One Evolves; The Other...
Tell me this isn't a bundle of fun:
"Richard Lenski and his colleagues have been conducting a long-term experiment in bacterial evolution, one that has encompassed over 30,000 generations of bacteria going back over 20 years."
But evolution is not to be allowed in any way, shape or form in certain locations (ahem):
"In an open letter to Lenski, Conservapedia's Andy Schlafly (an attorney with an engineering background) wrote, "skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claims, and the significance of your claims, that E. Coli [sic] bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study." Their solution? Show them the data: "Please post the data supporting your remarkable claims so that we can review it, and note where in the data you find justification for your conclusions."
Only one problem with that demand:
"Lenski replied, noting that the whole purpose of scientific paper is to discuss and display data and to use them to justify conclusions; the data were in the paper itself. He also pointed out he'd placed a copy of the paper on his website for those without subscriptions to PNAS."
And here is the boilerplate reply to everyone who disagreed with Schlafley:
"I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data."
When it was suggested that the "debate" was not reflecting well on Conserveapedia...
"What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well?"
Was the reply.
I never worry that Stephen Colbert will ever run out of material.