En Passant: Arguments for a Recent Creation

You know what I find somewhat amusing? The people over at Conservapedia have this page that lists a number of arguments that support a recent creation, i.e. within the last 10,000 years or so. Quite extensive, too. It’s obviously very well-researched. Full of crackpot theories, sure, but at least they’re well-researched crackpot theories.

But what strikes me as a bit odd is that while as of this writing, they’ve spend two weeks on it and been able to find no less than 38 different “scientific” arguments, they haven’t gotten around to writing even one under ‘Theological reasons’. Pardon me, but shouldn’t that sort of be the foundation for the whole thing? Biblical literalism and all that? You know, if you need a little help here, I’m always ready to lend my research skills for a very reasonable consultancy fee.

Well, anyway – keep up the good work, guys.

Oh, and needless to say, RationalWiki has an extensive refutation of the whole thing (or most of it – work in progress). We’re seeing a frank and open exchange of opinions here, ladies and gentlemen, and it’s great to see!

Column 13: 1934, Revisited

Ladies and gentlemen. A day has come, a day which we all knew had to come sooner or later. The page Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse has been locked, along with its Talk page. As of today, there is no official place on Conservapedia where users can publicly complain about misbehaviour on the part of Conservapedia Sysops. (As an aside, it will come as no surprise to see Sysop:TK acting as the locking sysop.)
This was a logical move. The administrative history of Conservapedia shows – as has been extensively covered in previous Columns – a long and consistent trend towards favoring the rights of Sysops and diminishing the rights of common editors. High points in this was the the establishment of the almost farcial Student Panel, the gradual introduction of the Guidelines, and of course the completely extralegal Nights of the Blunt Knives on May 16th and 17th. The locking of this page is simply the logical conclusion of this development.

Actually – and this may come as a surprise – I think this locking is a good thing. More or less everyone who has spent just a little time with Conservapedia will know that the Sysop Abuse page has always been a complete scam. No user has ever gotten anything out of posting complaints on that page; except for a quick boot to the backside, of course. At least now, the management has stopped its futile attempts to delude the editors and is saying straight out in the open: “You have no rights.” This is, strange as it may seem, a move towards transparency. RobS makes it quite clear in a comment on RationalWiki:

Wow. You finally figured that out. I thought it couldn’t be more plain [2]

Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks

This a guideline. It has received approval from senior staff and Mr. Schlafly. It is an adjunct to the Commandments.

• Sysop’s and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked. RobS 12:00, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

In other words: Sysops are infallible and incapable of misbehaviour, and their word is law. Thus, there is no possible reason why anyone would need to complain about any one of them.

Actually, this subject has already been discussed in a Column. As has pointed out back in Column 9: On Legitimate Authority, authority on Conservapedia has never been based on the legal rules. Rather, it is based in a shared charisma that originates with the leader, mr. Schlafly. Charismatic authority is almost by definition opposed to impersonal rules and the rule of law, so this whole development is all too natural.

I would suggest that Conservapedia continue this development by removing the rules pages and those silly Guidelines, and instead simply introduce a new rules page that says: “The only rules on Conservapedia is the Will of the Leader and the words of the Sysops. Conform or leave.” At that point, few people will be in doubt of exactly what is going on and that, at least, must be called a victory for transparency.

Good night, and good luck.

Column 12 (Special Fun Fact edition): Mocking Christ

Did you know…

…that the people who mocked Christ during the Passion were liberals? It’s true!

Liberals over-rely on mockery, and have done as long ago as their mockery of Jesus Christ. It’s easy to try to mock what one does not understand. The extent to which liberals are so senselessly self-amused is itself amusing to watch. In many cases, the liberals did not even realize that what they were mocking (e.g., Northwest Octopus entry) was a parody of themselves.–Aschlafly 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT) [Columnist's emphasis]

This admittedly, is a somewhat controversial statement, and sure enough, it did lead User:HardDisc to question the underlying assumption (which, incidentally, earned him a perma-ban):

[...]The Pharisees and Sadducees were extremely conservative. So were the Romans – nationalists if you ever saw one. Is this — *gasp* — a conservative falsehood, or an example of conservative deceit? –HardDisc 19:49, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

This led to a brief discussion on just who were the good guys conservatives in 1st century AD Jewish society, which ended with the following statement by mr. Schlafly:

Very interesting, Fox. Thank you. I might add that there is no evidence of the Pharisees or Sadducees mocking Jesus, which was the premise of the complaint by HardDisc above.–Aschlafly 18:20, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Whoa. Full stop. As we all know, mr. Schlafly is a man who takes his Bible very seriously. And I mean very seriously. With that in mind, can it really be the case that he does not know of Luke 22:63-65?

