Conservapedia on Kangaroo Fossils

| 12 Comments | 1 TrackBack

How does Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly respond when asked on NPR about the poor quality of its entries?

Carl Zimmer has transcribed the response.

1 TrackBack

The founder of conservapedia was challanged on the blatant nonsense in the entry on Kangaroos Carl Zimmer transcribed his response Linked from The Panda's Thumb.... Read More


Is the man’s name “Schlalfly” or “Schlafly” (both spellings appear in the Loom article) and is he related to Phyllis?

We thought it was a joke at first. Got a lot of laughs. But it isn’t. The evolution entries are a hoot, but for REAL scary reading try typing in Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other “founding fathers.” Further proof that “truth” to these folks stems from ideology. If the DI and AiG get their way, maybe ALL high school texts could be this good!

He is Phyllis’s son.

This immediately springs to mind:[…]from_aig.htm

If you search AiG’s media section I think the original is in one of the “Answers with Ken Ham” series. It usually reappears every so often on the front page of their website.

Conservatives remind me more and more of Soviet apparatchiks…

Conservapedia: presenting the official Party Doctrine™!

Schlafly replied: “…it reflects Conservapedia’s willingness to present topics and treatments of subject that is embraced by many conservatives and many members of the American public.” (transcription mine)

I think the point is conservatism, and conservatism alone. Conservapedia’s readers want to be told that their prior beliefs are right, Schlafly tells them that they’re right.

Or maybe it’s liberalism, I don’t know any more. Is it liberal or conservative to have the right to be right no matter how wrong you are? Call it fat bourgeois laziness, and can the political labels, I say.

Glen D

When did the words “conservative” and “ignorant” become synonyms? It’s one thing to disagree about politics and economic and social theories, quite another to allow for “alternatives” about hard science that have no similarity to reality at all.

If I were a conservative American, I’d be appalled by this sort of garbage on Conservapedia. No, let me rephrase that… I am an American, and I’m appalled by this sort of garbage on Conservapedia.

When did the words “conservative” and “ignorant” become synonyms?

It goes back at least to 1843.

Read the conservapedia article about dinosaurs to get a real belly laugh. Too bad they removed the picture that had Jesus sitting with brontosauruses and even had a baby one in his lap (much like the pictures we see where he is holding a lamb in his lap).

I am not kidding.

So now they’re using tales of the Loch Ness Monster and the like to “prove” that dinosaurs and humans lived together? These people get more pathetic every day.

The “references” are a hoot too: the Bible, and Web sites that quote the Bible.

From Conservapaedia

The frog is a marine amphibian that hops. Some science classes dissect frogs, which is cruel to the animals involved. Voltaire did experiments on frogs circa 1766, in which he discovered that frogs hear with their legs. Also, a leg will kick if it is hit with an electrical shock, which is the scientific basis behind the reflex tests now common in doctors’ offices. Thus frogs contributed to our knowledge of God’s natural world.

“Frogs” is also a derogatory name for the French, because they eat frogs’ legs.

I wonder who is the naughty person who wrote this!

Look, we all know reality has a well-known liberal bias, right? ;)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Reed A. Cartwright published on March 14, 2007 2:15 PM.

Tangled Bank #75 was the previous entry in this blog.

Hey Dr. Egnor: At Least Galen Dissected Animals, Not Straw Men is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter