www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?

I think the only possible repost is to continue pointing out that it is NOT an issue of Christian vs Evolutionist or Liberal vs Conservative. There are many, many Conservative Christian supporters of Evolution and who are opposed to the Cults of Ignorance.The Christian Cult of Ignorance constantly tries, as this site does, to frame the argument as though it were some attack on Christianity.That is simply a lie.We need to keep reminding folk that it is a lie.It is NOT simply a matter of belief, it is a LIE.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why is it that Christian fundamentalism and conservative politics are so often entwined??As you state it does not logically have to be the case and ones beliefs regards the formation of life, the universe and everything would seem to have little to say about national economic policy......However the two do seem to be inextricably linked for reasons that I find hard to fathom?

Mainly because of movements that began in the late 80's. It was an intentional decision by the Christian Right to take over a political party. It was the result of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Dr. Robert Grant and the usually hidden voice behind the movement but perhaps the single most influential, Ed McAteer, driven initially by opposition to Supreme Court decisions on integration and specifically, Roe v Wade.They had no chance of taking over the Democrat Party and so turned their focus on the Republicans.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because the both benefit from the ignorance of their followers?

I am not sure this phenomenon is restricted to the US.Here Christian morality (if not extreme fundamentalism) is equally entwined with conservative politics.Is this the case generally around the globe I wonder?

Well, the success that was shown by the Moral Majority and Liberty Foundation, particularly with the election of Ronald Reagan, were pretty spectacular. After the scandal and disaster of the Nixon Administration, most folk thought the Republican Party would be out of power from a quarter to half century.The lessons were learned, and very rapidly replicated all over.Continuing:The lesson was that the Fundamentalist, Evangelical and Pentecostal groups are prime material for manipulation. They have been trained since birth to accept authority, to not question, follow faithfully, to see themselves as under attack, to accept even embrace martyrdom; and they are easily manipulated to follow direction.Edited by jar, : hit wrong button

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Why is it that Christian fundamentalism and conservative politics are so often entwined??

---

Not all conservatives are stupid, but stupid people tend to be conservative.Stupid people tend to have trouble thinking things through and considering logical implications, and dealing intellectually with ambiguity and nuance.Stupid people are therefore easily led and are attracted to rigid ideologies and doctrines that they can follow without questioning them.Stupid people vote.

I agree. I think this is a very invidious argument and lies at the heart of the debate (or one of the hearts, anyway). I'm not sure there is an effective riposte. Jar's is good, but doesn't appear to have been overwhelmingly effective. Maybe we actually just need something simpler.For instance, I'm kind of partial to the explanation that anyone - literally anyone - with a modicum of intelligence and an eye for detail can go out in the woods, or visit that road cut, or collect fossils or whatever and see the evidence for themselves. Obviously, a "trained" eye is going to catch more details, but nonetheless, anyone can at least amass enough observations to answer the simple question: "Is what I see consistent with what I believe (or have been taught)?" If the answer is "yes", then you can either accept that something might just be right about what you think, or you can dig deeper - gain a deeper understanding of the science or whatever. If the answer is "no", then a bit of intellectual honesty will cause you to either re-evaluate what you've been told, or force you to again dig deeper.The point is that science is probably the most democratic "way of knowing" that humans have yet invented. It almost doesn't matter what your upbringing or ideology might be. If what is in front of your face doesn't match your expectations, then either expectations are wrong or there's another explanation.I am constantly amazed, given the vast number of municipal, state and national parks, museums, exhibits, etc, in the US, how few people actually take advantage of them. The evidence is right there, available to all. You might miss out on some of the details without training, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is more than sufficient evidence freely available for even an untrained eye to at least get the point that, "maybe there's something to this stuff". It isn't possible to claim bias when the observations are right in front of your face.

Here is the entry on the Holocaust:That's it.And the Inquisition:I know this site is far from complete, but you'd think someone would have something more to say on these subjects than a few short sentences.And from the entry on Hernando Cortez:Yes, all those Aztecs who were defending their cities from invasion were "not innocent" and deserved what they got and Cortez was only murdering the Indians out of love. Please.

well, the facts have a liberal bias.i think the answer to this is clear: promote the hell out of it. if it's really a wiki, like it claims to be, the mostly-liberal population of the internet will quickly correct it back into being accurate. it'll be fun to see them ban people who break no rules...