63 And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?
65 And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.

Or Luke 23:11?

11 And Herod with his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.

Not to mention Luke 23:35?

35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.

Or Mark 15:29-32?

29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days,
30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.
31 Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save.
32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

Admittedly, not all of these are clearly identified as Pharisees or Sadducees. However, given the prominent position of these groups in Jewish society at the time, some of them almost certainly are, especially rulers and chief priests mentioned in Luke 23:35 and Mark 15:31.

This raises a dilemma. Is it possible that biblical literalist like mr. Schlafly is unaware of key parts of the Gospels? Or is it possible that he would deliberately misrepresent Sacred Scripture in order to promote his own political agenda? Either seems unfathomable. This is a mystery to me.

However, all this still doesn’t really answer the question: Just who were the liberals who mocked Christ? Well, this whole Pharisees & Sadducees business has gotten me thoroughly confused, so let’s leave them out for the moment. Then the only people left would seem to be the Romans. Does that mean that the Romans were liberals?

Stop the press, I say.

EDIT: And good night, and good luck, of course.

Fun fact: Ad hominem

Did you know…

…that pointing out errors in a discussion opponent’s reasoning is the same as making an ad hominem attack? It’s true! Witness this recent discussion on Conservapedia’s Talk:Scientific Theory page:

I guess your confusion, RSchlafly, lies in the fact that you conflate the profession of a biologist who specializes in the study of evolution (an “evolutionist”) with all scientists who accept the Theory of Evolution as the unifying theory of all the life sciences, and make observations, perform experiments and publish their findings on that basis. Scientist studying the mutations of a flu virus, scientists studying a troop of baboons, and scientists classifying new plants discovered in the Amazon may all rely on the Theory of Evolution to predict and explain much of what they observe, but they are not evolutionists as defined by the dictionary. You, however, use the term to include any scientist who accepts the Theory of Evolution as fact. That is ann error. NitramNos 10:35, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Your ad hominem attacks are not relevant to the article. RSchlafly 10:41, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

I sure wish I knew how to debate as well as RSchlafly. Usually, I get bogged down in all sorts of things like counterarguments, pointing out logical fallacies, and finding ways to disprove the opponent’s arguments, but I can see that this other approach is clearly superior. Obviously, since I’m always right, to disagree with me is an ad hominem against me.

I’m glad to say that I think we have all learned something today.

Column 11: In the Gothic Style

On today’s main page at Conservapedia, we are instructed by mr. Schlafly that,

On this day, June 10, 1194, Gothic architecture was born as construction began on the Chartres Cathedral.

I’d like to take this opportunity to correct a few small mistakes here.

We shall leave aside, for the moment, the problematic question of whether it is possible to fix the “birth” of an entire architectural style (especially on as complex as the Gothic) at one particular point, much less on one specific date.

Let’s turn instead to the factual errors. Firstly, it is not correct that construction on the Chartres Cathedral was begun in 1194. Construction was actually begun as early as 1145, but most of the church constructed at that time burned down in 1194. However, the western end of the old church survived, and was incorporated into the new construction.
Further, even a bit of research would show that Chartres Cathedral is by no means the first example of Gothic architecture. That honor is usually awarded to the Saint-Denis Basilica in the prominent monastery of the same name just outside Paris. Construction of the Basilica was initiated by the equally prominent Abbot Suger in 1125. The Cathedral of Chartres is definitely one of the finest examples of Gothic architecture, but not the first one.

