www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?

The irony probably hasn't escaped you that this is now not an open framework encyclopedia - they've locked it down because people were screwing with it too much. I think
the discussion page for the Theory of Evolution entry is a great example of how the wiki ethos and this project seem to be incompatible. An individual is arguing for improvements and is being shouted down by others. Chaos.

I can see the reason for the lockdown:

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Unfortunately that is exactly the goal of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and that site is a great example of it. Their belief is that by denying facts and reality they can actually change reality.It seems to be a very poorly done parody of 1066 & All That.Anyone who doubts for a second that the goal of much of the US Christian Community is to create a Cult of Ignorance need only visit http://www.conservapedia.com.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Man, I'd like to nominate JoshuaZ for POTM.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

yes

Seriously now, I think the problem you raise is a fascinating one; namely, how do you communicate with people who sincerely believe that logic, experiment, observation and evidence are fundamentally worthless, even dangerous?When confronted with the bald fact that there are plenty of people who call themselves Christians (or in this case plenty of people who call themselves conservatives) who don't find the idea of an old earth or of evolution incompatible with their beliefs, how can they say that these people aren't true Christians (or conservatives) without even batting an eyelid?How can they have come to believe this? It's a yawning, world-swallowing gulf in understanding, isn't it?

Oh come on. That has to be a piss-taker.Doesn't it?

A big topic these days in academia, even making the front page of The Chronicle of Higher Education, is bias against conservatives in academia.Basically, rigous high quality academic research tends to show conservative positions are wrong. So conservatives either don't do quality research, or they can't do quality research. So they have a harder time getting tenure. Then they cry, "foul!"

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Well the usual tactic is to try and point out the succeses of science and how this benefits their (and everyone elses) daily lives. Computers, flight, internal combustion engine, electricity, immunisation etc. etc. etc. etc.
Compare this to the understanding and technological benefits gained from creationist "research".......However this tactic seems to have little success so in short - I have no idea how to confront these people!!(Answers on a postcard.............) Well evidently I think so.
However this site is one of the few places we can actually interract with those that hold such views and ask them I suppose.Not that there are that many full on creationists left even here.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But do you know what the really sick thing is? The more that people take the piss by altering this godawful site, the more this proves to people inclined to take it seriously that the evolutionists/atheists/onanists are a nasty bunch who should be avoided: the more it proves that Wikipedia is biased - which to them is clearly synonymous with wrong.Isn't that the biggest tragedy of all?

See your quote and raise:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

From the article on Bill Clinton: I think I should quit flagging these things before someone informs the editors and they clean it all up.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

What I find utterly paralysing is the claim that evolutionists/bad people are just as rabidly in thrall to their ideology as the Christians/good people. Forgetting for a moment that the unspoken flip-side of this argument is that they are admitting they are crazy zealots, I think it is true, with caveats. Although scientific methodology has brought us massive advances in medicine, engineering, agriculture and materials science to name but a few, its true that you have to believe in it to engage with it and to push it forward.It seems self-evident to me that a scientific methodology is preferable, but I prefer it only because I have matured in a very specific kind of environment, and made very specific decisions. I could just as easily be asking WWJD.I want someone to come up with a really good riposte to this line of argument because I think it becomes a bottom line in many fundamentalist's minds. Whether it makes sense or not, it is brilliantly divisive and I think it needs to be addressed.

Priceless!

Especially when they use the numbers of christians and conservatives to claim that their position is a majority position.This of course combines two logical fallacies: the part for the whole and the argument from popularityNot that this stops screaming weasels on pogo sticks ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.