As featured on p. 218 of "Bloggers on the Bus," under the name "a MyDD blogger."

Saturday, February 24, 2007

This Really Exists?

Man, if conservatism wasn't actually real, nobody would believe it. They made a conservative version of Wikipedia called Conservapedia. I'm late to this party, and humorous takedowns are everywhere. But it's almost impossible to ridicule conservatives anymore when they have this much of a gift for self-parody. They actually define judicial activism as either when liberal judges make laws that conservative don't like, or when liberal judges don't strike down laws they don't like. And the invisible hand definition is loads of fun:

The "invisible hand" is a force that ensures the highest economic prosperity in an unregulated system. When a man is looking out for himself and accomplishing his own ends he is inadvertently contributing to the invisible hand. Consider the following scenario: Joe, an average guy, wants peanut butter with which to make himself a sandwich. Bill, the grocer, wants peanuts with which to make and sell peanut butter. Frank, the farmer, grows peanuts. Frank will sell his peanuts to Bill who will make peanut butter and sell that to Joe who will make himself a sandwich. Frank and Bill have worked together and contributed towards Joe’s sandwich without even communicating! This is the essence of the invisible hand: that the economy can continue, even flourish, without government aid or interference, and do so at maximum efficiency.

Except Bill the grocer gets undercut out of the market by General Foods and other multi-mega-corporate peanut butter manufacturers, and Frank's farm was taken over by the bank because agribusiness kept him out of the market. So Joe has his sandwich, but won't give his change to Bill and Frank, who are out begging by his house, because they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

I'll be charitable and say that their intelligent design definition is pretty sound in calling it "an irrational religious-backed campaign to reject the teachings of the Theory of Evolution." But the article discussing the theory of evolution is frankly hilarious, in that the more sane conservatives are ripping the true crazies apart.

This is the first entry I checked out to see what Conservapedia was like, and to see if it's really the quality source it claims to be. Sadly, it is not. What a terrible, unscientific, irrational, and ideological understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Conservatives should be ashamed to have this be a representation of Conservative understanding of scientific issues. Thoughtful conservatives who want the straight science of evolution need to look elsewhere. I won't be back.

There's too much information to counter in this entry, but let me just leave you with this: Dogs can't turn into cats? No, and modern squids won't turn into people, either. But we can look back at the evolutionary history and see where different species branched off from a common ancestor. Cats and dogs are closer to a common ancestor than people and squids are. That is, unless someone produces evidence that overturns our understanding. That would be pretty powerful evidence. Kind of like if someone discovered that there's really no gravity.

Conservapedia: now hated by liberals and conservatives! What unity!

Labels: ,