It has been a while since I last posted. Much has happened in my life in that time. But today, I am not going to talk about me...I just have to get something off my chest: Conservapedia.

I saw a mention of it, and I thought that I would see just how accurate it was, especially since in its own icon it says, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." To compare it, I needed another online encyclopedia; for this I used Wikipedia, although not the best....it is a benchmark. So being a scientist, I started with something controversial...something that I would expect to see the most differences; for this I chose 'Evolution.' My assumption was correct, the differences were vast.

First, lets see an excerpt from Wikipedia: "In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."

From Conservapedia: "Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: 'a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.'"

Wait, so an an encyclopedia you have to cite the dictionary? WTF? The beginning of the Conservapedia article sounds like the beginning of a high school graduation speach. Well, maybe there is something that is better down the page...

Conservapedia: "The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the many flaws in the theory of evolution.[10]" That little link at the end of the line is not linking to a scientific journal or any sort of publication, instead it is a link to the homepage of a man's personal page. He has a degree in Biology, although he does not say which one...and only passed with a C average. Does he have any publications? No, but he does have a blog on Creationism. Hardly a qualified poster in the evolution page.

The whole Conservapedia seems to be royally fucked on the information side as it is covered in asides and unnecessary political view points.

Sad. Just sad that this is what we have come to; mis-information to settle the masses.