Why didn’t I find this site before?
Wikipedia describes it as:
“a wiki-based encyclopedia project with articles written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism. Andrew Schlafly stated he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias”
Okay. And I at first thought that it’s satirical. Creationists, you have to feel sorry for them. Christianity and Islam suffer from the same disease that affects all religions, but far more virulent strains. It’s the disease of a fake excuse of natural phenomena converted into a tool for obtaining power by fooling the insecure masses by invoking the existence of a “supernatural being” who can cure all ails and you know the rest.
The moment I saw this site, I knew which page to go to. Not Bush, not God or Mohammad or Islam (though, as you will get to know, I did go to them as well!). It was the theory them thaar creationists love to hate… Maw! I been thinnin’ dat dat dere evo-whasists is all ron’! (sorry, I just had to be rude. I was seriously pissed at this shit.)
Right-o. Evolution, let’s see what they have to say:
- “The theory of evolution is a naturalistic explanation of the history of life on earth (This refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is commonly taught in public schools and universities).” Ah! getting to your biggest gripe already? You can almost hear the spiteful voice.
- “The concept of materialistic evolution differs from the concept of Theistic Evolution in positing that God does not guide the theorized process of macroevolution It asserts that unguided natural processes such as mutation can create new species. A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since World War II have been atheists.” This is a genuine trend throughout the site. Mentioning the view of God right after the scientific interpretation and using the term Atheists as if they were describing the worst kinds of human beings ever. Association Fallacy and Reductio ad Hitlerium is often used.
- “As Darwin grew older, however, he became increasingly concerned about this lack of evidence. Darwin wrote, “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”
Creationist scientists assert that evolutionists have had over 140 years to find a transitional fossil and nothing approaching a conclusive transitional form has ever been found and that only a handful of highly doubtful examples of transitional fossils exist. Distinguished anthropologist Edmund R. Leach declared, “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”” This is of course, followed by citing, out of context, evolutionists saying that finding conclusive fossilized evidence is difficult. And there is no mention of the fact that fossilization only occurs in rare cases. It is possible to not find fossils because not all animals that ever existed are fossilized. mother nature isn’t exactly a librarian of all of her creations. This is under the ‘Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms’ section, not to be confused with the ‘Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process’, ‘Macroevolutionary Position and Implausible Explanations’ and ‘Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation’ sections.
- “For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the “evolution of the universe”. Creationist scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science outside the field of biology and that arguments to support the theory of evolution outside of biology are not valid. For example, creationist scientists cite examples from the scientific literature in order to demonstrate that evolutionary ideas outside of biology have failed to have any explanatory power as can be seen below:
““…most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.
“We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750.
“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983.”
That’s the one that hurt. That’s the one that pissed me off. You mess with biology, that’s fine with me. I hate the subject, I’ve hated it ever since I was 12. But don’t you dare bring your out-of-context, meaningless unknown creationist drivel quotation trick into an argument in Physics, and Astrophysics to boot. The first one is of a truly renowned Astrophysicist. However, the creationists fail to mention which theorists he is talking about. The quote is entirely meaningless. Carlos Frenk is a new name to me and I don’t get what he means by ‘we don’t know how a singe star forms’. We DO know how it forms, we just haven’t seen one isolated formation yet, but the mechanism and I-R readings exist. So that’s bullcrap there too. And likewise for the last quote. It’s also to be noted that sources for the quote is the creationist web page trying to show that scientists don’t know EXACTLY how the universe formed so, God did it!
Other nonsense includes:
- “According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists. This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God(…) Also, the current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The history of science shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error, was scientifically unsound, or had little or no empirical basis. For example, bloodletting was practiced from antiquity and still had many practitioners up until the late 1800s” Riiiiight. So, evolution is similar to bloodletting. Hmm… <sarcasm> a very sound argument, oh I feel so defeated!</sarcasm>
- “The macroevolutionary position asserts that the earth and universe are billions of years old. However, young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old, and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe. In regards to the field of geology these scientists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error. Young earth creationist scientists also believe that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that the earth is young.” I can’t be them but I also don’t want to vandalize my own blog, so basically their alternative to Geology is catastrophism. I think that no catastrophe, Noah’s flood or the 10 plagues of Egypt could result in the earth aging from 6000 to 4,500,000,000+ years. Especially in the 40-day periods the Bible/Koran keeps mentioning.
- “In regards to de-moralization ensuing in a specific portion of history, many works have been written demonstrating that evolutionary ideas were an integral part of Adolph Hitler’s Nazism.” Ah, yes. Godwin’s law again! And, “In addition to greatly influencing Hitler’s Nazism, evolutionary ideas influenced the thinking of the Communists. Karl Marx wrote in a letter the following, “”Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Darwin’s ideas also influenced the thinking of Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin.” Them commies are evolutionists hence evolutionists are commies! Get ’em!
And from other articles:
- “The Qur’an states that Christians will be punished, though the nature of the punishment is not specified“
- “Although Muslims profess belief in a single God, some believe Islam has its roots in an earlier polytheistic system. By this thinking Allah is linked to an earlier moon deity, although it should be brought up that there is no mention of this in the Qur’an, where Allah is cited as the God of Abraham. Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene cult of the pig-god Jamal as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice.“
- “The tribes around the Muslims began to convert to Islam out of self-preservation. Those that didn’t were gradually defeated in battle in a pattern that became the blueprint for the successful establishment of Islam as a world religion. Typically, the enemy’s trust would be gained by non-intrusive measures in which the Muslims would insert themselves into the foreign community while professing their respect for local traditions and political structures. As they began to gain power, however, they would divide loyalties and exercise violence to acquire local hegemony.” You might as well say it straight, you know.
- “Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman.” At last, non-hypocrisy!
- “The word “God” is the general term used to refer to the Creator of the universe. What we know about God comes from three main categories: creation, conscience, and revelation. God has revealed himself in several ways, including through the Bible.“
- “As opposed to the true God, other gods have been proposed throughout the history of mankind. The term god is applied in a general sense to any deity that is worshiped as part of a theistic belief system. “
Whew! Yup! Uncyclopedia’s been officially pwnd/pwned/9wn3d… as the funniest wiki-based website, even if it was done unknowingly. And please, creationists don’t pick an argument with me! I’m serious! Just don’t do it! I’ll finish what is easily my longest article, but not before this parting comment:
“…and I thought Wikipedia had a right-wing bias…”
~Oscar Wilde on Conservapedia
Good Night and God Bless.