Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Conservative science?



The conservapedia is obviously a Fundamentalist web site primarily edited by
Fundamentalists. It is open to having anyone edit topic just the same as
the Wikipedia.

The call the Wikipedia a "liberal" source. Since its articles are very
similar to standard encyclopedias and are considered to be more accurate
than the Brittanica, one would assume that they would also label standard
encyclopedias as being liberal. I suspect they would also label all
standard scientific journals as being liberal.

Their historical timeline starts at the biblical 6000 year mark.

They equate conservatism with Fundamentalism. In reality of course these
are separate things. By the way Fundamentalism really should have a capital
F because it was a particular movement and organization, but is now diffused
into various churches.

The conservapedia makes the big mistake which is now common of assuming that
someone on the opposite side of the spectrum is always wrong. So when a
liberal such as Gore talks about global warming it is assumed that this
means global warming is false. But global warming is not a social or
political issue, but rather a scientific issue, where there should not be a
conservative or liberal point of view. What to do about it is obviously a
political issue.

And where are the "real conservatives" who could stand up and object to the
conservapedia and its blatent distortions? They are all cowed by their
constituents. Is there a liberalpedia or atheistpedia? I have not seen
any. Would you read a science article in the NYTimes or rather read it in
the conservapedia?

They have the right to expropriate the word conservative, but they really
should be the Fundamentalpedia.

It is bad enough that drivel is put into standard textbooks, but the
conservapedia give this a new light!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX