Comments on: Conservapedia & Distrust of Science: When You Needn’t Win the War to Make the Point

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:50:10 +0000

Yes, I tend to agree so far. Answers in Genesis certainly aren’t picking it up. It makes me wonder if even other creationists like Andy…

By: Argon

Argon — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:53:41 +0000

Other creationist organizations have responded with the expected three canards: ‘it’s just microevolution: they’re still E. coli’, ‘it’s simply a matter of expressing previously encoded information’, or finally, ‘those mutations are damaging the normal function of a protein and losing information’.

The buzz at Uncommon Descent generally agrees that Schlalfly is off on his own. AFAIK, there is zero pickup on the ‘fraud’ line of attack.

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:31:50 +0000

I do mostly agree with that assessment. On the one hand, it only needs one “good” creationism promoter to pick up the meme and run with it to start creating problems.

On the other hand though, as you allude to, Conservapedia is the most ridiculously inefficient public relations tool in all of Christendom. Andy spends so much time keeping his fellow nutters in line that he’s not actually promoting his ideas at all. I wonder if there’s a single other creationist site linking to his Lenski remarks at the moment.

You wonder if the sheer impotence of Conservapedia in this instance might lead Andy to lose interest in the site? That said, I don’t think any of them realize how poor their viewing figures actually are.