If Relativity is Right, Then Where’s My Crocoduck?

This is potentially the most brain-meltingly stupid thing that you will ever see. Seemingly not content with the burgeoning topics of global warming denialism and evolution denialism, the good folks over at Conservapedia have put together an article about why relativity is wrong. This article features some real gems, like:

9. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.

How could you explain Jesus’ action-at-a-distance if he were constrained by relativity? Good point, Conservapedia!

10. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

Wasting taxpayer money?! Checkmate, Einstein!

Of course, it would help if we were actually looking for them, but we shouldn’t let reality get in the way of a good argument.

18. The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.

Zing! Didn’t see that one coming, scientists — did you?! What do you mean, “GPS“? Don’t try to confuse me with your fancy initialisms!

And of course, don’t forget to check out some of the amazing references provided at the bottom of the article:

4. ↑ If space were curved, one would never expect the universe as a whole to be almost precisely flat. Yet it is.

Take that! Conservapedia won’t rest until liberally biased theories like general relativity are expunged from science. Thank you, Conservapedia, for your vigilance!

Alas, it seems Conservapedia has been going down a lot, recently. So here are some screen captures of the articles (click to embiggen):

The Article
Relativity Denialism

The References
References

14 Responses to “If Relativity is Right, Then Where’s My Crocoduck?”

  1. Wow… that’s just…. wow.

    It makes me a little sad that a large share of people would rather throw away the amazing and beautiful insights into the workings of our universe that science has illuminated, and instead make the conscious choice to cling to ignorance and fear and say “Nope! Magic Sky Daddy did it!”

    Some of the points have more to do with quantum theory than relativity, but that’s probably splitting hairs, given the nature of the discussion. Of course, that could have been intentional, too. Drawing attention to the apparent inconsistencies between quantum theories and relativity could have been done in an attempt to make Relativity seem shaky and riddled with holes. Just because a theory does not fully explain and predict everything does not render the entire framework wrong, it only means that our current model needs more refinement. The unification of quantum theory and relativity currently eludes us, but that does not mean it will always be so, or that the theories should be cast aside and replaced with magic and ghosts.

    I guess it’s a question of where you place your faith: in the capacity of human endeavor and our resiliency as a species, or in magical forces and unseen spirits we are incapable of understanding and should never try.

    • Excellent point, but:

      “Of course, that could have been intentional, too. Drawing attention to the apparent inconsistencies between quantum theories and relativity could have been done in an attempt to make Relativity seem shaky and riddled with holes.”

      I think you’re giving them way too much credit.

  2. Naon Tiotami says:

    Holy crap, that’s one crazy article.

    All Conservapedia is good for is humour, that’s it. The minute you start taking the people who wrote this seriously, you’ve lost the game. ;)

  3. Alex says:

    I’m pretty sure this is just a wedge article, meant to prepare the way for the upcoming attack on Newtonian Physics. Which will shortly be followed by a detailed critique of the Gallilean Heliocentric Model. The church has a long memory ….

  4. infophile says:

    10. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

    What a shame that Relativity doesn’t actually predict gravitons, and in fact posits a universe which has no need for them…

  5. Worm says:

    Re: The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory > GPS

    Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where you simply can’t win. GPS had been pointed out to them, but despite being told many times, and pointed to source documentation to give cold hard details, the powers-that-be at Conservapedia insist that GPS tech does *not use* relativistic corrections.

    Again, don’t let reality get in the way of a good argument.

  6. Actually, they’ve revised their opinion on no. 18. This was appended to that point last night:

    “The only device based on relativity is the atom bomb, but that has destroyed far more lives than it’s saved so it can hardly be considered useful.”

  7. Am I the only one who suspects that Conservapedia is mostly populated by trolls? There can’t seriously be this many people who actually believe this stuff. Some of it is so ridiculous that it has to be fake.

    …right?

  8. Skeptikor says:

    Does anyone besides me get the strange feeling that we’ve been invited to a party where a guy with a tall hat is trying to shove a mouse into a teapot? It used to be that rationalists only had other rationalists with opposing views to worry about. Now the asylums have been emptied and the former inmates are busy trying to repeal the laws of the natural world.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. [...] So it turns out that the folks over at Conservapedia don’t like atheists. They really don’t like atheists. They almost dislike atheists as much as they dislike the theory of relativity. [...]


  • Mitchell Gerskup

    Mitchell Gerskup recently graduated from the University of Toronto with a degree in Economics and Philosophy. An avid atheist and skeptic, he has served as the President of the University of Toronto Secular Alliance, helping to promote science, reason and critical thinking around Toronto. He also volunteers with the Centre for Inquiry’s Ontario branch, and currently sits on the CFI’s Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism. Mitchell is also an accomplished competitive debater, having debated all across Canada. In addition to issues of economics and philosophy, Mitchell is interested in the fields of science and technology.