hee!
Perfect, MAJeff! Perfect! And oh so very right on target.
One suspects a massive lack of security in their collective masculine identity, yes?
And, at the risk of committing the No True Scotsman fallacy, a site like this might lead to Conservatives feeling the need to rebrand themselves just to avoid association with Teh St00pid Whut Burnz. (Mentioning Conservapedia around my more conservative friends and relations leads to shaking of heads and muttings of disbelieving nonassociation with such tripe.)
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: The MadPanda | May 24, 2008 10:54 AM
The information age! Vast amounts of data available at the click of a mouse. Information Technology setting us free from the constraints of ignorance and superstitions and propelling humankind into a future of enlightenment!
No, not necessarily.
Posted by: RamblinDude | May 24, 2008 10:54 AM
Yes, that was a ridiculous typo on my part. With my level of checking, I ought to be a Conservapedia contributor.
Posted by: Moggie | May 24, 2008 10:57 AM
Could someone please tell me why conservatives aren't able to detect conservative bias? I consider myself a liberal, but I can easily detect articles, news etc. with a liberal bias. When I watch a Michael Moore documentary, I can appreciate that it has a liberal bias and that he may emphasize some facts and ignore others to suit that bias. Why does it seem that when right-wingers see Expelled or read Conservapedia articles or watch Fox News they believe they are getting the straight unadulterated facts?
Posted by: randytoad | May 24, 2008 10:59 AM
Conservapedia's articles on mathematical topics are hilarious. If Andy Schlafy is normally funny when he is claiming prosecution and accusing others of bias, when he does so about mathematics , of which he knows nothing, he is plain hysterical.
Posted by: Zipi | May 24, 2008 11:00 AM
Favorite quote from the video:
"We've added all of the scripture against homosexuality. You're not going to get that kind of fair treatment on Wikipedia."
Posted by: defectiverobot | May 24, 2008 11:00 AM
Awesome athiest logo used in the conservapedia article, by the way. Why have I never seen that before?
Posted by: defectiverobot | May 24, 2008 11:03 AM
MAJeff, re your #30, afraid you probably do have the best answer (both sighing and smiling). Oh, but wait a minute, then it must be OK to be a lesbian because...hmmmm, ok move on, nothing to see here.
I know there is no good answer. The stupid does burn sometimes and the goggles only make it painful instead of excruciating.
Ciao, y'all
Posted by: JeffreyD | May 24, 2008 11:06 AM
PZ Myers:
Thanks for the reminder. I keep trying to establish the, ahem, proper usage, but it never quite sticks.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 24, 2008 11:07 AM
randytoad, King of Ferrets touched on that very topic at 31. I think it might be a little of what he said, and a little of people assuming their own views are not biased. Plenty of self-deception going, that's for sure. I feel like I fall into the Confirmation Bias trap too often myself.
Posted by: Flying Fox | May 24, 2008 11:09 AM
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | May 24, 2008 11:12 AM
Not one mention of Normal Bob Smith! Or PZ Myers, for that matter.
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 24, 2008 11:13 AM
Hmm. So moral depravity isn't just the bailiwick of Catholic priests?
Posted by: defectiverobot | May 24, 2008 11:15 AM
@14
OK, I really have to ask, other than the nonsense from Leviticus and a few other places, what IS the problem with homosexuals? As far as I can recall, it is not mentioned in the gospels at all, you know, the words of Jesus (I am sure someone will correct me if wrong, and welcome it). Really, why the big fear of homosexuals?
IIRC most of it actually comes from Paul's various letters (Corinthians and such). The guy was a crank, and had a big problem with sex. He's really the source of most of the "sex is for procreation, pleasure is a sin" concepts in Christianity. Specifically in Romans he goes into :
"24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
...
"32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Emphasis mine. This guy really had his hate-on for anything he considered wrong.
