Stranger Fruit

Conservapedia evolves

A few days ago I mentioned the Conservapedia entry on evolution as being notably bad. Well, it has changed over the past few days (but not for the better).


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 a scientific theory that explains the process of evolution via natural selection. The basic principle behind natural selection, states that in the struggle for life, some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage, increasing the representation of their particular traits over time. Evolution has been largely discredited, though it is still taught in schools due to activist judges.

But the process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the “survival of the fittest” theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs–that would be macroevolution. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. ….

Supporters propound upon the Theory of Evolution as if it has scientific support, which it does not. They switch tactics when pressed against the wall with solid scientific proofs against the Theory of Evolution by stating that evolution is “only” a theory. Using this flip-flop approach they try to have it both ways. They claim scientific support when none exists, and they claim it is only a theory when the theory straddles them with outlandish, impossible conclusion that violate scientific truths. Evolutionists simply ignore reality, slink into denial and walk away when presented with the scientific facts.

No comment.


  1. #1 Adrienne
    February 22, 2007

    Wow, that’s just….wow.

    But it’s actually changed again (evolved?!) since then. Some of the more inflammatory rhetoric against “evolutionists” (hey, at least they’re not “Darwinists!”) has been taken out, but this charming nugget of pseudoscience has now made its way into the entry:

    “Micro-evolution is responsible for the multitude of differences between species that are observed now after Noah saved only 2 of each kind.”

  2. #2 writerdd
    February 22, 2007

    This is funny. They are not even TRYING to be objective. I mean c’mon. I guess they think that reality has a liberal slant, hence their aversion to wikipedia, which does not adhere to any specifid ideology. It’s so funny. But also sad, because some people will fall for this crap.

  3. #3 John Lynch
    February 22, 2007

    This comment on the discussion page is particularly enlightening:

    “Many” Christians accept a lot of things, that doesn’t make their position Biblical. Only God is incapable of error, and that’s why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men. You claim that this information is “factually incorrect” but you don’t prove it. Besides, the founder of this website has proven, in no uncertain terms, that macroevolution (what most atheists mean when they say “evolution”) is impossible. There’s simply not enough time and even if there was, all mutations are harmful. The end. Ashens 14:23 22 Februrary 2007 (EST)

  4. #4 Blake Stacey
    February 22, 2007

    “Only God is incapable of error, and that’s why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men.”

    “This website follows God. . . .”

    There is something deeply compelling in the picture of God’s Word being presented on a wiki.

  5. #5 Blake Stacey
    February 22, 2007

    A chap named John Galt has tried to rewrite the article, intending to “Remove this creationist propaganda and turn it into something more accurate”. He also added the following text to the “Intelligent Design” article:

    It is often seen by it’s critics as a form of Creationism-lite, in that it is a means of arguing against the Theory of Evolution without adopting any particular religious doctrine.

    Proponents of Intelligent Design generally adopt the ‘argument from incredulity’. They argue, essentially, that the complexity of living organisms is such that it could only come from an intelligent ‘designer’, without much justification other than their own inability to understand how evolution could create the same complexity.

    The other major argument in the Intelligent Design arsenal is a variation of the incredulity argument, in that supporters frequently mischaracterise evolution as being a wholly random process, and that random processes. Intelligent Design proponents misunderstand, or at least seem to misunderstand, the effects of the iteration of natural selection in a particular environment over hundreds or thousands of generations.

    The theory of Intelligent Design has little or no support outside the United States, which is in the grip of a currently in the grip of an irrational religious-backed campaign to reject the teachings of the Theory of Evolution.

    We’ll see how long this lasts.

  6. #6 Blake Stacey
    February 22, 2007

    Now ScooterWilson1 has replaced the whole “Evolution” article with Wikipedia’s page. Let’s see how long this lasts!

  7. #7 Blake Stacey
    February 22, 2007

    Answer: from 16:49 to 17:12.

  8. #8 JohnnieCanuck
    February 22, 2007

    Subtlety, people. Sublety. Don’t edit reality into an article. Take it the other way, until it is just beyond the edge and we have parody.

  9. #9 Kevin W. Parker
    February 22, 2007

    There’s a hysterical hack in there right now that I’m sure won’t last long:

    Ironically, the thory of evolution is often disproved simply by the existence of those who argue against it. Intelligence, indeed the grasp of rote reason, seems beyond even the most articulate of the anti-evolutionists – a startling development, considering the difficulty of survival in modern times. Ostensibly, wolves, liberals and flagrant “street abortionists,” would easily predate upon these huddles masses – however, and perhaps due to the power of their De Jesus, many do not meet their ends this way; allowing thus for the continued distribution of their holy seed.

  10. #10 John Lynch
    February 22, 2007

    I’m guessing the following wont last long either:

    Scientists point to the massive scientific support for the Theory of Evolution. Supporters of contrary and irrational belief systems, such as Creationism and Intelligent Design have so far failed to gain any scientific support for their theories, and therefore resort to misrepresenting scientific arguments in order to further their own agendas.

  11. #11 386sx
    February 22, 2007

    There’s simply not enough time

    But I thought “Micro-evolution is responsible for the multitude of differences between species that are observed now after Noah saved only 2 of each kind.”

    and even if there was, all mutations are harmful.

    But I thought “Micro-evolution is responsible for the multitude of differences between species that are observed now after Noah saved only 2 of each kind.”

    Hmm, I’m betting that Conservapedia is really a creationist website.

  12. #12 boojieboy
    February 23, 2007

    OK Keven, thanks for digging that passage up and posting it here. It’s the best laugh I’ve had all week. And that’s saying a lot, given the hilarity that Conservopedia has generated.

  13. #13 littlejohn
    October 8, 2008

    It’s true that dog breeders haven’t been able to create a cat, but have you ever seen a Chihuahua? Clearly they’ve created a rat! 🙂

New comments have been disabled.