…and this is a 
This one campaign still keeps me smiling
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 8, 2009 11:26 PM, by PZ Myers
Our efforts in squelching the Cincinnati Zoo/Creation "Museum" connection have yielded extra dividends. Ken Ham is weeping over the after-effects.
As a result of all this flak and the ending of the joint promotion after only two days, a prominent national travel group ended its conversations with our museum staff last month about a possible arrangement where our Creation Museum would be given a higher profile in one of its travel guides, along with a museum discount if a visitor presents their membership card. Here is what we heard from this particular travel organization:
From: KXXXXX
To: John Eytchison, Creation Museum
Subject: RE: Creation MuseumHi John,
Unfortunately, I think [official's name deleted] is just too leery after the incident with the Cincinnati Zoo to bring in the consignment tickets. [Name of travel org. withheld] used to sponsor a NASCAR race car and believe it or not, there were a couple members who actually dropped their memberships because of that affiliation-one which is a perfect fit for [name of travel org]. I think she's afraid of putting something out there that has the possibility of causing a stir among some members at this time. . . .
I'm sorry things have not worked out, but I do wish your museum success and I hope that you have a Merry Christmas.
Thanks,
R—
Well, gosh, what can I say?
QQ MOAR, KEN HAM!
And of course, to everyone here — Happy Monkey!
Comments
Posted by: Matt | January 8, 2009 11:33 PM
Oh Ken. Poor Ken.
Posted by: Rae | January 8, 2009 11:36 PM
Gee willakers, I almost feel bad for the guy...sort of...not really.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | January 8, 2009 11:39 PM
Nice to see someone actually concerned about a stir over science.
The Ham-handed cretinist PR is vulnerable.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: jpf | January 8, 2009 11:40 PM
Soon he will only have his menagerie of animatronic dinosaurs to keep him company :(
Posted by: Wowbagger | January 8, 2009 11:45 PM
And his prized collection of
research materialFlinstones dvds.Posted by: Bob of QF | January 8, 2009 11:46 PM
Fan-F~~kin' Tastic!
That. Is. Too. Cool!
Posted by: hje | January 8, 2009 11:48 PM
His God, Mammon, will not be pleased.
Posted by: Geoff Rogers | January 8, 2009 11:54 PM
Happy Monkey indeed.
And when the Cretinist Museum goes out of business, I'll use it as the set for a post-apocalyptic style movie, where the only survivors are rational thinkers.
"Well, fuck me. No wonder the world ended, when they had morons on this scale running around."
Posted by: jpf | January 8, 2009 11:55 PM
Kinda off topic, but I went to Google News to search for any Ken Ham wackiness (slim pickings: Pharyngula, three Christian news sites, and the drearily named "World Socialist Web Site" -- with that sort of PR, I'm guessing he's welcoming the controversy of being dropped), and I discovered that Google has a new(?) pull-quote feature. Here's Ham's quotes. Utterly boring, but new to me.
Posted by: David Utidjian | January 8, 2009 11:57 PM
Perhaps Ken can sponsor a NASCAR car...
The car could be a Flintstone-mobile, Fred could be the driver, Barney the crew chief, and Dino the mascot (or something.)
Yeah it's late.
-DU-
Posted by: waldteufel | January 8, 2009 11:58 PM
Fuck Ken Hambone and his fraudulent bullshit Flintstones "museum".
AiG is evil incarnate. Lying to children about how the world works.
Fuck them.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 8, 2009 11:58 PM
I hear the prominent travel group chose to highlight a roadkill museum instead.
Posted by: Miguel | January 9, 2009 12:01 AM
"But it is Shaftingfraud, a mischievous delight in the misfortunes of fraudsters, which remains the best trait in human nature."
Posted by: NateL | January 9, 2009 12:01 AM
Ahh, Nascar and Creation Museum, the perfect redneck holiday..
Sucked in Ken, well done infidels.
Posted by: jpf | January 9, 2009 12:06 AM
Maybe he can get a sticker on the Christmobile
Posted by: NateL | January 9, 2009 12:13 AM
Wow, that's the worst website I've seen in a long time, not just due to the content.
Posted by: room101 | January 9, 2009 12:22 AM
What he said.
Posted by: Paul | January 9, 2009 12:24 AM
Ah,hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Super sweet!
Posted by: Marek | January 9, 2009 12:27 AM
Happy Monkey indeed!
PZ, you're like a one-man AiG wrecking crew! Keep it up and before you know it you'll bring the whole organization to its knees!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 9, 2009 12:27 AM
Ahh yes, NASCAR and Creationism. The perfect storm.
Whiskey, Good Dead tunes and Monkey to all.
Posted by: Kryth | January 9, 2009 12:38 AM
Someone got monkeyed in the monkey hole.
Happy Monkey!
Posted by: Ol'Froth | January 9, 2009 12:38 AM
The Christmobile needs sponsership for the '09 season? Would they accept a big ol' scarlet "A"?
Posted by: sconnor | January 9, 2009 12:38 AM
I got my name on one of those dinosaurs when the creation museum goes belly up.
Posted by: itwasntme | January 9, 2009 12:43 AM
Humans: up from the apes, or down from the angels: you decide.
Posted by: sparkomatic | January 9, 2009 12:43 AM
Ah, sweet music...
Posted by: Shaden Freud | January 9, 2009 12:51 AM
In honor of Ken Ham, here's a repost of Lewis Black's take on the Creation Museum and related topics.
Posted by: funda62 | January 9, 2009 12:55 AM
Ha! This made my day and it is only 12:55 in the morning! Thank you PZ!
Posted by: raven | January 9, 2009 1:01 AM
I wonder how the creation pseudomuseum is doing? Since Ham is crying about some small deals falling through, maybe not so well.
I thought it would do OK. As PT Barnum so correctly stated years ago, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
The problem that I saw was that it was static. Real museums are always bringing outside exhibits or moving things around. Since their creation myth hasn't changed in 4,000 years, what could they add or change to make it a dynamic exhibit space? Once you've seen ancient Jews riding a dinosaur or a T. rex cracking open a coconut once, what would be the point in seeing it again?
They really need to add some additional features. An amusement park with rides. Nightclubs and bars. A replica of Hell. Maybe do some rock concerts. A casino for sure. Got to have a casino.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | January 9, 2009 1:03 AM
I checked, Kenny is still a registered teacher here in Queensland. I hope like shit that doesn't mean he's ever thinking of coming back.
Posted by: llewelly | January 9, 2009 1:14 AM
Hm. Perhaps we should find out who that 'prominent national travel group' is and send them 'thank you for rejecting nonsense' letters.
Posted by: Wowbagger | January 9, 2009 1:14 AM
I think the problem is that the Christians have spent so many years hating and decrying learning that it's inbuilt in Jesus-freaks to shy away from anything that might teach them anything - even if it is a faith-based museum.
Posted by: Grenangle | January 9, 2009 1:22 AM
FSM I hope he doesn't think about returning to Australia
Posted by: Ipso Facto | January 9, 2009 1:40 AM
This Christmas Ham, as yet uncured,
gives pause to question, Why endure
The sad museum Cincy has?
No one can be as silly as
The lack-of-introspection goofs
Who think their nonsense is some proof.
My heart goes out to chili fans
5-way, 3-way, onions sans.
Christmas comes but once a year
But Happy Monkey's always here.
Posted by: Chris P | January 9, 2009 1:41 AM
So has anybody thought of visiting the museum dressed as Fred and Wilma? Or are these characters that already wander around the museum, Disney like, as photo ops for the kiddies.
Posted by: Basharov | January 9, 2009 1:45 AM
As PT Barnum so correctly stated years ago, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations attributes that quote to H.L. Mencken, not P.T. Barnum (who's given credit for "There's a sucker born every minute").
Posted by: fastpathguru | January 9, 2009 1:46 AM
RNA replicating solo in a bottle!?!
Wired: Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html
In a nutshell: These people engineered some custom RNA that could replicate itself, if situated in the right soup. Thing is, when they put it in the right soup, it goes apeshit, replicating and mutating and competing and evolving. After not too much time, the originals aren't even represented in the population, which is instead now composed of a variety of mutations, dominated by 3 superior strains.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this to be... HUGE?
Posted by: Richard Wolford | January 9, 2009 2:05 AM
But see, it still had to have a designer, so that just prooves that goddidit and evilution fails and ID is right, see!11elevenone!!
*goes off to read article*
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 9, 2009 2:05 AM
A geology professor of mine, who is a devout an anti-creationist as they come (my class had the fortune of being scheduled on 12 February on which he brought a cake in honour of Chuck), spent a post-doc putting together a comparison of roadkill and fossilisation as a didactic experiment--they both involve disarticulation, soft tissue decomposition, compressive forces, etc.).
