…and this is a 
Boo hoo
Category: Creationism
Posted on: December 2, 2008 9:45 AM, by PZ Myers
We have made Ken Ham very sad. Yay, bonus!
"We are disappointed with the zoo's decision and its impact on the families and visitors to the region who would have enjoyed taking advantage of this opportunity to make this a truly memorable Christmas," said Answers in Genesis and Creation Museum founder and president Ken Ham. "Both the Creation Museum and the Cincinnati Zoo have put together spectacular Christmas displays, and we were excited to partner with them to promote these events in a combination package that would have been of great value to the community." "My family and I have been Cincinnati Zoo members for more than 10 years now, so I am also personally saddened that this organization I esteem so highly would find it necessary to back out of this relationship. At the same time, I have learned that the zoo received hundreds of complaints from what appear to be some very intolerant people, and so I understand the zoo's perspective. Frankly, we are used to this kind of criticism from our opponents, and so being 'expelled' like this is not a huge surprise," Ham continued.
…
"Our museum will continue to promote this excellent zoo on our website and also in the printed material we pass out inside the museum. We are committed to promoting regional tourism. It's a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith. Some of their comments on blogs reveal great intolerance for anything having to do with Christianity," Ham added.
Awww, Ken just wanted to promote regional tourism. It wasn't about trying to get validation from a legitimate research and educational institution, then. Right.
Let's deal with some of his other claims.
They were not attacked for their Christian faith — that is one of the most common dodges of liars and con men and other scoundrels, to hide behind the petticoats of generic 'faith', when what they're actually being criticized for is lying and cheating. Ken Ham's Creation 'Museum' is despised because it is a temple to falsehood.
He keeps talking about expulsion and being expelled. Were we more successful than I could have imagined? Is the Creation 'Museum' closed? Are people hindered from visiting it? Have we blocked all ticket sales? No, unfortunately: all we've done is prevented a fraud from acquiring an entirely false veneer of authority by association. Save the martyr's lament for a time when you haven't been caught faking your credibility, Ken.
I haven't been to the Cincinnati Zoo myself, but I'm willing to accept Ham's claim that it is an excellent organization (I shouldn't, really. Plaudits from Ken Ham is like a good restaurant review from Jeffrey Dahmer.) The zoo's reputation is precisely what Ham was trying to trade on by linking his awful little collection of lies to them. We have successfully defending that good reputation by exposing a tie that would have undermined it.
The only intolerance here is an expectation of rigor, good science, and evidence-based reasoning from an educational institution. It's what we'll continue to promote, as long as hucksters like Ken Ham are out there trying to dilute our standards to allow biblical hogwash to stand on an equal footing with legitimate biology.
Speaking for this blog, I don't have intolerance for Christianity — I simply lack any respect at all for that grand hodge-podge of delusions. We leave the intolerance to Christians, who are historically expert at practicing it.
There's more! Ken Ham has a long whiny blog post up today, complaining about those intolerant evolutionists, and making the same tired complaints I dealt with above.
I can tell that Ham is bit peeved that we squelched his attempt to ride on the coattails of the zoo.
"While we are saddened"…"These people basically worship Darwin--they worship evolution and cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them!"…"Sad that someone with an atheistic agenda can cause a business relationship to be dissolved"…"they resort to censorship and underhanded campaigns"…"we are used to such integrity bashing."
But he can't let it slide without trying to pretend it was all alright.
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.
For the right effect, you have to imagine Ken Ham blubbering that out through his tears. Sure, he got media attention — all of it pointing out that he failed, that he'd tried to sneak in a link to a legitimate educational institution, and that a few people with blogs were able to put a stop to him. He looks rather pathetic, don't you think?
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Diana | December 2, 2008 10:07 AM
PZed is mentioned in the news, yet again!: http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/12/creation-museum-rebuffed-by-cincinnati-zoo-003128
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | December 2, 2008 10:09 AM
Dr. Myers,
And also at persecuting others while cultivating a persecution complex of their own.
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | December 2, 2008 10:11 AM
Dear PZ,
You made a small error in the title of this post. It should be:
"Boo fucking hoo"
Yours sincerely,
BaldySlaphead
Posted by: Mane | December 2, 2008 10:11 AM
are they going to use 'expelled' every time they fail to win at life now?
