Comments on: The science of Confusapedia http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/ the art of biology & the biology of art Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:02:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Daniel Brandt, Confusapedia and the best essay on Wikipedia « ScienceRoll http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/#comment-1777 Daniel Brandt, Confusapedia and the best essay on Wikipedia « ScienceRoll Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:16:41 +0000 http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/#comment-1777 [...] The science of Confusapedia (bioephemera.com): The science entries on Conservapedia are easy targets - finding mistakes is like shooting fish in a barrel. [...] […] The science of Confusapedia (bioephemera.com): The science entries on Conservapedia are easy targets - finding mistakes is like shooting fish in a barrel. […]

]]> By: cicada http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/#comment-1617 cicada Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:41:19 +0000 http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/#comment-1617 Uh-oh. Am I giving Conservapedia publicity? :) Uh-oh. Am I giving Conservapedia publicity? :)

]]> By: Sciencesque http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/#comment-1616 Sciencesque Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:04:02 +0000 http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/#comment-1616 You are absolutely spot on: those plain, factual entries are the most dangerous. Using the language of science is a purposeful choice by the neo-Creationist in order to mount a popular assault on evolution and natural selection. To the average person, they no longer sound like the raving lunatics they are. And, for the record, I'd never heard of the Conservapedia either. You are absolutely spot on: those plain, factual entries are the most dangerous. Using the language of science is a purposeful choice by the neo-Creationist in order to mount a popular assault on evolution and natural selection. To the average person, they no longer sound like the raving lunatics they are.

And, for the record, I’d never heard of the Conservapedia either.

]]> By: rhett http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/#comment-1597 rhett Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:44:12 +0000 http://bioephemera.com/2007/02/27/the-science-of-confusapedia/#comment-1597 I never even heard of conservapedia until I read this post. Too bad it isn't working for me to see for myself! I never even heard of conservapedia until I read this post. Too bad it isn’t working for me to see for myself!

]]>