There's nothing anti-scientific about roadkill. Or Dr. Machel for that matter, though both are weird.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | January 9, 2009 2:06 AM
Someone should try this:
Find a bunch of kids who are dinosaur freaks. Kids who are well versed in and enthusiastic about learning more of the story of life from a scientific perspective. Shouldn't be hard. Tell them a field trip is afoot; destination: the Creation Museum.
Inform them fully that they may see things in the museum that are silly and not in accord with current understanding. Encourage them to think out loud and talk freely, not too loudly please, about things that they agree or disagree with. Record the visit in as much detail as possible. Distribute widely, including copies to the kids and their schools. Possibly local media.
Sit back and enjoy as Ken Ham earnestly engages children in an argument he has rehearsed rather than studied as he weeps over his gradually dwindling returns.
It is sad, that a man might so invest his talents. It is also undeniably hilarious that he has a following. (In an ominous sort of way.) He gets so many things wrong. Scramble my brain from the get go wrong..
Just ask any twelve-year-old with a brand new dinosaur book.
Posted by: Wowbagger | January 9, 2009 2:17 AM
Bride of Shrek OM - has anyone else noticed that, as initials, that spells BOSOM? Heh heh heh.
Ah, I'm in a strange mood today. I blame the flu-drugs.
Posted by: Scooty Puff, Jr. | January 9, 2009 2:18 AM
Cripes! Now, if you'll all recall, the original event merely involved PZ kicking up a rather minor fuss over what was undoubtedly some overzealous PR flack's modest attempt at blue-sky solutioneering to leverage synergies across multimodal platform domains. Or something.
Point is, it's doubtful there was ever any honest attempt on the Zoo's part to sully its good name by associating it with that carnival fun-house of a Creation "Museum"/Sideshow.
That was over a month ago, and these intellectual giants are still screaming their pious little heads off over the repercussions of what that mean ole atheist did. All over a coupla blog posts. I couldn't enjoy this any more if I tried.
Posted by: clinteas | January 9, 2009 2:24 AM
One of the best moments in "Religulous" is when Maher sits in Ham's office at the creation museum,to see the raw hate and murderous anger in the man when Bill asks him about the shit he has on display here is truly priceless.
Wonderful if other people should start to realize that as well.
Posted by: clinteas | January 9, 2009 2:31 AM
Wowbagger,
its BoSOM,dont you know that,where are your manners man?
Posted by: Wowbagger | January 9, 2009 2:36 AM
Damn it, why does he have to be from Queensland? It detracts so much from the world-class, talented banana-benders like Greg Norman, Pat Rafter, Cathy Freeman, Kieran Perkins and Geoffrey Rush.
Posted by: shonny | January 9, 2009 2:41 AM
Monkey Happy people know IDiots not monkey off-spring.
Posted by: Caine | January 9, 2009 2:49 AM
Ken should be grateful, this allows for that oh-so-necessary christian persecution complex. He'd be utterly lost without something to whine about and agonize over.
Posted by: shonny | January 9, 2009 3:18 AM
Uh, he sounds more like the banana-benders everyone with just a minimum of decency despise, starting with Joh Bjelke-Petersen and then the rest of the rotten, corrupt, RELIGIOUS assholes that made QLD the shit-hole it was for anyone half decent.
Posted by: DLC | January 9, 2009 3:24 AM
So when Ham's Folly closes down, what will become of those priceless dinosaur saddles ?
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | January 9, 2009 3:41 AM
Frame it. No really, put it in a picture frame and stick it on the wall... it's an award.
Posted by: Jadehawk | January 9, 2009 4:03 AM
whee! awesome and funny news just before going to bed. Happy Monkey indeed.
and in other news:
Kseniya wins the thread.
Posted by: athorist | January 9, 2009 4:14 AM
Don't forget this pointless poll, Pharyngulites:
http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/
Posted by: MartinM | January 9, 2009 4:25 AM
Alternatively, we could follow the evidence wherever it leads and leave our personal preferences out of it. Just a thought.
Posted by: Paper Hand | January 9, 2009 4:39 AM
Fastpathguru @ #36:
Wow! That's incredible!
Posted by: porco dio | January 9, 2009 4:59 AM
happy monkey right back at ya alls.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | January 9, 2009 5:22 AM
Donations to Answers in Genesis are tax-deductible in the United States. I thought that, to qualify for such charitable status, an organization had to demonstrate some sort of value to humanity, or to society, for example educational value. Since AiG uses its money to promote mis-education, actually teaching demonstrable scientific falsehoods, how do they get away with being classified as a tax-free charity? Any lawyers out there, can you explain this? What would be the chances of challenging it in the courts, and trying to get AiG stripped of its tax-deductible status? If such a suit had a realistic chance of success, I would gladly subscribe towards the expense, especially as it might serve as a precedent for attacking other such organizations.