Posted by: SteveM | December 2, 2008 10:13 AM
PZed is mentioned in the news,
Off topic: I know that the letter "Z" is pronounced "zed" in many languages, but it seems strange to write someone's initials that way. Is it common?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 2, 2008 10:14 AM
Maybe it's better that Ham stays away from the Zoo and all its Lions.
We know how that went last time. That was real persecution. This is nothing of the sort.
Boo hoo for sure.
Posted by: Jason S | December 2, 2008 10:15 AM
I have a question.
I've often wondered when I read or hear people like Ken Ham or Ray Comfort, do they really believe the things they say? For example in the above statement, does he really think they people who objected to the cross promotion with the zoo just wanted to spoil family holidays? Does he really think the objections stemmed from a hatred of Christianity?
In short is it all spin or is their view of the world really so skewed?
Posted by: Kubenzi | December 2, 2008 10:15 AM
You got a shout out from K-dog.Well done.
Posted by: Jeff Flowers | December 2, 2008 10:16 AM
A creationist museum? What could they possibly have to display except conjecture and bullshit?
Posted by: 43alley | December 2, 2008 10:17 AM
The Cincinnati Zoo IS nice, if anyone is wondering.
Posted by: druidbros | December 2, 2008 10:22 AM
Of course! That way they can be the victim! Isnt it too bad we beat up on them intellectually (if they have any)?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 2, 2008 10:22 AM
Cue some sad violin music to accompany Ham's crying.
Posted by: freelunch | December 2, 2008 10:23 AM
Jason S -
Ken Ham knows he's a huckster. Facts do not matter to him. Sure, he claims that his claims are true, but testing them is not something he would ever do willingly.
Posted by: Sastra | December 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Yes, note how Ken Ham skips over the substance of the complaints, and acts as if the zoo was only concerned that people were upset and this makes bad publicity for the zoo. Frankly, I would not be surprised if many, if not most, of the zoo employees were also upset with the implied endorsement of pseudoscience. Zoologists would probably have to have a pretty heavy background in biology and evolution, I'd think.
If the zoo had put together a package to share tickets with a popular local religious attraction like "Bible Land," I don't think most of us would have minded, even though we're atheists. That's tourism. Bible Land is not claiming to be science. And there would be no problem with the Creation Museum aligning themselves with a petting zoo, where children can ride on camels and feed the frenzied pygmy goats.
The Cincinnati Zoo is not a petting zoo. It should not tarnish its image by pretending that is all it is.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 2, 2008 10:25 AM
Cincinnati Zoo is the second oldest zoo in the country, behind Philly by one year. Had the last passenger pigeon - Martha - and the last Carolina Parakeet. The memorial at the zoo is a great reminder of the devastation we can do to a species of animal as humans - even a heavily populated species of bird - in just two decades. The enclosures for the bears and big cats are on the small side. The cats do the nervous pacing of complete boredom. I prefer the Nashville Zoo, as far as their space for enclosures. As a science facility, though - the Lindner Center for Conservation and Research of Endangered Wildlife (which is run by Cinci Zoo)is pretty kickass. Between 30-40 projects worldwide.
Posted by: Ted Herrlich | December 2, 2008 10:26 AM
PZ,
I have been to the Cincy Zoo and while it might not compare to the San Diego Zoo or even the Columbus Zoo, I have never seen any disregard for science or evolution. In fact a number of years ago they had a display focused on their new animal births that was evolution-heavy in explanation.
I like the Cincy Zoo and later this month my granddaughter will get to see the baby animals, a cheetah was born recently, and the Christmas Decorations. I'll be watching for anything pushing the Creation Abortion in Northern Kentucky and report back! But I am hoping this is nothing more than a marketing or advertising person who thought Ken's Folly was an actual museum.
Incidentally I was recently at Cincinnati's Museum Center and I saw no mention of little Kenny or his monument to himself at all. If you aren't familiar the Museum Center is a central point for many of the local museums, the zoo, and exhibits around the area.
Ted Herrlich, Dayton OH
tedhohio@gmail.com
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 2, 2008 10:30 AM
It's a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith.
Feh. How "tolerant" is it when you try to blame every school shooting on the "Darwinist" bogeyman? How "tolerant" are the Ham-bone and his supporters of gay marriage? These hypocrites only cry "tolerance" when it's in their favour.
Posted by: freelunch | December 2, 2008 10:30 AM
If you want to do a combo, go to the Cincy Zoo and the Newport Aquarium. That will let you spend money in Kentucky without giving anything to Ken Ham, Professional Confidence Man.