---

Its not just the fundamentalist Christians who are increasingly flexing their political muscle in this country. There is also the Sharia movement, which is seemingly quite entrenched. I think the idea of a secular society is being put increasingly under pressure. At the moment there isn't any real danger, but public opinion can slide and there isn't anything one can do when it does. Maybe that's excessively apocalyptic.I think the laws that were brought in to prevent "incitement to religious hatred" and so forth are terribly counterproductive. Rather than extending the blasphemy laws, they should have levelled the playing field by removing all limits to free speech in religious matters.

http://www.conservapedia.com/KangarooKangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong and powerful, designed by God for leaping ...According to the origins model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East[1] and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.Also according to creation science, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[2] -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[3] -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters[2].http://www.conservapedia.com/GravityGravity is considered by scientists and evolutionists to be one of the fundamental forces of the universe. It is a theory which suggests that all masses are attracted to each other because of invisible particles called gravitons or invisible curves in space. The idea was first developed by Isaac Newton, and has been worked on by prominent scientists like Johannes Kepler and Albert Einstein.Gravity controversySome have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]. Indeed, astronomers can observe that all stars in the universe are moving away from one another. The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe.http://www.conservapedia.com/CentromereConstricted region of a chromosome and the point at which duplicate DNA strands attack themselves.[1]http://www.conservapedia.com/Second_Law_of_ThermodynamicsThe Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum.According to this law, it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine, and entropy in a completely closed system must either increase or remain constant.There are three different types of systems that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can apply to:Isolated system - Does not exchange matter or energy with its surroundings
Closed system - Exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings
Open system - Exchanges both matter and energy with its surroundingsMany Creationists claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.[1] Evolutionists deny this claim stating that the earth is not an isolated system because energy is pumped in from the sun. However, the universe as a whole is an isolated system. An isolated system never exchanges matter or energy with its surroundings. It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.http://www.conservapedia.com/ChristianityChristianity is a religion that follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the books of the New Testament. It is the world's most popular religion, with over two billion members. [1]---What's funny about that, I hear you ask? What's funny is that that's the entire article.But look how much they have to say about Piltdown Man

The reason that some of us specifically decided that scientific methodology should be the bedrock of our choices of what to believe in is because it quite honestly makes the most sense. The reason why other of us chose WWJD is because we decided to put all of our chips on Christ and because of this move we developed a Christo-centric worldview.This type of worldview is conservative by definition since it accepts a central belief as a fact and then attempts to correlate all knowledge to be in support of this belief.Many Liberals tend to think and view change as an evolution of progress.Many Conservatives tend to believe and view change as an enemy of belief.Conservatives (Of the religious ilk) tend to believe first and reluctantly think later.Liberals tend to think and form their world according to the best research and then reluctantly believe later.... and only if they feel a need to embrace a definite conclusion.In other words, a believer by definition has embraced a definite conclusion. (The rubber meets the road if they are honest enough to admit that the conclusion is a belief and not a fact.)A scientist/skeptic/truth-seeker by definition has embraced no conclusions...only the Gospel Of Inquiry.(Thats my jabberwocky for this morning! )Edited by Phat, : edit jabberwocky

Sounds like they should rename it Creopedia!

Part of the entry on {Earth}:

quote:

---

Estimates by non-creationist geologists of the age of the Earth have varied over the years; currently, most scientists believe the age of the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years. In addition, most scientists also believe believe that the earth formed by natural processes instead of being supernaturally created. However, as one scientist recently noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” [1]

​

Bible scholars have also estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by R. B. Knox, James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh (usually referred to as Archbishop Ussher) in a book called Annals of the World, in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian Benjamin Warfield on the issue. [2] However, James Barr, regius professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, wrote in 1984 the following: " . probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: . the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" [3]

---

Ancient age "refuted" by a single quote mine. YEC age "bolstered" by the argument from authority - alone.Scientific illiteracy at it's worst.

---

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.