Shame on the Cincinnati Zoo

Ugh. Letter and email and telephone call coming up.

It sounds very much like what happens when an organisation is clamouring for sales/funding and becomes very careless about how they get it.

Also smells very strongly of the typical creationist "what can we do to make people think we're mainstream science educators?" principle.

Email to follow.......all the way from Australia.

Yeesh. A zoo, of all places. I mean the only place where this would be even more absurd would be if a natural history museum allied itself with the creationists. Zoos are a showcase of what's wrong with creationism. You can go to a zoo and learn about how an animal's digestive system is specialized to allow it to eat a particular diet. Then you go to the creation museum and are told that EVERYTHING used to eat plants, despite that high degree of specialization among carnivores.

I checked the link and saw how they described the creationism museum. It says that the museum "presents a walk through history". There is just no way to put a positive spin on this. A zoo, a place dedicated to the natural world, is working with a place dedicated to embracing ignorance of that same natural world.

I actually think it's a good idea.

There's likely to be more people from out of the area who traveel there specifically to see the creation museum than to see the zoo, and this may give them incentive to get some exposure to REAL science once they're done with the theme park.

mkb said: I actually think it's a good idea. There's likely to be more people from out of the area who traveel there specifically to see the creation museum than to see the zoo, and this may give them incentive to get some exposure to REAL science once they're done with the theme park.

mkb said: I actually think it's a good idea. There's likely to be more people from out of the area who traveel there specifically to see the creation museum than to see the zoo, and this may give them incentive to get some exposure to REAL science once they're done with the theme park.

On original reading I thought that this was a joke. Yes, the Cininnati Zoo has betrayed science, and common sense. There are people who take a literal interpretation of a something that is over 2000 years old without questioning it. If these people want to keep their believes private that is their right. However, to pollute the public sphere is just wrong.

I just moved to Cincinnati a few months ago. This is definitely a disappointment. I'll definitely be sending some e-mails out.

Please do write to Cincinnati Zoo and let them know what you think of the zoo lending credibility and prestige by association to the creationist crap. But also do write to your local zoo and museum to forestall similar moves by them. It is possible the creationist propaganda machine is setting up reciprocal arrangements with other museums in their quest for credibility.

I have paid for family membership to the local science museums for more than a decade now. I will let them know they will lose me if they try to pull such stunts here.

Also please do support your local zoos and museums even if your children have passes school age and let your politicians know how much you value science. We will have much more clout if we are the donors and patrons of these institutions.

Apparently the Cincinnati Zoo aspires to become the Bengals (1-10-1) of the zoo league.

Please don't confuse the Cincinnati Zoo and the Cincinnati Museum Science Center. The zoology director at the latter is Dr. Herman Mays, an ornithologist and a staunch pro-science guy.

I'm contacting Herm to see what help he needs - but I don't have his permission to share his email address with the public.

fusilier, in Indianapolis
James 2:24

THIS MAY BE CREATION MUSEUM FRAUD
Before everyone begins slamming the Cincinnati Zoo, let's verify this. First of all the page linked to in Panda's Thumb can not be reached via links of the Cincinnati Zoo website.

Secondly, the Panda's Thumb page has "Convergence.Net" in the bottom right corner. No such logo is on any official Cincy Zoo pages.

This could be a third party website or ticketing company that is bundling the tickets and NOT the Cincy Zoo.

Could someone please call the Cincy Zoo? I have too much to do here at UPS at the moment.

Edwin Hensley

Here is the link to the Cincy Zoo website to purchase tickets.

http://www.cincinnatizoo.org/tickets.html

The dodgy combo appears to be offered on the site with "eticketing by convergence.net" in the lower right corner, https://tickets.cincinnatizoo.org/mainstore.asp ; it appears to be a legit group-ticketing site and does link back to the zoo's own website via the zoo logo in the top left. The zoo's own front page doesn't seem to link to the dodgy combo. It is possible that the zoo itself didn't know this was happening until the storm just broke- has anyone had a response back from the zoo? I could imagine some clueless wonder setting up the combo without thinking it through. I could also imagine some zealous godbot doing this deliberately.

Well I smell a lawsuit coming up. If the zoo really is part of the public school system and it really is promoting creationism, then they are in blatant violation of the constitution. This will be a good case to extablish precedent and if persued, should cause everyone to realize what a deceitful bunch of hypocrites the creationists really are.

Are we sure this ticket sales site is legit? It just doesn't . . . feel . . . right, somehow. The link in the zoo logo in the upper-left corner is hinky, not like the version at the legit zoo site.

Just sent off an email to the PR and Education departments at the zoo. I hope that this is just a misunderstanding, or fraud on the part of the Creation Museum (sic). Has anyone heard back from them with a clarification?

I can't find any reference to the partnership on the Zoo's actual website, no mention in the news section, tickets section, or anywhere as far as I can see.

Looks like a hoax unless I'm missing the link.

If it turns out to be serious, I'll send off some emails but it looks phony for the time being.

And no use accusing the Creation Museum of "fraud" without solid verification to back it up.

Yeah guys, let's not jump the gun and accuse creationists of fraud! Why, such a thing would be unprecedented! Heavens,my monocle!

FL said: And no use accusing the Creation Museum of "fraud" without solid verification to back it up.

Hi all,

I haven't checked the NCSE website yet, but would encourage all to ask them to see if they could ask their members (including yours truly) to write politely to the Cincinnati Zoo, complaining about its "education" agreement with the Creation Museum. Without question, the Cincinnati Zoo has abrogated its educational mission. Indeed, I wish it would emulate the principal of New York City's prominent science high school, Stuyvesant High School, who had pledged at an alumni gathering (which was held as the Dover trial unfolded) that Intelligent Design would never be taught there as long as he continued serving as the school's principal (I will assume that he also meant other varieties of creationism too.).

Regards,

John

FL said: And no use accusing the Creation Museum of "fraud" without solid verification to back it up.

This is not a fruad. Just spoke to Susan in Sales (513 559-7721) at the zoo and this is a part of a seasonal promation involving a number of local attractions. She confirmed that the zoo tickets and museum tickets are part of a package. Tried to talk to Katy(sp?)in Public Relations, at the same number, to tell her she was about to have a busy PR week and recomend she visit Panda's Thumb, but she was out. Other direct numbers are(these are a bit old but the Sales number worked): Zoo Director, 559-7749; Curator of Education, 559-7737; General Curator, 745-6156; Executive Director of the Zoologcal Society of Cincinnati(Membership over 40,000), 281-4701. There is a national organization that accredits zoos and has considerable influence - the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. Phone 301 907-7777, www.aza.org. Executive Director, ex222; Deputy Director, Kristin Vehrs, ex 223; Director of Public Affiars, Jane Ballentine, ex 236; Director of Conservation & Science, Bruce Carr, PH.D, ex 232; Director of Science & Education,ex Michael Hithcins, PH.D, ex225. I have lots of other zoo contacts and will continue digging. Couple of additional comments: When ever a zoo gets into PR difficulty Jane Ballentine from the AZA gets involved. Remember the very often the PR/Sales people get zoos involved in promotions that make the animal staff cringe. This is probably the case here. David

lilly said: Then you should say so under your own name and publish it in a newspaper.

lilly said:

Dan said:

FL said: And no use accusing the Creation Museum of "fraud" without solid verification to back it up.

The creation museum insists that there is scientific (not Biblical, not faith-based) evidence that humanity and dinosaurs coexisted. This is fraud.

Then you should say so under your own name and publish it in a newspaper.

It's amazing how "tolerant" all you liberals are of any viewpoints that contradict your own! There are millions and millions of well-educated Americans who believe in Creationism, and do not believe their great-...-great-grandparents were monkeys. How often do you see these good people getting all upset because others disagree with them?

I applaud the Cincinnati Zoo for showing more open-mindedness than all of the posters on this website. For one thing, they know that (probably) a majority of their paying customers believe in some form of Creationism.

Being an Animal Keeper at the San Francisco Zoo, it would seem pretty clear what my feelings are surrounding "evolutionary theory." With that said, I think its a great idea for people to visit both a museum that focuses on Creationism and a zoological facility that doesn't, then the people themselves can make a decision on what they believe.

Also, in this challenging economic environment, zoo's and other scientific organizations cannot afford to turn a cold shoulder to those that may have different belief systems, we actually need to stand up and welcome these people.

Just my two cents.

Pan to Gilda Radner - Never mind. David

MoreOpenMinded said: It's amazing how "tolerant" all you liberals are of any viewpoints that contradict your own! There are millions and millions of well-educated Americans who believe in Creationism, and do not believe their great-...-great-grandparents were monkeys. How often do you see these good people getting all upset because others disagree with them? I applaud the Cincinnati Zoo for showing more open-mindedness than all of the posters on this website. For one thing, they know that (probably) a majority of their paying customers believe in some form of Creationism.

lilly said:

Dan said: The creation museum insists that there is scientific (not Biblical, not faith-based) evidence that humanity and dinosaurs coexisted. This is fraud.

Then you should say so under your own name and publish it in a newspaper.

Pharyngula now has an updated post on this topic. Summary: the promo has been pulled based on feedback.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/victory_in_cincinnati.php

lilly said:

tomh said:

lilly said:

Dan said: The creation museum insists that there is scientific (not Biblical, not faith-based) evidence that humanity and dinosaurs coexisted. This is fraud.

Then you should say so under your own name and publish it in a newspaper.

Lots of newspapers have already published it, including the New York Times, May 24, 2007. You could look it up.

I dont believe you.

eric said: lilly do you ever bother to look things up? Here is the link to the NYT article that says exactly what you don't believe they said: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?_r=1&scp=23&sq=may%2024%202007&st=cse

MoreOpenMinded said: It's amazing how "tolerant" all you liberals are of any viewpoints that contradict your own! There are millions and millions of well-educated Americans who believe in Creationism, and do not believe their great-...-great-grandparents were monkeys. How often do you see these good people getting all upset because others disagree with them?

Edwin Hensley said: First of all the page linked to in Panda's Thumb can not be reached via links of the Cincinnati Zoo website.

MoreOpenMinded said: It's amazing how "tolerant" all you liberals are of any viewpoints that contradict your own!

lilly said:

tomh said:

lilly said:

Dan said: The creation museum insists that there is scientific (not Biblical, not faith-based) evidence that humanity and dinosaurs coexisted. This is fraud.

Then you should say so under your own name and publish it in a newspaper.

Lots of newspapers have already published it, including the New York Times, May 24, 2007. You could look it up.

I dont believe you.

eric said: lilly do you ever bother to look things up? Here is the link to the NYT article that says exactly what you don't believe they said: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/arts/24crea.html?_r=1&scp=23&sq=may%2024%202007&st=cse

I do not know everything that has transpired, but the Cincinnati Zoo has replied in an email that the combo package with the creationist museum has been cancelled. My source is an email forwarded to me originally from "Call Center" of the Cincinnati Zoo. If someone else gets a better confirmation, please post it. Ed

MoreOpenMinded said: It's amazing how "tolerant" all you liberals are of any viewpoints that contradict your own! There are millions and millions of well-educated Americans who believe in Creationism, and do not believe their great-...-great-grandparents were monkeys. How often do you see these good people getting all upset because others disagree with them?

*while = white.
D'oh.

I don't believe I'm descended from an ape-like ancestor.

No, I accept that there is a boggling amount of evidence gathered and analysed using a method specifically designed to eliminate the prejudices of its practitioners, the results of which are repeatedly tested and modified according to how well they describe the phenomenon under study.

I believe they call the above 'science'.

Does this sound like something the creation museum is familiar with?

RBH said: And any time an anti-evolutionist hauls out the "liberal" tag I shake my dog tags in front of their hyper-patriotic noses, the dog tags that I've carried for nearly 50 years since they were issued to me in boot camp.

The link at the top of Panda's Thumb no longer links to the creationist combo ticket page. It appears that this issue has been resolved in favor of those who support science.

