Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 2987 on March 14, 2007 02:15 PM.
Trackback URL:

How does Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly respond when asked on NPR about the poor quality of its entries?

Carl Zimmer has transcribed the response.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of See our full disclaimer.

Comment #165453

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on March 14, 2007 3:54 PM (e)

Is the man’s name “Schlalfly” or “Schlafly” (both spellings appear in the Loom article) and is he related to Phyllis?

Comment #165455

Posted by mplavcan on March 14, 2007 3:58 PM (e)

We thought it was a joke at first. Got a lot of laughs. But it isn’t. The evolution entries are a hoot, but for REAL scary reading try typing in Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and other “founding fathers.” Further proof that “truth” to these folks stems from ideology. If the DI and AiG get their way, maybe ALL high school texts could be this good!

Comment #165458

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 14, 2007 4:17 PM (e)

He is Phyllis’s son.

Comment #165475

Posted by Peter Henderson on March 14, 2007 6:08 PM (e)

This immediately springs to mind:…

If you search AiG’s media section I think the original is in one of the “Answers with Ken Ham” series. It usually reappears every so often on the front page of their website.

Comment #165500

Posted by Adam Ierymenko on March 14, 2007 9:28 PM (e)

Conservatives remind me more and more of Soviet apparatchiks…

Conservapedia: presenting the official Party Doctrine™!

Comment #165502

Posted by Glen Davidson on March 14, 2007 9:36 PM (e)

Schlafly replied: “…it reflects Conservapedia’s willingness to present topics and treatments of subject that is embraced by many conservatives and many members of the American public.” (transcription mine)

I think the point is conservatism, and conservatism alone. Conservapedia’s readers want to be told that their prior beliefs are right, Schlafly tells them that they’re right.

Or maybe it’s liberalism, I don’t know any more. Is it liberal or conservative to have the right to be right no matter how wrong you are? Call it fat bourgeois laziness, and can the political labels, I say.

Glen D

Comment #165544

Posted by Vyoma on March 15, 2007 4:46 AM (e)

When did the words “conservative” and “ignorant” become synonyms? It’s one thing to disagree about politics and economic and social theories, quite another to allow for “alternatives” about hard science that have no similarity to reality at all.

If I were a conservative American, I’d be appalled by this sort of garbage on Conservapedia. No, let me rephrase that… I am an American, and I’m appalled by this sort of garbage on Conservapedia.

Comment #165553

Posted by Popper's Ghost on March 15, 2007 6:34 AM (e)

When did the words “conservative” and “ignorant” become synonyms?

It goes back at least to 1843.

Comment #165614

Posted by Mr_Christopher on March 15, 2007 2:27 PM (e)

Read the conservapedia article about dinosaurs to get a real belly laugh. Too bad they removed the picture that had Jesus sitting with brontosauruses and even had a baby one in his lap (much like the pictures we see where he is holding a lamb in his lap).

I am not kidding.

Comment #165615

Posted by Raging Bee on March 15, 2007 2:54 PM (e)

So now they’re using tales of the Loch Ness Monster and the like to “prove” that dinosaurs and humans lived together? These people get more pathetic every day.

The “references” are a hoot too: the Bible, and Web sites that quote the Bible.

Comment #165616

Posted by Richard Simons on March 15, 2007 3:24 PM (e)

From Conservapaedia

The frog is a marine amphibian that hops. Some science classes dissect frogs, which is cruel to the animals involved. Voltaire did experiments on frogs circa 1766, in which he discovered that frogs hear with their legs. Also, a leg will kick if it is hit with an electrical shock, which is the scientific basis behind the reflex tests now common in doctors’ offices. Thus frogs contributed to our knowledge of God’s natural world.

“Frogs” is also a derogatory name for the French, because they eat frogs’ legs.

I wonder who is the naughty person who wrote this!

Comment #165627

Posted by Aryaman Shalizi on March 15, 2007 6:27 PM (e)

Look, we all know reality has a well-known liberal bias, right? ;)

Trackback: Conservapedia unapologetic

Posted by I Wish I Knew on March 15, 2007 3:55 AM

The founder of conservapedia was challanged on the blatant nonsense in the entry on Kangaroos Carl Zimmer transcribed his response Linked from The Panda's Thumb....