1. Comment #24588 by Linda on March 7, 2007 at 1:21 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213234?thread=3939280&skip=0&show=20

We can't log on to conservapedia to edit entries.

Origins
kangaroo
"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."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo

Who knew?

Other Comments by Linda

2. Comment #24591 by Carl S. Richardson on March 7, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Well they don't seem to enforce their "rules":

"1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments

Other Comments by Carl S. Richardson

3. Comment #24592 by Linda on March 7, 2007 at 1:43 pm

"Conservapedia - the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024724,00.html

Other Comments by Linda

4. Comment #24597 by pauliej on March 7, 2007 at 2:11 pm

What a joke! Conservapedia reeks of narrow-minded bias, with a level of detail and intelligence which one might expect from a fairly average school child.

Other Comments by pauliej

5. Comment #24598 by Fouad Boussetta on March 7, 2007 at 2:12 pm

What a nightmare!!!
What's next? Nazipedia?! Commiepedia?!

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

6. Comment #24600 by Riley on March 7, 2007 at 2:14 pm

I love it. What a GREAT resource!

Other Comments by Riley

7. Comment #24601 by loki on March 7, 2007 at 2:18 pm

it would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that poor blighters like those kids in 'jesus camp' are likely to use it as a resouce from pushy Christian parent. It just makes it sad that this is on the increase.

try following the citations! take your round in creation science circles. Which is what creation science is I suppose. Why is it like this, its in the book!, whats in the book? oh, it must be like that!

Other Comments by loki

8. Comment #24603 by Donald on March 7, 2007 at 2:21 pm

These sites are appalling, but it's good to know what the deluded are getting up to.

I just looked at http://creationwiki.org/Creation_vs._Evolution

Actually, it gave me a good laugh.

I noticed this, which seems to be new:
Creationists would also agree that the processes of genetic recombination and natural selection can result in the formation of new species. In fact, creationists believe that extremely rapid evolution occurred after the Flood to create the species that we see today from the smaller number of species that were on the ark.

I'll repeat that:
Creationists .. agree that the processes of genetic recombination and natural selection can result in the formation of new species.

I wonder if Andy McIntosh and the second law have been told? Perhaps they need to start a rival creationwiki?

Or maybe the creationists' memes are evolving. Actually, that's a good explanation. Their ecological niche is shrinking, thus creating increased competition and selection pressure.

Regarding:
In fact, creationists believe that extremely rapid evolution occurred after the Flood to create the species that we see today from the smaller number of species that were on the ark.

Now, if they could only agree where the dinosaurs fit in... (They certainly didn't fit in the ark.)

I do hope the section I've quoted is for real, and not the result of some mischievous editing.

This looks real:
For those theories described above which are fully scientific, a collection of specific predictions can and have been made. Creation scientists, using a young earth or young universe model, have accurately predicted magnetic fields of other planets prior to our observations [2], rates of helium diffusion [3],[4], and radioactive carbon 14 retention in putatively ancient rocks[5].

At first I thought this was a joke, as creationism in the sense of creation of living organisms has nothing to do with radioactive decay. When I clicked on the links though, I realised creationism here meant "young earth".

Their reference [5] was a bad link, but the intended paper is easy to find, has the look and feel of serious science, and had me riveted (for a few minutes). These creationists claim to have found Carbon-14 in rock formations millions of years old. This could indeed clobber the credibility of radioactive dating and a whole slew of fossil dates and much else besides.

However, their "rock" was coal, which often contains uranium. C14 is produced from C13 (1% of all carbon) by irradiation from uranium decay. They didn't mention that!!

Other Comments by Donald

9. Comment #24604 by Lady GG on March 7, 2007 at 2:24 pm

my my my whilst searching for Richard Dawkins on creationwiki, I stumbled upon this little gem:

"In 1997, Richard Dawkins, normally an eloquent man, appeared to be somewhat speechless when he was asked in a filmed interview the following question: "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?".[4]

He later gave various excuses for not answering the question, but despite a number of opportunities, he has yet to answer it. Rather, he has attacked the producer of the video and creationists generally, and used the incident as an excuse to avoid debating creationists."


Excuse to avoid debating creationists?

Other Comments by Lady GG

10. Comment #24605 by scottishgeologist on March 7, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Quote:

"In fact, reading through it leads me to wonder if it isn't actually a parody site"

Its pretty hysterical, brings to mind a certain "You cant be serious!!!", John MacEnroe style.

