yo yo yo search it!

Loading...

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

face palm, head spin

no words, no words

Conservapedia: E=mc2 Is A Liberal Conspiracy


 Andy Schlafly and Albert Einstein
To many conservatives, almost everything is a secret liberal plot: from fluoride in the water to medicare reimbursements for end-of-life planning with your doctor to efforts to teach evolution in schools. But Conservapedia founder and Eagle Forum University instructor Andy Schlafly -- Phyllis Schlafly's son -- has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity.
If you're behind on your physics, the Theory of Relativity was Albert Einstein's formulation in the early 20th century that gave rise to the famous theorum that E=mc2, otherwise stated as energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light. Why does Andy Schlafly hate the theory of relativity? We're pretty sure it's because he's decided it doesn't square with the Bible.
In the entry, "Counterexamples to Relativity," the authors (including Schlafly) write:
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1]............................

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not sure if I understand this. Are the christians now saying mathematics is un-christian?

a rose is a rose said...

i think some of 'em are

stray said...

So, pardon a Humanities Geek's ignance, but I'm not quite sure how one gets from "relativity" in Physics to "relativism", given that one could argue that these are diametrically opposed concepts in an Isaac Newton vs. Franz Boas Celebrity Death Match kinda way, no?* If one chose to bother arguing with these people, which one doesn't.

But nevermind. According to this, er, logic, one should certainly question the veracity not only of the Theory of Relativity, but also of one's relatives. As it might have been wise for Schlafly fils to do, at a much earlier stage than this.

* of course anyone with a proper understanding of Physics (i.e. based on 3000 years of experimentation and careful observation, not on something some dude wrote down once) is welcome to correct me.

a rose is a rose said...

stray, i am quite fond of saying the sins of the father are NOT the sins of the son. in this case, i make exception. the sins of the mother ARE indeed the sins of the son. yucky all the way around