E=mc²? Einstein goes the way of Darwin: Conservapedia's war on Relativity.

Remove all ads!

Not content witch challenging and poking holes into the notorious Liberal Untruth™ that is the theory of evolution, the home schooling stalwarts of Conservapedia have tirelessly taken charge at another notorious Liberal Untruth™ - Einstein's theory of relativity.

Writes the New Scientist:

But then there comes the kicker:

Spoiler

You'll have to read the rest yourself

 

Hmm, this would be interesting, if my feeble mind could follow any of the linkages. Some of the comments seem, ironically, almost quantum in their leaps. Now, I'll accept that relativity is a pretty difficult concept to get my head around, but any attempts to link this theory to a liberal agenda seems somewhat loopy to me. Why do so many people seem to always be able to link everything back to these mysterious and evil "liberals"?

Curvature of space = abortion!!??

Hello? Science? Are you there? Science?

 

Well, according to our vice president Einstein was responsible for the theory of evolution so I'm not surprised the conservatives don't like his other theories.

 

I don't know why they hate Einstein so much. He provided the mathematical support for an expanding universe (thus, one with a beginning) at a time when all science assumed the universe was static and eternal.

Of course, he altered his math to accommodate the beliefs of the time, but that's just proof of the liberal scientific elite's conspiracy against the faith*!

*A note to those who may be confused: the first half of this is real, Einstein called his Cosmological Constant his greatest blunder. The second half is pure spoof. Don't worry.

EDIT:
Likewise with the Intelligent Design thread, why is this in AoLS? Shouldn't this be in AoDA?

 

Actually, I was thinking it belonged more in whatnots as the only thing political about it is an attempt to make some fringe conservatives seem more mainstream in order to demean all conservatives, IMHO of course.

 

Yes, if this is REALLY political, then USA politics is in some serious trouble.

 

Snook,
does that reach the level of a Liberal conspiracy? No worries though, I am well aware that these kooks are not mainstream, and I don't mean to imply that. Be a good sport.

Still, the folks at Conservapedia are what they are. Don't blame me for them calling their effort 'Conservapedia'. Indeed, reading the site one may get the idea that this is a Liberal spoof conceived to make Conservatives look silly. Alas, it is not.

Being tainted by Conservapedia's follies is an illustrative example for the perils involved in Republicans courting the religious right. Conservatives have been pushing home schooling for nearly three decades. And this is what they got? Was it worth it? It must have been clear from the start that home schooling was motivated by ideology, so it is entirely unsurprising to see ideological contents (think evolution, or now, opposition to Relativity Theory) in home schooling.

There is a reason why Islam stagnated ever since they rejected science in the late middle ages. Conservapedia promises the same for the US if it ever went mainstream. For very much these reasons I am very strongly in favour of mandatory school attendance and oppose home schooling - for Conservapedia's customers and fundamentalist Muslims alike (the two most common objectors in my country). Ideology in, ideology out.

Because he must have been a truth-twisting Liberal to write something as dangerously relativistic as ... no, to institutionalise Relativism ... as the Relativity Theory?

Just think of all the fascinating alternative interpretations that discounting Einstein allows: Think nuclear explosions - Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Obviously divine intervention (thesis: Too many gay pride parades?). The parallel to Sodom and Gomorrah is obvious!

Seriously, it sends a chill down my spine to imagine the extraordinary and unique world view that children home schooled by folks like Phyllis Schlafly bring with them. It takes a specially honed mind to span a bridge between Relativity Theory and an obviously metaphorical essay on the Harvard Law review and over to abortion and Obama - and to then reject Einstein based on that. Mind boggling.

And it belongs in AoLS because of it's kinship with the religio-political attack on Darwin. The whole silly tale it is part of the unique religio-political folklore blossoming on the fringes of the American Christian Right. Whenever I look to the Left I cannot find such entertaining and tantalising spectacle.

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Or maybe we have different definitions of 'mainstream'. On the one hand, you seem to admit that these guys are fringe kooks, but on the other hand you seem to present them as an accurate representation of the 'Conservatives pushing home schooling'. It isn't. Not even close.

But... he didn't. Relativity in physics was already well established, just not his kind of relativity. Velocity, perspective, all that stuff had been recognized as entirely relative for a long time before Einstein came along.

I disagree with this reasoning. There is a slim connection, but one can make a slim connection between almost anything and politics. The Iceland Volcano could be a political topic with that reasoning. And the fanatical atheists trying to (successfully for the time being) ban crosses on the roadside in Utah is clearly political by that reasoning.

Still, I suppose it's for the Mods to decide. I think one of the two groups of topics (this and your other thread here or my thread in AoDA) should be moved.

 

No, it is just another Ragusa conspiracy

I'm trying to be a good sport, but to me this is like posting about the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge (and this may be the only time on these boards that the word Rouge was used appropriately) and Pol Pot and implying this is what we can expect from Obama and the liberals.

Are there conservatives that are whack jobs, clearly there are and I would put the Westboro Baptists on the list of conservatives I would love to have disappear, but they are not what the majority of conservatives are about.