Finest ever parody site however HAS to be Pastor Deacon Freds Landover Baptist Church. If you've never seen it, grab a beer, sit back and click your merry way to www.landoverbaptist.org

However bad the news, however crap the weather, however rough you feel, after spending 10 minutes at Landover, I guarantee, you will feel much, much better.

Sounds like Conservapedia might be the same sort of place!

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

11. Comment #24607 by Roy_H on March 7, 2007 at 2:29 pm

"In fact, creationists believe that extremely rapid evolution occurred after the Flood to create the species that we see today from the smaller number of species that were on the ark."

EVOLUTION !!! make your minds up Creationists!

Talk about double standards!

Other Comments by Roy_H

12. Comment #24608 by BaronOchs on March 7, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Lady GG Dawkins discusses that incident (and answers their question) in this essay:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dawkinschallenge.htm

which is also printed in A Devil's Chaplain.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

13. Comment #24612 by chauvinj on March 7, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Look at how biased Wikipedia is!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

I stopped reading after #1...

Other Comments by chauvinj

14. Comment #24613 by M31 on March 7, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Some hilarious snippets from the conservapedia tirade against wikipedia:

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.

9. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[9] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

Other Comments by M31

15. Comment #24614 by Zaphod on March 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm

It is quite sickening the lengths people will go to make shit up.

Other Comments by Zaphod

16. Comment #24616 by Lady GG on March 7, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Thankyou BaronOchs, I feel much more enlightened now I know both sides of the story - tho I never doubted our Richard for a second!

These websites make me sad because I know many people may be deceived by the out of context quotations and general biased ramblings...

Other Comments by Lady GG

17. Comment #24621 by MelM on March 7, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Some good news anyway.

From Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
Way To Go, Idaho!: Science Teachers Say No To 'Intelligent Design'
http://blog.au.org/2007/03/05/way-to-go-idaho-science-teachers-say-no-to-intelligent-design/

In the Americans United… story, there's a link to the NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) policy statement.
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=10
This statement is well worth a read; it's consise, strong, and covers a lot of ground.

Two excerpts:

NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, "creation science," and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.
——–

In addition, Benchmarks for Science Literacy from AAAS's Project 2061, as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.

Other Comments by MelM

18. Comment #24623 by MelM on March 7, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Yet more good news:

"Coins circulating without 'In God We Trust'
U.S. Mint admits to the goof with the new George Washington dollar"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17501178/

Other Comments by MelM

19. Comment #24624 by MelM on March 7, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Thanks #24608 by BaronOchs.

Clicking "home" on the Dawkins article links to the site: "No Answers in Genesis!" which I'd not seen before. Looks interesting.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm

Other Comments by MelM

20. Comment #24626 by Nails on March 7, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Quote:
As even the staunch materialist Richard Dawkins has allowed, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
Oh please.
Do me a favour an read the bloody book, not just one line!!
If it was a line from scripture you'd read the whole chapter and beleive every bloody word, not just pick up on one little piece for your own ends.
Mindless idiots.

Other Comments by Nails

21. Comment #24627 by William on March 7, 2007 at 5:11 pm

The "non-American spelling" complaint seems profoundly silly to me. How is it in any sense anti-American to write "labour" rather than "labor"?

This guy's obviously a reactionary nutjob. Why does the BBC, or any legitimate media outlet for that matter, bother to have someone like him on the air?

Other Comments by William

22. Comment #24628 by davyB on March 7, 2007 at 5:17 pm

[Removed. Sorry.]

Other Comments by davyB

23. Comment #24629 by MelM on March 7, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Barking mad! Breathtaking!

World History Lecture One:
http://www.conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One
Instructor, Andy Schlafly
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070304-conservapedia-hopes-to-fix-wikipedias-liberal-bias.html

Some things I sure didn't know:

When did mankind first begin? There is no reliable evidence of man existing before 3500 B.C.
--

We can also extrapolate backwards from modern populations to estimate that only about 300 million people existed in the world at the time of Christ, and extrapolating backwards further yields only one family in the year 3300 B.C.
--

History books speculate at length about "prehistory", which predates writing. But there is no reliable evidence to support this speculation, and not worth spending time on. There is no reason to think that man existed for thousands of years without ever expressing himself in written form
--

So where did civilization begin? In a region known as Mesopotamia, which is Greek for "land between the rivers."
--

Genesis 2:8-17 (NAS) describes the beginning in Mesopotamia as follows: "The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
--

Using the ages mentioned in the Bible and counting backwards, biblical scholars have dated this as about 6000 years ago, or about 4000 B.C.