Posted by: clinteas | January 9, 2009 5:29 AM
Prof Dawkins,
it is my understanding that I could buy myself a tent now,found the religion of say,the green cricket ball,and receive tax-excempt status in the USA.
I wasnt under the impression it had anything to do with teaching the truth of the green over the red cricket ball,say,or any value of my teachings to humanity.
There should be a few lawyery people around here to answer that question anyway !
Posted by: athorist | January 9, 2009 5:32 AM
I wish it could be done, Richard. AiG is tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3), and this gives a blanket cover to religious organizations, to do pretty much whatever they consider religious.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175418,00.html
But, I am not a lawyer.
Posted by: africangenesis | January 9, 2009 5:35 AM
Dr. Dawkins,
The qualifications for tax exempt status for an "educational" non-profit are very low, and are probably better defined by what it can't do, endorse candidates. The free speech protections in the US are pretty strong.
Posted by: athorist | January 9, 2009 5:39 AM
To get specific,
It makes sense to you and me. But per the IRS:
So advancement of religion, in and of itself, is assumed to be charitable. There need be no further demonstration that an organization does something substantive to improve a community.
Now, a lawsuit challenging this presumption would be a beautiful thing. And under the John Roberts court, probably a non-starter.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | January 9, 2009 5:47 AM
Right, so it is a fact that AiG is a 501(c)(3) organization, and it qualifies for this simply because it calls itself 'religious'. Evidently, then, what needs to be challenged is the automatic assumption that religion is a sufficient qualification for 501(c)(3) status.
Presumably the historical origins of this anomaly lie in the absurd assumption that religions, by their very nature, do good. This is the assumption that now needs to be challenged. Would the way to challenge it be to bring a test case against a religious organization (AiG might not be the best example of this) where it can clearly be demonstrated that it is NOT doing good? Is the Church of Scientology a tax-exempt organization in USA? The Moonies? Fred Phelps?
I may be wrong, but I think British law was just recently changed by Act of Parliament, in such a way that religious organizations no longer AUTOMATICALLY qualify. I think that, under the new law, religious organizations have to DEMONSTRATE that they do good, just as any non-religious charity has to.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | January 9, 2009 6:25 AM
I think there are three problems with the museum:
1. It's not really located anywhere people might want to go in large numbers. No disrespect intended to the people of Cincinnati, but it's not high on my tourist list.
2. Despite how loud and obnoxious they seem to be, I am not convinced there are enough young-earth creationists to make such an enterprise successful. Once the initial wave of "I have *GOT* to see this" atheists and general "I love a good freak-show" enthusiasts have been through, who's left that would want to see it?
3. Once you've been once, what would draw you back? As someone else said, it's got to be pretty static. Creation bollocks hasn't changed much for a long time.
I volunteer at the Canada Museum of Science and Technology on Saturdays (I operate the amateur radio exhibit). I'm delighted to report that nobody has come in and asked if it's possible to talk to God on the radio, or if prayer works like radio, or any bizarre religion-related / god-magic questions.
Posted by: athorist | January 9, 2009 6:30 AM
That's the alpha and omega of it.
Church of Scientology is 501(c)(3), as are the Moonies, under the Young Jin Moon Charitable Foundation. Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, I can't find on http://www.guidestar.org/ so I'm not sure.
All of these are sure to countersue.
Scientology would not be a smart target, because they have so many secular "works," like their anti-psychiatry campaigns; these would be argued as a substantive contribution to the community. The ideal choice for a test case would be some church that does absolutely nothing with its money except expand its religious ministry and line its ministers' pockets.
This wasn't always a political third rail. Ulysses S. Grant to congress, December 7, 1875:
Posted by: athorist | January 9, 2009 6:35 AM
Just for fun, AiG's 2006 tax filing:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/330/596/2006-330596423-03232a37-9.pdf
Posted by: conelrad | January 9, 2009 7:52 AM
"There's a seeker born every minute."
--Firesign Theater
Posted by: JackC | January 9, 2009 8:00 AM
I SO want to emigrate. What's the market like in England for a reasonably good Unix systems person?
Sigh....
