Princeton has more than its fair share of distinguished and serious conservative public intellectuals. Was it important to devote a page to Andrew Schlafly ’81 (A Moment With, Feb. 24)? Web users can judge for themselves, but my quick look at Conservapedia’s treatment of what I thought would be a noncontroversial area in physics, the theory of relativity, turned up an article suggesting that “the action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54” is a possible counterexample to the theory, and an assertion that there has been “censorship of dissent about relativity” but that contrary evidence is discussed “outside of liberal universities.”

If you find this odd, I suggest sitting down before reading Conservapedia’s articles on more fraught issues such as the theory of evolution or the age of the universe. The article on radiometric dating tells us: “Although radiometric dating methods are widely quoted by atheists, they are inappropriate for aging the entire universe due to likely variation in decay rates. Atheistic scientists insist that Earth is 4.6 billion years old while the Bible (the infallible word of God) suggests that the world to be around 6,000–10,000 years old.” There is even a footnote for the assertion about biblical inerrancy, though it is to a Web site called “”  

The Conservative Bible Project runs along the same lines. According to the CBP Web site, a good, conservative translation of the Bible should follow principles such as “explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning” and “preferring conciseness over liberal wordiness.” I do, though, give Mr. Schlafly style points for going on Stephen Colbert’s show to talk about his projects.  

Interview George Will *68. Interview Robert George. Interview Ramesh Ponnuru ’95. But please — no more of Mr. Schlafly’s know-nothing brand of conservatism!

Theodore Folkman ’96