Comments and Articles
This site was a joint winner of an Encouragement Award in the 2009 Millenium Awards. The award citation read:
There is not enough humour in the world of irrational and uncritical thinking these days, so it was exceptionally pleasing to see not one but two sites which promise hours of fun. Both Conservapedia and CreationWiki are based on the wiki platform, thus ensuring enormous amusement as competing anonymous parties make changes, undo the changes, make the changes again, undo again and so on. The two sites should be encouraged to continue building their respective stores of nonsense and pseudoscience so that the world's supply of laughter can be continually replenished.
Should that be "CreationWacky"?
CreationWiki! Wow! (29/8/2009)
I was doing a link check this week and when I went looking for the content of a dead creationist site (that's a dead site, not a site about a dead creationist) I found something wonderful. I found the CreationWiki, self-described as the "Encyclopedia of Creation Science". I felt an immediate urge to jump in and edit the entry for "oxymoron" as soon as I saw the words "creation" and "science" together, but I thought I should wait until I was familiar with the project. (Perhaps they apply the Wikipedia rules, where apparently you can't edit anything unless you have edited something else before. Perhaps I misunderstand the policy, but that would be consistent with the policy that had a friend of mine almost banned from editing because he was confining himself to matters where he actually had some expertise.)
I look forward to many useful hours spent perusing the content of this warehouse of knowledge. You might think that this would be a waste of time, but consider this - I have just spent several hours reading Simon Singh's book Big Bang, a history of the science that led us to our current understanding of the state of the universe. I could have saved all of those hours if I had just read the CreationWiki entry for cosmic chronology, where I could find "Creation scientists study astronomical processes and attempt to explain stellar phenomena from the presupposition that celestial bodies were created by God. Most creationists also draw from religious texts (such as the Bible) for insight. The Bible dates the universe as having the same age as that of the Earth or just over 6000 years. There is indeed much evidence to support the contention that our solar system, galaxies and even the entirety of the universe is very young". So there, take that Hoyle and Hubble - you were both wrong!