Posted by: reindeer386sx | December 2, 2008 10:31 AM
It's a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith.
No Ken, it's "simply" because you're a joke, dude.
Posted by: Richard Harris | December 2, 2008 10:34 AM
Can't the fraudulent Creation Museum be prosecuted under truth in advertising legislation? The whole thing is a stupid lie. Ken Ham is a lier, &/or a fool.
We realize that is the case, most of us having had a scientific education, or read up on evolution & related sciences. But many people are less knowledgeable, & capablle of being fooled by smooth operators like Ham.
Posted by: reindeer386sx | December 2, 2008 10:35 AM
It's a pity that intolerant people have pushed for our expulsion simply because of our Christian faith.
What "expulsion" is he talking about? What a scammer.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 2, 2008 10:38 AM
How long before we hear:
From Canada
Posted by: ggab | December 2, 2008 10:41 AM
Ken Miller will be at the Cincinnati Museum Center on Thursday. I hope he mentions this ordeal.
I am curious whether the zoo will be willing to make a statement with regards to this fiasco that will point out what the real issues are rather than a persecution of christians. There have to be scientists at the zoo that are upset about this, i would hope.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 10:43 AM
Poor Ken Hambone. He can cry and criticize on the ridicule and publicity his demented museum has been getting, but in no way will his imaginary god come to his rescue. I wonder why? Maybe his god is out bronco busting a new T Rex. And no, I do not have tolerance for insane ideas, and this includes the minds that perpetuate them. Whenever these minds that hold such irrational ideas are subject to much ridicule, they should exercise their religion by calling on their god to help them in their tribulations and smite those rational upstarts down with a good dose of heavenly power. Alas, it will never be done because their imaginary god does not exist and all their pleas are useless. Good grief, wake up!
Posted by: dNorrisM | December 2, 2008 10:43 AM
This is very short-sighted of the zoo. Once Ham captures a pterodactyl, he won't share it with them. (Actually I think it was the Landover Baptists that were sponsoring a hunt for said pterodactyl, but still...)
And in other news, Man says God ordered him to ram vehicle at 100 mph.
Posted by: DaveG | December 2, 2008 10:44 AM
Jason,
I think I can answer that with a "yes" based on this experience:
About 2 weeks ago I was at Starbucks and I eavesdropped on 6 twentysomethings having a Bible study group (I'm 46). At closing time I engaged the young ladies in the group (were I 25 again, I would have gladly pretended to believe heh heh heh) about their position on teaching ID in public schools.
I'm happy to say these ladies were charming and polite and more importantly that I have evolved to the point that I managed to be polite too as they bathed me in their ignorance over the next 20 minutes outside on the sidewalk. Among their talking points:
We were created in the image of the Lord. How could we possibly be evolved from Apes?
All variation occurs within species but does not cause one species to change into another.
At this point, let me say that I asked them how they could reconcile these views with the preponderence of evidence from the fossil record and modern genomics. They evaded the questions liked greased eels. "The fossil record is imperfect" etc. I don't think they ever directly addressed the genetic question. Also:
The universe was created to look like it was billions of years old.
You're asking us to be open to your viewpoints, why don't you keep and open mind to the possibilities we espouse. Since I like to be fair, they really nailed me with that one.
The flood happened. So-and-so proved it in his paper in that journal we read.
I suggested to them that their faith about these points in biology was similar to suggesting that cars ran not be internal combustion but by Magic Mojo. One of them assured me that her car was such a wreck that it truly was a miracle, for which she regularly thanked the Lord, that she got places safely. She seemed to be the most awestruck (by God, clearly not by me) of the 3.
Then the leader gave me 2 tracts, one with a quasiscientific analysis of the procedural flaws in carbon dating, and the other assuring us that the Earth really is 6000 years old, both produced by the scholars at AIG.
I thanked them for the discussion and left.
These people will use any means necessary to cling to their beliefs.
So I get an F for defending rationality. Seriously, I need to be programmed to deal with people like these.
Posted by: Mozglubov | December 2, 2008 10:50 AM
I do find it strange that some of the big names in Christian fundamentalism have such cuddly sounding names... Ham, Comfort... then there's Haggart, which sounds like haggard. That's not cuddly sounding at all.
Posted by: AJS | December 2, 2008 10:52 AM
How the fuck can anybody actually seriously believe any of that shit?
I mean, the whole "creation museum" has just got to be a hoax.
Hasn't it?
Posted by: Richard Healy | December 2, 2008 10:57 AM
Pissing off Ken Ham.
Is it my imagination or does the air taste sweeter and the sun shine a little brighter?
;)
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | December 2, 2008 10:59 AM
"How the fuck can anybody actually seriously believe any of that shit?"
They have to or they don't get a shot at Heaven. It's all about the afterlife, baby!
Posted by: James F | December 2, 2008 11:04 AM
Quoth Ken Ham,
When you think about it, that's not that far off from them being members of the NCSE or AU. Alert the press! AiG president admits to being a member of a
pro-scienceevolutionistDarwinist organization!!!Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | December 2, 2008 11:07 AM
Are they still pushing the "Expelled!" meme? Right, that's it. I am now convinced that the best thing we could possibly do would be to infiltrate the Discovery Institute and get them to produce a film with a really silly name.
Think about it - if we could persuade them to make a film called, say, Fucked Hard Up The Nose, their parrot instinct would prove so hard to resist that they'd dutifully repeat it every time someone waved a microphone in their faces. You'd have Ham and Egnor and Stein all going "I thought the constitution guaranteed me the right to stamp on the throat of nonbelievers. Little did I know that I was about to get... fucked hard up the nose!" It would be beautiful.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | December 2, 2008 11:08 AM
>>The Cincinnati Zoo IS nice, if anyone is wondering.
Generally, I'm a fairly conservative person, but I have to admit, zoos kind of squick me. I'm not sure why, exactly. I used to LOVE visiting the zoo as a child... seeing all the creatures, and learning things about them.
But as I've grown older, I find zoos to be sad places. I'm not sure why. Yes, the educational stuff is still there, and the animals are still cute/weird/interesting/whatever, but there's a strange feeling that I get now. It's like visiting a prison, I guess. That feeling detracts from the experience.
I used to keep numerous aquariums, and eventually had this same issue. It occurred to me that (at least for my marine aquarium) I was taking animals out of the wild to keep them in my house essentially as entertainment or decoration. Sure, I was learning about fish and marine biology, but there was an icky kind of feeling that I couldn't shake. Eventually I got rid of my marine aquarium.
It was less of an issue with my fresh water aquariums because the fish had never been in the wild in the first place. In time I got rid of all of them too.
I guess that keeping animals captive essentially for show bothers me. Consequently, I'm not a patron of zoos any more. I don't have a problem with animal research in general, or even keeping animals for research purposes.
Is that all really weird to everyone? Is it just me who feels this way?
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | December 2, 2008 11:12 AM
Only an idiot would make comments like that!
Posted by: Alverant | December 2, 2008 11:13 AM
Ham complains about intolerance while refusing to let people who don't believe like he does into his little fantasy world called a creationist museum.
*the sound of the Irony Meter exploding from overload*
Posted by: Michelle | December 2, 2008 11:14 AM
A great victory for rational minds, a great loss to insane freakos.
Weep my little bible buddy! ENTERTAIN ME!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 2, 2008 11:14 AM
Ken Ham,
The Cincinnati Zoo has a 'Creationists Who Like a Lovechild of Abraham Lincoln and Frankenstein' exhibit?
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | December 2, 2008 11:14 AM
I'm a Cincinnati native. I've been a huge fan of the Cincinnati Zoo because of their conservation efforts. They work very hard to breed and care for endangered animals. It is a fantastic organization. Don't doubt that for a second.
I can see where a naive PR person could look at this "alliance" with the Creation Museum and think, "Oh. Two family oriented tourist attractions. This seems so nice." They just didn't know what they were stepping in. I'm sure they caught flak from inside and outside the zoo.
I sent them a very strongly worded e-mail. I'm glad to see they changed their mind.
Posted by: Tophe | December 2, 2008 11:16 AM
Please leave the hodge and the podge of the Sacred Chao out of it - you tarnish the Discordians by associating them with this Ken Ham snake oil peddler. ;)
Posted by: Jackie | December 2, 2008 11:17 AM
I'm so glad the Zoo came to it's senses. Godo job, guys. :D
Posted by: Brad D | December 2, 2008 11:24 AM
Quick decisive action bonus:
From: http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081201/NEWS01/312010040
Posted by: thalarctos | December 2, 2008 11:28 AM
Not weird at all, Squid; I know zoo employees who feel the way you describe.
