Skip to main content

Enemies of Reason: Conservapedia

First in the spotlight as an "Enemy of Reason" is Conservapedia, the conservative response to the "liberal untruths" of Wikipedia . They state that "liberal bias" isn't allowed here, and that it is not only a resource for college-bound homeschoolers, but a resource for those "seeking the truth." Well, what "truth" would that be? While I'm sure some articles are fairly good, there are a number of topics that read like they were written by creationists...likely because they were! Hence the article on evolution, that never actually gets around to talking about the numerous strands of evidence for the theory but instead spends most of its time trying to attack it, through numerous, boundless and irrelevant attacks such as their claim that creationists win the actual debates (with a quote from the late Henry Morris, a creationist debater, voicing his opinion that they always win--hardly compelling evidence), attempting to paint evolution as a liberal, atheist conspiracy as well as repeating the canard that there are no transitional fossils. Perhaps the most offensive, vile and hateful thing I read in the course of the article was a statement about Carl Sagan; "Sagan's agnosticism and avid marijuana smoking no doubt helped inspire Sagan's pseudoscientific fantasy that evolution was a 'fact'."

Just as interesting as their ideas about evolution is their notion that Noah's Flood is an actual event in human history, that dinosaurs were not only on Noah's ark in pairs of two but ate plants before the Fall and were created on Day Six of Creation 6,000 years ago and that the existence of the Great Lakes disproves the idea of an Old Earth. Further, there are spurious attacks on atheists focusing on the fact of their obesity, listing a number of prominent atheists as being obese (I can start pointing out a number of prominent evangelicals who are obese in equal measure, like John Hagee and Jerry Falwell, but what a person's weight has to do with the substance of their beliefs is truly beyond me), as well as an attack on climate change as a cult and a liberal/socialist conspiracy.

A mention of Conservapedia wouldn't be complete without touching on the "Conservative Bible Project," led by founder Andy Schlafly with the intent to re-translate the Bible and eliminate the "liberal" interpretations of previous translators. That will certainly be an interesting read, I have no doubt.

For its defense and promotion of unscientific and pseudoscientific ideas like creationism, for its continuing denial of real science and for a generally distorted view of the world in which we live, Conservapedia is an Enemy of Reason. We have to learn to live in the real world, and it does no one any good to run from and deny the facts. Creating an alternative reality may be emotionally satisfying, but it is complete intellectual denial. Being a conservative shouldn't require checking evidence and reason at the door. On a scale of one to ten, Conservapedia ranks a seven.

Comments

  1. Did they really say that about Sagan? That's shameful behavior. I fail to see how this stuff wouldn't register on everyone's bullshit-radar.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...

How I Left Creationism

There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...