Friday, April 06, 2007

"Fun" with Conservapedia

If somehow you haven't yet heard of or visited Conservapedia, by all means, check it out.
The idea behind it is that Wikipedia has an ultra-left leaning bias, and does not properly recognize or give credit to Christian and American beliefs/values. That Wikipedia has been also hijacked my liberal agenda-promoting editors that will not allow such things to be posted. Conservapedia's goal is to be unbiased. Conservapedia is still in its infancy, as evidenced by clicking the "random page" button, which most likely brings you to a page with a one- or two-sentence entry. But it may also stay there. Occasionally you do come across some real jems, which make visiting Conservapedia "fun", or, at least, kind of entertaining.
For example, there is an entry for Unicorn. Did you know that the existence of unicorns is
"controversial"? There is even a drawing of a Unicorn skeleton, and clicking on it details that it represents the remains of a unicorn that perished in the great flood. Which also brings me to the entry for kangaroo. Unfortunately, the statement that kangaroos originated in the middle east has been removed. But you can still see the reasoning in the "origins" section - how else could the kangaroo made it on and off of Noah's Ark? (Interesting side note, there is a link to this very question "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?" - apparently the criticism that Noah could not have possibly traveled the world collecting animals is put to rest by the answer that he didn't have to - God caused the animals to come to Noah.)
There is a outline of decent length on the origins of the kangaroo. Three paragraphs relating to God's creation of the kangaroo and it's trip on Noah's Ark, and then two sentences on "other" theories, one on the Aboriginal theory that kangaroos were "sung" into existence by their ancestors, and the second on the evolutionary theory that kangaroos evolved from another animal that lived millions of years ago. The aboriginal theory is mentioned first.

If you look up Evolution, there is a lengthy entry, apparently discussing various aspects of the theory of evolution. There are 117 citations/references throughout. However, when you look closely, more than half of these are from the following sources: (35) (9) (6) (4) (3) (2) (1)
and the best, (1)

Clearly, these are the foremost authorities on Evolution.

Lastly, as a nod to the conservative American flavor of conservapedia, without the religious aspect, see the conservapedia entry for Heath Evans, a player in the national football league, and a relatively obscure one at that. I happened upon it from the random search. His entry contains 491 words. I then looked up Sigmund Freud and Charles Dickens, out of curiosity. Freud garners 212 words, and there isn't even an entry for Dickens. To be fair (or, rather, liberal-biased), I compared Wikipedia's entries for the three above:
Heath Evans 437 words
, Sigmund Freud 9064 words, Charles Dickens 6047 words

Update: Also check out the entry for Beta Decay The only reference is "
Wile, Dr. Jay L. Exploring Creation With Physical Science. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000"

No comments: