Just added: A comparison of the most popular content on Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia… This honest & frank review of Conservapedia is occasionally updated; as always, thanks for reading.

Executive summary: Review of Conservapedia

conservapedia logoAlthough Conservapedia maintains the appearance of a respectable wiki (thanks to the open source wiki engine it’s built upon), do not be fooled: Conservapedia is not a valid source of reality-based, reasonably objective information. Conservapedia is more akin to a backwoods Sunday school soapbox than an online encyclopedia. Conservapedia makes no attempt to be respectful of divergent opinions or differing worldviews; as a result, Conservapedia is sure to be appreciated by Hard Right fundamentalists, American exceptionalists, conspiracy theorists, and fideists everywhere.

If we may take a page from Conservapedia’s playbook and do a bit of anthropomorphization[3]…

If Conservapedia were a man, he would definitely be the "I told you so" type. (You know the type.)

Religious fundamentalism satire: Creationism parody from Family GuyConservapedia repeatedly mistakes logical fallacy for valid argument, circular reasoning for intelligence, and tired religious dogma for wisdom. Conservapedia gives its audience the same old errant fundamentalist spiel, then sits back with its arms folded & a smirk on its face — honestly believing it has won all debates, completely but mistakenly satisfied in having "proven" its superstitious assertions beyond repute.

Although we harbor no ill will toward Conservapedia’s creators and contributors (some of us once fell for similar religious teachings, after all), we must digitally wave a distracting red flag here and emphasize the misguided nature of its overall worldview, the beguiling, fallacious quality of its assertions, and the self-righteous, disrespectful tone of Conservapedia’s content in general.

[ End executive summary, Begin main article ]

Meet Conservapedia: A large and growing collection of Hard Right Christian fundamentalist propaganda thinly disguised as a general-use online encyclopedia in the familiar wiki format.

We have stumbled over Conservapedia a couple of times while researching matters concerning religious fundamentalism, reason, science, common sense, spirituality, etc.

Hard Right religious propaganda is mostly funnyConsidering the current Hard Right religious trend in the United States, Conservapedia was a good idea in some respects and, with wiser oversight, might have evolved into a respectable resource. Conservapedia is virtually assured of success for the same reasons Fox News has done so well (purely as a business enterprise, that is). After all, the United States is chock full of conservative religious fundamentalists – a large group that’s presently enjoying temporarily favorable trending for many reasons (which we won’t get into in this post).

Conservapedia might be the "wiki" of choice for groups ranging from the comparatively centrist Tea Party all the way over to Hard Right extremist groups like Resisting the Green Dragon (a very sad & scary example of diehard, anti-environment dominionism). Indeed, Conservapedia is superior to Wikipedia in serving strongly censored, fideist[1] content to superstitious, closed-minded people everywhere.

Crucial reminder to those who have forgotten

Conservapedia peddles the type of content that tends to encourage and foster division, suspicion, McCarthyism-style paranoia, isolationism, muscle-flexing, and similar delusional, ultimately self-destructive behavior. As a result, Conservapedia is sure to attract more of the wide-eyed, born-again, evangelical, charismatic, Hard Right, True Believer types than relatively casual Christians or tolerant, non-fundamentalist, progressive Christians. Conservapedia fans run on the dangerous fuel of emotional, fervent, fear-based religiosity rather than the common-sense, spiritually-principled, level-headed morality most of us strongly prefer.

Again we have raised this crucial point: The practical teachings and aspects of world religions are infinitely more appropriate for universal adoption and far more conducive to eventual world peace than the supernatural, literally interpreted, never-verifiable, God-is-telling-me-to-be-president, paranormal aspects of many religions. (This is a major theme promoted by the Search for Truth blog — and we urge all like-minded readers to join us in promoting this type of common sense.)

Here’s a sample entry from Conservapedia, which promotes itself as “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia”: 🙂

Wikipedia is a politically left leaning (sic) communist (sic) online wiki-based encyclopedia project[2]…

In the honest pursuit of a reasonably objective and rational assessment of Conservapedia, does one really need to look further?! Conservapedia has classified Wikipedia — the target of its digital penis envy & one of the most impressive, broad, and objective encyclopedic collections in existence today — as communist. This amounts to something less than an elementary school playground taunt; calling it laughable is a drastic understatement.

Comparison: The most popular content on Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia

One way to quickly grasp the true nature of Conservapedia is to review Conservapedia’s Most Visited Entries, among the first content shown on the site. As of June 18, 2012, the most visited entries at Conservapedia (this list changes daily) were comprised of hot-button issues relating to Hard Right bias:

  1. Homosexual Agenda
  2. Atheism
  3. Barack Hussein Obama
  4. Adolf Hitler
  5. Wikipedia
  6. Muslim agenda of the Obama administration
  7. Counterexamples to Relativity
  8. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
  9. Conservative Bible Project

(Source: Most viewed pages on Conservapedia)

As one can see from the above list, Conservapedia is not utilized to reference the most-discussed current events, not utilized to reference popular subjects for objective research or unbiased learning — so much as being a narrow-minded, narrowly focused collection of largely superstitious, often uneducated opinions.

Conversely, here are some of the most popular pages on Wikipedia as of the same date:

  1. Rodney King
  2. USS Connecticut
  3. Yvette Wilson
  4. Webb Simpson
  5. Father’s Day
  6. Nik Wallenda
  7. Florence Griffith-Joyner
  8. Sophie the Giraffe

(Source: WikiTrends: Uptrends on English Wikipedia this week)

Though it won’t necessarily be apparent after the fact (when this article is read), the popular Wikipedia subjects listed above were major news stories or current events at the time of this writing.

Conclusion, based on most popular content of Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia
Wikipedia contains an unbelievably wide array of relevant, surprisingly objective content mirroring notable current events and news in terms of the most requested content during a given time period — as one would expect from a decent online encyclopedia with broad coverage. On the flip side, Conservapedia’s most popular content is relatively static; it is always comprised of Hard Right, fundamentalist biases from a predictable short list of ultra-conservative religious & political pet peeves including homosexuality, Obama, abortion, Wikipedia, fear and mistrust of science, etc.

In a nutshell, there’s no comparing the two.

Religious satire: Unscientific American magazine coverAs far as we (and many other Conservapedia reviewers; see Resources section below) can tell, its slanted content could only be swallowed and appreciated by those who are already staunch fundamentalists: people who prefer to be told what to think; people who are accustomed to toeing the party line, regardless of its relation to truth or spiritually principled behavior; people who would much rather accept the statements of authority figures as truth than bother with confusing, difficult, independent activities such as reading, conducting research, learning about logical fallacies, brushing up on philosophy, and so on.

A quick example of the above personality type: One who says he or she genuinely believes Barack Obama to be a practicing Muslim despite the certainty of its falsehood. [See Deep South problem: Ignorance, racism, or just plain stupidity?] Based on our review of Conservapedia content, this brand of flagrant untruth — disinformation, actually — is sadly typical of the hyper-partisans to which Conservapedia caters.

It is critical for our readers to keep in mind that Search for Truth is a friend to tolerant, compassionate, spiritually-principled religions and their adherents; however, we are no friend to fundamentalism, whether religious, political, or any other of its negative forms.

In general, Conservapedia seems to lack the intellectual chops that might otherwise help create a significant number of new hard-core religious fundamentalists — especially the few among them who deeply value truth, critical thought, and higher intellectual pursuits.

This is probably not intended to be as funny as it was to us; this ChristWire article opens thus: "In this Christwire special, William (Bill) Stephens caught up with a long-time Editor with Conservapedia, the online collaborative Christian encyclopedia. Citing Christian humility, the Editor has requested anonymity." (Source: When Wikipedia Wilts: an interview with a Conservapedia Editor – Christ Wire) [Ed. – Well, we don’t blame this Conservapedia associate for remaining anonymous so much as we doubt the provided excuse.]

It can be difficult to determine whether certain Conservapedia content is serious in nature, or whether it is supposed to be hilariously satirical — particularly in its coverage of pseudoscience. Regarding the apparent humor and sarcasm in parts of Conservapedia, it’s almost as if some witty users with a biting sense of humor purposefully added some over-the-top, fanatical religious content that might be swallowed whole by some of the more gullible types, but is perhaps more accurately seen as biting, sarcastic humor by more insightful readers.

Some of the writing styles and subject material on Conservapedia seem to be geared towards children. This may be partly the result of some of the more childish ideas being promoted by Conservapedia, whose contributors repeatedly insist that certain Bible stories represent actual history… e.g., the entire universe being created in six calendar days, or Noah’s ark and the global flood as actual historical events, etc.

fundamentalist paranoia, fear of critical thought and reasonThe following information is presented either textually on the Conservapedia home pageabove the fold — or as a prominent link on the Conservapedia home page, also above the fold. (NOTE: We realize much of the following content is repetitive, elementary schoolish, or worse; however, the text presented here actually, literally appears on the Conservapedia home page) Does this look like any kind of reasonable online encyclopedia to you?!? They surely have a page promoting a Flat Earth

1. 2012 is shaping up to be a BAD year for atheism and evolutionism! Great new charts and developments!

2. For clueless liberals, this preserved our freedoms by attaining military supremacy on the High Seas.

3. Creation Ministries International[4] is on the rise, evolutionary belief and atheism is NOT!

4. How stale and boring[5] is evolutionary indoctrination and evobabble?

5. How stale and boring is evolutionary indoctrination? Is the public fooled or are they suspicious?

6. Jesus triumphs over leading evolutionists!

7. Jesus whups[6] leading evolutionists – again!

8. Evidences for a young earth and universe

9. Evidences for a young earth and universe

10. 101 evidences for a young earth

11. Little known facts about radiometric dating

12. Why the earth and universe are young

13. Evolutionists are bickering like the Hatfields and McCoys again[7] and this time it is about their human evobabble speculations.

14. The supposed evidence for human evolution is open to wildly different interpretations, so it is obviously not clear at all, contrary to the propaganda.

15. Why do so many liberal “men” like to dress up as women? Are liberal men much more likely to be effete? One thing for sure, John Wayne was not an effete liberal!

16. A landslide loss for Obama is more likely with the latest Democrat poll showing that Mitt Romney has taken the lead in Michigan, previously thought to be unreachable by the GOP. “Respondents gave Obama a 58 percent unfavorable job rating, compared to a 41 percent favorable job rating.” (NOTE: So far, this is the only Conservapedia content with enough factual info to actually verify. – Ed.)

(Although it may sound as though we are unfairly bashing Conservapedia, our characterizations are not made up or contrived in any non-factual or disingenuous way; please review Conservapedia for yourself.)

Conservapedia cannot be considered an objective resource for accurate information; rather, based on the information presented or linked on the Conservapedia home page (as of Monday, June 11, 2012 2am CST), Conservapedia is more of a callow attempt at satirical humor at the expense of those who aren’t Hard Rightists or conservative Christian fundamentalists — sort of a digital MAD Magazine catering to the Hard Religious Right.

At this point, we can hardly believe our writer was actually going to cover Conservapedia as if it were a legitimate resource for reality-based research, or as if it were a viable alternative to stalwart resources like Wikipedia and perhaps even the Rational Wiki. Conservapedia is nothing of the sort; it is full of sophomoric emotional content that repeatedly begs the question, all the while heartily and gleefully disparaging whatever ideas and facts don’t agree with its irrational, supernatural worldview. (See the list of content from the Conservapedia home page, above.)

Funny, but sadly true: Not knowing what Conservapedia really was at the time, we referenced Conservapedia a time or two for research that was supposed to be serious and factual. We will not make that mistake again.

Many Conservapedia reviews have been written and published on the web. The excellent Rational Wiki describes Conservapedia thus:

Conservapedia is a deceitful, heavily biased and willfully ignorant wiki-based encyclopedia blog project written from a far right and supposedly Christian point of view. It is better viewed as an online guide to understanding how a particular segment of the American fundamentalist Christian right “thinks” than as an actual encyclopedia, as the site’s administrators see liberals, atheists, and homosexuals (along with whoever the “bête noire du jour” is, like Muslims) as being the cause of all society’s ills. Their attacks on these groups are fueled by traditionalism and jingoistic pro-Americanism, and often make liberal use of ad hominem. This political clap-trap automatically considers somebody a liberal (whether they are or not) if they fail to toe the party line on any given issue; even the use of British spelling is considered evidence that one is of the liberal flavor.

The site was founded on 21 November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly ["Common Era (CE) dating notation is an ungodly abomination; I demand that my students use the classic Anno Domini system I prefer."…ed.], spawn of professional anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, in an attempt to offset what he perceived as an excessive liberal bias at Wikipedia. Conservapedia’s goal is to try to create a version of Wikipedia that has a conservative bias, especially when it comes to issues where politics and fundamentalist Christianity overlap, such as creationism, evolution, sexuality, morality, and hatred of Muslims.

No prominent conservative politician, writer or pundit (except Andy’s mom on one of her podcasts) has ever aligned themself with, or recommended, Conservapedia, making it extremely unpopular, and non-prominent. After all, aligning with Conservapedia would be committing an act of career suicide.

The site is known for its extremist far right political views. As a result, it has consequentially suffered from a wide range of parodist and vandalism-only accounts. Because of this, the site has enacted various forms of censorship, abuse of the “checkuser” function, and groupthink-style “rationalizing”. New users, therefore, are almost always blocked shortly after editing for some perfunctory reason.
(Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapaedia)

Initial reaction: Conservapedia, per the Rational Wiki

When we first read Rational Wiki’s account of Conservapedia, we were certainly entertained and in agreement; but its review was so incredibly negative as to cause objectivity concerns. It was easy to imagine a gang of militant atheists over at Rational Wiki trashing Conservapedia simply for being "religious" and conservative. However, after reading more than enough Conservapedia content to render a solid, intelligent, reasonable, rational opinion, we came to see the truth in Rational Wiki’s characterization of Conservapedia, after all! Our apologies to the cerebral, realistic contributors that have made Rational Wiki the reliable resource it is today.

Review of Conservapedia: Conclusion

This article was initially going to be relatively benign; this writer strives to be fair, honest, and objective. (Yes, we DO realize that most authors probably view their own articles as being fair, honest, and objective!) However, after conducting a reasonable amount of due diligence regarding Conservapedia, reviewing much of their content, etc., we have no honest choice but to lump Conservapedia into a category of unfortunate literary detritus. (Conservapedia has also been accurately [and hilariously] described as alphabetized detritus… Good one.)

In other words — as if we’ve not yet been clear — Conservapedia has definitely earned a place on the list of the Worst, Most Misguided, Most Potentially Harmful, Least Spiritually Principled "Christian" Fundamentalist Websites we’ve seen yet. That’s really saying something, as there’s plenty of far-fetched Hard Right propaganda to go around. Conservapedia doesn’t make any effort to present truthful or reasonably objective content; instead, Conservapedia merely toes the line of conservative politics, literal Bible interpretation, and far right religious fundamentalism as taught during that weekly storytelling hour frequently known as Sunday school.

The word Christian is enclosed in quotation marks above because the content promoted by Conservapedia (and other similarly themed, possibly well-intentioned religious websites) fails to describe genuine Christianity. This so-called "trusted encyclopedia" is anything but Christian; Conservapedia is nothing but monotonous pseudo-Christianity repackaged in wiki format in an attempt to garner a smidgeon of street cred.

Quit hating, go positive, & get real
If the creators and contributors to sites like Conservapedia are intentionally spreading religious disinformation — content they imply is "loving" and "inerrant" — then too bad for them, and too bad for anyone else who happens to take Conservapedia’s content seriously. If the intentions of Conservapedia are positive, then by all means, let them eventually "see the light" of reason, get their minds together, and swear off that fake, divisive, hate-filled religious dogma forever.

Surely, at least a few Conservapedia contributors realize deep down inside that if Jesus happened to read Conservapedia’s rude, one-sided content, he’d probably roll over in his grave (or worse). Not only does Conservapedia’s content conflict with the most basic and crucial teachings of Jesus… Conservapedia’s condescending, hateful attitude is anathema to the most basic spiritual principles. Conservapedia goes out of its way to offend those it sees as its enemies (liberals, atheists, agnostics, the non-religious, followers of other religions, non-whites, intelligent folks, etc.). Being overtly offensive is something we imagine Jesus would never do.

Our last-ever reference to Conservapedia? (Not…)

The hateful vibes given off throughout the pages of Conservapedia, as Rod and Todd Flanders might say, "Make baby Jesus cry."

The truth about religious fundamentalism

Christian fundamentalism SAVES
…you from having to think for yourself. Considered even briefly, the same is true for all forms of fundamentalism, whether religious or political, because all brands of fundamentalism call for members to toe the lineno matter what.

Highlights: Conservapedia’s own criticism of Wikipedia (on 6/19/2012)

Conservapedia has significantly broadened its list of criticisms against Wikipedia — its most envied target — since Kathryn Cramer’s review of Conservapedia was written. [Examples of Bias in Wikipedia] There are apparently so few valid beefs concerning Wikipedia that Conservapedia has been reduced (if that’s even possible) to including on their list any individual Wikipedia contributors it can find who have made errant contributions.

  • In the questionable vision of Conservapedia, one of the main issues of Wikipedia’s bias is the religious worldview of its creator (no kidding). Conservapedia implies that one MUST have paranormal, superstitious beliefs in order to contribute any worthwhile content.
  • Most ironic: Wikipedia appeals to a dumbed-down culture of users…
  • Conservapedia excerpt: "Wikipedia’s article on cold fusion presents it as a continuing controversy. Liberals hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts."


[1] Fideists

Generally, fideists are those who view reason, logic, philosophy, science, and common sense as incompatible with their religious (and perhaps political) belief systems. The primary enemies of fideism include critical thought, rational thought, etc.

[2] The truth about Wikipedia

Those journalists, writers, and bloggers who place a high value upon fairness, accuracy, and objectivity have already done enough research and due diligence to know that Wikipedia is about as worthwhile as similar resources can possibly be. That Wikipedia has turned out to be as thorough, important, popular, independent, accurate, and objective as studies prove it to be, is really amazing considering how easy Wikipedia is to edit.

[3] Anthropomorphize

To "anthropomorphize" means to ascribe human form, characteristics, attributes, etc. to anything that isn’t human (an animal, plant, material object, God, etc.); this is often done in fundamentalist religions, partly to make the notion of a literal Bible God more relatable.

[4] Creation Ministries International

religious art: Creation paintingSome of the more apologetics-oriented religious fundamentalist groups strive to provide scientific evidence that supports their assertions (e.g., a young earth less than 10K years old; Noah’s ark & global flood as accurately described historical events rather than teaching stories, poetry, or literary devices; the Tower of Babel as striking fear into God; etc.). These groups are betting that most readers will simply believe the pseudoscience published on their web sites and in their pamphlets. They hope their readers (mostly people who are already religious fundamentalists anyway) will NOT be willing to dig deeper, perform real research, closely examine real scientific evidence, etc.

For instance, check out Evidences for a young age of the earth and universe, as published by Creation Ministries International. Glance at the first few items on the list that’s supposed to represent evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Note that the subjects discussed as evidence have little or nothing to do with the age of the earth. They mention salts, dinosaur blood cells, DNA, erosion-prone areas, and other topics which are, at best, wild pitches that divert attention from more central issues concerning the age of the earth and/or the universe. The listed items represent their last best hopes, most of which have long been dashed — or which can still be “propped up” with flimsy, what-if scenarios.

Peddlers of pseudoscience implicitly beg religious adherents to ignore broad swaths of sound, solid science and concentrate with great repetition upon potentially misleading or easily misinterpreted details. For instance, they list volcanism as evidence of relative geological youth with the insinuation that such geothermal activity would have cooled and subsided long ago, had millions or billions of years gone by — conveniently omitting crucial information, such as the fact that gravitational forces can be a major cause of internal planetary friction (and, therefore, heat), not to mention that the ages of individual planetary bodies and moons cannot possibly indicate the age of the universe as a whole.

People, when you want to conduct objective scientific research, please strive to gather your information from reasonably objective sources. Creationist web sites, religious fundamentalist web sites, religious pamphlets, etc. are the least objective resources one could possibly consult. It’s not rocket science; it’s common sense. Please do not fall for thinly disguised "evidence."

Creationists: Even their infighting is superstitious!

religious art: Creation paintingThe split between CSF and John MacKay back in in 1986-7 is only peripherally relevant; but it is so weird, so insane, that I can’t bear to omit it entirely. In brief, MacKay started accusing a CSF staffer, Margarent Buchanan, of witchcraft, Satanism, and necrophilia with her dead husband. There was never the slightest basis for these accusations; apart from “discernment” by MacKay. MacKay made an ultimatum that either that woman left, or he did. This was a problem, because MacKay was so important to the group; but in the end MacKay resigned and went his own way. He was also excommunicated from his own Baptist church for the whole affair. (Source: Answers in Genesis lawsuit)

[5] Evolution: "Stale and boring"

Conservapedia appeals to ignorance in their implication here: if something seems stale and boring, then it must not be true. We would counter with the suggestion that these writers try reading Leviticus through Deuteronomy on their next lunch break.

[6] Jesus whups…

Conservapedia illustratedIs anyone dumb enough to take this inane chatter seriously? We want to know! There are any number of serious issues and red flags with sentences beginning with the words, " Jesus whups…" The mere fact that this text ("Jesus whups…") was listed on its own home page as an example of premium Conservapedia content says it all, reallydoesn’t it?

[7] Evolutionists are bickering…

Thank God religious fundamentalists don’t do any bickering amongst themselves or continually split into ever-increasing numbers of factions based on trivial minutia — like women talking or playing a piano in church. What a mess we’d have, then!

When Conservapedia squats to relieve itself all over the spiritual principles* it professes to exemplify, the site is engaging in a level of hypocrisy that’s beyond staggering.
* The basic living advice taught by Jesus, Siddhartha, and many other spiritual teachers throughout history

The more Conservapedia content we read, the more evident it becomes that the best detractor, debunker, and satirist of Conservapedia content is… Conservapedia. Congratulations.

Resources: Conservapedia, the Christian fundamentalist’s Wikipedia

More reviews of Conservapedia

So far, we have not found any positive reviews of Conservapedia. Not even Hard Rightists want to be caught publicly endorsing the kind of claptrap peddled at this pulpit of paranoid religious extremism

More Conservapedia reviews
It is quite easy to find many, many similar reviews of Conservapedia by using your favorite search engine (our favorite search engine has been Google for a very long time). That this biased site with such a narrow focus has been reviewed so often is a testament to the effectiveness of having a name and appearance designed only to mimic Wikipedia; this gives Conservapedia a shallow level of perceived but probably short-lived credibility…

Namaste & loving-kindness to all,

P.S. Thanks to all visitors for finding and reading this.

Addressing the negativity of this review
I realize this review of Conservapedia is quite harsh and scathing; in fact, this is the most negative review of anything this writer has ever published. While I generally prefer to avoid stooping to this level, I have so far elected to leave this content as-is for various reasons (admittedly including a bit of praise and positive commentary for this review).

So far, we have received no negative comments about the tone or the content of our Conservapedia review.

Removed content

Parody of religious fundamentalism: Family Guy clips (YouTube)

Family Guy religious satire clip: My favorite bit by far is the parody of creationism; it starts at the 32-second time mark. Get ready to laugh — or, if you still believe the creation accounts in Genesis 1 were/are meant to be taken literally, please give it some careful independent thought. Here are some talking points for those who still literally interpret the stories of Noah’s ark and the global flood.

Conservapedia is a self-absorbed elementary school bully walking down the hall with a long stream of toilet paper stuck to his shoe.

Conservapedia is a full-time resident of Imaginationland.

If Conservapedia were a section of the newspaper, it would be the horoscopes.

In essence, all of the teaching stories, imaginative bedtime tales for children, and other literary devices present throughout the Bible have been misunderstood and mistakenly interpreted literally — completely distorting the intended spiritual message of unconditional love, tolerance, compassion, patience, etc. into something unrecognizable.

It is rather interesting and entertaining to read the accounts of the major wikis trashing other wikis.

In looking at the public behavior of today’s Hard Right, one wonders whether basic spiritual principles such as the Golden Rule are remembered at all, much less understood.

Conservapedia is essentially an encyclopedia of Hard Right Christian religiosity. Crazy like Fox News, indeed.

— serious or satirical, it’s often hard to tell —
[Fox News as] not as anything fundamentally beneficial…

Are Conservapedia users living caricatures of modern U.S. religious zealotry that make the Church Lady look like June Cleaver? Perhaps…

How can sites like Conservapedia not only exist and persist, but actually generate enthusiasm for superstition and the paranormal as the central meaning of our very existence?

As unlikely as it is that we fully understand macro-evolution (we certainly don’t), how is it any more logical, likely, desirable, or believable for plants and animals to have simply popped into existence in a single day at the whim of an invisible, superhuman-like deity? Isn’t the latter the more fantastical of the two — by a long shot? If not, why not?