User:Sid/Popularity of Evolution
So. If it's so awesome and great, there are surely sources that say "Hey, the Evolution article on Conservapedia is cool! Go check it out!"
This is my attempt to find some of these sources.
I did a simple Google search for Conservapedia Evolution and checked the results. It's a fairly good method of determining who points to it. Not complete, but I'm not aware of a less biased or more reliable method right now. Thus, my starting point has been this page. I'll only focus on articles that actually mention the Evolution article itself (and not, for example, the cp:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page with its references to evolution). Order of sections is based on the Google rank - first section here had the highest rank.
Feel free to comment on the Talk page.
Two links to comments for the entry "Conservapedia: 'Evolution has been largely discredited, though it is still taught in schools due to activist judges.'". Checking all comments shows:
I guess it is, conservapedia's article on Evolution is on the level of Uncyclopedia's. Doesn't quite reach the "depth" of Encyclopaedia Dramatica's take on the subject though...
is this some sort of elaborate joke? I mean yeah, I know conservatives have always existed in another reality, but to actually document it, isn't it, i dunno, kind of insane?
The site was obviously created by liberals to make cons look like idiots.
I particularly liked how the 'editors' note, on their 'Examples of Wikipedia Bias' page, that "Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does." They then proceed to explain on their 'Evolution' page that "Evolutionists simply ignore reality, slink into denial and walk away when presented with the scientific facts."
Yep, that's exactly how a "true encyclopedia" would phrase it.
Best laugh I've had in WEEKS. Awesome post.
It should be noted that Reddit's results rank higher than the Conservapedia entry for Evolution.
Mentioned in the news these days is Conservapedia, a wiki written by “conservative christians”. In a nutshell, scientific concepts such as evolution are rewritten at religious leisure to be more fitting for people of faith.
On Conservapedia, “Evolution” redirects to “Theory of Evolution” and, among other things state:
"that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age"
If it wasn’t for the fact that some people believe this insanity, I’d get a good laugh out of this.
In "Conservapedia…!?", we read:
Let’s take a look at the topic that is dear to this blog, evolution. At the time of writing this post, the article starts off with three paragraphs introducing what evolution is. Immediately after this, the conservative Christian value takes over. The rest of the article shows selected quotes and grossly one-sided content implying the invalidity of the theory. Absolutely no details are given, no science presented. Not even a word of “gene” is mentioned. This smells like your typical creationist way of arguing.
This blog has its own Conservapedia keyword, and looking through the articles leads to "New 'Conservapedia' Already Breaking It's Own Commandments"
The Conservapedia entry for Evolution is three paragraphs long with one reference to Creationism, an entry that beats the Conservapedia entries for both Evolution and Intelligent Design in content, external links, footnotes, and linked subjects contained within the entry.
The Wikipedia entry for Evolution, again, is simply extensive. There is too much information in that one entry to post here but furthermore, this post isn't about evolution. It's about content, resources, and information. Go follow the links and see which site is more informative.
In the comment section of "Conservapedia"
Anyone see the page on evolution?
Funny how these people only express interest in science when it seems to refute another, relatively more controversial scientific maxim. Case in point- the claim in the article above that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Obviously these people don’t know how to define a closed system… absolutely hilarious.
A comment for "Evolution of Mammals Re-evaluated" comes with a link to the Evolution article and:
The Theory of evolution is a materialist explanation of the history of life on earth. Despite being the scientific standard, in the United States, there are a significant number of lay people who do not accept evolution. According to a CBS poll, only 13% of American adults believe humans evolved without divine guidance.
A CBS survey said there's no evolution! If 87% of people say there's no evolution then this article is a sham sir!
James Randi Educational Foundation Forum
The thread "The Conservapedia on Evolution" links to Evolution in the opening post and says:
Not sure if anyone has seen this but apparently the Conservapedia wants to be the Fox News of wikipedias. The entry on Evolution is fairly entertaining, it claims abiogensis as part of the theory of evolution and that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Wikipedia: Evolution has left numerous signs of the histories of different species. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.
Conservapedia: The current scientific community consensus is no guarantee of truth. The history of science shows many examples where the scientific community consensus was in error or currently has little or no empirical basis.
From the entry for Conservapedia:
Similarly, their page listing complaints about Wikipedia mentions their "bias" towards the Theory of Evolution (another case of the facts having that pesky liberal bias!) — when their own page on the subject is nothing but an anti-evolution screed the likes you'll find in any creationist manifesto, starting with an outright lie: the first section is entitled "Lack of Any Credible Transitional Forms".
In this forum entry:
Evolutionary Position and the Field of Biology
Evolutionists have no real evidence that macroevolution occurs and there is no consensus on how it allegedly occurs as can be seen below:
"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11 
"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." (Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14). 
These were the first two results pages on Google. The number of positive comments about the evolution article is ZERO.
I'll take "Things that make you go Hmmmm..." for 800, Alex.