It's always been a trade-off--the best for the animals is protected reserves in their native habitats, but it's hard to get money for animals who people never get to see at all. So zoos try to walk a fine line between education, entertainment, and conservation, without falling over into exploitation. Sometimes some zoos fail miserably at that, unfortunately.
And there are industry pressures--"Disneyification"--which are not in the best interests of the animals, but which reflect zoos' response to economic and cultural influences.
I know lots of people in and out of the business who are quite ambivalent about the whole enterprise; they stay with it trusting that the imperfect solution that is zoos is better, in their calculus, than giving up entirely on it. But that's not the same calculus nor the same decision that everyone comes to about it.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 2, 2008 11:29 AM
@evolving squid
I still love zoos - but only those involved in conservation efforts for native habitats for the species they exhibit. I also love zoos that are involved in education and research, or provide habitats for animals rescued from nutters who thought that having a 'pet' tiger was awesome until it took a swipe at their toddler. I love zoos that rescue animals from wolf puppy mills and the like - and I feel that my cash keeps other animals out of cages by the money funneled from the zoo to research and protection of the species' habitat. Keeping animals to protect them from extinction - and using that money to conserve their habitats - completely different from tossing them in a cage to dance for the humans.
Bad zoos are like prisons. I hate seeing bored or mistreated animals. I much prefer zoos that give animals tons of places to hide in their habitats, provide one-way glass, so they don't have to see the humans - San Diego, Nashville, do a good job.
Posted by: LisaJ | December 2, 2008 11:29 AM
Pathetic indeed. That pretty much sums the whole thing up.
Posted by: BobC | December 2, 2008 11:32 AM
The lying scum Ken Ham mentally abuses children while their brain-dead parents watch approvingly. Ken Ham should be deported. If it was up to me, well I better not say what would happen to Ken Ham if it was up to me.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 2, 2008 11:37 AM
How long would it take for Ham and his cohorts to force the "expulsion" of Wiccans from any official association with the Cincinnati Zoo?
Pure hypocrisy and lies are the staple of Ham's rhetoric.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Jeffrey Mark | December 2, 2008 11:39 AM
There's a fun discussion going on at Cincinnati's main newspaper's site. And as would be expected in the vicinity of the museum brought to you by Ken "Ham it Up", there's a good share of nutjobs who are proclaiming their belief in Creationism. Come over and join the fun!
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081202/NEWS01/812020317
Posted by: forksmuggler | December 2, 2008 11:40 AM
Merry Christmas, Ken, you sad sack 'o shit!
Posted by: hje | December 2, 2008 11:42 AM
Crocodile tears. Or in Ray Comfort parlance, crocoduck tears.
Posted by: RedSonja | December 2, 2008 11:48 AM
I was just at the Cincinnati Zoo this weekend, and found it delightfully heavy on the science/evolution/interrelatedness of species. Since I was out of town, I didn't catch the Pharyngula post until yesterday - had I known, I would have raised some hell while I was there.
Posted by: Nicholas | December 2, 2008 11:48 AM
Another Cincinnati native here, echoing similar sentiments of others - the Zoo here is of very high quality.
Presumably, Ham was simply talking about his love of the Zoo because of his Museum's proximity to the Tri-State area. I don't know anyone in the area who dislikes the zoo, and thus pointing out that he didn't like the zoo because it's an evolutionary bonanza would simply cause a local backlash that would certainly harm his ticket sales.
The official statement from the Zoo is that they were being distracted from their mission because of the (negative) publicity generated. Their focus is on conservation and education, and getting into a highly publicized debate over evolution would cause more harm to that mission than simply giving a boring but nonthreatening reason for the removal.
Posted by: Jeff Mark | December 2, 2008 11:51 AM
"Crocodile tears. Or in Ray Comfort parlance, crocoduck tears.
Are you saying crocoducks aren't real? I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome who happens to be a cwokoduck.
Posted by: BobC | December 2, 2008 11:56 AM
Off topic but it's about zoos: A few years ago at Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo I was standing next to a huge gorilla who was sitting down. We were only two feet apart but separated by thick glass. He patiently waited for me to look the other way, then he stood up and threw his entire weight at me. When I saw his massive body flying towards me I forgot about the glass and was terrified. Then he smashed into the glass. The best part is he started laughing at me. I couldn't hear the laugh but he definitely looked like he was laughing. That day I learned how intelligent gorillas are. He was able to plan a practical joke and execute it perfectly, and then laugh at my terror.
