The conservative wiki Conservapedia has a section on evolution, and boy, is it a howler. If I were teaching a science class at the moment, I might have the following assignment: Find ten statements in this article that are either nonsensical, demonstrably false, or otherwise logically unsupported.

Actually, that might be a bit too easy...this thing is chock full of silliness. But I'll pick a couple of my favorites.

From the second paragraph:

The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version.

Hmm, well, those guys also didn't propose a theory of general relativity, or a Mendelian mechanism of inheritance, or a Universal Turing Machine, or plate tectonics. So...all those ideas must be wrong?

Skipping over scads of bullshit, we come to a section called "Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside the Specific Field of Biology". This is probably my second favorite section, because it has a scary picture of Soviet scientist Lysenko. They also have the balls to write:

The theory of evolution played a prominent role in regards to atheistic communism. Communists, in particular Stalinism, favored a version of Lamarckism called Lysenkoism developed by Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Lsyenko was made member of the Supreme Soviet and head of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Later Lysenko became President of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Many geneticists were imprisoned and executed for their bourgeois science, and agricultural policies based on Lysenkoism that were adopted under the Communist leaders Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong caused famines and the death of millions.

Um, okay, so how does that reflect on Darwin's ideas or modern evolutionary theory? They flat-out state that Lysenko favored a version of Lamarckism, which was the idea that acquired traits were passed to offspring (e.g., that if a father lifted a lot of weights, some of that increased musculature would be passed on to his children). The idea is thoroughly discredited now, though it was at least an early attempt at a naturalistic explanation of descent with modification. It didn't work very well as the basis for an agricultural program because it was false.

It takes a special kind of mind to cite an example of someone who rejected modern evolutionary theory as evidence against it.

And then we come to my favorite part, with the lions and snakes!

In addition, biblical creationists can point out examples where the scientific community was in error and the Bible was clearly correct. For example, until the 1970s the scientific consensus on how lions killed their prey was in error and the Bible turned out to be right in this matter. Also, for centuries the scientific community believed that snakes could not hear and the 1988 edition of The New Encyclopedia Britannica stated the snakes could not hear but that was mistaken and the Bible was correct in this matter.

Well, there you go, folks. Guess we don't need those silly science textbooks anymore...they keep spreading lies, while the Bible always gets it right.

Guess I should give up my PhD work and just dig ditches or something.