Ed

RBH said: And any time an anti-evolutionist hauls out the "liberal" tag I shake my dog tags in front of their hyper-patriotic noses, the dog tags that I've carried for nearly 50 years since they were issued to me in boot camp. And then I inform them I'm a registered Republican, and am old enough to have voted for Barry Goldwater (a genuine conservative) after I got out of four years in the military. Interesting how few of these johhny-come-lately social/religious conservatives have actually served in the military or read The Conscience of a Conservative. They're mostly pig-ignorant of their own political history.

Edwin Hensley said: The link at the top of Panda's Thumb no longer links to the creationist combo ticket page. It appears that this issue has been resolved ...

lilly said: It’s true whether you believe it or not! Of course! But it is not true. Show me.

FL said: And no use accusing the Creation Museum of "fraud" without solid verification to back it up.

If the Cincinnati Zoo wishes to be recognized for its work in promoting science to the public (not to mention acting as a part of the public school system), it should be careful (possibly even in a legal sense) to promote science, rather than religion.

And if what the Creation Museum promotes isn't religion, there's no meaningful definition of the word.

MoreOpenMinded parroted:

It's amazing how "tolerant" all you liberals are of any viewpoints that contradict your own!

There's a difference between "viewpoints" and "lies." It is possible to be open-minded while still refusing to tolerate lies.

There are millions and millions of well-educated Americans who believe in Creationism, and do not believe their great-...-great-grandparents were monkeys.

If they believe in creationism, then they're not "well-educated" about their biological lineage. Or their religion, for that matter.

How often do you see these good people getting all upset because others disagree with them?

Every time they try to shoehorn their lies into a public-school science curriculum; or blame "Darwinism" for every evil known to Man; or accuse their critics of being intolerant, atheists or "anti-God;" or make death threats against non-creationists.

I applaud the Cincinnati Zoo for showing more open-mindedness than all of the posters on this website. For one thing, they know that (probably) a majority of their paying customers believe in some form of Creationism.

You're sure they "know" this; but then you try to cover your six by sticking that "(probably)" into your assertion. Not so sure of the facts, are you? Let me guess -- you didn't look up the facts, did you?

Matt G said: I hope that this is just a misunderstanding, or fraud on the part of the Creation Museum (sic).

Edwin Hensley said: Lilly, I have provided you with only a fraction of the evidence for evolution on only one species. I have "shown you", and there is so much more to show!

lilly said: .... a private entity has the right to do this [fire employees for their religious views]. in the expelled movie those were public institutions expelling people because of their religious beliefs. 2 different things

lilly cum bobby blathered: in the expelled movie those were public institutions expelling people because of their religious beliefs.

lilly said: .... a private entity has the right to do this.

in the expelled movie those were public institutions expelling people because of their religious beliefs. 2 different things

MoreOpenMinded said: It's amazing how "tolerant" all you liberals are of any viewpoints that contradict your own! There are millions and millions of well-educated Americans who believe in Creationism, and do not believe their great-...-great-grandparents were monkeys.

Paul Burnett said:

Edwin Hensley said: Lilly, I have provided you with only a fraction of the evidence for evolution on only one species. I have "shown you", and there is so much more to show!

"Lilly" / "Bobby" - We await your fishy response with baited breath.

Kevin B said: Anyway, I wasn't aware that either dolphins or trolls were any kind of fish.

Second question: Just how many evolution supporters (I feel strange using that word “supporter”, as if you have to champion the cause of the bleeding obvious) here do you suppose think their great great.…grandparents were monkeys?

nunyer said:

lilly said: .... a private entity has the right to do this [fire employees for their religious views]. in the expelled movie those were public institutions expelling people because of their religious beliefs. 2 different things

Check the facts, if you dare.

No package deals had been sold, so no refunds will be necessary.

The Louisville Courier-Journal also has a story:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20081201/NEWS01/81201045

Ed

lilly said: A creator would not need to have a blowhole move from the face to the back.

Edwin Hensley said:

lilly said: It’s true whether you believe it or not! Of course! But it is not true. Show me.

Lilly, I will show you evidence from only one species. There is evidence from every species on the planet. Here are pictures of a nose moving on a Dolphin embryo. http://www.neoucom.edu/DLDD/interst/develop/blowhole/index.html On young embryos, the nose is in the front of the face, as it is on most other mammals. The older embryo (middle picture) shows the nose has moved higher on the head. The oldest embryo picture shows the nose becoming a blowhole on the dolphin's back. Whale and dolphin adult fossils show this progression also! Here are pictures of dolphin embryos showing there extra limbs: http://www.neoucom.edu/DLDD/ Here are pictures of an adult dolphin with extra hind limbs: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15581204/ Most dolphins lose their limbs before fetuses are born. Feel free to click on the many other links of the Digital Library of Dolphin Development to see a hand become a fin, a tail become a fluke, gill slits evolve as they do in other mammals, and other evidences of evolution. Here is evidence from talk origins that lists over 20 additional sources you can read: http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ Only evolution explains these facts. A creator would not need to have a blowhole move from the face to the back. An intelligent designer would start with the blowhole in the correct place to begin with. Only evolution explains why some dolphins and whales have extra limbs and why all dolphin embryos have extra limbs that disappear in most cases. An intelligent designer would not design something to disappear in most cases. Lilly, I have provided you with only a fraction of the evidence for evolution on only one species. I have "shown you", and there is so much more to show! Ed

Thank you for the detailed info. At least your method of proving your point is not just calling people names and using foul language like many others do here.Thanks for the civil response. I do have some questions: to see a hand become a fin, a tail become a fluke, where exactly are these pics?

Organ Development:
• Tail Hand Nose
• Ear
• Gills?
• Hindlimbs

The Creation Museum’s founder, Ken Ham, said the Petersburg, Ky., museum and the zoo spent months preparing the cross-promotion package. He said the zoo’s decision to cut ties after two days was disappointing and a missed opportunity to boost regional tourism. Ham said he was “personally saddened” by the negative response. “It’s a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith,” Ham said in a statement. “Some of their comments … reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity.”

Someone needs to explain to Mr. Ham in words of 1 syllable that his Christianity is not the issue; the issue is his lying creationism, which he deliberately conflates with Christianity. I daresay that most of the staff of the museum is Christian, but they are not creationists. There is a difference, even if Mr. Ham is too obtuse to recognize it.

It seems the zoo management actually thought they had a
good idea and were taken back considerably when they
found out they had bumbled into the evo-science minefield.
Reminds me of Alan Bonsell at Dover: "It was like we'd
shot someone's DAWG!"

Bonsell was being naive since the textbook stickers
row was still in evidence at the time, and the zoo
management must not have many folks with science degrees
to have been THAT clueless about an ongoing feud.
By analogy, I may have some sympathy with the Southern
Confederacy, "a noble fight for a lousy cause", but
I am perfectly aware that if
I pinned up the Confederate Stars & Bars, I'd be asking
for trouble.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwnin.html

Henry J said: Well ... apes are a branch within the monkey clade, so quite likely the common ancestor was something that we'd call a monkey if we saw one.

iml8 said:

Henry J said: Well ... apes are a branch within the monkey clade, so quite likely the common ancestor was something that we'd call a monkey if we saw one.

No taxonomist, even one who thought Darwinism irrelevant to taxonomy (there are some purists who believe this) would fail to classify humans as a species of primate. And personally, at the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I find it astounding that anyone could observe the way we behave and not find that fact entirely obvious. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

iml8 said: No taxonomist, even one who thought Darwinism irrelevant to taxonomy (there are some purists who believe this) would fail to classify humans as a species of primate. And personally, at the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I find it astounding that anyone could observe the way we behave and not find that fact entirely obvious.

If the link provided is any indication, the Creation Anti-Museum has also removed the ticket discount:

Page Not Found

Sorry, the page your looking for cannot be found.
Error 404

* Blog Home

"The issue is his (Ham's) lying creationism, which he deliberately conflates with Christianity. I daresay that most of the staff of the museum is Christian, but they are not creationists. There is a difference, even if Mr. Ham is too obtuse to recognize it."

You have to remember that according to the Ham view of religion, it isn't possible for people to be Christians unless they are also young-earth creationists. To Ham, people who accept the evidence for evolution and an ancient Earth are not Christians, by definition.

He has a rather delicate line to walk here, mind you. He's nothing but a loony-tunes whacko, and at best an extreme sectary in schism from nearly all of the Christian church itself, but he needs to evoke Christianity for the purposes of general appeal - that is, for political reasons, because there's money in it.

At the same time, he wants to present himself as one of the embattled faithful, persecuted for his faith. The fact that the Christian church is under no sort of attack is actually irrelevant to him. He doesn't recognise it as Christian, though he can't actually say as much, in so many words. It is even irrelevant that the people repudiating him may be, by other definitions than his own, Christians themselves. Because what Ham means by "Christianity" is the gospel according to Ham, and no other.

this is the email i sent:

To whom it may concern:

It has come to my notice that the prestigious Cincinnati zoo, is supporting, indirectly, pseudoscience in the form of the selling "combo tickets" to the farcical anti-science Creation Museum.
There is a public duty and world expectation that public zoos be a showcase for scientific understanding of the displays in its care. That the Cincinnati zoo would ally itself with the Creation Museum in any form, belittles the legacy your predecessor have worked hard to establish.
To put financial expediency above the institutions scientific integrity is a gross error of judgement, for which history will judge severely.

Money can not buy your integrity, I beg you to reconsider your decision.

Henry J said: Well, according to http://tolweb.org/Primates/15963 apes are a branch within the monkey clade, so quite likely the common ancestor was something that we'd call a monkey if we saw one. Henry

SO WHAT?

I have always failed to get the point. Why is it somehow shameful, dishonorable, disgusting, or whatever to have monkey or ape ancestors?

Why is that somehow worse than having DIRT as an ancestor, as described in Genesis?

And why should anyone care who your or my ancestors were? It's YOU that matters! Thinking that having "better" ancestors makes you something special is elitist, aristocratic, and completely un-American.

My ancestors include thieves, slave owners, slaves, and the scum of 18th century English and German society. And yes, apes. Does that somehow make me less worthy than someone descended from royalty, or Adam & Eve, or a handful of dirt?

Judging someone by his ancestry is the major component of racism. Witness those condemning Barack Obama as a muslim because his father was one, or as unworthy because of his African ancestry.

It doesn’t change the creationist misuse and abuse of the argument, nor does it increase their understanding of anything! ;)

PvM, posted 12/01/08 3:39 PM As the Cincinnati Enquirer reports that the deal has been cancelled No package deals had been sold, so no refunds will be necessary.

Just Bob, here's my theory: It's familiarity breeding contempt.

I think it's sad that some people don't find common descent appealing. I think it's very life-affirming to know that all extant life forms (that we know of) are part of one big, happy (if slightly dysfunctional) family.

I think it’s sad that some people don’t find common descent appealing. I think it’s very life-affirming to know that all extant life forms (that we know of) are part of one big, happy (if slightly dysfunctional) family.

Henry J said:

I think it’s sad that some people don’t find common descent appealing. I think it’s very life-affirming to know that all extant life forms (that we know of) are part of one big, happy (if slightly dysfunctional) family.

Oh, I dunno about that; there are species out there that I don't especially like being distantly related to. Henry

Heh. What I was thinking of was more along the lines of parasites, disease germs, or digger wasps. Not something that I'd have to google to know what it was. :)

Henry

Henry J said: there are species out there that I don't especially like being distantly related to.

The troll asks how often we see creationists get upset about evolution. Er, constantly?

Beliefs are irrelevant to fact, and opinions without evidence are worthless.

I think it is unfortunate that this combo deal was cancelled. What better way to show everybody the real truth that to place the Zoo side-by-side with the Creation Museum so everybody can see what is real and what is only the figment of someone's imagination?

Anytime any scientist discovers anything, ten other scientists always seek to repeat what he or she did. True science is always open to opposing arguments because it gives those supporting an idea more opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of their ideas. True science never seeks to get the upper hand by stifling any opposing idea, no matter how absurd. Surely the arguments supporting evolution are strong enough to withstand such comparisons. To claim anything less is to betray science at its most fundamental level.

So I say "bring 'em on"! The Zoo is plenty strong enough to deal with those people hiding in the hills down in Hebron, KY. They need to be flushed out in the open, and the zoo's combo ticket idea was a good step in that direction.

Being an Animal Keeper at the San Francisco Zoo, it would seem pretty clear what my feelings are surrounding “evolutionary theory.” With that said, I think its a great idea for people to visit both a museum that focuses on Creationism and a zoological facility that doesn’t, then the people themselves can make a decision on what they believe.

(Also nominating Tom's post too.)

Is it any surprise that well-known evolutionist P.Z. Myers blasted the zoo and rallied the zealot secularists in what became a worldwide email campaign against the zoo and museum? After all, Myers is the ardent atheist who asked his supporters to call me names on his website (see previous blog)—this is what you do when you can’t deal logically with creationist arguments: you call them names. These people basically worship Darwin—they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn’t agree with them!

Thank you, P.Z. Myers, for thousands of dollars’ worth of media promotion for our Bible-upholding museum! Actually, this will benefit the Creation Museum much more in the long run. Maybe we should try to get combo tickets with all sorts of other groups—think of the publicity we could all receive! Even the zoo has received a lot of publicity! It turned out to be a great combo publicity event for both organizations (though different to what we thought it would be when the combo ticket was arranged). As P.T. Barnum is attributed with saying, “I don’t care what they say about me; just make sure they spell my name right!”

Peter Henderson said: True to form, Mr. Ham has responded, this time with an attack on the Panda's Thumb and PZ: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/12/02/intolerant-evolutionists-launch-another-attack-against-aig/

Is it any surprise that well-known evolutionist P.Z. Myers blasted the zoo and rallied the zealot secularists in what became a worldwide email campaign against the zoo and museum? After all, Myers is the ardent atheist who asked his supporters to call me names on his website (see previous blog)—this is what you do when you can’t deal logically with creationist arguments: you call them names. These people basically worship Darwin—they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn’t agree with them!

They claim PZ has given them much needed free publicity:

Thank you, P.Z. Myers, for thousands of dollars’ worth of media promotion for our Bible-upholding museum! Actually, this will benefit the Creation Museum much more in the long run. Maybe we should try to get combo tickets with all sorts of other groups—think of the publicity we could all receive! Even the zoo has received a lot of publicity! It turned out to be a great combo publicity event for both organizations (though different to what we thought it would be when the combo ticket was arranged). As P.T. Barnum is attributed with saying, “I don’t care what they say about me; just make sure they spell my name right!”

They do seem to be somewhat pissed off.

Lectures @ the Linenhall Library Wednesdays @ 1.00 pm. Free. Fossils Tamed! by Dr Mike simms, Curator of Palaeontology An easy and painless introduction to the astonishing world revealed by fossils and the rocks in which they are found. You don't need prior knowledge of the subject, but you may be surprised by how much is already familiar. 5 November How to become a fossil They may be common in some rocks, but on average you have more chance of winning the lottery than becoming a fossil! The Tooth Fairy's secret hoard - why your teeth may long outlast you. Footprints can be fossils, too - traces of unknown animals. 12 November Bringing fossils back to life How architects, engineers, biologists and genealogists all have a role to play. Colours in an ancient world. Unravelling fossil behaviour. 19 November Life's comings and goings: evolution and extinction The vastness of time. How Peter Pan, Mickey Mouse and the Giant Irish Deer can help us to understand evolution. Extinctions large and small, what causes them, and the problems of Lazarus and Elvis. How evolution helps us to tell the time. 26 November The message in the mud: what the rocks can tell us Secrets revealed by colour, texture and fabric. Tales told by sand grains and pebbles. Flattened fossils, Midas and Medusa. Shaking, stirring and smothering - some ancient hazards. 3 December The weird and the wonderful Some fossil weirdos and the story of Hallucigenia. Strange fossil names. Crinoid arms, banana plantations and living on the edge of disaster. Instant fossilisation. Corals as calendars. Fur, feathers and fakes. 10 December Ireland's fossil highlights Ireland's (and the world's!) oldest footprints. The first trees. 'Cabbage stalks' and tropical sea floors. Ulster's oldest rudist colony. Marvels from the Minnis mudflow.

Tom wrote:

"Anytime any scientist discovers anything, ten other scientists always seek to repeat what he or she did. True science is always open to opposing arguments because it gives those supporting an idea more opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of their ideas. True science never seeks to get the upper hand by stifling any opposing idea, no matter how absurd. Surely the arguments supporting evolution are strong enough to withstand such comparisons. To claim anything less is to betray science at its most fundamental level."

Sure, and that is exactly what has happened here. When Darwin first proposed his ideas they were not accepted, they were ridiculed. But then, over the course of the next one hundred and fifty years the evidence was collected and analyzed and Darwin was proven correct, by the evidence. So now you have to deal with that result. You can't simpy ignore the evidence in a blind appeal to fairness. You can't ignore all of the answers that have been found just because some things are still unknown. The theory of evolution has already withstood such comparisons. It won, deal with it.

This is not stiffling opposing ideas, this is simply acknowleging the fact that some things have been demonstrated to be wrong. Fairness does not demand that we ignore the evidence. Fairness demands that we learn what has been discovered and move on once something has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Real science doesn't judge based on ideology, it judges based on evidence, it must. This is not oppression, this is simply dealing with reality.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the earth is 6,000 years old. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. All of the available evidence shows conclusively that Ham is completely wrong. His own museum decries what he terms "human reason". How is it fair not to point out that he is a charlatan and a fraud? He doesn't have a better explanation for the evidence, he ignores all of the evidence, he displays nothing but contempt for the evidence. He can only survive if everyone remains completely ignorant of the evidence. Allowing him a comparison to real science is not fairness, it is utter madness.

If you are so keen on "fairness" why aren't you out supporting the flying spagetti monster? There is much more evidence for that than there is for the Ham version of history. Aren't you open to "opposing arguments"? Are you trying to stifle the beloved FSM, (bless his noodly appendage)? What, is that too absurd for you? Come on, it's only fair, right? That is the whole point of the FSM. Are you trying to betray science at it's most fundamental level, or are you just trying to reduce it to the level absurdity?

re: Ancestry preferences;

"The average man will bristle if you say his father was dishonest, but he will brag a little if he discovers that his great-grandfather was a pirate."

Bern Williams

Stephen Wells said: The dodgy combo appears to be offered on the site with "eticketing by convergence.net" in the lower right corner, https://tickets.cincinnatizoo.org/mainstore.asp ; it appears to be a legit group-ticketing site and does link back to the zoo's own website via the zoo logo in the top left. The zoo's own front page doesn't seem to link to the dodgy combo. It is possible that the zoo itself didn't know this was happening until the storm just broke- has anyone had a response back from the zoo? I could imagine some clueless wonder setting up the combo without thinking it through. I could also imagine some zealous godbot doing this deliberately.

Don't you think the theory of evolution is equally proposterous, puerile and implausible, and every bit as much of a "lauging stock" to reason and intelligence?

Come on evolutionists ... use your critical thinking skills and realise just how ludicrous your own religion is.

To believe you came from nowhere, are heading back to nowhere, and in the meantime can enjoy a symphony and a good bottle of wine, and get all upset with people who believe there is something more, ranks up there among the most ridiculous belief systems ever known to man.

I think that bobby the boob, goff the goof, hand jobby, corn cobby, silly lilly has done more to discredit and expose the intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy of creationism than anyone (well wittlessly).

It doesn't seem to have looked at those pictures yet, even though it was given free links as it demanded. Apparently it hasn't read that NY Times article yet either. I's sure we're all waiting with eager anticipation.

I predict that it will claim to have looked at the pictures but display no evidence of actually having done so and that it will claim that they prove nothing, whether it looks at them or not. Of course no alternative explanation will be given, unless it resurrects the good old invisible hologram hypothesis. Now why would the great invisible hologram start making tails and fingers and then cause them to disappear? Why would it start making a blowhole in the front of the head and then migrate it to the top of the head, when we know that that is mathematically impossible? It works in mysterious ways!

Funny how someone who tries so hard to remain anonomous also tries so hard to find out who everyone else really is.

David said: Don't you think the theory of evolution is equally proposterous, puerile and implausible, and every bit as much of a "lauging stock" to reason and intelligence?

Over the last day or so, the Creation Museum has received quite a bit of media attention across the Cincinnati region. The Cincinnati Zoo and the museum entered into a business agreement where a combo ticket to both attractions would be available at a savings of up to $9 for an adult ticket during the holiday season. The promotion was cut short due to the zoo receiving dozens of angry calls and e-mails about the partnership. The purpose of the cross-promotion with the Cincinnati Zoo was indeed to promote two great events in the Cincinnati region that commemorate the season. Unfortunately, the promotion ended before most people were aware of it. With that in mind, we invite you to check out the Creation Museum for yourself at a reduced rate. From Tuesday, December 2, through Thursday, December 11 (except Saturday, December 6), the Creation Museum will continue offering the savings that patrons would have received with the Zoo/Creation Museum combo ticket. The discounted rates are: $12.95 for adults, $11.95 for seniors and $6.95 for children 5-12. The Creation Museum remains committed to promoting tourism in the Cincinnati region-including this excellent zoo-to our valued guests.

FL said: Good news for people who are Pro-Science But Non-Censorship: You can still get the Museum/Zoo Combo deal anyway, for a limited time.

From Tuesday, December 2, through Thursday, December 11 (except Saturday, December 6), the Creation Museum will continue offering the savings that patrons would have received with the Zoo/Creation Museum combo ticket. http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/museum/2008/12/02/experience-the-creation-museum-for-yourself/ That's what I like to see!! FL

FL said: That's what I like to see!! FL

Third question: "Millions and millions of Americans believe in Creationism". About 6% of the population also believe the moon landings were faked. That's about 18 million people (equivalent to nearly the entire population of my country!). Slightly more than that think Elvis may still be alive. Scary what "millions and millions of Americans" will believe, isn't it?

Judging someone by his ancestry is the major component of racism. Witness those condemning Barack Obama as a muslim because his father was one, or as unworthy because of his African ancestry.

PvM said: Why would you like to see ignorance being promoted to Christians?

FL said: That's what I like to see!! FL

Peter Henderson said:

As P.T. Barnum is attributed with saying, “I don’t care what they say about me; just make sure they spell my name right!”

So is Ham's "museum" bringing home the bacon?

PvM said: Why would you like to see ignorance being promoted to Christians?

FL said: That's what I like to see!! FL

lilly the lying sack of shit said: Sounds like he made a scene a la PZ Myers

mkb said: I actually think it's a good idea. There's likely to be more people from out of the area who traveel there specifically to see the creation museum than to see the zoo, and this may give them incentive to get some exposure to REAL science once they're done with the theme park.

phantomreader42 said:

lilly the lying sack of shit said: Sounds like he made a scene a la PZ Myers

And once again the eternally sockpuppeting troll repeats a known lie. Not to mention his endorsement of facism in service to creationist delusions.

David said: Don't you think the theory of evolution is equally proposterous, puerile and implausible, and every bit as much of a "lauging stock" to reason and intelligence?

jim hilt said:

mkb said: I actually think it's a good idea. There's likely to be more people from out of the area who traveel there specifically to see the creation museum than to see the zoo, and this may give them incentive to get some exposure to REAL science once they're done with the theme park.

I agree that it makes some sense. Choice a good thing, right? People would choose to utilize the offer. Or not. Let the Zoo and the Museum generate some revenue and give people some credit that they can use their God given ability to reason it out. If you think about it, creationism and evolution actually complement each other, kind of like this offer. Merry Christmas !

My son-in-law is an astrophysic professor at Washington University in St. Louis. He visited the museum??? last spring just to observe their philosophy . Upon questioning several people who seemed to be knowledgeable about the contents it seems he asked too many questions and was ushered out with guards and DOGS. This man is a tenured professor at a prestigious university and was thrown out of this SILLY place with guards and dogs.

Matt G said:

Third question: "Millions and millions of Americans believe in Creationism". About 6% of the population also believe the moon landings were faked. That's about 18 million people (equivalent to nearly the entire population of my country!). Slightly more than that think Elvis may still be alive. Scary what "millions and millions of Americans" will believe, isn't it?

Not to mention the 20% of Americans who subscribe to the Geocentric model of the Solar System....