On topic: Speaking for this blog, I don't have intolerance for Christianity -- I simply lack any respect at all for that grand hodge-podge of delusions.
Speaking for myself, I'm looking forward to the complete eradication of Christianity, which is infested with lying child abusing scum like Ken Ham. Better science education and relentless ridicule of anyone who believes in Jebus is the best way to stamp out this religion in my opinion. Anyone who believes Jebus was a god is insane, I don't care how moderate they think they are.
Posted by: Alex | December 2, 2008 11:58 AM
This is outstanding. Bravo.
I want to echo the sentiment that there should be some legal questions answered for Ham's fantasy museum. To me it seems like outright fraud - i.e. representing non-scientific assertions as scientific fact. Even if it is just a recreational distraction, the information inside should be properly described as such, and not science. What he has is a religiously inspired theme park without rides, not a museum. Selling the experience any other way is willfully deceptive.
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | December 2, 2008 11:58 AM
Jason S, #7
Do they really believe this nonsense? No. They're making stuff up. Why? Because it's fun misbehaving, as any spoiled little brat knows. They make up stories and insist they are true, just for the joy of watching their victims squirm at the monumental stupidity, and then wrestle with the illogic and fictions in hopes of helping achieve understanding. Some half-wit can spin a loony story as bait to be taken by someone who's studied long and hard for decades to understand science, and then gleefully giggle as the well-meaning full-wit patiently tries to help educate the prankster who's duping him.
It's all a game to them. It takes very little effort, and obviously no skill, to create something that will cause a collective face-palm to people who have dedicated their lives, from childhood on, to learning the hard stuff.
When they argue, it is never in good faith, only in bad faith.
Think of a semi-literate little brat asking stupid questions of scientists, just for the amusement of watching them try explaining things to him. The brat isn't listening, not really. He's just looking for more things to misconstrue and get a new thread started. He'll ask questions like he wants them answered, but he's just messing with these people.
So, what to do? Call them on their lies, and never play along. You cannot shame them, so forget that idea. You can, however, ridicule them. They hate being laughed at, insulted, and teased -- which puts the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, and to them turnabout is not fair play.
Posted by: AJ Milne | December 2, 2008 12:01 PM
Short answer: it's probably mostly tribal. Longer answer: probably approximately 90% because they learned it at their daddy's knee, 10% for larger reasons of social pressure happening to exclude that one, dominance of those ideas in the community with which they feel the greatest idenity. The latter number will include converts who may give specific dramatic reasons for embracing something of this nature for which they have exactly zero evidence--or even evidence that runs counter. Religions are complex, evolved structures in their own right with an array of features that tend to attract and retain believers, and among the many is an essential assault on empricism and reason themselves, which tends to devalue and distort both so far as is necessary to continue the survival of said ideology. The sense of belonging and loyalty to the tribe and its ideals trumps all fossils for many; the fear of expulsion and shunning should they cross that line will lurk behind it.
You may protest that this is not truly believing something in the sense that we believe something for which the evidence is overwhelming and immediate, and it probably isn't. In what sense these people are constantly actively lying to themselves even as they lie to others is an interesting question, and more than one of semantics, in my humble view. But like all cons, they do lie to themselves first, and the degree to which they have convinced themselves is difficult to know and possibly less important than those social pressures.
There's also the very delicate and malleable structure of memory itself and ideological inertia, the embarrassment of admitting error even as the evidence mounts that it is one. In summary, however, the committment of a man like Ham to his life's work is probably monumental, now, for these and other reasons; the pressures to ignore all that tells him he is simply wrong are immense. Human minds are peculiar in their ability to adapt to such patterns of thought, as any number of practitioners of persuasion directed at others will tell you; what seems generally less well-understood is the degree to which we can do this even to ourselves. Suffice to say: people really can believe anything, if sufficient pressure builds to compel them to do so, and social pressures and other dynamics will absolutely trump the evidence, for many.
Posted by: AJ Milne | December 2, 2008 12:03 PM
(Apologies... missing postscript from the above was: 'Captain Obvious signing off'.)
Posted by: slang | December 2, 2008 12:10 PM
The zoo had no business being associated with Ken Ham, strongly rumored to be a piglet rapist, anyway.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 12:12 PM
Jeff Mark - I've met Biggus Dickus too.
