THEY NEED AN ENTRY FOR "PSEUDOSCIENCE"

Here is an ironclad law of life in the contemporary political climate: whenever something advertises itself as "the conservative alternative to XYZ" you can rest fully assured that it is going to be hilariously awful. For example, conservative punk or The Half-Hour News Hour. See also: Conservapedia, which proclaims itself as "A conservative encyclopedia you can trust."

Apparently there is no entry for "tautology" or "irony." It's both overtly politically biased and completely trustworthy. Amazing.

This site exists to counter Wikipedia, "which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses." Read their hilariously thorough list of examples of bias on Wikipedia, such as "The entry for the Renaissance refuses to give enough credit to Christianity." Um….

Seems harmless enough up to this point. Typical bunch of backward idiots running a site (probably hosted by the AEI) no one reads with about 5,000 entries to Wikipedia's 2 million. But wait. The plot thickens.

unicorn_site_photo.jpg
Not pictured: Nobel Prize winning Creation Scientist Fred Phelps

Apparently the site is based very heavily on the kind of "Bible-based science" that keeps places like Bob Jones University from getting accreditation. Rather than continue to explain what I mean, let me simply quote the Conservapedia entry for "unicorn":

"The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times, which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence."

Impressive. But they do recognize that unicorn existence is controversial. How can they be so sure that they're correct? There's no scientific proof, is there?

"One recognized theory is that the unicorn was actually the rhinoceros, however a growing number of Creation researchers are theorizing that the unicorn was actually a member of the ceratopsian baramin."

Ah, I was wrong. "Creation researchers" are hard at work on the case of the unicorn. Science has indeed shown us the way. What can they tell us about Unicorns aside from the fact that they existed? Sadly, quite little.

"Post-Noachian references to unicorns have led some researchers to argue that unicorns are still alive today. At the very least, it is likely that they were taken aboard the Ark prior to the Great Flood."

Well at least we know that much. Read the whole comedy here.

Two things immediately spring to mind. First, you'd practically have to be missing a chromosome or two to make a site with information that is actually less reliable and more inaccurate than Wikipedia. Yet somehow the religious far-right has done just that. Second, Ringling Brothers circus, in one of the most scarring experiences of my childhood, already proved the existence of the unicorn to millions of children by surgically attaching a horn to the middle of a goat's forehead (pictured above). Even at five years old I knew something wasn't quite right with that unicorn.

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “THEY NEED AN ENTRY FOR "PSEUDOSCIENCE"”

  1. Scott Says:

    Wait, does this mean that the existence of penguins is controversial, because they aren't mentioned in the Bible?

    Clearly, "penguins" are a mental illness that's shared by all secular-progressives. Honest, god-fearing conservatives know the truth…

  2. Mike Says:

    "Post-Noachian."

  3. Ed Says:

    Yes, "post-noachian." That sure does sound all scientumific!

  4. Jake Says:

    With those giant pointy horns, I bet unicorns have a hard time using public drinking fountains.

    Which means they weren't very intelligently designed.

  5. Jeremy Says:

    Isn't that unicorn's horn a sex toy?

  6. Samantha Says:

    Only if it vibrates at just the right frequency. Now THAT would be intelligent design.

  7. KenW Says:

    Intelligent Design.

    How intelligent is it to design a sewage disposal system to run through a recreational area?