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).
Witness:
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.
- Log in to post comments
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."
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.
This comment on the discussion page is particularly enlightening:
"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.
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:
We'll see how long this lasts.
Now ScooterWilson1 has replaced the whole "Evolution" article with Wikipedia's page. Let's see how long this lasts!
Answer: from 16:49 to 17:12.
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.
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.
I'm guessing the following wont last long either:
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.
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.
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! :-)