Posted by: Bluegrass Geek | May 24, 2008 11:16 AM
From The Onion:
Area Homosexual Saves Four From Fire
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38942
"Falmouth resident Kevin Lassally, who likes to hold and kiss other men, is being hailed as a hero after rescuing a family of four from a deadly blaze."
I wonder if conservatives will take it as "straight" news?
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 24, 2008 11:18 AM
If anyone feels like taking a public swipe at any of this RationalWiki is working on building up a counter article.
Posted by: Trent Toulouse | May 24, 2008 11:22 AM
Bluegrass Geek, thank for your #45, had forgotten about old misanthrope Paul. Paul really does seem like someone who could have benefited from therapy, or at least medications. I guess getting smacked on the road to Tarsus might have done a little more damage than thought.
Beach time! Ciao, y'all
Posted by: JeffreyD | May 24, 2008 11:28 AM
Why do the most biased people always claim that the people they are biased against are so biased?
Conservapedia has a very long entry on Liberal Bias ("Liberal bias is everywhere on American university campuses," etc.).
The Conservative bias entry is much shorter and consists of a bullshit quote from Roger Ailes of Fox News:
"I think conservatives were underserved, that does not make us a conservative channel. I think a lot of conservatives watch our channel, that does not make us a conservative channel. If we're conservative, what does that make the other channels? Liberal. Reporters are very interesting, they keep coming at me and saying aren't you more conservative, and I say yes well, you mean they're more liberal? The answer is you see both on our channel. In the last 25 years you CNN had Bob Novack and they thought that was balanced. One half hour they had Bob and the rest of the time they had liberals. We decided to balance all the arguments and treat the conservative view with the same respect as we have for the liberal view, and that is really irritating some people. We're not promoting the conservative point of view on Fox News, we're merely giving them equal time and access. Why would that offend journalists, to have another point of view? We don't quite get that. Dragged kicking and screaming the rest of the media is now saying oh my god maybe we should be a little more balanced than the way we were doing things. It hasn't much affected the New York Times....No, it's driven them even further to the left in a kind of strange, bizarre way. We're not firing our reporters for making up the news, and they are...."
What gives, Andy?
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 24, 2008 11:37 AM
#44:
Or conservative Republican Senators from Idaho, for that matter?
Posted by: Larry | May 24, 2008 11:42 AM
These people are desperately trying to put the monkey on our backs. If it weren't for the words "deny" and "denial," the article wouldn't be half as long.
The bottom line is that the evidence for God is lousy. Consequently, I don't believe in deity. If the "official" definition of "atheist" doesn't match that, then I'm not an official atheist. So what?
But we all know it's not that cut and dried, don't we? The definition of a word becomes as it is used. Furthermore, etymologically, "atheist" as "one who lacks belief in deity" is spot on.
Posted by: mikespeir | May 24, 2008 11:47 AM
Yes, clearly they should have named it "Wackapedia".
Posted by: noncarborundum | May 24, 2008 11:49 AM
The atheism of notable people who claimed to be atheists has had the characteristic of tenuousness in regards to maintaining thoughts in accordance with atheism.
Yeah! Now that's what I call a prose-style.
Posted by: Larry Teabag | May 24, 2008 11:53 AM
Zipi (#36):
It's funny that Schlafly has such a vendetta gainst complex numbers, since elsewhere in wingnuttia, people are saying that evilutionists are excluding God from science just like mathematicians used to exclude i from algebra. No joke.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 24, 2008 11:56 AM
As an administrator on Wikipedia and erstwhile editor on Conservapedia, I do know a bit about this topic.
I have more or less given up contributing to Conservapedia, because I don't think it will ever become a genuinely useful informational resource. For one thing, it actually has very few articles (fewer than 20,000); there are CD-ROM encyclopedias which have a better depth of coverage. Few Conservapedians bother writing about non-controversial topics, or, indeed, non-American topics (before I started work on it, the article on the Royal Navy simply read "The military navy of the United Kingdom.")
