2.24.2007

what liberal media?

Finally, the religious right has a reference site of its own: Conservapedia. Don't be surprised if you can't get to it - it's listed in Technorati's Top 10 searches. Here's a sample from Conservapedia's main page:
Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance.

While you're waiting for Conservapedia to load (or not), here's a very amusing post about it, from blogger Jon Swift.
For years homeschooled children have had to rely for all of their information on Wikipedia, which is full of dangerous ideas that homeschooling was supposed to prevent from seeping into the home. Now, finally, there is an alternative, which doesn't have any controversial ideas at all: Conservapedia. Conservapedia is based on good Christian values, unlike Wikipedia, which I gather from the name, is based on Wiccan.

I take it the blogger named him- or herself after Jonathan Swift, one of the greatest satirists of all time. Good name, great post.

7 comments:

James said...

The folks over at ScienceBlogs have been having a great time with all this. The bits I've seen have been inane. Two examples: they criticize Wikipedia for making use of sqrt(-1) in mathematical proofs (their entry on imaginary numbers, which are a vital part of math and physics, runs just a couple of paragraphs); and their entry on Einstein says that his work had nothing to do with the development of nuclear power or weapons.

L-girl said...

their entry on Einstein says that his work had nothing to do with the development of nuclear power or weapons.

What do they have against that fact? They don't want to give Einstein the credit because he was Jewish, or for some reason they want his image to be untainted?

James said...

Well, as the Jon Swift post points out, they claim that Relativity has no applications whatsoever. Of course, they completely misrepresent what the theory means, based on its name. I don't think it's because they're ranting against "Jewish science" like the Nazis did, I think they think they're ranting against "moral relativism", because think there's some connection between "relativity" and "relativism" - just like they think that there's some connection between evolution and "social Darwinism".


Einstein wanted to call it the "Theory of Invariants", because it's based on the idea that the speed of light is invariant under different frames of reference, but since it grew out of the Principle of Relativity, "Theory of Relativity" stuck.

L-girl said...

I think they think they're ranting against "moral relativism", because think there's some connection between "relativity" and "relativism" - just like they think that there's some connection between evolution and "social Darwinism".

Oh yes, I saw something about moral relativism in Jon Swift's post. That is too funny.

Some of this stuff makes me cringe - people who are so ignorant that they have no idea how foolish they look. But of course, these people are not harmless. They're dangerous fools.

sharonapple said...

To be honest, I think their entry on Einstein might be influenced by Einstein's religious views ("I came — though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents — to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve." "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.")

I'm only saying this because religion seems to be a big prism for their views. In their entry on Newton notes that he was a Christian and then write his theories were "inspired by God." No big surprise then that they say that some of Einstein's work can be explained by Newton ("Many observed phenomenon, such as the bending of light passing near the sun or the advance of the perihelion in the orbit of Mercury, can be also predicted by Newton's theory). In their view ,nothing good cannot come out of someone who's not Christian, so not only does Einstein have nothing to do with the nuclear bomb, he never won a Nobel Prize for Relativity (but he did win one, something they're subtly implying he hadn't).

(They're so pro-Christian that this is a topic up for debate: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." Wha...?)

Overall, it's sort of the stuff you'd expect from a bunch of homeschooled Christians. (Some people have been editing in some very funny stuff... like God beign a fictional character, or that in God's blog, Jesus is revealed to be God's nephew, not his son.)

Thanks for pointing this out since I needed a laugh this week... and then I cry when I realize how damn creepy this all is. You're right, they're dangerous fools.

L-girl said...

Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?

This one is quoted all over the place (including in the post I linked to above) and with good reason. Quite amazing.

Thanks for pointing this out since I needed a laugh this week... and then I cry when I realize how damn creepy this all is.

You're welcome, and I so agree.

loneprimate said...

Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?

I zoomed in on that one myself. I imagine 19 in 20 readers would. It's such a blindingly arrogant statement that the head virtually reels. The same sort of exceptionalism that accepts without a blink that Western nations have the inherent right to bomb their 'lessers' to democracy or to refer to the United States alone as "America" as if a half billion other people simply didn't exist between Africa and Australia.