Other Comments by MelM

24. Comment #24631 by arix13 on March 7, 2007 at 5:47 pm

I am reminded of Plato's allegory of the cave in that when people are shown what is true outside of the cave they still choose to remain in the darkness of the cave.

Why can't these conservative Christians take the words of Christ into consideration "ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"?

Other Comments by arix13

25. Comment #24632 by MelM on March 7, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Looks like conservapedia went down about 10min ago. At least for a little while, it won't be wrecking a country.

Other Comments by MelM

26. Comment #24635 by Jack Rawlinson on March 7, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Pranksters have already started having fun with this. Check out this original version of the entry for "Cactus".

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cactus&oldid=15693

I think Conservapedia's editors and checkers are going to have their hands full chasing stuff like this down. :-)

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

27. Comment #24644 by Eclectic on March 7, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Poor Einstein gets his share of vitriol:

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) proposed a theory of general relativity in 1915, which built on work he had done in 1905. He won a well-deserved Nobel Prize, but not for his theory of relativity.

Unlike most advances in physics, the theory of relativity was proposed based on mathematical theory rather than observation. The theory rests on two postulates that are difficult to test, and then derives mathematically what the physical consequences should be. Those two postulates are that the speed of light never changes, and that all laws of physics are the same in every (inertial) frame of reference no matter where it is or how fast it is traveling. This theory rejects Newton's view of gravitation and replaces it with a concept that there is a continuum of space and time, and that large masses (like the sun) bend space in a manner similar to a finger depressing an area of a balloon. From this proposed bending of space the expression arose that "space is curved." But experiments later proved that space is overall flat after all.

Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb. Nothing useful has even been built based on the theory of relativity. Only one Nobel Prize (in 1993 and not to Einstein) has ever been given that even remotely relates to the theory of relativity. Many things predicted by the theory of relativity, such as gravitons, have never been found despite much searching for them. 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.

Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics and his theory of relativity conflicts with it.

Trolling is rampant - this gem is from the Bill Clinton article:

Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was seen by some as an attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Other Comments by Eclectic

28. Comment #24645 by RogerStanyard on March 7, 2007 at 9:09 pm

Conservapedia is one of the most blatent pieces of noe-colonialism I have seen in a long time.

How's this for anti-foreigner bias (taken from Conservapedia itself):

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[9] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

And this (also from COnservapedia):

Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royality, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.[24]. That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.[25]

Other Comments by RogerStanyard

29. Comment #24649 by ao9news on March 7, 2007 at 10:14 pm

Damn these people. It's a thing to mess with Clinton, but Einstein? Relativity? By the way, the text quoted is not there anymore, but they still try to pick and choose some details that seem plausible, and put Einstein down. I thought Einstein was the favorite scientist for religious idiots to misquote totally out of context. Why put him down? That's a rhetorical question, of course. It's bad enough that these idiots are idiots in power, they have to be vitriolic idiots too.

Oh man if only science like Einstein's and Darwin's work and such would be more in the general knowledge domain, and laypeople could say more than just "genius" about him (Einstein, regrettably Darwin is not recognized as such by most people), and actually know what his genius was, this world would be pretty devoid of these imbeciles.

So much for religion not clashing with science. I don't know how scientists, especially American ones, can say with a straight face that faith does not hurt science and vice versa.

Other Comments by ao9news

30. Comment #24653 by Riley on March 7, 2007 at 10:48 pm

I'm learning so much from this site.
Just for fun I trolled-over to take a look at the Conservapedia article on Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson is a historical favo-u-rite of mine). The article is so poorly written that I'm guessing the submission was a home-schooler student project, but the most amusing part of the article was that half the references cited Wikipedia!


--
p.s. RogerStanyard, your post is a repeat of post 14.

Other Comments by Riley

31. Comment #24670 by MorituriMax on March 8, 2007 at 2:20 am

Space is overall flat after all?

Geesh... how can they get that so wrong.. space is curved but LOCALLY it's flat... ARG!

Plus the speed of light as measured in a vacuum is a specific value.. it can change depending on local condtions.. water, glass, etc..

Man, save us from religious wackjobs..

Other Comments by MorituriMax

32. Comment #24672 by MorituriMax on March 8, 2007 at 2:23 am

Theme of Conservapedia:

Ok.. here are our conclusions.. what facts can we post to confirm them?