Evolution and anti-evolution don’t complement each other, however,

@David the troll: If you have reproduction with heredity and variation, plus competition and differential survival/reproductive success, then you get evolution. Now go away, learn what the big words mean, and get back to us in a few years' time.

Actually, you did both the zoo and AIG a favor by making so much of this. Both organizations obtained more free press in the media than either anticipated.

What are you all so offended about? I've never seen so much intolerance and bigotry in one place in my life.

I am a former earth science teacher who taught evolution. I had many students with closed minds who would not allow contradictory information to enter their minds. You all remind me of them, just the other side of the coin. This is America, not a fascist state (yet). If you are the "Celebarte Diversity" crowd, count me out.

If you consider the agreement between the Zoo and the Creation Museum to be an "issue" you all need to get a life.

Chip said: What are you all so offended about? I've never seen so much intolerance and bigotry in one place in my life. I am a former earth science teacher who taught evolution. I had many students with closed minds who would not allow contradictory information to enter their minds. You all remind me of them, just the other side of the coin. This is America, not a fascist state (yet). If you are the "Celebarte Diversity" crowd, count me out. If you consider the agreement between the Zoo and the Creation Museum to be an "issue" you all need to get a life.

Chip said: What are you all so offended about? I've never seen so much intolerance and bigotry in one place in my life.

I am a former earth science teacher who taught evolution. I had many students with closed minds who would not allow contradictory information to enter their minds. You all remind me of them, just the other side of the coin. This is America, not a fascist state (yet). If you are the "Celebarte Diversity" crowd, count me out.

Chip said: If you are the "Celebarte Diversity" crowd, count me out.

"Earth science", my foot. Geologists are geologists, and a reputable and scientific body they are. If you had any sort of actual qualification in geology or paleontology (or biology or botany or biochemistry) you'd have cited that instead. What you're saying - and I find even this difficult to believe - is "I taught a class in junior high once, and I kinda read the textbook." What you're also saying is, "I think facts and opinion are the same thing." You're dead wrong.

Fact: there is no theory attested by any evidence whatsoever that competes with the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for the diversity of species of living things. None. There are no intellectually or scientifically respectable alternatives. None whatsoever. To imply, teach, or allow to be taught that there is any such alternative is to purvey falsehood and ignorance and call it "education", an outrageous piece of Orwellian doublespeak. It is to bear false witness. It is to tell lies to children. Anyone who would do such a thing or allow it to be done is at best in grave error to the public danger, but more likely is engaged in a knowing deception for sectarian purposes, with the intention to subvert the separation of Church and State and impose their own bigotry on others.

That's what we're all so offended about, dammit.

Chip wrote:

"I am a former earth science teacher who taught evolution. I had many students with closed minds who would not allow contradictory information to enter their minds."

So Chip, when you gave an exam what answer would you accept for the age of the earth? Would you accept 6,000 years? Would you "tolerate" students who wrote you papers about dinosaurs and humans living together? You weren't a "facist" who demanded evidence were you? Certainly you allowed any answer that any student could think up, after all every opinion is equally valid in science right?

Creationists can never agree on anything because their opinons are not constrained by evidence, That is not how science works. If you taught science you must surely realize this. Either that or you were a really bad science teacher. I do know of one really bad junior high teacher, but it has a completely different name so I'm sure that couldn't be you.

Thank you Anthony Brown for your two cents. A big dose of mutual respect is long over due. I've never cared much for the arguments of those who try to win their point by name calling and intimidation. Suppression of varying ideas doesn't get us anywhere.

I'm saddened that the zoo has changed its plans because we can no longer politely tolerate diversity in philosophy and thought. I'm not criticizing their decision, but I'm disappointed by the ranting that has brought it about.

As the late Michael Crichton said, science by consensus is not science, it's politics. Progress in science is often made by those who disagree with the status quo.

Countless women died of puerperal fever until Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis discovered its cause. Countless continued to die because the scientists of his day opposed his discovery, claiming he was a madman. Joseph Lister later credited Semmelweis as the reason for his own success with antiseptic surgery.

We can't afford science by consensus and we can't afford to suppress the diversity that various philosophical and religious views provide us.

Shame on the Cincinnati Zoo? I don't think so. Shame on any who would put up such a fuss to exclude one portion of culture from our society in the interest of the "public". I thought public included everyone. Are we required to shed all individuality before we can participate in any public activity?

Are we going to be tolerant, or just pretend we are? Giving voice only those who agree with us isn't tolerance. Using science as an excuse for such intolerance is reprehensible.

Tolerance is not a virtue in itself. Tolerance of what? Tolerance of tyranny is no virtue. No more is tolerance of ignorance and untruth.

It is useless to argue that they laughed at the Wright brothers, (or Semmelweiss, or Leonardo Da Vinci, or insert name here) so we should teach unattested woo to children. They laughed at the Wright brothers, but then the fact arose that the thing actually flew, and the laughter stopped. Ignorant of the germ theory of disease, they denied Semmelweiss, but when Pasteur and Lister demonstrated fact, they denied it no longer. The scientists converted in the face of facts. It was not argument that moved them, but the evidence made plain. They should have seen it before, of course. They, too, were human. But it is still the case that it was evidence that moved them, not argument, not philosophy, not outlook.

Facts trump everything. Evidence is what matters, not opinion, not attitude, not philosophy, not consensus, not religion. All the evidence - all of it - is for evolution, and there are mountains of it. There is not one single scrap of real evidence - evidence that can stand actual scrutiny - for separate creation of the species. Still less is there any evidence for the rest of Ham's notions. There was no Fall. There was never a time when living things did not die. There was never a worldwide flood. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old or thereabouts, and life has been present on it for 3.5 billion years or so. All living things have common ancestors. The origin of the species is through evolutionary change over deep time. These are facts, attested by reliable and consistent evidence.

True, the evidence takes time and study to understand. Fools and the blindly ignorant deny it. Nevertheless, it is testable, certain and overwhelming. Nor is it merely that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it is that there is no evidence to the contrary. None.

To teach creation as science is to teach falsehood. That may be acceptable to you. It is not acceptable to me, or to anyone with a scientific respect for evidence.

""Nor is it merely that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming ""

Are you referring to the evidence for small adaptive changes or the evidence that there is an unbroken lineage between ancient reptiles and humans based mainly on natural selection?

Both.

Dave Luckett said: Both.

TGB said Bobby the sockpuppet trolled:

Dave Luckett said: Both.

Are you referring to the evidence for small adaptive changes or the evidence that there is an unbroken lineage between ancient reptiles and humans based mainly on natural selection? I think the former has overwhelming evidence but can you refer me to the evidence for the latter?

Chip said: What are you all so offended about? I've never seen so much intolerance and bigotry in one place in my life. I am a former earth science teacher who taught evolution. I had many students with closed minds who would not allow contradictory information to enter their minds. You all remind me of them, just the other side of the coin. This is America, not a fascist state (yet). If you are the "Celebarte Diversity" crowd, count me out. If you consider the agreement between the Zoo and the Creation Museum to be an "issue" you all need to get a life.

A "former earth science teacher" who thinks that 6000 years is a good estimate for the earth's age has problems. Forget evolution, apparently basic physics is out.

Diane said: I'm saddened that the zoo has changed its plans because we can no longer politely tolerate diversity in philosophy and thought. I'm not criticizing their decision, but I'm disappointed by the ranting that has brought it about.

Diane wrote:

"Countless women died of puerperal fever until Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis discovered its cause. Countless continued to die because the scientists of his day opposed his discovery, claiming he was a madman. Joseph Lister later credited Semmelweis as the reason for his own success with antiseptic surgery."

And countless people continue to die because some refuse to accept the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. The evidence is what is important. If you are on the wrong side of the evidence, "tolerance" is hardly the appropriate response. Should we be "tolerant" of those who oppose antiseptic surgery now?

No one is preventing anyone from believing any fool thing they want. No one has tried to close down the Ham museum. Creationism is tolerated in this country. They even get to preach it in their tax free churches protected by the consitiution. How much more "tolerant" can you get? What, you want real scientists who know that creationists are dead wrong based on the evidence to advertise for them and support them financially? Perhaps you would like to "tolerate" evolution in the same way.

So Chip, when you gave an exam what answer would you accept for the age of the earth? Would you accept 6,000 years? Would you “tolerate” students who wrote you papers about dinosaurs and humans living together? You weren’t a “facist” who demanded evidence were you? Certainly you allowed any answer that any student could think up, after all every opinion is equally valid in science right?

lilly livered bobby seems to have taken a powder, unless of course it now calls itself TGB. Perhaps it looked at those dolphin photos and realized that it has been dead wrong all along. Perhaps it cannot bear to admit that it was wrong. Perhaps it is still scrutinizing the photos desperately looking for evidence of the magic hologram.

I strongly suspect that it has just changed it’s name again and is now infesting other threads under still more aliases. If the administration cannot find a way to block this troll then they will get exactly what they asked for.

Creationism means never having to admit that you were wrong.

Sure they do. The answer for them is that the Flood killed them all and then God sorted it out.

Or perhaps the reverse.

The news website NKY.com (http://nky.cincinnati.com/) ran an online poll on the controversy. They gave the following options: YES—The museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo’s scientific mission. NO—The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo. As of last night, 86% voted “NO—The promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo.” I know this is not a statistically valid poll, but I think it does show, as we have seen many times before, that most people are not intolerant. Sadly, it is an intolerant minority that can intimidate people to give in on matters they should take a stand on.

There are numerous other media responses. Certainly, this has thrust the Creation Museum and its Christmas program into the news. I believe, as a result, this has really taken our Christmas promotion to a much higher level. We can certainly thank the intolerant atheists for this! These people have been ranting and raving on their websites about the issue—but as usual, using emotive, blasphemous, and vulgar language as they denigrate God, AiG, my name, etc.

As a result of this, AiG has decided to offer the same generous discount off the Creation Museum admission price that was to be had from the combo zoo/museum ticket for December 2–11 (except for December 6). See the Creation Museum website for details.

AiG has a lot of nerve calling other people "intolerant."

Mark Perakh said: I have closed comments to the thread about Paul Gross’s review of Berlinski, because it has been inundated by endless comments by somebody whose obvious intent was to hijack the thread. Even though for a while I was not deleting his/her comments, this despicable troll apparently simply could not withstand his/her penchant for being nasty and fraudulent, so he/she has used several ‘handles” (like Lilly, TGB, TAW) and also several computers, cluttering the thread with comments whose sole aim was apparently to spoil any fruitful discussion - otherwise he/she would not need to resort to such evasions as utilizing several IDs and several computers. While PT’s technical management will be looking for the ways to neutralize such impudent intruders, whose behavior seems to be a good example of creos’ integrity, our readers should realize that it is not that simple to fight such a malicious individual who spares no time and effort to disrupt normal debates on this blog. While the troll has hardly anything to do besides jumping from computer to another computer and sending his “messages”, the contributors to PT all are working scientists with many other things to do besides defending the blog from dishonest trolls.

Thanks Mark. I appreciate your diligence and your willingness to keep this site operating without disruption. I do agree with science avenger that a more effective and permanent solution is required for this problem. Unfortunately, any suggestions that I might have at this time are probaly best left unposted.

Wheels said: AiG has a lot of nerve calling other people "intolerant."

The main problem is that PT is very inconsistent on
policing malicious visitors. Some thread owners
just don't have
time to worry about it.

I have a suggestion. I lurk here quite a bit, only
occasionally posting. I would find it amusing to delete
malicious postings and could do it fairly promptly.
That would require obtaining authorization and the
proper passwords, or at least a provisional password set
up for the purpose. Of course that would require that
specific rules be set and published for deletion.
And the custom would be to err on the side of generosity.

