On The Conclusions of Objectivity

After searching long and hard for the most egregious distortion of facts on Conservapedia—the last refuge for those unhappy with the academic version of history, and whom search only for “truth”—there seemed to be one article that stood above the rest as a monument to human misunderstanding, and a paragon of desperation. That article was on the subject of evolution.

One might think that given the nature of the site (an encyclopedia purportedly documenting reality), long winded diatribes, and counter arguments would be deemed inappropriate and unacceptable—as they obviously work towards undermining the perception of a topic, and not towards creating the definition. This type of dialogue does not convey anything but bias by virtue of its nature! And this is the type of dialogue that one can expect from any politically charged topic (see abortion, once we are finished here) on the web site.

In addition to the false premise of Conservapedia (that all articles share), the fundamental problem with the article associated with evolution, is that it functions solely to progress the agenda of the Intelligent Design movement in convincing people that Creationism, and tangential disciplines, are science. Science is the antithesis of religion: it is not dogmatic and it is not sacrosanct. Theories can be changed. Scripture cannot (unless the religion is still breathing).

How is Intelligent Design scrutable? It isn't, and that is why it is not science, and why it should never be muttered in the same breath as Darwin’s theory (do you hear that Ben Stein?). Nobody said Darwin has it perfectly correct, we just said he has the best supported argument in the confines of the Scientific Method at this time. And even still, the theory does not preclude the existence of a God (yes, that is true, and they can and should coexist)!

Have your cake and eat it too, or just stop masquerading as science and truth!