The other big problem over there is sysop abuse. Unlike Wikipedia, where admins are expected to follow a number of rules - in particular, we can't just push our own viewpoint in content disputes by blocking everyone who disagrees and locking the page - Conservapedia sysops have no such restraint. Thus all the controversial pages are locked, and only the sysops (who predominantly conform to a hardline creationist viewpoint) can actually edit them. The sysops are not elected, but appointed by Andrew Schlafly, and there's no appeal against their decisions (unlike Wikipedia, where we have the Arbitration Committee). Sysop abuse is also largely responsible for Conservapedia's failure to grow and develop a healthy community; lots of people who could have been productive editors are blocked by trigger-happy sysops who suspect them of being liberal.
Wikipedia isn't perfect, and it does have something of a systemic liberal bias, due mainly to the demographic groups from which editors tend to be drawn. But it is still unrivalled as a resource, and the Wikipedia community has evolved reasonably effective methods for dealing with conflict.
The moral of the story is that when one doesn't like something, creating a separate conservative (or, indeed, liberal) version of it tends not to be effective.
Posted by: Walton | May 24, 2008 11:57 AM
Of course Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but then again, as the great philosopher Steven Colbert teaches us, so does reality.
Posted by: Beowulff | May 24, 2008 12:16 PM
One of my favourite articles on Conservapædia is still the one about the frog. One (minor) error was corrected but it has been replaced by a much better one.
Posted by: Richard Simons | May 24, 2008 12:17 PM
Check out the entry on materialism:
Wow.
Posted by: Bryan Rowsell | May 24, 2008 12:26 PM
I rather resent theists defining me in terms of their own beliefs. I am adopting the policy that any religious person who calls me an "atheist" shall be called an "irrationalist". Seems fair to me.
Posted by: Vole | May 24, 2008 12:27 PM
If I remember correctly, the reason they accuse Wikipedia of bias and then makes something even more biased is because they believe it's impossible to make an online encyclopedia without bias. So, they think that people should have the opportunity to see both biases.
Well, on the video Schlafly says that Wikipedia did start out kinda unbiased with American good intentions and the good American unbiased spirit that welcomes all, just the way Americans do. But then later on Wikipedia got taken over like, you know, how when a lynch mob takes over an American town in the American old West. So consequently Schlafly decided it was about time somebody started a site that could present unbiased evidence against evolution and homosexuality.
Somebody on the video claims that Wikipedia doesn't talk about Isaac Newton's religious views. Well I think she may have overlooked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views but they probably really busy over there what with their own research and whatnot.
Posted by: 386sx | May 24, 2008 12:28 PM
To Walton:
Thanks for your comment, it's interesting to read your perspective.
Conservepedia has degenerated into an absurd parody of a Wikipedia, but then again, it was right from the outset. Its goal was never to be an open community but was established by people who cannot tolerate the free exchange of knowledge and ideas--that was the heart of their problem with Wikipedia. You seem surprised at sysop abuse and that controversial pages are locked, but that is no surprise to me. I wouldn't expect anything less from them.
And the most hilarious thing on the site is their slogan, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". That has to rank right up there with "Fair and Balanced"...
Posted by: Paul Ferguson | May 24, 2008 12:28 PM
I have just been to Rationalwiki to see what they had to say in their entry on "Jesus Christ". Most of it is just reiterating what the gospels are saying. It has absolutely nothing to say on the argument that Jesus never actually existed. That is truly pathetic.
Posted by: silkworm | May 24, 2008 12:33 PM
Belated D'oh!
"...mutterings of disbelieving nonassociation..." not "muttings of disbelieving nonassociation"
Must remember to use preview.
(/headbutts keyboard)
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: The MadPanda | May 24, 2008 12:50 PM
Glad to hear the new error is much better than the old error.
Posted by: Zeno | May 24, 2008 12:52 PM
Wow.
They have an entire section on their Atheism and Debate article entitled Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates".
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 24, 2008 12:54 PM
Wow.
They have an entire section on their Atheism and Debate article entitled "Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates":
http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Debate#Creation_Scientists_Tend_to_Win_the_Creation-Evolution_Debates
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 24, 2008 12:56 PM
Wow.
They have an entire section on their Atheism and Debate article entitled "Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates"
Ummm...no.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 24, 2008 12:58 PM
Wow, when I want to get some serious misinformation I'll go to crapa, er conservapedia. Not only was the Atheism page full of crap but I went to their American one, the one supposedly written to counter anti-American bias.
Let's see, the nation was founded on July 4, 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence which I'm guessing formed the 13 states into one nation and officially declared the nation as Christian. Never mind the Continental Congress developing a system of laws and a form of government because an official rejection of the Crown's rule is what established the government. Oh, and never mind that Christianity was never mentioned in the Declaration.
Jimminy, these people are stupid. No wonder America is so dumbed down if this is what they teach in all the religious schools and to homeschoolers. Bible thumpers are bringing down the intelligence level of America.
Posted by: Doug | May 24, 2008 1:11 PM
George Strombolopolous had them on his show 'the hour' the other day, i was happy when the video was done, and the audience was laughing at them
that andy guy sounds like a moron when he's speaking - it was painful for me to watch
Posted by: kat | May 24, 2008 1:14 PM
ugh that atheism article was so bad i couldnt read it all, i mean, why bother?
lol they wanna talk about wiki's bias, compare each site's article on jesus and u can see who's biased and who's not
Posted by: kat | May 24, 2008 1:24 PM
Etha Williams wrote at #64:
Maybe if somebody added a page to Conservapædia that defined "winning" as "Saying that God says so, and that you have the right to believe what you want, then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying neener neener neener, can't hear you until the atheists go away".
Posted by: Beowulff | May 24, 2008 1:25 PM
Damn. That article makes me want to go and punch a Christian. Which, I suspect, is the sort of thing they think atheists do, but also probably isn't the intended effect of that article.
Posted by: Julius | May 24, 2008 1:25 PM
They've outdone
Something Awful
Posted by: scooter | May 24, 2008 1:53 PM
To Paul Ferguson (#60 above).
I agree that, at times, it reads like an absurd parody, though it certainly isn't intended to be. I do think it started with a legitimate goal, and FWIW I have interacted online with Andrew Schlafly and a few of the other senior Conservapedians, and found them mostly to be reasonable people.
But the problem is that Conservapedia is stuck in a vicious circle to some extent. Because of the small community and relative lack of activity, a small number of sysops wield great power. They use that power in jealously guarding the more controversial articles from interference, and in ensuring that their point of view (which tends to be hardline fundamentalist/creationist, and is certainly not representative of all conservatives or of all Christians) is preserved. This, in turn, coupled with the trigger-happy blocking policy, drives away editors and prevents the community from growing larger and more dynamic.
For instance, check the article on the term "Gay". http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay An article which defines the "gay lifestyle" as being "contrary to established morality" is not an objective encyclopedia article, even if one accepts that it's written from a Christian conservative perspective. It's simply a statement of opinion. Furthermore, even leaving aside the bias, there is so much more one could say about the term and its cultural history and use in literature (the current article is a couple of paragraphs long). I wanted to rewrite that particular article - it's not within my field of expertise, but there are plenty of sources out there - but my requests for unprotection have, thus far, gone unheeded, and so I can't edit it.
I have contributed a fair few articles to Conservapedia in the past, mostly on the British military. But I've basically lost interest.
Posted by: Walton | May 24, 2008 1:56 PM
Conservapædia and Creationwiki are hi-larious. I browse them both occasionally for the laughs.
In my humble estimation, they are right up there with Landover Baptist & The Onion for pure comedy.
doov
Posted by: Duvenoy | May 24, 2008 2:21 PM
You mean to say it's a legitimate site, and it's not satire?
Posted by: Geral | May 24, 2008 2:35 PM
The sad thing is that Conservapedia used to be even worse; I remember reading the article on Fox News a year ago which stated that "The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American." They've since toned down the rhetoric, slightly.
