Conservapedia on Kangaroo Fossils

Posted 14 March 2007 by

How does Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly respond when asked on NPR about the poor quality of its entries? Carl Zimmer has transcribed the response.

12 Comments

Bill Gascoyne · 14 March 2007

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

mplavcan · 14 March 2007

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!

Reed A. Cartwright · 14 March 2007

He is Phyllis's son.

Peter Henderson · 14 March 2007

This immediately springs to mind:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/another_inanity_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.

Adam Ierymenko · 14 March 2007

Conservatives remind me more and more of Soviet apparatchiks...

Conservapedia: presenting the official Party Doctrine(tm)!

Glen Davidson · 14 March 2007

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 http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Vyoma · 15 March 2007

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.

Popper's Ghost · 15 March 2007

When did the words "conservative" and "ignorant" become synonyms?

It goes back at least to 1843.

Mr_Christopher · 15 March 2007

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.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur

Raging Bee · 15 March 2007

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.

Richard Simons · 15 March 2007

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!

Aryaman Shalizi · 15 March 2007

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