(Investigator 118, 2008 January)

Investigator received the following e-mail in November:

The Work of Author "Anonymous" is Featured in a High Web Traffic Article.

Recently, there has been an essay critical of the theory of evolution which enjoys a lot of web traffic due to the popularity of the website it is published on, and because it ranks high on some search engines for theory of evolution. It cites the work of the Investigator Magazine author who goes by the name of "Anonymous". Although "Anonymous" is an evolutionist he/she does make some excellent points which are duly noted in the article. 

The article on the theory of evolution is located on the website Conservapedia located here:


Currently, the article is receiving 500 plus views a day…and is creating somewhat of a stir on the internet. 

As the web traffic of Conservapedia likely grows there should be web traffic flowing to the Investigator Magazine website. 

Robert Miller 

"Conservapedia" is a conservative, Christian-based, Internet encyclopedia to rival Wikipedia. Disgruntled over Wikipedia's purported liberal bias Andrew Schlafly, a lawyer, created "an encyclopedia you can trust."

It's a user-controlled free encyclopedia alleged to be "without the liberal and anti-Christian bias of other online sources like Wikipedia."

Launched in November 2006 the intention is to make Conservapedia the most "reliable online educational resource of its kind."

However, the main page gives its mission as: "favor[ing] Christianity and America". Many entries read as if personally OK'd by Pat Robertson and Ken Ham. Take Kangaroos and Atheists:

Like all modern animals kangaroos originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the kangaroo baramin taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood… After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. ["Baramin" is a creationist word for the alleged "kinds" God placed on earth during Creation Week.]

Since atheists have no God, as a philosophical framework atheism simply provides no logical basis for any moral standard. They live their lives according to the rule that "anything goes". In recent years, this has led to a large rise in crime, drug use, pre-marital sex, teenage pregnancy, pedophilia and bestiality.

Wikipedia editors in contrast to Conservapedia claim to adhere to NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and to let all major viewpoints be represented.

Conservapedia supporters in "chatrooms" claim:

  • Wikipedia is liberal, un-American, biased, has non-Christian slant, and gossip is pervasive with many entries like the National Enquirer.
  • Conservapedia is a fascinating Christian and American alternative to Wikipedia.
  • Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, and is based on Christian values, unlike Wikipedia, which is based on Wiccan.
  • A Wikipedia fan responded:
  • Conservapedia is for idiots -- scientific concepts such as evolution are rewritten at religious leisure to be more fitting for people of faith.


    The "high web traffic" article criticises the Theory of Evolution. It:

  • Emphasizes the sparsity of intermediate fossils;
  • Mentions long-ago mistakes of evolutionists such as "Nebraska man" who turned out to be an extinct pig;
  • Quotes authors who express doubt over some aspect of evolution;
  • Argues that evolution fails the "falsifiability" criterion for valid scientific theories.
  • In Investigator 108 Anon wrote on Creationism, ID and Science, which criticized "Scientific Creationism" and "Intelligent Design".

    Conservapedia, however, neither refers to this article nor answers any of its points.

    Instead, its anti-evolution article links to where Anonymous' (on the Investigator site) shows the Bible anticipated the modern discoveries that:

  • Snakes hear;
  • Lions strangle their prey; and
  • Ants (some species) store grain.
  • The two latter points get used twice each -- in the text and also in the margin illustrated by pictures of a lion and of ants.


    Whether more viewers are visiting the Investigator website is unclear.

    The Home Page has a counter, which records a "hit" when accessed from outside the website. If pages other than the Home page are accessed, e.g. by using the links on the Conservapedia page, no visit is registered.

    Online encyclopedias which anyone can "edit" should never be your sole source when analysing something controversial. Use multiple references and compare them.