Posted by: Diagoras | December 2, 2008 12:17 PM
Hey Cinci area people - want to do a secular inebriation night around the solstice? Getting shit-faced and going to the Creation Museum sounds like fun - especially if there is photographic evidence of the event.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 2, 2008 12:20 PM
What is a little more disturbing ...apart from the opportunist Creationist attempt to appear more 'scientific'...is the fact that someone at the zoo thought it a jolly 'good idea' to pursue...
Given the fact that Creationism is a minority sport but makes up for that by claiming it is not.....and deliberately twisting and lying about evolutionary theory...I am surprised that any institution that uses evolutionary principles...breeding program etc etc...should entertain a crank rabidly opposed to their view of life for marketing reasons...
Apparently it was several months in the planning was this ticket merger...several months and no one at the zoo saw the utter bogus position of this museum...and thought that actually promoting non-science twaddle was a 'good idea'...that really beggers belief...that they would sell themselves and their good name so cheap...
I despair of some marketing folk...talk about selling your soul...
I am pleased that they saw sense in the end...apparently no duel tickets were sold in 2 1/2 days might also feature in the withdrawal...although a short time...kindda belies the point that the creation museum is a popular visitor site...
Ham must be cursing fit to burst...may his god have mercy on his soul...or lack of... !
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2008 12:22 PM
Free clue, Ken: when people constantly raise the same criticisms of your position, you might want to look into why.
Projection. Luckily I turned off my irony meter before I started reading this. The new model comes with a warning light if it senses a creationist.
I like how he makes it sound like the zoo was simply caving in to pressure and not backing out because it was a monumentally bad idea.
You mean like producing a movie blaming Hitler on evolution?
We're not bashing your integrity. You don't have any. Go get some and we'll bash it.
Posted by: Sydney S | December 2, 2008 12:22 PM
"Our museum will continue to promote this excellent zoo on our website and also in the printed material we pass out inside the museum."
Otherwise known as: "We paid for all of the flyers and can't afford/don't want to pay for new ones.
@evolving squid
It's quite a common thing here. Many of the other grads in my program/related programs work on trying to improve conditions, form new ways of measuring conditions in zoos, or evaluating the cost-to-benefit ratio in their conservation and education programs. The ideal is that there shouldn't have to be zoos, and those that do exist should be superbly enriching for the animals and primarily education-orientated. (Though, I've met people who seriously think its heaven for animals to be in zoos, and that they should all be there). It's a huge huge huge issue really.
Posted by: A Different Steven | December 2, 2008 12:25 PM
Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker wrote:
"How long before we hear: From Canada"
I'm not sure what you mean, Janine - aren't a number of the comments coming in from Canadians?
If a remember right, there is some kind of Creationist museum out in western Canada but I'd never heard of it here in Ontario until I saw it mentioned online. It seems that nonsense crosses the border as easily as cheap cigarettes.
Southern Ontario is pretty secular and the Toronto Zoo is well worth a visit. The Royal Ontario Museum, also in Toronto, recently featured a terrific Darwin exhibit.
I'm not aware of any ID versus evolutionary theory debates in our school boards - maybe I should look into it.
Posted by: Alex | December 2, 2008 12:27 PM
I tend to agree with BobC #53 and 6EQUJ5 #55, ridicule is the handiest tactic. But it should directed at all efforts of organized nonsense. Of course events like Dover and the school board oustings are highly valuable as well. They need to be vigorously confronted at every level, and be forced to stare directly at the evidence of why we think they're insane.
Posted by: MarkW | December 2, 2008 12:28 PM
BobC at #53: I love that story about the gorilla.
On topic:
I don't understand why Hambone would even want to be associated with a zoo; one visit to the apes (or even other "lower" primates) and it's just blindingly obvious how close the relationship is between humans and those animals.
Posted by: SteveM | December 2, 2008 12:30 PM
I'm not sure what you mean, Janine - aren't a number of the comments coming in from Canadians?
There is regular commentor here who generally begins his incoherent rants with "from Canada"
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 2, 2008 12:35 PM
From someones link to ncseweb.org:
I just wanted to point that out because I loled.
I'm really glad that people like you spoke out against this. I guess the power of the people really can do something. Oh and as for Ham: NAh NAH NA NAHH NAH!
What a ham.
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2008 12:47 PM
KID: Daddy, I want to see the monkeys!!
FATHER: Just a minute, I have to buy the tickets. [to cashier] One adult and one child.
CASHIER: We have a special today. You can get tickets to the Zoo and the Creationist Museum for only $19.95.