Other Comments by MorituriMax

33. Comment #24673 by MorituriMax on March 8, 2007 at 2:24 am

Ok Ok... this is my last post.. man this shit is hilarious..

History books speculate at length about "prehistory", which predates writing. But there is no reliable evidence to support this speculation, SINCE NOTHING WAS WRITTEN DOWN...

Other Comments by MorituriMax

34. Comment #24675 by BaronOchs on March 8, 2007 at 2:43 am

"The liberal bias on wikipedia is 6 times greater than the proportion of liberals in the general public"

wtf??? well I've got to admire his ability to quantify things . . .

"I myself edited certain articles and my contribution was promptly removed"

probably because it was shit, I had to admire Jim redmonds complete patience in that interview which I know I wouldn't have been capable of. This thing is utterly despicable, a worthy attempt to disseminate knowledge is being mimicked by a site wishing to do directly the opposite.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

35. Comment #24676 by davyB on March 8, 2007 at 2:54 am

There's a link for "log in/create account." But if there's a way to create an account, I have not found it. The puzzling thing is, there is negative commentary on some of the talk pages. Was there a way to create an account at one time that has since been disabled?

How insulting to the people who created the Wiki concept - use the software, but disable the feature that's the very essence of it.

Other Comments by davyB

36. Comment #24679 by Corylus on March 8, 2007 at 3:22 am

This is amazing! I have been playing on this site all morning, no work done at all.

I found it particularly interesting to compare and contrast the wiki and the conservapedia entries on radiocarbon dating. Even for a non-scientist like me the, the latter seems kinda ... short. Why would that be I wonder? Needs updating methinks.

BTW, I note their dislike of English spelling - ROFLMAO! Those snooty Brits, always inserting their 'u's where they are not wanted. Sure sign of moral decay that: superfluous vowels.

Other Comments by Corylus

37. Comment #24689 by Nails on March 8, 2007 at 4:13 am

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

20. The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.

Err... fraudulant dating techniques?
compared to reading an account in one book written over 2000 years ago and attempting to exptrapolate from there?
Which gives us a figure of the earth being 6000 years old, and civilasation starting with just adam and eve?
These guys really are delusional!!

Other Comments by Nails

38. Comment #24690 by mr gollo on March 8, 2007 at 4:16 am

I read the conservapedia entry on unicorn and was hooked instantly :)

Other Comments by mr gollo

39. Comment #24698 by Eventhorizon on March 8, 2007 at 5:13 am

I'm struggling to see the funny side. This is just out-right dishonesty - a diliberate distortion of reality.
When the kids who read and believe things like this grow up and realise - as I'm sure they eventually will - that they've been blatently lied to, I know who they'll be going after. Watch this space!

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

40. Comment #24704 by ImagineAZ on March 8, 2007 at 6:02 am

Eventhorizon,

Based on the fact that I'm having difficulty breathing through my extreme laughter, I'd have to say that I do see the humor.

A couple points:

Linda, you quoted the Kangaroo entry but you failed to include the really good ending, where Kangaroos apparently may have RAFTED to Australia from the Middle East.

And second, I'm not entirely convinced that the whole site isn't a parody. Like PZ Myers, do you want to be the one dope who didn't get the joke?

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

41. Comment #24715 by scottishgeologist on March 8, 2007 at 7:09 am

That stuff on the Kangaroo is unbelievable. "Their legs are strong and powerful, designed by God for leaping" Is it me, or does that sort of pish not just sound like something you'd read in a childs story. It's so puerile its embarassing.

And as for that rafting business.... "Land ahoy me hearties, ooh aar, that be Oz, land of beer, sheilas and utes"

It MUST be a hoax... surely a parody... NOBODY can be this stupid can they?

Even the really obvious stuff is stupid:

"Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads" And then they have a picture of a 'roo showing smallish ears on a reasonably proportioned head...

Actually, if this is the cutting edge of evangelicalism, then , well, all I can say is "We've won" By a long way. Vague notions of "spirituallity" and "transcendence" might be hard to fight against. But this is like shooting rats in a barrel.

As for the Cactus entry... well these things are clearly Satanic.... maybe a bit too phallic for the fundies...

Difference between a cactus and a church? Cactuses have the pricks on the OUTSIDE.... OK its an old one, but hey, lets keep the laughs going...

Should have a prize for the most amusing and / or embarasssing entry in conservapedia. Actually, the name "Conservapedia" could cause David Cameron some discomfort... Better get a strongly worded statement out David, just in case.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

42. Comment #24716 by uzi on March 8, 2007 at 7:21 am

Read the article on Global Warming. It's worth a chuckle. In reference to the scientists backing the idea:

...
Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.

