Why is the right so anti-science?

I can't help but notice that righties love engineering and technology and probably use (squander) those things as much as and more so than lefties.

This is Conservapedia which does not shy away from criticizing science, all within the imagination of those who create the entries.

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from a self-described American conservative and Christian point of view.

The website was started in 2006 by homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[3][4] to counter what he called the liberal bias of Wikipedia.[5][6] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content.

Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include: accusations against and strong criticism of US President Barack Obama, strong criticism of the Democratic Party, criticism of evolution, criticism of a wide array of alleged liberal ideologies, criticism of Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias, criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[7] claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, praise of a number of Republican politicians, praise of celebrities and artistic works that it views as "conservative" and/or promoting moral standards in line with Christian family values, and asserting that the goals of a so-called homosexual agenda include indoctrination.

Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced translation of the Bible which Conservapedia claims will be "free of corruption by liberal untruths".[8]

The site has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from notable political figures, including commentators and journalists,[9][10] and has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies.[11][12][13]



History and overview


Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard- and Princeton-educated attorney and a homeschool teacher.[4] He started the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.[14]

Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast," as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[9] Schlafly expressed hope that Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Wikipedia.[5][11][15]


The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum organization, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[6][16][17] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[17]


Running on MediaWiki software,[3][6] the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22.[5][6][15] By January 2012, Conservapedia contained over 38,000 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[18]

Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[19] The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion and politics.[20] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages.[11][21] It was, at one point, the most-viewed page on the site.[22

Editorial viewpoints and policies

Conservapedia has editorial policies designed to prevent vandalism and what Schlafly sees as liberal bias. According to The Australian, although the site's operators claim that the site "strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts, which often back up conservative ideas more than liberal ones", on Conservapedia "arguments are often circular" and "contradictions, self-serving rationalizations and hypocrisies abound." [23]