Now that I’m back into the whole sitting in front of the computer mode again, I’ve been busily catching up on all the internews that I’ve missed so far. Language Log linked to a post by Ed Crayton from a few weeks ago about Conservapedia, a conservative answer to Wikipedia, which is apparently anti-Christian and anti-American. (Its existence makes me wish I were still in college so I could use Conservapedia as a source in academic papers, just for laughs.)

Since this is old news by now, I won’t comment much on how ridiculous it is. I would recommend, however, that anyone who has not been there go peruse the entries by clicking through the Random page link. I wasn’t surprised to find a lengthy, skeptical argument about Evolution; I imagine that the evolution article was the whole raison d’être for Conservapedia. I didn’t know, however, that Theory of Gravity was controversial as well. Individuals who define the scientific word theory as “hunch, guess, wild approximation” in an effort to justify their skepticism of generally accepted principles should really put their money where their mouths are by choosing to not enjoy the benefits of innovations that owe their discovery to those same generally accepted principles. I don’t just mean the right-wing types either. I knew an atheist who didn’t believe in God, but also didn’t believe in atoms or molecules or electrons. According to her, if you chop a mole of wood in half 6.02×10^23rd times, all you get is a bunch of tiny pieces of wood. Just like non-believers don’t get to go to Heaven, non-believers of science don’t get to use science.

For example, if you deny evolution, you’re not allowed to own a pure-bred dog or use your thumbs. If you doubt gravity, we strap you to a rocket and shoot you into space. If you don’t believe in electrons and molecules and whatnot, we shut off the power to your house and take away your aspirin.

Maybe that would be a little harsh. Personally I don’t believe airplanes can fly- they’re way too big- but I wouldn’t want to have to drive everywhere I go. And my atheist friend was a cancer-survivor, which is hard to beat without the aide of.. well, medicine. And if we used rockets to shoot gravity nay-sayers into space, well that would require some understanding of gravity, so we’d be breaking my own rules. Perhaps we’ll have to stick with the old fashioned route of discussion and teaching and proving our point.

UPDATE

When I was cruising around the blogs today, I came across a comment about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Airforce. A fellow named Tom Cleaver points out:

The Hair Farce has been “a mighty fortress” for fundamentalism for a very long time[…] It’s amazing to me that the branch of service most dependent on scientific knowledge is the one run by people who think airplanes fly because angels hold up the wings.

Now I don’t have much to say about the policy, nor the Air Force, but he brings up a point I neglected to think about. Angels! I Just because someone might deny the logically and scientific explanations for something does not mean they don’t have their own. Duh. God was the guiding hand in evolution, angels hold up planes and, I assume, keep us attached to the ground, presumably by sitting on our shoulders or applying angelglue to our feet. If we could get those angels to generate our electricity, move our cars, and reduce CO2 levels, we could kiss global warming goodbye. (Note- Conservapedia has a surprisingly even-handed, though skeptical, article on Global Warming. Weird.)