Other Comments by uzi

43. Comment #24717 by BillySands on March 8, 2007 at 7:22 am

Posted this elsewhere, but this is probably a better place for it.
Fundies say the darndest, maddest and saddest things http://www.fstdt.com/top100.asp
I particularly like this one

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. [emphasis added]"

I wonder what colour the sun is on his planet

Other Comments by BillySands

44. Comment #24730 by congo on March 8, 2007 at 8:44 am

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

Other Comments by congo

45. Comment #24753 by MorituriMax on March 8, 2007 at 10:31 am

Of course the cactaeiea.. uh, the cicataec.. um er.. caktooses, darnit, the big forkie things that look like satans pitchforks are satanic!

Other Comments by MorituriMax

46. Comment #24759 by Steven Mading on March 8, 2007 at 11:11 am

What do you call it when a group becomes so insane that it becomes impossible to tell the difference between satire of them and their genuine opinions?

I still can't tell if conservativopedia is a joke.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

47. Comment #24760 by ImagineAZ on March 8, 2007 at 11:14 am

Most articles make me think it's all a joke, but some are so completely devoid of anything funny that I'm thinking that it must be real.

Scary.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

48. Comment #24770 by discipline on March 8, 2007 at 12:29 pm

ScottishGeologist wrote:

"It MUST be a hoax... surely a parody... NOBODY can be this stupid can they?"

You're obviously not from the U.S. The answer to your question is an emphatic "yes."

I am a Ph.D. living near Lynchburg, Virginia, the site of Richard's lecture shown on the home page -- and home to the infamous Liberty University and Jerry Falwell. Believe me, the answer is "yes"!

The mostly European/Australian readership on this site have no idea how bad the situation is in this country. The American Christian right is not some fringe group of loonies that can be easily mocked and dismissed. They are approx. 30% of the U.S. population and growing -- that's 100 million people. (How many Scots are there again?) They have their own schools, their own media, and a virtually complete alternate economic system. They can go from cradle to grave without hearing any dissenting views, except in caricature. They aggressively spread their "faith" around the globe. They are FAR more well-funded than all the scientific/secular/atheist groups combined. And they are very well-armed -- one of their holiest sacraments is the right to bear arms.

Read Chris Hedges' "American Fascists" and be scared:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437

I used to find sites like "Conservapedia" funny, but I don't any longer. They should be taken very seriously. Ignore them at your peril.

Other Comments by discipline

49. Comment #24772 by daisymcpoo on March 8, 2007 at 12:52 pm

I just read the articles mentioned by some people above, including cactus, kangaroo, unicorn, and then had to cross reference the word "baramin", which I've never heard before. No wonder it's hard for anyone to believe this site. I am a little in shock that this term even exists, let alone some of the other content of the site. For example:

"A baramin is a lineage of earthly life which is believed by creationists to be created by God during the Creation Week, and corresponds in some functional aspects to the secular concept of species. ......
A Holobaramin is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, Humans are a holobaramin, but a group containing only Caucasians and Negroes is not a holobaramin since it excludes Mongoloids and other races. Another example would be Dogs, which is a holobaramin since wolves, coyotes, domesticated dogs and other canids are all descended from two individuals taken aboard the Ark, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. This term is synonymous with the use of "baramin" above and is the primary term in baraminology."

Wow, what century is this again?

It is scary. I would like to laugh it off, as hilarious as it is, but as some of the previous commenters have already said, these people (at least some of them) really do believe that stuff. Be very afraid. I know I am.

Other Comments by daisymcpoo

50. Comment #24774 by scottishgeologist on March 8, 2007 at 1:38 pm

discipline

Thanks for filling in with some scary detail there.

I checked the amazon link you gave - sounds like a book worth getting a hold of.

One of the things that RD was accused of in his 2 part documentary "The Root of all Evil?" was that he only went for fringe nutjobs and extremists. From what you are saying about the Christian right in America, what he reported on (Ted Haggard et al) was totally mainstream. That is scary.

I have heard about this "dominionism" business several times before. Is it really the dominant force in American evangelicalism?

and just as a little exercise, a "whois" lookup on the .com, .net. .eu .info and .org variants of the conservapedia TLD, reveal a whole bunch of these things registered by Andrew Schlafley.

BTW, the .co.uk variant hasnt been registered yet....

Other Comments by scottishgeologist