This is handing a certain power to a relative unknown,
but on the plus side it means the thread owners don't
have to worry about it any more.
If
my deletions became irresponsible, my authorizations
could be yanked -- no problem. Give it a trial up to,
say, 1 January, and then we can discuss if it's worked
out agreeably.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

PZ's post is not the place to make off topic comments. We have the Bathroom Wall and forums for that. I expect PZ will come through and delete these.

iml8 said: The main problem is that PT is very inconsistent on policing malicious visitors. Some thread owners just don't have time to worry about it. I have a suggestion. I lurk here quite a bit, only occasionally posting. I would find it amusing to delete malicious postings and could do it fairly promptly. That would require obtaining authorization and the proper passwords, or at least a provisional password set up for the purpose. Of course that would require that specific rules be set and published for deletion. And the custom would be to err on the side of generosity. This is handing a certain power to a relative unknown, but on the plus side it means the thread owners don't have to worry about it any more. If my deletions became irresponsible, my authorizations could be yanked -- no problem. Give it a trial up to, say, 1 January, and then we can discuss if it's worked out agreeably. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

Sorry Reed. However, the comments are not really off topic since the troll of many names has infected this thread as well.

Dear Peter:

These are great points you've made, but should alert you to the following:

1) K/T boundary has fallen out of use, replaced by the K/P boundary (as in Cretaceous/Paleogene bounday).

2) Apparently a relict Cretaceous macroinvertebrate fauna did survive the K/P impact event off the coast of what is now New Jersey briefly for upwards to several thousand years. There's some elegant biostratigraphic work being done by a team of paleontologists and other geologists, primarily from the American Museum of Natural History and the City University of New York. If you goggle the names "Neil Landman" and "Matthew Garb", then you should find the appropriate references.

Regards,

John

Science Avenger said:

Mark Perakh said: I have closed comments to the thread about Paul Gross’s review of Berlinski, because it has been inundated by endless comments by somebody whose obvious intent was to hijack the thread. Even though for a while I was not deleting his/her comments, this despicable troll apparently simply could not withstand his/her penchant for being nasty and fraudulent, so he/she has used several ‘handles” (like Lilly, TGB, TAW) and also several computers, cluttering the thread with comments whose sole aim was apparently to spoil any fruitful discussion - otherwise he/she would not need to resort to such evasions as utilizing several IDs and several computers. While PT’s technical management will be looking for the ways to neutralize such impudent intruders, whose behavior seems to be a good example of creos’ integrity, our readers should realize that it is not that simple to fight such a malicious individual who spares no time and effort to disrupt normal debates on this blog. While the troll has hardly anything to do besides jumping from computer to another computer and sending his “messages”, the contributors to PT all are working scientists with many other things to do besides defending the blog from dishonest trolls.

Apologies for being OT here, but there was no way to respond to Mark's comments elsewhere. The answer to such trolling is what PZ employs: just keep deleting the troll's posts until he tires of typing to no one. The only other alternative is to require registration to comment, which would at least slow down the infection a little. Closing the comments to the thread is the absolute worst option, since the point of trolling is to derail discussion in the first place! You punish those who'd engage in fruitful discussion, while giving the troll exactly what he wants. You have to understand Mark that this is not an isolated incident. This troll infects many many threads here. If everyone starts closing infected threads, we could very quickly find the entire site's discussion effectively shut down. I appreciate the limited time scientists have to deal with this nonsense. Indeed, that is part of the meaning of my moniker. But closing threads is not the answer: that punishes everyone.

My own impression of this bobby, lilly, multiply self-named troll is that he is trying to set a record for the most derailed and off-topic threads.

I would suggest that the moment a pattern of off-topic taunting becomes evident, everyone simply ignore the troll.

Some of the trolls probably are ID/Creationists attempting to get a point across, however ill-informed they are. We can at least learn something of their tactics and thought processes by observing them.

But the trolls who are just taunting and derailing threads for malicious reasons are usually recognizable after a few of their comments. I suggest everyone just wait and not respond until the troll actually shows some hint of a thought process, and then stop responding the moment it becomes evident the troll is a malicious idiot.

Some of these trolls are psychopathically attuned to pricking people’s egos. It’s what they do and how they get it off. Don’t respond to them.

John Kwok said: Dear Peter: These are great points you've made, but should alert you to the following: 1) K/T boundary has fallen out of use, replaced by the K/P boundary (as in Cretaceous/Paleogene bounday). 2) Apparently a relict Cretaceous macroinvertebrate fauna did survive the K/P impact event off the coast of what is now New Jersey briefly for upwards to several thousand years. There's some elegant biostratigraphic work being done by a team of paleontologists and other geologists, primarily from the American Museum of Natural History and the City University of New York. If you goggle the names "Neil Landman" and "Matthew Garb", then you should find the appropriate references. Regards, John

Mike Elzinga said: I would suggest that the moment a pattern of off-topic taunting becomes evident, everyone simply ignore the troll.

iml8 said: Mike Elzinga said: I would suggest that the moment a pattern of off-topic taunting becomes evident, everyone simply ignore the troll.

Alias number 55. Ban it for good.

iml8 said:

Mike Elzinga said: I would suggest that the moment a pattern of off-topic taunting becomes evident, everyone simply ignore the troll.

Not to be rude Mr. E but ... you have a malicious visitor who is transparently doing nothing but yanking chains ... and there are more than a few people who either fail to recognize this or don't care and insist on arguing with him anyway when they might as well be arguing with a small dog whose mental activity consists of the command KEEP ON BARKING ... and they're going to suddenly stop arguing with him? "... I don't think so." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tardarwin.html

Diane said: Are we going to be tolerant, or just pretend we are?

I am not a working scientist. I am an SF writer, and I use science blogs for information and inspiration. My academic qualifications, such as they are, are in history. If being a working scientist is a required qualification to contribute to PT, I can only offer my apologies and depart.

Dave Luckett said: I am not a working scientist. I am an SF writer, and I use science blogs for information and inspiration. My academic qualifications, such as they are, are in history. If being a working scientist is a required qualification to contribute to PT, I can only offer my apologies and depart.

Dave Luckett said: I am not a working scientist. I am an SF writer, and I use science blogs for information and inspiration. My academic qualifications, such as they are, are in history. If being a working scientist is a required qualification to contribute to PT, I can only offer my apologies and depart.

As a working scientist, I heartily encourage all science advocates on this blog, of all walks of life, to keep up the good work!

Stanton said:

Dave Luckett said: I am not a working scientist. I am an SF writer, and I use science blogs for information and inspiration. My academic qualifications, such as they are, are in history. If being a working scientist is a required qualification to contribute to PT, I can only offer my apologies and depart.

I'm thinking that what Mark means by "working scientist" is someone who has a genuine interest in discussing science, and is not a troll out to maliciously aggravate other people in a perverted desire to either please Jesus or amuse themselves.

Stanton said:

Dave Luckett said: I am not a working scientist. I am an SF writer, and I use science blogs for information and inspiration. My academic qualifications, such as they are, are in history. If being a working scientist is a required qualification to contribute to PT, I can only offer my apologies and depart.

I'm thinking that what Mark means by "working scientist" is someone who has a genuine interest in discussing science, and is not a troll out to maliciously aggravate other people in a perverted desire to either please Jesus or amuse themselves.

That does bring up a good point. Is a “scientist” only someone who professionally employs the scientific method as a researcher of phenomena? Or is a “scientist” anyone with expert knowledge in a given field who employs the scientific method to investigate aspects of that field. I do not wish to reduce the legitimacy of the title or remove the recognition that comes with having the title in a professional setting, but I vote for the latter if only because I know folks who do scientifically investigate the world as amateurs and contribute sound information to the scientific community. Regardless of the troll’s comments, I certainly find most, if not all of the legitimate contributors to be scientific and science-minded.

— Robin

Peter Henderson said:

John Kwok said: Dear Peter: These are great points you've made, but should alert you to the following: 1) K/T boundary has fallen out of use, replaced by the K/P boundary (as in Cretaceous/Paleogene bounday). 2) Apparently a relict Cretaceous macroinvertebrate fauna did survive the K/P impact event off the coast of what is now New Jersey briefly for upwards to several thousand years. There's some elegant biostratigraphic work being done by a team of paleontologists and other geologists, primarily from the American Museum of Natural History and the City University of New York. If you goggle the names "Neil Landman" and "Matthew Garb", then you should find the appropriate references. Regards, John

Thanks for those points John. It's been a few years since I've done any Earth sciences (about 5-6years now). The KT boundary term was still being used at that time by the Open University. Much of the geology I did on that course (S283) was astro-geology, quite a new field of science (cryovolcanism was a fascinating subject). Even then I encountered concepts that showed certain planetary surfaces were very ancient indeed (cratering for example). How the YECs can explain away impact craters is still beyond me (I've yet to see any adequate explanation on the AiG website). Still, now that we've got our young son sorted out (he has special needs): http://www.glencraig.org.uk/ I may have a go at finishing my degree, now that I have a lot more free time on my hands. It's when I see children like my son that I get really angry with the YECs and how they distort science, especially when they conn people who don't know any better.

I doubt that there's a sharp boundary between definitely a scientist and definitely not one. I don't think being paid for it should be in the definition, since a person might do original research on their own time.

Henry

In my daily grind, I seem to make use of Science, in that

(1) I observe phenomena, and I

(2) concoct an hypothesis explanatory of those phenomena, then

(3) devise a method of testing the hypothesis, following which I

(4) test the hypothesis, then

(5) examine the results and

(6) either consider the hypothesis confirmed or modify the hypothesis in order to feed it into the Hopper Of Testing-And-Confirmation once again.

I declare that this qualifies me a "working scientist", even though I am not employed by any Institution of Higher Learning, and will likely never submit any papers to any professional journal for review and publication.

Then again, perhaps I should claim, along with Daniel Waterhouse, to be a "Natural Philosopher".

It makes me wonder: If the science is so unshakeable, what are they afraid of? Why wouldn't they welcome a debate? Why not encourage open-minded exploration? Isn't that what scientific inquiry is all about?

Well it makes me wonder: if the science is so important to them, why don't they publish in peer reviewed journals? Why don't they spend 26 million dollars on research laboratories instead of propaganda "museums" that contain no real science? Why don't they present any science or the results of their research in trials such as Dover? Why do they try to disrupt the teaching of real science in science classrooms and prevent the teaching of the results of "open-minded exploration"? Isn't THAT what scientific inquiry is all about?

How can anyone possibly interpret not giving free publicity to someone as fear of them? I guess by that logic the creation museum is "afraid" of all science and all education. After all, they don't offer any discounts to the Natural History Museum in Chicago do they? What the they afraid of? We could make a list of all of the places they are afraid of by this logic. Man, it sure must be a rough life being afraid of evidence.

WERE YOU THERE Mr. Bronson? If not, according to Ken, you don't even have the right to an opinion.

Peter Henderson said: Is the Cincinnati Enquirer anti science / pro YEC ? Ham posted this on his blog today: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081204/COL05/812040342/1004/COL

It makes me wonder: If the science is so unshakeable, what are they afraid of? Why wouldn't they welcome a debate? Why not encourage open-minded exploration? Isn't that what scientific inquiry is all about?

Now if I didn't know any better I'd say that the author of this article, Peter Bronson, is a YEC. I do hope PZ replies to this piece of nonsense from someone who should know better.

Shebardigan said: In my daily grind, I seem to make use of Science, in that (1) I observe phenomena, and I (2) concoct an hypothesis explanatory of those phenomena, then (3) devise a method of testing the hypothesis, following which I (4) test the hypothesis, then (5) examine the results and (6) either consider the hypothesis confirmed or modify the hypothesis in order to feed it into the Hopper Of Testing-And-Confirmation once again. I declare that this qualifies me a "working scientist", even though I am not employed by any Institution of Higher Learning, and will likely never submit any papers to any professional journal for review and publication. Then again, perhaps I should claim, along with Daniel Waterhouse, to be a "Natural Philosopher".

Dear Sir....How is it that in America a country founded on freedom...a country known as the melting pot...How can you encourage people to exhibit intolerance? America is a country of diversity where people of ALL races, religions...should be respected not just those who agree with your own opinion. It is more than a little frightening to read your comments that promote hate and closed mindedness...it is all to reminiscent of Hitler and his tactics. What is it that you are afraid of? No one is saying that you have to believe in creationism but men and women in this country died for your and my right to have a choice in what we believe. This is a democracy not a communistic society! Some of the greatest discoveries of our time came out of people questioning the standard way of thinking, especially in the realms of science! We should encourage ingenuity, creativity, freedom of thought and expression, we should foster an environment in which ALL people and their beliefs are respected and encouraged. You don't live alone on this planet Sir and hard as it may be for you to accept there are people out there who have different opinions than your own. It is a sad day for all of us when we bully people and institutions into only accepting and supporting what it is that we believe. Is that education? Shame on the Cincinnati Zoo?...Shame on you!

Amy Smith said: Dear Sir....How is it that in America a country founded on freedom...a country known as the melting pot...How can you encourage people to exhibit intolerance? America is a country of diversity where people of ALL races, religions...should be respected not just those who agree with your own opinion. It is more than a little frightening to read your comments that promote hate and closed mindedness...it is all to reminiscent of Hitler and his tactics. What is it that you are afraid of? No one is saying that you have to believe in creationism but men and women in this country died for your and my right to have a choice in what we believe. This is a democracy not a communistic society! Some of the greatest discoveries of our time came out of people questioning the standard way of thinking, especially in the realms of science! We should encourage ingenuity, creativity, freedom of thought and expression, we should foster an environment in which ALL people and their beliefs are respected and encouraged. You don't live alone on this planet Sir and hard as it may be for you to accept there are people out there who have different opinions than your own. It is a sad day for all of us when we bully people and institutions into only accepting and supporting what it is that we believe. Is that education? Shame on the Cincinnati Zoo?...Shame on you!

They constitute intellectually obscene ideas that were tested and rejected by mainstream scientists not only now, but indeed, centuries ago.

What exactly was tested?

Amy wrote:

"... ALL people and their beliefs are respected and encouraged."

That includes people who believe in evolution, right? You display exactly the type of intolerance you condemn. Tell Ken Ham, that he should not promote hate and close mindedness. After all, he is the one who claims that all scientists are lying to you about the age of the earth.

"Some of the greatest discoveries of our time came out of people questioning the standard way of thinking, especially in the realms of science!"

That describes the theory of evolution precisely. So why defend a charlatan and a liar who doesn't want anyone to learn the truth about evolution? Why deny the truth of one of the greatest revolutions in the history of science? Close minded indeed. It is kind of hard for a guy who doesn't believe in "human reason" or evidence to make any scientific discoveries now isn't it?

"... men and women in this country died for your and my right to have a choice in what we believe."

You know, some the people you chastize also fought to defene Ken Ham's freedom as well, whether they agreed with his views or not. That is why he has the right to run his little shop of horrors. No one is trying to deny him that right or to change what he believes, but then again, no one is obligated to assist him in the perpetration of fraud either.

So why defend a charlatan and a liar who doesn’t want anyone to learn the truth about evolution?

If you really believe the above you should publish that in the Cincinnatti newspaper and sign it!

Dear Mr. Kwok, While I appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent response to my comment I feel you may have somewhat misunderstood me. I did not try to argue that science is democratic but that within a society founded on "freedom" people should have the freedom to believe what they choose and to patronize institutions as they choose whether or not it is something that mainstream science has rejected or not. Institutions should also have the freedom to align themselves or not align themselves with institutions of the same or differing belief systems. I don't understand how offering a discounted admission price to a museum, in which from my understanding, attendance would not be mandatory, somehow interferes with intellectual discovery. If it is so soundly rejected theory why the big fuss? What difference does it make to someone like yourself who obviously would not take advantage of the discount or if chose to would not be swayed by the information presented at the Creation Museum anyhow? Also, from what I know of evolution theory...let me remind you that it is just that... "theory". Even mainstream science recognizes several holes and questions within. Creationists address some of those holes...maybe not in the manner you would but they are questioned nonetheless. Good science starts with good questions. Why have they found cave paintings with images of what look like dinosaurs? Why are there artifacts discovered that don't fit the timeline? Why are fossils of sea creatures found in the midst of the desert? Look at the process of birth and conception in light of evolution....The human species as we know it would've died out long ago! You state that it is so preposterous that creationists would contend that they were being persecuted by the mainstream...what would you call this kind of attack then? Also, just because the mainstream says something is not true does not in itself disprove that it is so...Case in point...I believe there was a time when the scientists of the day insisted that the earth was flat and practiced blood letting. Are you that sure of your position to believe that in 100 years from now no new theories will take it's place? I have had doctors and esteemed men/women of science tell me things that proved to be utterly untrue! There are so many mysteries and unexplained things in this world..things even mainstream science and evolution cannot explain. I'd like to live in a society in which freedom of inquiry is encouraged. What diffence does it make if someone wants to believe in the Great Pumpkin or not...I don't see how it's hurting anyone else. Even the minority should be respected...for crying out loud we live in a nation that just elected a "minority" into the highest office of the land!

DS said: Amy wrote: "... ALL people and their beliefs are respected and encouraged." That includes people who believe in evolution, right? You display exactly the type of intolerance you condemn. Tell Ken Ham, that he should not promote hate and close mindedness. After all, he is the one who claims that all scientists are lying to you about the age of the earth. "Some of the greatest discoveries of our time came out of people questioning the standard way of thinking, especially in the realms of science!" That describes the theory of evolution precisely. So why defend a charlatan and a liar who doesn't want anyone to learn the truth about evolution? Why deny the truth of one of the greatest revolutions in the history of science? Close minded indeed. It is kind of hard for a guy who doesn't believe in "human reason" or evidence to make any scientific discoveries now isn't it? "... men and women in this country died for your and my right to have a choice in what we believe." You know, some the people you chastize also fought to defene Ken Ham's freedom as well, whether they agreed with his views or not. That is why he has the right to run his little shop of horrors. No one is trying to deny him that right or to change what he believes, but then again, no one is obligated to assist him in the perpetration of fraud either.

Dear Ms. Smith:

I am a firm believer in Klingon Cosmology, in which I have postulated that approximately 4.4 to 4.3 Billon Years Ago, either a single Klingon Battlecruiser or a fleet of Klingon Battlecruisers travelled backward in time and "seeded" the primordial Earth with microbes (If you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY that I would gladly be quite delighted to sell you at a real cheap price.). Now that I have dispensed with the "Origins Myth" and my religious beliefs, let's discuss the rest of your remarks which are so pregnant with breahtaking inanity:

"Also, from what I know of evolution theory…let me remind you that it is just that… 'theory'. Even mainstream science recognizes several holes and questions within. Creationists address some of those holes…maybe not in the manner you would but they are questioned nonetheless."

Hmm, let's see. Is Gravity just a "theory"? Is the Copernican theory of the Solar System just a "theory"? Is the cell theory of biology just a "theory"? No, these are not some random, whimsical guesses, as your line of reasoning seems to imply. They are instead, elaborate, fully substantiated sets of principles, hypotheses and data that have been confirmed repeatedly by the scientific method for centuries. So is it true for contemporary evolutionary theory, which is more correctly referred to as either the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution or The Modern Synthesis, which has, at its fundamental core, the Darwin/Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection (which is often popularly referred to as "Darwinism".). Across the globe thousands of scientists are confirming evolution every day. It is the best corroborated scientific theory I know of.

To be continued later.....

John Kwok

Amy,

Please highlight anywhere in my comment where I displayed hate. By implying that anyone should act as if Ham was a real scientist with a valid position or any real evidence, you do indeed promote intolerance of evolution. The fairness ploy is a creationist tactic. Whether you believe in evolution or not, why would you utilize that tactic?

The definition of a liar is one who knowingly perpetuates a falsehood that is contrary to known facts. Ken Ham has ignored all of the evidence and continues to insist that humans coexisted with dinosaurs in defiance of all of the evidence. This is not merely a difference of opinion. He is a liar by any meaningful definition because he promotes things that are domonstrably wrong based on all available evidence. That is a fact, not evidence of hate. Ham has the freedom to try to mislead people, but no one should be required to share his opinion or force others to.

Ken does indeed encourage his followers to hurl insults. Anyone who thinks that "WERE YOU THERE?" is a valid argument is simply delusional. It is really insulting to real scientists and should be insulting to any thinking person. It's also hypocritical since Ken wasn't there either. Telling people not to trust science does them harm. Ken has the right to do that, others have to right not to appreciate it.

Do you suppart the right of the zoo not to promote the museum or not? That is the only issue here. Of course you really can't take that position unless you also demand that the museum support real science museums as well. Do you think Ken would go along with that? Who is the really intolerant one here?

As for your questions about why the zoo should not promote the museum, if the zoo is indeed a part of the public school system, for them to do so would be illegal according to the constitution of the United States.

John Kwok said: Dear Ms. Smith: I am a firm believer in Klingon Cosmology, in which I have postulated that approximately 4.4 to 4.3 Billon Years Ago, either a single Klingon Battlecruiser or a fleet of Klingon Battlecruisers travelled backward in time and "seeded" the primordial Earth with microbes (If you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn, NY that I would gladly be quite delighted to sell you at a real cheap price.). Now that I have dispensed with the "Origins Myth" and my religious beliefs, let's discuss the rest of your remarks which are so pregnant with breahtaking inanity: "Also, from what I know of evolution theory…let me remind you that it is just that… 'theory'. Even mainstream science recognizes several holes and questions within. Creationists address some of those holes…maybe not in the manner you would but they are questioned nonetheless." Hmm, let's see. Is Gravity just a "theory"? Is the Copernican theory of the Solar System just a "theory"? Is the cell theory of biology just a "theory"? No, these are not some random, whimsical guesses, as your line of reasoning seems to imply. They are instead, elaborate, fully substantiated sets of principles, hypotheses and data that have been confirmed repeatedly by the scientific method for centuries. So is it true for contemporary evolutionary theory, which is more correctly referred to as either the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution or The Modern Synthesis, which has, at its fundamental core, the Darwin/Wallace Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection (which is often popularly referred to as "Darwinism".). Across the globe thousands of scientists are confirming evolution every day. It is the best corroborated scientific theory I know of. To be continued later..... John Kwok

DS said: Amy, Please highlight anywhere in my comment where I displayed hate. By implying that anyone should act as if Ham was a real scientist with a valid position or any real evidence, you do indeed promote intolerance of evolution. The fairness ploy is a creationist tactic. Whether you believe in evolution or not, why would you utilize that tactic? The definition of a liar is one who knowingly perpetuates a falsehood that is contrary to known facts. Ken Ham has ignored all of the evidence and continues to insist that humans coexisted with dinosaurs in defiance of all of the evidence. This is not merely a difference of opinion. He is a liar by any meaningful definition because he promotes things that are domonstrably wrong based on all available evidence. That is a fact, not evidence of hate. Ham has the freedom to try to mislead people, but no one should be required to share his opinion or force others to. Ken does indeed encourage his followers to hurl insults. Anyone who thinks that "WERE YOU THERE?" is a valid argument is simply delusional. It is really insulting to real scientists and should be insulting to any thinking person. It's also hypocritical since Ken wasn't there either. Telling people not to trust science does them harm. Ken has the right to do that, others have to right not to appreciate it. Do you suppart the right of the zoo not to promote the museum or not? That is the only issue here. Of course you really can't take that position unless you also demand that the museum support real science museums as well. Do you think Ken would go along with that? Who is the really intolerant one here? As for your questions about why the zoo should not promote the museum, if the zoo is indeed a part of the public school system, for them to do so would be illegal according to the constitution of the United States.

Amy Smith said:

DS said: Amy, Please highlight anywhere in my comment where I displayed hate. By implying that anyone should act as if Ham was a real scientist with a valid position or any real evidence, you do indeed promote intolerance of evolution. The fairness ploy is a creationist tactic. Whether you believe in evolution or not, why would you utilize that tactic? The definition of a liar is one who knowingly perpetuates a falsehood that is contrary to known facts. Ken Ham has ignored all of the evidence and continues to insist that humans coexisted with dinosaurs in defiance of all of the evidence. This is not merely a difference of opinion. He is a liar by any meaningful definition because he promotes things that are domonstrably wrong based on all available evidence. That is a fact, not evidence of hate. Ham has the freedom to try to mislead people, but no one should be required to share his opinion or force others to. Ken does indeed encourage his followers to hurl insults. Anyone who thinks that "WERE YOU THERE?" is a valid argument is simply delusional. It is really insulting to real scientists and should be insulting to any thinking person. It's also hypocritical since Ken wasn't there either. Telling people not to trust science does them harm. Ken has the right to do that, others have to right not to appreciate it. Do you suppart the right of the zoo not to promote the museum or not? That is the only issue here. Of course you really can't take that position unless you also demand that the museum support real science museums as well. Do you think Ken would go along with that? Who is the really intolerant one here? As for your questions about why the zoo should not promote the museum, if the zoo is indeed a part of the public school system, for them to do so would be illegal according to the constitution of the United States.

My original comment was directed at Mr. Myers not yourself. He encouraged people to attack Ken Ham and his supporters...I'm just wondering why. Are you suggesting that anyone who has a position other than one of mainstream science or of yourself should be called a liar and be accused of intolerance? Would you accuse a Native American who believes that trees have a spirit a liar? Just because someone differs from your opinion doesn't warrant an attack. Also, do you claim to have examined ALL of the evidence...I certainly don't. I have never heard Ken Ham personally insult anyone let alone encourage his supporters to do so. Again, unless you want to hole yourself up in a box, with no connections to the outside world you will be exposed to people who see things differently then you do. How you respond is up to you. I believe Mr. Myers responded with hate and anger. Do we really want to live in that kind of a world?

Amy Smith said: Also, from what I know of evolution theory...let me remind you that it is just that... "theory".

Amy Smith said: My original comment was directed at Mr. Myers not yourself. He encouraged people to attack Ken Ham and his supporters...I'm just wondering why.

PZ Myers: I urge everyone to contact the zoo; write to their education and marketing and public relations departments in particular and point out the conflict between what they are doing and what their goal as an educational and research institution ought to be. While you're at it, it might be even more effective to contact the newsroom at the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Cincinnati weekly, City Beat. Let's raise a stink and give these guys the bad PR they deserve.

Amy Smith said: I believe it's referred to as the LAW of gravity....Your comparisons are irrelevant in relation to my comments. Do you honestly claim that there are no questions within the theory of evolution.

My original comment was directed at Mr. Myers not yourself. He encouraged people to attack Ken Ham and his supporters…I’m just wondering why.

— Amy Smith

Amy wrote:

"Are you suggesting that anyone who has a position other than one of mainstream science or of yourself should be called a liar and be accused of intolerance? Would you accuse a Native American who believes that trees have a spirit a liar?"

Anyone who has any evidence that challenges the concensus inof mainstream science should be given a fair and impartial hearing and their ideas should be judged based on the evidence. That already happened for evolution 150 years ago, it won. Ham doesn't have any evidence, period. He doesn't have any alternative scientific theory, period. All he has is strict adherance to a literal interpretation of a 4,000 year old myth. To even suggest that he has any scientific alternative is to betray a profund ignorance of the situation. Should every planaterium have to promote institiutions that proclaim that the sun goes around the earth? Does "tolerance" mean that everyone has to pretend that that is true?

As for those indians, they are prefectly free to believe anything they want. They just aren't free to demand that their beliefs be taught as science in public school classrooms. They aren't free to demand that everyone reject any science that they disagree with. They aren't free to tell you what to do with trees on your property just because of their beliefs. If you disagree then your argument is with the constitution of the United States not me.

Science Avenger said:

Amy Smith said: My original comment was directed at Mr. Myers not yourself. He encouraged people to attack Ken Ham and his supporters...I'm just wondering why.

I'm wondering why you are so melodramatic and dishonest about what Myers said:

PZ Myers: I urge everyone to contact the zoo; write to their education and marketing and public relations departments in particular and point out the conflict between what they are doing and what their goal as an educational and research institution ought to be. While you're at it, it might be even more effective to contact the newsroom at the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Cincinnati weekly, City Beat. Let's raise a stink and give these guys the bad PR they deserve.

Where is the attack here? Writing letters and emails? Pointing out a conflict of interest? Informing more people of what is happening? Those are standard tactics in the battleground of ideas that our wonderful First Amendment gives us, the same as when Christian groups boycott businesses that earn their ire. You talk a lot about freedom and tolerance, but you don't seem to understand either one. Attacking someone is jailing them, beating them up, that sort of thing. You faux Christian martyrs have no understanding of what it really means to be attacked for your viewws. Your perspective has been warped from occupying such a position of privledge in our society for so long, like a spoiled rich kid who thinks having to take out the garbage amounts to slavery.

Mike Elzinga said:

My original comment was directed at Mr. Myers not yourself. He encouraged people to attack Ken Ham and his supporters…I’m just wondering why.

— Amy Smith

Ken Ham is a charlatan and a shark no matter what his religion. He, like other of his ilk, exploits fear, ignorance, and religion to make money. Nobody cares about his “religion” (if he really has any religion). It’s his snake-oil salesmanship and his exploitation of the naive and ignorant that we object to. Many of us in the scientific community have been following the political exploits of these pseudo-scientists for decades. No matter how may times their misconceptions and misrepresentations of science have been corrected, these charlatans keep reusing them and refuse to retract and correct them. People in the United States have a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. If they want to be used and exploited by charlatans, as appears to be the case with some of these sects, they are free to do so as long as they keep it within their churches. However, they are not free to use their religious zeal and their pseudo-science to throw stumbling blocks into the learning paths of other people’s children. And it is the responsibility of those of us who know exactly how these pseudo-science crackpots are exploiting the public to point it out. The Cincinnati Zoo is an institution that has the responsibility to teach good science and not have its name besmirched by association with charlatans like Ken Ham. If these ID/Creationist hucksters like Ham were defrauding people with insurance scams or home improvement scams, or any other of a myriad of other scams, they would be thrown in prison. However, because these scammers hide behind “freedom of religion” they are protected by the Constitution so they can exploit the fears and superstitions of fundamentalist religious sects who don’t have enough knowledge of science to see through them. You are allowed by the Constitution to keep this crap inside your churches, but don’t complain we haven’t warned you.

DS said: Amy wrote: "Are you suggesting that anyone who has a position other than one of mainstream science or of yourself should be called a liar and be accused of intolerance? Would you accuse a Native American who believes that trees have a spirit a liar?" Anyone who has any evidence that challenges the concensus inof mainstream science should be given a fair and impartial hearing and their ideas should be judged based on the evidence. That already happened for evolution 150 years ago, it won. Ham doesn't have any evidence, period. He doesn't have any alternative scientific theory, period. All he has is strict adherance to a literal interpretation of a 4,000 year old myth. To even suggest that he has any scientific alternative is to betray a profund ignorance of the situation. Should every planaterium have to promote institiutions that proclaim that the sun goes around the earth? Does "tolerance" mean that everyone has to pretend that that is true? As for those indians, they are prefectly free to believe anything they want. They just aren't free to demand that their beliefs be taught as science in public school classrooms. They aren't free to demand that everyone reject any science that they disagree with. They aren't free to tell you what to do with trees on your property just because of their beliefs. If you disagree then your argument is with the constitution of the United States not me.

Dear Science Avenger...I assure you I fully comprehend the multiple meanings of the word "theory". All I am saying is if its such a sound and proven theory then why has the theory itself "evolved" over time. It still leaves questions unanswered. I would just like the freedom to explore ALL the evidence and come to my own conclusions. I grew up in a very scientific household...my father has his PhD in Cell Biology and has been a professor of both immunology and microbiology. He has worked in a lab for 20+ years and currently conducts research on stem cells. I do not pretend to know everything nor am I trying to convince anyone of creationsim here. There are and have been many well respected men and women of science who are also Christians. Three years ago my youngest son was diagnosed with leukemia...we went against the advice of mainstream modern "science" and today he is a healthy little boy. I can't tell you how many questions I had that "science" didn't have the answer to. Also, mainstream modern science said my mother should not be alive today but she is. Neurologists and all their scientifically proven tests said she had basically no brain activity and that she would remain in a vegetative state for the rest of her life. She is alive and well today and on no medications whatsoever...completely coherent. Scientific studies have concluded that there is no connection between autism and vaccines...tell that to a mother who witnessed her child's transformation before her eyes or even death literally hours after a routine vaccination. Do I believe there is a God? Absolutely! That doesn't make me stupid or uneducated or ignorant or intolerant...it means that I have witnessed his presence first hand! Ken Ham is not a liar nor is he fighting against science he is merely presenting the possibility of something bigger than we can sometimes wrap our pea brains around. The bottom line is what I was really trying to get across here is that in the diverse universe in which we live we need to respect that diversity not attack it. I would just as vehemently defend your right to believe as you choose. In fact my mother has been known to drive neighbors to the polls knowing that they were going to in essence "cancel out" her vote. That's how it should be...I may not agree with you but I will defend your right to believe as you choose and I would just hope for the same respect. And yes what was done in this situation was intolerance...do you even live in Cincinatti? Why do any of you care if the zoo wants to offer a discounted ticket price? Is this really hurting you on a personal level or hurting our society as a whole? On the contrary, I think what Mr. Myers did is hurtful to both. I'm not suggesting that we call up the University where he is employed and suggest he be fired? Does he work for a state funded university? And he is promoting his religious beliefs in a publicly funded institution? I just think we have much bigger issues than to make a big fuss over something like this. Why not expend some of that energy in helping our fellow man? And yes, calling something stupid in my book is intolerance...is that the kind of teachers we want that when a child offers up a question or comment in class we should call their ideas stupid? Or what if a "thief" was stealing food to feed a hungry family...? Things are not quite as black and white as we would sometimes like them to be... Even where science is concerned. Scientific thought is constantly changing....we will never have all the answers nor do I believe we are intended to...That doesn't mean we don't search for the answers but if Ken Ham's search leads him down one path and Mr. Myers leads him down another so be it. I don't think there's much more to say on this matter so thank you to all the folks that entered into this discussion and God Bless!

Amy Smith said: Dear Science Avenger...I assure you I fully comprehend the multiple meanings of the word "theory". All I am saying is if its such a sound and proven theory then why has the theory itself "evolved" over time.

I would just like the freedom to explore ALL the evidence and come to my own conclusions.

Amy Smith said: Things are not quite as black and white as we would sometimes like them to be... Even where science is concerned. Scientific thought is constantly changing....we will never have all the answers nor do I believe we are intended to...That doesn't mean we don't search for the answers but if Ken Ham's search leads him down one path and Mr. Myers leads him down another so be it. I don't think there's much more to say on this matter so thank you to all the folks that entered into this discussion and God Bless!

Amy wrote:

"Again, I believe the combo ticket was a CHOICE offered by the zoo…"

Again. that is not a choice they can legally offer.

"I would just like the freedom to explore ALL the evidence and come to my own conclusions."

Who's stopping you? You are perfectly free to come to your own conclusions about whether the sun goes around the earth as well.

"That doesn’t mean we don’t search for the answers but if Ken Ham’s search leads him down one path and Mr. Myers leads him down another so be it.

The only place Ken searched was in his bible. That isn't science, never was never will be. He was perfectly free to spend the 26 million searching, he just choose not to.

"I’m pretty sure the Zoo was not forcing people to buy the combo tickets to the museum…so how are they interferring with the education of someone else’s children who would choose not to attend the museum?"

By breaking the law and inviting a costly lawsuit that could detrimentally impact their ability to teach science. So why doesn't Ken offer discount tickets to the Natural History Museum? How would that interfere with people going to his museum? Why is he so intolerant? How does anyone not wanting the zoo to advertise for the museum stop you from going to the museum or believing anything you want?

It still leaves questions unanswered. I would just like the freedom to explore ALL the evidence and come to my own conclusions.

There are and have been many well respected men and women of science who are also Christians.

I can’t tell you how many questions I had that “science” didn’t have the answer to.

Neurologists and all their scientifically proven tests

Do I believe there is a God? Absolutely!

Why do any of you care if the zoo wants to offer a discounted ticket price? Is this really hurting you on a personal level or hurting our society as a whole?

I’m not suggesting that we call up the University where he is employed and suggest he be fired? Does he work for a state funded university? And he is promoting his religious beliefs in a publicly funded institution?

I just think we have much bigger issues than to make a big fuss over something like this. Why not expend some of that energy in helping our fellow man?