The question of Gothic architecture is a bit more complex than that, though. Obviously, Aboot Suger did not sit down one day and decide to found a new style of architecture. The Gothic style is made up of a number of elements whose heritage can usually be traced even further back in architectural history. For instance, Durham Cathedral from 1093, while still essentially a Romanesque building, has several architectural features that would later become part of the Gothic style, especially ribbed vaults. The now-destroyed 11th century third abbey church at the monastery of Cluny, usually known as Cluny III, may also have served as an influence on the Gothic style. And some elements, such as the ribbed vaults can be traced back to 10th century North Africa. This of course illustrates how little sense it makes to try to fix the beginning of any style at one particular day. Architecture simply doesn’t work like that.

In closing, one does wonder why Conservapedia didn’t use the occasion of the construction of the new Chartres Cathedral to highlight the history of this fascinating development, instead of just throwing out a completely incorrect bit on the main page. Although, granted, that would have required actual research and an understanding of the issues involved, and I understand there’s no time for such little details when one has a trustworthy encyclopedia to build. So I will be happy to offer my services to the Conservapedia management for research and consulting services in any medieval subjects necessary, in return for a very reasonable hourly fee. Feel free to contact me.

The rest of you, I wish you a good night, and good luck.

PS: Conservapedia: Please do something about Chartres Cathedral.

En Passant: Baraminology

I just took a break from the purgatory of report writing and came across this little gem of an article on Baraminology, which is probably overall the outright weirdest article I have ever read on Conservapedia. Just take this:

Neobaramin & Paleobaramin: A neobaramin is the living population of a given holobaramin, whereas a paleobaramin represents older forms of a given holobaramin. Neobaramins have undergone genetic degradation from their perfectly created forms (archaebaramin) and so may differ from their paleobaramins in notable ways. For example, the neobaramin of Humanity has a much shorter lifespan and greater prevalence of genetic diseases than the Human paleobaramin (e.g. Adam lived for 930 years^[3] and his children could interbreed without fear of deformity^[4]).

Uh-huh. And this:

Thus, organisms that are found to be continuous in a BCS potentiality region form a holobaramin or monobaramin (depending on if all organisms within the potentiality region are considered), whereas those that are discontinuous form a polybaramin or apobaramin (again, depending on completeness of the organisms considered).

What does that even mean? I don’t know, but I do know that it is something that desperately needs a refutation. Fortunately, I don’t have to write it (not that I’d have the time, anyway), because a mr. John Ponce was kind enough to write it for me way back in the 17th century:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities are not to be multiplied beyond what is necessary)

Get with the program, Conservapedia.

Anyway, back to the report writing. 13 days to go. Stay frosty, America!

Just a few questions

I found this amusing: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Hi

Poor MikeG didn’t seem to get much of a response to his questions – just a single one on his talk page so far – but I’d say it looks like he got his hands on some interesting data anyway.

Fun fact: Saint Jerome

Did you know…

…that the fact that Saint Jerome (ca. 340-419) was not baptized until around the age of 18 or 20 means that he was not raised as a Catholic? It’s true!

To a casual observer, it might seem like this is simply a case of a Sysop pretending to know something about religious history, without actually knowing what he’s talking about, and thus anachronistically applying modern attitudes to fourth-century Christianity. However, this is Conservapedia, and as we all know, it is never easy to predict which particular reality will prevail in the end. Maybe starting tomorrow, virtually dozens of homeschoolers will be learning about how one of the most important Church Fathers was actually not raised as a Catholic.

A part of this little exchange that I particularly like is the way Sysop TK completely and summarily dismisses a valid scholarly reference which was added only half an hour before making the revert. But of course he has the Epistle to Theophilius fully memorized, and has the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium standing on a shelf right next to the computer – right?

EDIT: This little misunderstanding has been cleared up now.

Update

Greetings to all and sundry! As you have probably noticed, updates and new columns have been scarce recently. I have an immensely important report deadline coming up in a few weeks, and, following my usual pattern, am ridiculously behind schedule on it. Fortunately, I work well under pressure, but it means that the update scarcity will continue for a little while yet.

However, when we return, it will be with many interesting new columns, including a return to our Weberian analyses of the Conservapedia power structure. In the meantime, why not head over to RationalWiki for all your Conservapedia-related needs?