But my favorite entry? Unicorns! Aside from some rearranging of sentences, the current entry is mostly unchanged from the March '07 article I transcribed this from: "The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times, which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence."
Posted by: Austin | May 24, 2008 2:37 PM
Am I the only one to notice that one of his 'home-schooled', 'conservative' students was wearing a T-shirt with Che Gueverra's face on it? :) That made my day :)
Posted by: Jonathan Martin | May 24, 2008 2:39 PM
Hank Fox:
Thanks for the link. That article cracked me up. My favourite line: "Doctors describe his condition as stable but homosexual." I must just have to start using that one...
Posted by: avekid | May 24, 2008 2:42 PM
MaJeff [#30]. Now, if the external genitalia were placed on opposite sexes, masculinity would be all about capturing and femininity would be all about being engulfed.
Geral [#72]. Let's just say it's not intentional satire. It's a far cry from legitimate, if we define legitimate as based in reality.
Posted by: Monado | May 24, 2008 2:53 PM
MaJeff [#30]. Now, if the external genitalia were placed on opposite sexes, masculinity would be all about capturing and femininity would be all about being engulfed
Have you read Emily Martin's "The Sperm and the Egg"? Great example of this.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 24, 2008 3:03 PM
Jeffrey D #14 wrote:
I think one of the major reasons conservative Christians focus so much on homosexuality is to display their specific identity as "moral." Virtually all religions and philosophies are against things which harm other people -- theft, rape, murder, and so on. And most religions and philosophies share the same basic virtues -- honesty, courage, compassion, etc. There is nothing there that makes Christians stand out as being different, as having a higher, more sensitive understanding of right and wrong in comparison to the rest of humanity. A special revelation needs to reveal something you couldn't just figure out rationally on your own, or it hasn't revealed anything special.
Thus the emphasis on homosexuality as a "sin." It identifies you as a moral Christian in a way which helping others or fighting crime does not. I suspect the same sort of rationale fuels a lot of bizarre religious taboos and mandates in other religions. WE are special. WE see evil where other people do not. And I belong to THIS team.
Posted by: Sastra | May 24, 2008 3:14 PM
@ Jonathan Martin #73,
You can't see it in the video clip, but that t-shirt is actually an anti-che shirt.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/noche.html
Posted by: Nasikabatrachus | May 24, 2008 3:20 PM
Thanks for the tip about the kangaroo article. My favorite line,
"In accordance with their worldviews, a majority of biologists regard evolution as the most likely explanation for the origin of species including the kangaroo."
Posted by: Grewgills | May 24, 2008 3:23 PM
Because there are exactly two biases on teh whole wide intarwebz.
TSIB.
No. Etymologically atheos means "godless". Literally. Except that Greek uses a pre- instead of a suffix.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 24, 2008 3:49 PM
From the Conservapedia article on the Moon. Harmless, right?
"Atheistic theories of the origin of the Moon, widely taught for decades despite lacking the falsifiability requirement of science (see Philosophy of science), have been proven false."
WTF?
Posted by: Doc Bill | May 24, 2008 3:53 PM
Here's the conservapedia entry on PZ. If it were any more biased, it would have said he is a suspected child molester and alleged axe murderer.
For your entertainment-
Paul Zachary Myers a.k.a. PZ Myers is an activist in the creation-evolution controversy contributing to The Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula blogs. Myers is also an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM)[1]
Myers commented, while listening to Michael Behe lecture on Intelligent design, that "In science, we scream a lot."[1] According to Evolution News, he opposes democratically elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught.[2]
References
1.0 1.1 The Mad Scientist City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story
Egnor, Michael P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What's Best for Your Children Evolution News December 18, 2007
PZ - better stop shouting!
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | May 24, 2008 3:54 PM
You know what the stupidest part of this is? The singular kangaroo. The implication it's a single species.
That's like saying baboons and people are the same species.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 24, 2008 3:55 PM