FATHER: How much is it without the Creationist Museum?
CASHIER: $21.95
FATHER: Here's $22.
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | December 2, 2008 12:47 PM
Baaaaaawwwww waaaaah uh waaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!
Ok, now that we've got that out of the way, I'm going to have to remember to visit the Cincinnati Zoo next time I'm in the area.
Posted by: craig | December 2, 2008 12:50 PM
If I ran the local science museum, I'd run a promo letting anyone in free who had a ticket stub from the creation museum.
Free antidote.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 2, 2008 12:53 PM
For a quick taste of this creobot's incoherence:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/victory_in_cincinnati.php#comment-1236775
If you understand what he's talking about, don't let us know.
Posted by: DuckPhup | December 2, 2008 12:56 PM
I noticed in the linked Ken Ham screed that the Newport Aquarium and the Cincinnati Reds ALSO have joint marketing agreements with the Creation Museum. I wonder if they would be receptive to a thousand or so emails inquiring why they are promoting self-deception, self-delusion, scientific ignorance, ordinary ignorance, lies, hypocrisy and toxic, drooling stupidity.
Posted by: Annick | December 2, 2008 1:05 PM
Sad that someone with an atheistic agenda can cause a business relationship to be dissolved
Uh huh.... Yet you'll champion the fundies' efforts to remove human rights from us queers.
Dick.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | December 2, 2008 1:06 PM
@EvolvingSquid
I know what you mean, it is why I have never got into marine aquaria. I still do tropical freshwater but my rule is no wild caught fish, only aquarium or farm bred (they have big outside ponds in Malaysia where many species are bred). The shops around here (Scotland) are very good at labelling that sort of stuff or being honest about it.
Mind you I also wouldn't keep many fish that grow large simply because you cannot accommodate them in a tank. I'm thinking particularly of some of the large plecostomus sp. We have an Ancistrus cat instead, much smaller and appropriate for an aquarium. Quiet slow movers appropriately sized is the way to go.
Posted by: Sengkelat | December 2, 2008 1:09 PM
DaveG said:
That's a specious argument on their part, and you should arm yourself against it in the future. Two responses which come quickly to mind:
"Being open minded doesn't mean blindly accepting ideas; it means being willing to look at the case for each side and following it where it leads. Thus being open minded includes being open to the possibility that an idea is complete rubbish. And if you look at the evidence, it points to an old earth and evolution."
or
"Of course, let's be open minded. I'm happy to be open minded for you two ladies and you young gentleman. What? You're saying he's female? How can you be so closed minded towards my assertion that he's a he? It is because all the evidence says otherwise? How come you pay attention to the evidence in this case, but not in the case of evolution?"
An alternate tack when discussing open mindedness is to get them, in the spirit of open mindedness, to promise to read The Blind Watchmaker or some similarly appropriate book with an open mind.
Good luck in future debates.
In response to Evolved Squid, I'd certainly feel bad keeping wild-caught animals in my house as entertainment. That's why I don't buy wild-caught animals, only captive-bred ones. No one who cares about conservation should buy wild-caught aquarium animals. As for zoos, some are depressing, but the good ones aren't, and are actually doing some good.
Posted by: natural cynic | December 2, 2008 1:14 PM
@17
You don't have to be tolerant if your religion is right all the time.
Posted by: Malacandra | December 2, 2008 1:15 PM
I'd be willing to bet that the particular use of the "expelled" meme is a dog-whistle to the fundamentalists, who'd relate it to the expulsion from Eden.
So, of course, the creationists are, by extension, trying to eliminate the taint of sin and restore us to a bygone idyllic paradise.
And those nasty secularists are kicking them out of paradise. Even though by their own lights the Expulsion had God's fingerprints all over it, they lay the ultimate blame on Satan.
So guess who the secular humanists are in that story?
Posted by: chancelikely | December 2, 2008 1:16 PM
How Lovecraftian.
Don't Canadians have at least one higher-profile creationist nut than that? I mean, Australia gave the world Ken Ham, New Zealand Ray Comfort, and we have homegrown loons like East Peoria's own Kent Hovind (graduated from the same high school as World Church of the Creator founder Matthew Hale). Who's the Canadian delegate to the Organization of Places Exporting Creationists?
Posted by: 300baud | December 2, 2008 1:19 PM
How did he pronounce the quotes around "expelled"? I imagine him waggling his eyebrows, but probably he just used air quotes. Sigh.