www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?

You'll like this bit: Which is followed by nothing more on the entire page concerning the science of evolution than cribs out of the standard creationist quotemines: misrepresented and out of context gems from Morris, Eldredge, Ridley, etc.Very, very sad. It's as though AiG decided to write an encyclopedia. Let this be a further lesson: open framework, web-based encyclopedias are NOT an authoritative source. Unless you can verify the information through primary sources, of course.

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.

I agree, NJ. This is one of the main reasons I avoid wiki as a reference where ever possible. Unless it deals with some subject on which I already have some knowledge, I'm hesitant to accept what is written in an environment where basically anyone can "spin" to their hearts' content. And no, I don't have any examples of un-factual or erroneous information on wiki - it's a gut reaction. I find the peer-reviewed journals better all around.

Thanks, rat!

Interesting. I vaguely remember a former colleague (a teacher) who absolutely disallowed wikipedia as a reference in term papers she assigned. Maybe it was more an issue of primary vs. secondary sources. I don't suppose Chronicle is freely available on-line?

Heh. I think I remember having one of those... Of course, that was back in the day when we had things like real "books" (remember those?), with actual paper pages and all.