JC
Posted by: Flex | January 9, 2009 8:03 AM
Dr. Dawkins,
While I'm not a lawyer, I have looked into the IRS requirements pretty closely and the holes are big enough to drive an oceanliner through.
One problem is with the process of automatic approval of 501(c)(3) status if a church is a member of an umbrella organization, which is probably where Phelps fits in. If the Westboro Baptist church is a member of the national Baptist church organization, all it needs to do to qualify as a 501(c)(3) is file a paper showing that affliation.
The biggest problem though is probably enforcement. There are simply not enough people available in the IRS to investigate every potential abuse of tax-exempt status. The last time I looked at the investigation information on the IRS web-site they showed they were only able to investigate about 50% of the complaints they recieved about churches. And they rarely investigate any 501(c)(3) organizations if they don't get a complaint.
Simply doubling the number of investigators, and allowing them to request independant audits of suspect churches even if there were no complaints, would quickly reduce some of the more obvious abuses.
Keep in mind that even then it would be hard for a church to lose its tax-exempt status. For a first offense it would probably be a warning to stop abusing the law. If that is ignored, fines would be levied. Removal of the tax-exempt status would be way down the list of actions taken.
The reasons for this are more political than legal. The idea that churches shouldn't be subject to taxation (even though they are subject to a certain amount of taxation even under the 501(c)(3) rules) is quite firmly embedded in the American consciousness. Any rescinding of their 501(c)(3) status would meet with general outrage unless the abuse is clear to the meanest intelligence.
Posted by: JackC | January 9, 2009 8:08 AM
Evolving Squid@61:
QCX? QRG CMST?
73
N4FFD. kn
Posted by: MartinH | January 9, 2009 8:41 AM
Presumably this "prominent national travel group" is the AAA? They ended their national NASCAR sponsorship in 2008.
It might be useful for members to contact them and reinforce their concerns about being associated with Ken. His supporters (which for the sake of argument I take not to be the empty set) may be doing the opposite.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 9, 2009 8:44 AM
Why does God hate Ken Ham?
Posted by: Anon | January 9, 2009 9:02 AM
Not kosher, that's why.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | January 9, 2009 9:11 AM
"Prominent national travel group" - former NASCAR sponsorship - membership cards for discounts... the number of possibilities is limited.
Posted by: AJ Milne | January 9, 2009 9:17 AM
Well, this is gonna make Animatronic Baby Jesus cry, that's fersure.
Posted by: Nathaniel | January 9, 2009 9:27 AM
Well, there have been a lot of jobs lost, now that Unix is no longer qualified as a charitable...
Posted by: djw | January 9, 2009 9:33 AM
Is today the day for orthodox Happy Monkey? It's not marked on my calendar. Ziggy aparently just doesn't understand.
Posted by: gribley | January 9, 2009 10:24 AM
Awesome. Poor Ham! That decision shows surprisingly good judgment on the part of AAA, but if it moves you to want to re-join and send them a Happy Monkey card, remember that they are one of the largest anti-environmental lobbies in the USA, opposing various environmental regulations as well as mass transit and other non-car modes like biking. Other organizations like Better World use largely the same tow truck network but don't hate on the planet.
Posted by: Falyne | January 9, 2009 10:42 AM
For the record, a group doesn't need to be religiously religious to be a 501(c)(3). For instance, the New York City Atheists group (...whose website I've been promising to redesign for a while) fits in that category.
From the Internal Revenue Service:
"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."
(emphasis mine; those are the areas a atheist/humanist/bright/etc. group can fall under.)
Posted by: Jadehawk | January 9, 2009 12:21 PM
wouldn't that be great. it's wishful thinking at this point though, seeing as it's currently not even possible to get "In God We Trust" off the money and "under God" out of the pledge, and seeing as the Mormon church is getting away with their Prop 8 promo (which is technically against the rules and they should lose their status).Posted by: Dan | January 11, 2009 1:45 AM
test. There haven't been any updates to the page for more than a day. Supposedly it is back on line, but there are no new stories or new comments.
Posted by: clinteas | January 11, 2009 1:57 AM
Dan,
the page only went back to active a little while ago,and its 2am in the morning blogtime,so PZ wont have anything here for a few hours I assume,unless he has scheduled something before he went to bed.Comments are definetely back.
Posted by: chat | January 11, 2009 8:47 AM
was it a print subscription? how many copies per year?
Posted by: OrbitalMike
|
January 11, 2009 10:55 AM
Ha ha ha ha, it brings a smile here also. AAA will discount the largest ball of twine, but not the Creation (anti)Museum.!