Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

Independent Observations

 * 1) The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal."  Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
 * 2) The victim complex is alive and well.  For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
 * 3) Facts are fungible.  For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
 * 4) Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project.  Conservative's edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors.  However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles.  Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
 * 5) Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory.  Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed.  Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart.  This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science.  See also: Evobabble
 * 6) Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion."  For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court).  This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
 * 7) Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable.  They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science.  When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
 * 8) Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp.  Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as reparative therapy are no better.