Comments on: Sources, sources

By: David

David — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:21:38 +0000

Check out my entry on Nylon-eating bacteria: http://www.conservapedia.com/Nylon-eating_bacteria

By: djlactin

djlactin — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:11:22 +0000

Mr Pantazi:

You are falling for a ruse that has been drilled into your brain since you were too young to question it: ” the argument from authority.” you have been conditioned since childhodd to accept the pronouncements of people who are bigger than you. So without questioning, you argue: “Wile is educated; therefore he is correct.”
Confused? Well. I’m a trained evolutionary biologist. I say that Wile is wrong. What do you reply?

By: Meade

Meade — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:06:53 +0000

I agree with Mr. Pantazi that everyone is entitled to his opinion/beliefs, just not his own facts. In reviewing Dr. Wile’s credentials, as presented by Mr. Pantazi, I note that he is not a biologist, and so have no basis for believing that his insights into one of the central tenets of biology are more valid than those of a lawyer, say. Outside of one’s areas of expertise, everyone is a layman. For example, I have a Ph.D. in microbiology, but don’t feel I have the expertise to address the technical merits of string theory. If authoritative pronouncements from people without relevant credentials count, I guess every barber and taxi driver with an opinion to share sould be considered and expert in economics, or foreign policy, or…..

By: Andrew Travis Pantazi

Andrew Travis Pantazi — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:09:15 +0000

Mr. Zimmer, I respect the fact that you are willing to research both sides of the story by looking at conservapedia and I generally have a respect for people who take a career in science. However, I am a Christian, conservative, home-schooled student who studies Wile’s books and I don’t think that it is right for you to insult someone just because you disagree with him on his beliefs. Macroevolution is classified as an unconfirmed hypothesis, Dr. Wile feels that more evidence leads him to believe that scientifically the idea of an intelligent design is more secure. I also remind you that Dr. Wile received an ovation stating he was an outstanding teacher at the University of Chicago. Other positive accomplishments include:
Ph.D. in nuclear chemistry from the University of Rochester in New York
B.S. in chemistry from the University of Rochester in New York
He is a former assistant professor of chemistry at Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana (1992-95)
He is a former instructor of science at Indiana Academy of Science, Muncie, Indiana (1990-92)
He is a member of the American Chemical Society
He is a member of the American Physical Society
He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
I am not trying to convince you to agree with his beliefs but to at least respect that he is a prestigious and accomplished scientist, not just a radical conservative who tried to put text books together without any knowledge.

Thank you for your time,
Andrew Travis Pantazi

By: Nathan James

Nathan James — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:23:59 +0000

While I was home-schooled I was forced to explore Creation with general science, a truly horrifying experience. The text is written and organized in a sloppy and unprofessional manner, the experiments were generally lame and uneducational, every few pages were punctuated with paragraph-long digressions about God’s glory — all pretty much standard fare for a creationist textbook. But Wile went seriously beyond the call of duty with a laughably ignorant “refutation” of global warming that, I believe, relied on the argument that, if one were to turn the thermostat up only a couple of degrees, one would have difficulty feeling the difference.

Just to reiterate, Exploring Creation with General Science is supposed to be a SEVENTH GRADE textbook (according to http://www.highschoolscience.com/books/ecgs/index.html — notice the arrogant jab at public school textbooks!) Could this mean that Conservapedia’s science pages are largely being edited by seventh graders?

By: Marlene

Marlene — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:42:48 +0000

Is there anyone who can recommend a good book about the history of the “evolutionist-creationist-conflict” up until now?

By: Carl Zimmer

Carl Zimmer — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:40:38 +0000

Michael, what do you mean by “worse,” in the context of my example? And how do they do it more maliciously? If you’re going to make accusations, you need to give examples.

By: Michael Hopkins

Michael Hopkins — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 01:49:34 +0000

Many Wikipedia editors do worse than this, and they do it more maliciously.

By: RandomWitticism

RandomWitticism — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:39:24 +0000

You can’t create a user account on conservapedia! I checked the log/create account link, the help topic for creating accounts and some other stuff, only thing I could find was a small blurb saying email the eagle forum to have them create and account for you

By: Jeremiadist

Jeremiadist — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:42:08 +0000

It should be clear to the attentive reader that LOrDsSeRvAnT is a troll. Poe's Law (see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's+Law )always wins.

By: djlactin

djlactin — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:31:34 +0000

“If there really is anything to this reincarnation thing, in my next life I want to come back as a tapeworm, because, man this is where I take it easy!” — Jack Handey

By: apeneck

apeneck — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 23:39:39 +0000

I count myself as more conservative than just about anybody on earth. I’m also a die-hard evilutionist, and an atheist as well. We’re not all like those clowns.

By: Henry Gee

Henry Gee — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:31:38 +0000

Heck, I was right after all — Jesus DOES want me for a tapeworm, miserable sinner that I am.

By: migg

migg — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:48:20 +0000

Scott Belyea – how can you say Those Folks don’t write about parasites? Check the full history of the entry. First version was: “An organism that feeds on a living host” and reference of course Wile, Dr. Jay L. ”Exploring Creation With Biology” Apologia Educational Ministries, only somebody changed it saying that that definition was wrong

By: outeast

outeast — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:39:27 +0000

Hmm. In the shop where I bought PRex it was shelved sandwiched between Deepak Chopra books; now it’s sharing virtual shelfspace with ECwB… I sense a pattern emerging…

By: Marlene S. J.

Marlene S. J. — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:24:37 +0000

“The Bible Indicates That Humans and Dinosaurs Lived Together. Is there any evidence for this? YES!”

Reminds me of a video on Youtube I saw, with Dr. Kent Hovind, called “Creation Science Evangelism – Dinosaurs and the bible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPL1G__N1l0

Whats really scary isn’t actually his lame jokes, but how people react to the stuff he’s brainwashing them with.

By: Dave Carlson

Dave Carlson — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:55:21 +0000

Looks like it’s been changed back. I wonder how long that’ll last.

By: Dave Carlson

Dave Carlson — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:28:01 +0000

Hmmm. . .when I click the link what I get is, “A parasite is an organism that has become dependent on other life forms as a result of the fall. There were no such thing as parasites before the fall, it was only afterwards that they became numerous and now almost every non-parasitic animal on earth has parasites unique to them.”

The edit history reveals that somebody named LOrDsSeRvAnT (oh my!) changed the parasite page because “Zimmer is an evolutionist! you can’t trust that guy.”
How. . .unsurprising.

By: PZ Myers

PZ Myers — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:57:38 +0000

Oh, I don’t know…do you really want to be lumped in with the other sources they use?

By: J-Dog

J-Dog — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:56:50 +0000

You are probably the ONLY real science source they use! I say you got TOTAL bragging rights here at SciBlogs!

By: Scott Belyea

Scott Belyea — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:18:17 +0000

Nicely done. I was all ready for the thundering denunciation.

I guess Those Folks just don’t write about parasites. I also suspect they haven’t read “Evolution” or “At the Water’s Edge” in order to figure out what a godless evilutionist you really are deep down …