“Impartial” Encyclopedia Validates Intelligent Design!

ID creationism--for retards only

I’ve fallen behind in my abuse of crackpot creationist club Access Research Network. That’s easy to do. They publish incredibly stupid statements on their blog almost every day. Fortunately, I subscribe to their email newsletter, which gives me the lowlights every two weeks.

Here’s what at first seems like an alarming entry: “New World Encyclopedia Entry on ID”:

The New World Encyclopedia has an entry for Intelligent Design [creationism] available online that fairly and accurately represents ID [creationism] concepts and history. It is well referenced and includes a list of books and websites that are both pro and con ID [creationism]. This entry is highly recommend [sic] for any student doing a report on ID [creationism].

What’s that? Did some respectable encyclopedia get duped by the creatards? We need to find out a little more about the New World Encyclopedia. Wikipedia tells us:

The New World Encyclopedia (formerly “Unification Encyclopedia Project”) is a Wikipedia spin-off (or “fork”) founded by the Rev. Chung Hwan Kwak of the Universal Peace Federation. The editor-in-chief is Dr. Frank Kaufmann.

What that means is they took the Wikipedia source code (which is open source) and/or some of the content and made their own encyclopedia. OK. Nothing wrong with that.

Who are “they”? Well, if you follow the links, it becomes obvious that the New World Encyclopedia is published by the Moonies. That raises serious questions about the impartiality and reliability of the encyclopedia. I certainly wouldn’t want my kids getting their information from a Moonie web site.

Let’s look a little closer. Sure is odd that a Moonie encyclopedia has a pro-creationist article in it. Sure is odd that Christian creationists are telling us to use a Moonie web site.

Actually, it isn’t. The “anti-Darwin” movement produces strange bedfellows (but not in the Leviticus sense!).

Intelligent Design creationism is largely the product of the Discovery Institute. Although most of ID creationism’s proponents are Christians, one of them, Jonathan Wells, is a Moonie. This has caused some anguish within the Christian creationist community, since most Christians do not approve of the Unification Church. They hate “Darwinism” more, so they tolerate Jonathan Wells.

Anyway, it appears to me that this direct pipeline from the Discovery Institute to the Unification Church is responsible for the New World Encyclopedia‘s Intelligent Design creationism article.

If you want your kids to consult accurate, unbiased, and scientifically factual reference materials, check the source first. Just because something is published, doesn’t mean it’s accurate.

5 Responses to ““Impartial” Encyclopedia Validates Intelligent Design!”

  1. Steve Says:

    The article actually seems quite unbiased. Just matter of fact information on the topic. Other articles on evolution are clearly not creationist! In fact, they seem to support evolution in a strong way.

  2. Randy Says:

    It seems that the authors are trying to portray ID neutrally, rather than negatively. This in itself is not bad since it is important to understand how the developers of ID understand their topic in order to defeat them. I also looked at the other articles on evolution, and creationists would really struggle with this encyclopedia, as a lot of facts (see their entry on Evidences of Evolution) are presented in support of evolution.

  3. Red Says:

    The Universal Peace Federation is the culmination of Moon’s life long plot to control world events. Funny, you link to the Wiki page on the Unification Church. There have been at least two Moon followers doctoring the wiki pages on their deceptive cult for some time.

  4. Ron Britton Says:

    Steve and Randy:

    The article is biased, because it states the ID creationist position at face value, without challenging it. Imagine an article about the beliefs of white supremacists. If they presented it merely as “white supremacy is the belief that all non-white races are inferior” and then went on to list all of the so-called evidence without disputing it, you would probably agree that the article was biased. Well, that’s exactly what they’ve done here with ID creationism.

  5. Ron Britton Says:

    Red:

    Wikipedia is an imperfect source, but it tends to be self-correcting, and the admins will lock an article that is sabotaged too frequently. Like any source, you have to treat it with a certain degree of skepticism.