There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Some off-the-top-of-my-head notes on things that should go in:
- transportation in the pacific NW vs. Center for (the renewal of) Science & Culture -- are both sides whacky, or the the latter?
- funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, for the transportation side. does that end up helping the whacky side too?
- the renaming of the CSC: what the 'renewal' bit really meant, and why it was changed/hidden
- the wedge document: what do their internal docs say their goals and plans are? how do those line up with their public statements?
- a list of all the scientific research they've done and/or sponsored (ha), vs a list of all the PR they've done: ie, they're a PR shop, not a science shop
- the various logos the CSC has used. If they're a non-religious org, and ID doesn't postulate a creator, why did they use the Finger of God creating Adam as their logo for so long? (side note, to maybe get into the Kitzmiller article -- if ID isn't religious, why was the school board defended by the Thomas More Legal Center?)
The Illustrious Ken DeMeyer
- It was just some stupid vandalism on my part. I "fixed" it, sorta. You can get rid of what I did if you want. --Edgerunner76 15:00, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- Why doesn't ole'Ken hit up the Discovery Institute? He could be making big money for doing the whacky ranting that he's now doing for free. Come to think of it, that in-the-closet status might be a sticking point for joining the Discovery Institute. --Edgerunner76 15:10, 5 November 2007 (EST)
I love this. They coin this term to reduce belief in evolution to the same "level" as belief in religion. What exactly are they saying? It seems to me that they already consider religion lower than science. --Edgerunner76 15:02, 5 November 2007 (EST)
- I think their "point" is to first call it a "belief system", like a religion is, and then to cast it as a "false religion". human 16:10, 5 November 2007 (EST)
This topic is one that should be a cover article for us. as much effort and time as we put into CP, no one gives a crap about CP in the "real world". they do however care about DI. what do we need to do to get this to a Silver status and eventually a highlighted cover status? GodotGrow a vagina 02:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- We need stome stuff on EN&V for one, and some introductory sections to their activites that we have articles on. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- IS IRC a better focus for a cover article? I really am not up on who is the "in" anymore. things like Bananna article are now "passe", but i'm not sure who's being quoted, cited to, etc. GodotGrow a vagina 02:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
pissed at us category
I get why they might hate us, but the article doesn't give any hint as to what they might have done or said to suggest the category. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Darwin's Poisoned Tree
It seems like a new (?) strategy is to claim that evolution is tied to antireligion activism: Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)