In the age of the internet, it's possible to get information from a wide variety of sources. Unfortunately, in an environment of free speech and open dialogue, it's easy for bias, skewed, and irrational sources to propagate and spread irrational messages to gullible minds. In a previous post, I highlighted the importance of objectivity and the issues surrounding bias. The internet is ripe with instances of irrational bias that spew propaganda as if it were objective. One of the most egregious and overt examples is the website Conservapedia.

Conservapedia was founded in 2006 by Andy Schlafy, son of famed conservative activist Phyllis Schlafy. He modeled his site after Wikipedia, the most well-known online encyclopedia of it's kind, only he structured it with a clear conservative bias. They make the bold claim in their about page that all other sources have been corrupted by liberal bias. It is even overtly stated:

"No other encyclopedia resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths."

Immediately, the message is clear. Conservapedia is bias and appeals to conspiracy to convince vistors of it's message. It unapologetically denounces atheism, homosexuality, evolution, and champions Christianity as if it has any more authority than other faiths. It does so in a way that is so laughably and reprehensibly arrogant that it destroys any credibility it may have to real conservatism. Real conservatism is founded on individual freedom and liberty. But that seems to be lost on conservapedia as every entry is not only heavily edited, they're also completely frozen to prevent further tampering. This means that if an entry is every disproved, it can't be corrected. Wikipedia and reason aren't like that. And it shows in various areas.

Take for instance their atheism page. As of June 7 2008 they changed the page a total of 115 times, but after that date the page was locked to prevent further editing. On this page they make a huge link between atheism and evolution, which if anybody had done even the most basic of research would have found to be bogtus. Evolution isn't linked to atheism anymore than it's linked to Christianity. Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it makes absolutely no statement on the supernatural, including god. It can neither prove nor disprove any religion. Then there's the section that links atheism and mass murder. They will gladly point out the mass murders of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot as instances of atheism, but they don't even acknowledge that Christianity is also responsible for mass murder (which is completely untrue). The crusades, the inquisition, and the witch hunts have caused millions upon millions of deaths both directly and indirectly over the centuries. But do they mention this? Of course not.

Then there's the evolution page, which coincidently has a section on mass murder as well. Again, Conservapedia tries to link Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot to evolution as it does atheism. But again, they present no direct evidence to it. They even ignore the fact that Hitler was a Catholic and a creationist. All these despots despised evolution. They prefered the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a pre-cursor to Darwin who believed in the concept of acquired traits (ie a blacksmith developing a small arm in his lifetime passing that trait along to his son). They found this far more favorable because it supported their ideas of creating a new race to dominate those they deemed inferior, which has everything to do with racism and nothing to do with evolution. But Conservapedia doens't make this distinction. Why would they? It doesn't support their agenda to stand against liberals, atheists, and anybody who doesn't believe as they do. If anybody even did the most basic of fact checking, they would see how wrong their positions are.

Then there's the way they try to refute evolution. First they say it's a controversial theory in science. That's wrong. Over 95 percent of scientists accept it. Only about half the population in America accepts it, but that has no bearing on its validity. Nearly all those who reject evolution do so because they do not understand it or the scientific method. They do what Conservapedia does and accept pre-assumed conclusions. That cannot be done in science. Evidence must be followed to a conclusion. Then they say no clear transitional forms have been found. This is completely false. There have been countless transitional forms found documenting dinosaurs to bird evolution, primate to human evolution, and fish to tetrapod evolution. But Conservapedia doesn't give this any creedence. They brush it off only as 'microevolution' and not 'macroevolution,' two terms which are utterly arbitrary. They basically say it's possible to walk 20 feet, but not 20 miles.

Other sections involving abortion, homosexuality, liberalism, science, the enlightenment, the bible, history, Islam, poltics, feminism, media, and pretty much any other hot-button issue all share the same story. They are utterly skewed to push a conservative Christian viewpoint. They offer no counter arguments. They accept no criticism. Pages have been locked to disallow people from correcting mistakes or updating information. It is completley contrarian to true conservatism, which advocates free speech and individual liberty. But to them the only liberty that matters is the liberty they take to make their point.

What makes Conservapedia so egregeous is the overt nature in which it presents itself. The site is clear. It presents only information from the conservative Christian perspective. Yet it still presents itself as the 'true source' unbiased by liberalism. But it is propoganda, pure and simple. People who get their information there will only get a bias perspective and the danger of this is that it will only reinforce the views of like-minded people and make them even more closed off from dissenting opinions. It is a dangerous tactic in any society, skewing information to further reinforce stereotypes and bigotry.

In the end Conserapedia is not an expression of true conservatism. It is a perversion.