. . . calling something stupid in my book is intolerance

Richard Simons said: Why do so many people who have a problem with the theory of evolution also have a problem with paragraphs?

Amy Smith said: Again, I believe the combo ticket was a CHOICE offered by the zoo...

Personally I would wince a little bit but not hassle
the zoo over the matter. Still, like I said, I might
have some (conditional) sympathy for the Southern
Confederacy, and I wouldn't have a problem with someone
displaying a rebel flag ... but putting one up might be
seen as an endorsement of white supremacist organizations.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Dear Ms. Smith:

Real science such as contemporary evolutionary biology - unlike mendacious intellectual pornography like Intelligent Design creationism or other varieties of creationism - is inherently a self-correcting process that is due to rigorous application of the scientific method itself. There will always be "questions" about evolutionary theory. If you want certainty, then I suggest you look elsewhere, such as a religious faith like my Klingon Cosmology.

I would also advise you to read anew the excellent criticisms from others who have posted recently in reply to your breathtakingly inane commentary. Try to understand them for once before replying as if you were suffering from an acute case of verbal diarrhea.

John Kwok

Amy Smith said: I just think we have much bigger issues than to make a big fuss over something like this. Why not expend some of that energy in helping our fellow man?

Amy Smith said: And yes, calling something stupid in my book is intolerance...is that the kind of teachers we want that when a child offers up a question or comment in class we should call their ideas stupid?

Thanks for the warning.. I’m pretty sure the Zoo was not forcing people to buy the combo tickets to the museum…so how are they interferring with the education of someone else’s children who would choose not to attend the museum?

— Amy Smith

While on this site I have been called a liar, "a faux Christian martyr" and a "spoiled rich kid", stupid, my beliefs have been ridiculed, referred to as "crap", "myth" and "fantasy". You have even gone as far as to point out my lack of the use of paragraphs? Thank you for making my point so loud and clear.

There IS evidence for creationism/Intelligent Design and there are "real" scientists who have the courage to admit it.

...."In God We Trust."

Amy Smith said: You have even gone as far as to point out my lack of the use of paragraphs?

Amy, it's about evidence. Scientists have an unnatural and all-consuming appetite for evidence. They want it fresh, raw and strong, straight from nature, and they distrust it if it's been passed through other minds first. They insist that they have to see it themselves, right out there in front of God and everyone. They're addicted to the stuff - just can't help themselves.

When concocting their theories, they accept only evidence from nature. They won't accept it from a book, no matter how holy. They just have to see for themselves, and they won't accept anybody's word for it. Weird, isn't it?

The downside of this is that they won't accept what you say as true, no matter how much you believe it. Heck, they don't even accept that what THEY say is true, without they see for themselves. Doubting Thomas had nothing on these guys. But there's an upside. Show them the evidence, let them check it for themselves, and if it really is there, they'll fall into line faster than the Grenadier Guards.

I really do hope that your son continues healthy, and I really do hope that his leukemia is in permanent spontaneous remission, which is an event that happens sometimes. Any good medical scientist will tell you that it does happen, and they don't know why. Scientists will always be happy to tell you when they don't know stuff. To a scientist, the Universe is full of stuff they don't know, and they happily contemplate a whole lifetime trying find stuff out, knowing certainly that they'll never come to the end of that task.

Now look at Ham. He couldn't care less about evidence from nature. His evidence - all he wants, all he needs - is in a book. Specifically, it's all in the first eight pages of a book that's 1400 pages long, in the edition that I've got on my desk here. Ham has no other evidence. His assertions rest on the assumption that those eight pages must be right, and all other evidence, where contrary, must be wrong. Therefore, it may be be distorted, denied, ignored, or trumped by miracles.

And since he knows everything that matters already, Ham has no interest in looking further. So he doesn't look for evidence.

That's why what Ham is doing is not science. Never mind his conclusions. They're whacko, but science, studying evidence, has come up with some truly weird stuff, too, only it happens to be supported by evidence. No, what really drives scientists to strong language, (and sometimes even stronger drink) is that Ham doesn't use evidence. He couldn't give an airborne indecency on a rolling pastry for evidence, which means he isn't doing science.

It isn't science. Since it isn't, it doesn't get taught as science.

Amy Smith said: While on this site I have been called a liar, "a faux Christian martyr" and a "spoiled rich kid", stupid, my beliefs have been ridiculed, referred to as "crap", "myth" and "fantasy". You have even gone as far as to point out my lack of the use of paragraphs? Thank you for making my point so loud and clear. There IS evidence for creationism/Intelligent Design and there are "real" scientists who have the courage to admit it. ...."In God We Trust."

Amy Smith said: While on this site I have been called a liar, "a faux Christian martyr" and a "spoiled rich kid", stupid, my beliefs have been ridiculed, referred to as "crap", "myth" and "fantasy". You have even gone as far as to point out my lack of the use of paragraphs? Thank you for making my point so loud and clear.

There IS evidence for creationism/Intelligent Design and there are "real" scientists who have the courage to admit it.

...."In God We Trust."

Amy Smith said: There IS evidence for creationism/Intelligent Design and there are "real" scientists who have the courage to admit it. ...."In God We Trust."

Amy wrote:

"While on this site I have been called a liar, “a faux Christian martyr” and a “spoiled rich kid”, stupid, my beliefs have been ridiculed, referred to as “crap”, “myth” and “fantasy”. You have even gone as far as to point out my lack of the use of paragraphs? Thank you for making my point so loud and clear.

There IS evidence for creationism/Intelligent Design and there are “real” scientists who have the courage to admit it."

And yet you are allowed to continue posting anything you choose, even though most of it has been shown to be absolutely wrong. You have been more than tolerated. Thank you for proving the point that most of us were making so loud and clear.

Ken Ham doesn't have any evidence, he doesn't care about evidence, he thinks evidence is worthless. If you think you have some evidence, why haven't you presented any? Let me guess, your evidence is bible verses.

This isn't about whether creationism is true or not. It's about whether a religion can be promoted using tax dollars. The United States constitution says no. The United States Supreme Court says no. You can say whatever you want. You can think whatever you want. You can move to another country if you want.

There IS evidence for creationism/Intelligent Design and there are “real” scientists who have the courage to admit it.

.…”In God We Trust.”

If you found out that your children were being told authoritatively by their teachers, in health class, that girls carry lethal cootie germs so boys should never touch them? What if one of the teachers was a Klansman, instructing the whi[t]e children to sit apart from and never pay attention to the colored children in the class because it’s wrong? Would you stand for that in the interest of being “open-minded?” I certainly hope not.
Mind that your brains don’t fall out, open-minded one.
...
Why should an institution devoted to spreading hard-won knowledge, facts, and the best truth we can find join up with an institution devoted to lies, fraud, deception, and bigotry? In the interest of “fairness?” That doesn’t sound fair to me.
...
See my response to the almost suspiciously identical other posts made by also nigh-suspiciously new folks in the thread. Some things don’t deserve “toleration” if this means putting them up on an equal footing with science that they haven’t earned. Perhaps if you had a genuine interest in paying attention to what was written here, you might have picked up on that. As for “fascism,” please. You can’t even use that word correctly. I suppose you also don’t believe in the morality of boycotts?

Wheels said: It would be refreshing if all these people crying "intolerance!" would actually read some of the discussion presented here first instead of going off half-cocked and accusatory. I find the general cry of "intolerance! freedom of belief!" to be uninformed and addle-pated (not to mention suspiciously repetitive).

Apparently their idea of "intolerance" precludes people from writing letters to their congressmen or newspaper editors when they see something with which they disagree.

Exactly. They employ a double standard, apparently without the least bit of recognition. They should be perfectly free to say or do anything they want, no matter how ignorant, foolish or contrary to known facts. Others however cannot write letters, complain, or even point out their logical fallacies and inconsistencies without being labelled as angry, intolerant and full of hate.

Either all opinons are equally worthwhile or they are not. If they are, then everyone has the right to diagreee with you and to call you a liar if you deliberately lie and distort. It they are not, then everyone has a right to point out to you why they are not. Tolerance doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with you. Tolerance means that everyone is free to disagree with you.

The bottom line is that no one has prevented Ken Ham from opening and running his little shop of horrors. No one has prevented Amy from posting anything she wants. Perhaps she would be more comfortable with the tolerant people at Uncommon Descent.

Amy Smith said: There IS evidence for creationism/Intelligent Design and there are "real" scientists who have the courage to admit it. ...."In God We Trust."

Dear Ms. Smith:

I'm revisiting these inane remarks of yours which you had posted recently:

"Good science starts with good questions. Why have they found cave paintings with images of what look like dinosaurs? Why are there artifacts discovered that don’t fit the timeline? Why are fossils of sea creatures found in the midst of the desert? Look at the process of birth and conception in light of evolution.…The human species as we know it would’ve died out long ago!"

No cave paintings have been found with images of dinosaurs. As for "artifacts discovered that don't fit the timeline", then that is a problem for physical and cultural anthropologists to ponder, not geologists, chemists, physicists, astrophysicists, or biologists. If you decide to learn something about plate tectonics, then you'll understand why there are "fossils of sea creatures found in the midst of the desert".

Evolution is a scientific fact. DEAL WITH IT. Moreover, it is no accident that Darwin and Wallace conceived independently of each other, the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection, since both had collected widely in the tropics and had gleamed substantial insights from reading Malthus's "essay" on population growth and regulation.

Once more I'll remind you to remember that Science is comprised of an intellectual meritocracy; it isn't the "democracy" of ideas which you so inanely contend, nor should it be.

If you can't understand these points, then you are merely as dense as all of the creos who've posted here, the AiG staff, the Dishonesty Institute staff, and others of their ilk.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Amy,

You said the you wanted to look at ALL of the evidence. WJy didn't you look at the SINE insertions shared between hippos and Cetaceans? Why didn't you look at the fossil evidence for intermediates between Cetaceans and artiodactyls? Why didn't you look at the developmental evidence for bolwhole migration in dolphins? All of these different lines of evidence yield exactly the same conclusion. Cetaceans came from terrestral ancestors. You must come up with a better explanation for all of this evidence in order to overthrow the theory of evolution.

None of the evidence you presented is evidence for creationism. Some of it might be considered evidence against evolution. that isn't the same thing at all. I would suggest that you stop going to creationists for information. They are in general a very intolerant group and I know how much you hate that. Please feel free to believe in anything you choose, but please don't claim that you have any evidnce for creationism when you in fact have none at all.

Wheels said: I find the general cry of "intolerance! freedom of belief!" to be uninformed and addle-pated (not to mention suspiciously repetitive).

I am very disappointed that the zoo has caved to pressure of atheist extremists by changing your plan to work with the Genesis Museum on ticket discounts.

In caving to the atheists, a small percentage of the US and your customer base, you have alienated a very large sector, those who are religious, and those who may not be religious but do not tolerate the kind of hatred and vile vicious attacks that were launched by PZ Myers and which lead you to the decision to disassociate with the museum.

Shame on you.

I would boycott your organization indefinitely until you repair this situation.

Samantha said: I am very disappointed that the zoo has caved to pressure of atheist extremists by changing your plan to work with the Genesis Museum on ticket discounts. In caving to the atheists, a small percentage of the US and your customer base, you have alienated a very large sector, those who are religious, and those who may not be religious but do not tolerate the kind of hatred and vile vicious attacks that were launched by PZ Myers and which lead you to the decision to disassociate with the museum. Shame on you. I would boycott your organization indefinitely until you repair this situation.

Huh, the zoo is actually trying to educate people with the truth, and not the moronic garbage that ignorant fools believe called evolution.

I've been trying to reach anyone of the cincinnati zoos gorilla keepers, for one,
or the zoos director, and I have had absolutely no success. The operator at the
zoo stipulates that "we don't give out phone numbers and they don't answer emails.
What a strange zoo, because the public is giving their money to support the zoo.
If anyone knows why they are not open with the public, please let me know - I am
concerned about a gorilla named Muke, hoping she's not made fun of, and that the
keepers are giving her the very best of food before (I do believe this will have
to happen) she dies or has to be euthanized. God Bless her sweet Soul.
doreen r.