If conservapedia is anything like wikipedia then it can be edited by anyone. For all you or anyone know this article on Einstein is the opinion of one person and it is getting attention for the sole purpose of belittling many people, instead of just the person (or people) who posted the article.

Actually, maybe you are correct and it is a liberal conspiracy.

 

Snook,
the editors at Conservapedia vigorously crack down on trolls. And no, I don't know that first hand. I read that liberal trolls have complained how swiftly the heavy hand of Phyllis Schlafly bans them when they correct Conservapedia's errors, or even have 'liberal names'. It can only theoretically be edited by anyone; but the editors take care that ideological purity is maintained.

No contradiction. Conservatives push home schooling. Conservapedia was created to serve as a knowledge base with 'the right (i.e. religio-politically correct) content' for homes schoolers. The latter is a consequence of the former, and by endorsing home schooling Republicans have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that decision - that some parents are happy to give their children a religiously dominated education that is factually preposterous where science clashes with their reading of the Bible, and for example half-forgotten Harvard Law Review articles - as manifest in Conservapedia.

You didn't get it. First, it was a pun. Second, they read Einstein's Relativity Theory as leading to moral relativism, which is of course nonsense, but there is relativity mentioned in both names so I guess it is close enough.

 

This is BS logic, Ragusa. It's like saying that, by voting for Obama, the liberals have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that decision: i.e. all the death threats against him. Conservipedia may pander to a far-right extreme of the home-schooling movement, but I have yet to see any evidence that it is 'mainstream'.

No, I got it, I was just commenting that he didn't start it. Sorry, I was trying to make a joke off the pun, but I guess it didn't work.

 

Sorry NOG - I'd buy that if I saw more conservative politicos say that creationism in school is BS and that scientifically flawed but religio-politically correct home schooling content as on Conservapedia is BS, or that there is a separation of church and state in the US. But I don't see, read or hear that nearly as often enough to consider it a trend or even a strong current. You hear healthy scepticism about that lack of distance perhaps from David Frum, and some old Conservative wise guys, but that's about it.

What I do see however, is unabashed and uncritical pandering to the Christian Right, and that isn't good for either America or the Republican party. The next time Pat Robertson says some BS again along the lines that New Orleans had Katrina coming because of Teh Gays - conservatives will be either mute - or endorse him.

 

Of course, it was only natural. The crusaders against moral relativism had to take on the arch-relativist sooner or later

 

So I guess keeping people out of work and on welfare is a mainstream liberal position, since liberal politicians aren't constantly stumping on it? No, Ragusa. Silence on the issue (that being by far the most common position) isn't tacit support. Creationism vs Evolution is a political hornet's nest, and anyone who doesn't benefit by sticking their nose into it won't. I expect you to understand at least that much about politics.

 

Let's assume there a lot of people who hold rabidly atheist (exchange as needed: Muslim, Communist, Anti-Semitic ...) beliefs, and who would get vocally upset and make a great ruckus if anyone challenged those beliefs - under your rationale politicians could be forgiven to not address it because it is too troublesome?

And I don't say that silence is tacit endorsement. My point was merely that it is still co-causal. That is a flat statement, not an accusation. The silent folks enable excess of their partisan peers through silence. I recall that you disagree with the real nutters on the Christian Right. And considering your job you appear to be science friendly inclined. Reassuring, I say. But silence, while not an endorsement, will not change anything about the activist's excesses.

US 'politics weren't always that hornet's nest' (besides, what a platitude) as far as evolution, perhaps relativity theory and certainly separation of church or state are concerned. At some time the Christian Right decided to become politically active (again) and they entered politics and were at least from Reagan on wooed pretty much exclusively by the Republican party.

Who turned the issues of evolution, abortion or separation of Church and State into a hornet's nest? Those on the Republican party who endorsed the Christian Right as a reliable and loyal voter block - by turning and letting them turn their religious views into political hot button issues, to be used for electoral advantage.

Why do you think the Republican party started using issues like abortion, gay marriage, home schooling or stem cell research in their electoral politics? Or why they pounced on the Terry Shiavo case? Certainly not because they are wooing an electorate of agnostic libertarians.

Heck, in Dover, where the Republican Evangelicals on the school board went on their anti-Darwinism rampage, the more science minded conservatives in town who were appalled about their conduct and wanted to kick them out of office needed to run as Democrats because they could not secure the Republican nomination because of the Christian Right wing in the party.

 

Yes. That would be decidedly politics as usual. In fact, I'd even expect politicians, when directly asked, to issue the same kinds of non-denials and non-comments they issue today for other things. Like gun rights. And gay marriage. And global warming. And war/supporting the troops.

Honestly, neither will speaking out against them. It will just cost the politician their votes. It isn't the politician's job to change their minds, anyway.

One, I think you wanted to open the quote in front of 'hornet', not 'politics'. I'll be responding to this that way, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Two, how is that a platitude? It's a metaphor, and a pretty common one for any issue that is likely to get people into trouble no matter how they handle it. Three, evolution has been a 'hornet's nest' since Darwin published On the Origin of Species. It became political almost immediately, in the US and outside of it. Relativity isn't a hornet's nest for anyone but these kooks. For a politician to say he believes in the Theory of Evolution will likely loose him exactly three votes nation-wide, while gaining him none. Separation of Church and State has been, perhaps not a hornet's nest, but a touchy topic nonetheless, for well over a century. Remember, there were issues with it way back when Utah wanted to become a state.

I thought Reagan and his ilk pretty much invented the Christian Right (not the active political Christian, mind you, but the organized grouping of conservative Christians in the United States)? Since then, when have they been inactive?

You can just as easily blame the Left as the Right for this. It takes two to tango, after all, and it was the Left that struck the first blows (at least on evolution and abortion). These things were never commonly accepted in American society until the Left sought to make them so.

I'm not arguing the Republicans don't pander to the Right. They have since Reagan, and for good reason. I'm arguing that, even among the Christian Right, the likes of Conservipedia and the Creation Museum are extreme. Just like Code Pink and the Sea Shepherd Organization are extreme among the Left.

 

That last sentence sums up what I object to in your last several posts. Somewhat amusingly in the context of this thread, my problem is with it's relativism (no pun).

So Conservapedia, the right fringe and code pink and the left fringe are equivalent? I rather they are not.

Code Pink runs around calling for peace, with pink t-shirts, and call Bush a criminal (they have a point). How crass and extreme! You apparently don't like them, fair enough, but that's fringe? Or take the lefty activists of the ACLU: For instance, they sue the government to stop extra judicial killings. Rrrrradical?!

And there is no argument that Conservapedia not representative of the Christian right proper. But they are there, intensely hilarious. But there is a deeper point, beyond Conservapedia's quixotic war on Einstein:

Spoiler

​

Ever seen a code pink person at a protest with an assault rifle? Or a lefty threatening to secede and to form an armed militia? Bush didn't experience a spike in death threats from what you call the left fringe. Obama did get that from the right.

Spoiler

​

Or folksy stuff like this:

​

By rule of thumb the US right is more aggressive, especially when Democrats are in power.

It is simply apologetic to say that the left and the right fringe are comparable, they're fringe after all. Your label 'fringe' is all they have in common. Code pink certainly lacks the violent attitude that made Scott Roeder kill Dr. Tiller. Or the attitude that brought that loon with the assault rifle to that town hall meeting.

The point is not that both are fringe, but that one fringe at times gets people killed, whereas the other are a bunch of peace loving, tree hugging hippies (strictly stereotyping, mind you, but it is aimed on helping to get my point across).

You compare a snappish little yapper and a snappish, mean spirited pitbull and find they're both dogs after all, and thus equivalent. Odds are you'll only appreciate the relative difference when both bite you in the arse.

 

They're both extreme fringe, but in different ways. Conservipedia is extreme in their beliefs, but not so much in their methods. They made a website. Big friggin' deal. Code Pink is rather ordinary in their beliefs (anti-war), but much more radical in their methods. They didn't just make a website people can choose to visit if they so desire. They protest in the streets, in front of businesses, during speeches, and in town hall meetings (I seem to recall). And then there's Sea Shepherd. Their beliefs aren't that mainstream, but not that radical, either. Their methods, on the other hand, are downright criminal.

Just for the record, you called the ACLU 'lefty radicals', not me.

Funny, because you seem to be trying really hard to portray them as that. I called you on this earlier and you gave a non-answer about it 'not being denied enough'.

Nah, second amendment rights are more of a conservative thing. The liberals tend to go for the first amendment. I think every liberal group I can think of protests, sometimes violently (see Sea Shepherd). And I don't know about a spike, but Bush definitely got his fair share of death threats, especially at the protests.

Now you're talking about an individual loon. I had avoided that because I know they're not representative of anything (not even fringes). Since you brought it up, though, I don't even have to look for one. Please, Ragusa, you're better than that. And, again, I see the left fringe as far more violent in fact than the right. The right talks a good talk, and occasionally shows some weapons, but the left assault people with animal blood, with bottles of acid, and even with vessels. The left breaks into people private property and steals their pets.

If you honestly believe that, you know nothing about the American left.

 

As someone who knows nothing about any of these death threats (either against Obama or Bush), I take three important points from that article, in relations to your statement, NOG:

(1) There have been some death threats against Bush;

(2) There have been a 400% increase in reported threats against Obama;

(3) The article makes no claims about who is making the death threats.

It really does little to counter the point that Ragusa was claiming.

A quick google of Obama Death Threats. The first three links that caught my eye (without scrolling down) gave me three known news sources that told of (a) white supremacists and (b) radical conservative bloggers sending death threats to Obama. Googling Bush Death Threats gave me links to (a) the page you linked; or (b) some blogs I've never heard of, that look nothing more than conservative soap boxes (the top two of which seemed to be copies of the site you linked, or vice versa.

 

Ragusa was implying that the left doesn't have people that issue death threats. That's just not true. Obama may have seen more (though I think that's as much because he's black as because he's a Democrat), but politicians on the right see it, too. In the last election (and some of it is being seen again), I heard of just as many attacks on McCain's local campaign offices as on Obama's.