Pharyngula

Posted by: 6-bleen-7 | August 8, 2009 10:18 PM

Great—I'm impressed how positive the report is.

Posted by: SciencePundit | August 8, 2009 10:26 PM

Very nice article. The video of the interview with Francis Collins in the side-bar: not so much.

Posted by: Daniel Fincke | August 8, 2009 10:27 PM

I'm kind of disappointed there hasn't been wider coverage, especially among the blogosphere. This is a symbolic event in a major cultural debate and theoretically all those accommodationists who want to say they're only against religious extremism or irrationalism but not against "religion" as long as it is not the creationist kind, now have an opportunity to side with PZ against the target they acknowledge is legit (creationists) and yet there don't seem to be many peeps. They seem so concerned to avoid stepping on religious toes that they won't take the opportunity to swipe at the segment of the religious even they know are wrong and harmful.

Posted by: Hank Fox | August 8, 2009 10:30 PM

I thought Ham and company came off looking like idiots.

Most important, the event got national notice, and MOST of the people who read it will be sympathetic.

PZ, if you're not sitting down with Stephen Colbert within a year, I'll be damned surprised.

Posted by: Jadehawk | August 8, 2009 10:30 PM

good article. :-)

from hamster's blog:

We just don’t want our guests to be offended by loud talk and in-your-face comments that might be prominent on an atheist T-shirt (especially when people are standing in line, as most are on a busy day like Friday, and an offensive T-shirt is right in front of you). It has everything to do with our guests having a wonderful time here. Indeed, some T-shirts were taken as offensive and inappropriate, as some of our guests shared with us.
[...]
Would you imagine that a secular natural history museum would give someone a third chance after being warned twice for their behavior? And of course this SSA group—which had attendees indicating beforehand that they would be disruptive (as stated on many blog comments)—signed an agreement that they would follow our policies. Each SSA visitor agreed that they would not be disruptive to our guests (and thankfully that was the case with most of them), that they “would behave in a courteous and respectful manner to all museum staff, visitors, and media” and that they would “abide by all Creation Museum policies and staff instructions” (to use the words that the SSA composed themselves). Some of them sadly failed to abide by their signed agreement not to be disruptive in front of our other guests.

fucking sad, when quiet disagreement is "disruptive"; also, did anyone sign a form saying "can't talk during entire visit, unless vigorously agreeing with displays"? is that in the museum's rules somewhere?

fucking pathetic and thin-skinned, both hamster and all the visiting creobots who where offended by the existence of other opinions.

Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 8, 2009 10:32 PM

This is good. Stuff like this needs more publicity.

Posted by: Jadehawk | August 8, 2009 10:35 PM

The apoplexy these individuals show when presented with an alternative idea to their ideology almost makes me think they are part of a cult.

they ARE part of a cult.

PZ, if you're not sitting down with Stephen Colbert within a year, I'll be damned surprised.

I'd get cable (and a TV) just to watch that

Posted by: uknesvuinng | August 8, 2009 10:39 PM

They have the wording of the T-shirt reported incorrectly, making its tone seem slightly confrontational (still not worth a comment from security). Beyond that, it's nice to see such a report in mainstream news.

Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 10:43 PM

Wish we could have been there. Flipped thw bird to Thod tonight. He did not react. bid surprise.

Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 10:46 PM

Je suis un petit peu ivre se soir ...

Posted by: Travis | August 8, 2009 10:50 PM

Aww, that is so cute. You nasty atheists were largely fairly decent and did not rape and pillage like they had hoped and they cannot really spin it very well now.

I am a little disappointed by the coverage though, I expected more, but so far I have not found a lot. with 300 or so people going I thought in the very least there would be a flurry of blog posting from those who have went but so far I have not seen too many.

Posted by: Afterthought | August 8, 2009 10:51 PM

boire beaucoup d'eau et de sommeil

Posted by: Horse | August 8, 2009 10:54 PM

@#13

I know, I know. I was debating putting in a tag but was too damned lazy. I can lend you new batteries for your sarcasm meter though! :)

Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 10:57 PM

You must have a fine fllter going at Sblogs -- it's filtering out my drunk comments for me ........

Posted by: turnipthebeets | August 8, 2009 11:02 PM

I like how looy and hammy never adress PZ by name, only as "the prof." Maybe they're just being professional since they had nothing good to say, or they didn't want to get pharyngula more traffic. I'm a cynic, I'll go with the latter

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 8, 2009 11:09 PM

I know this is off-topic, but fuck it...

I'm a darwinist!

Charles Darwin came up with the best explanation we have for the phenomenon we call evolution. While this explanation has been polished and improved in the time since his death, it has yet to be replaced by anything better. If accepting his work as true makes me a darwinist, then I am a darwinist by God.

If some creotard thinks he's going to insult me by calling me a darwinist, let him be dismayed by my reaction. When some fool calls you a darwinist tell him, "Proud to be one, you God annoying ass." As the patriots of the American Revolution adopted the appellation "Yankee Doodle" as their own, as Wiccans of various stripes took up the name "witch" in response to the haters and religious bigots, let us assume the mantle of darwinist and make it a term of pride for supporters of the Theory of Evolution everywhere.

Something I just had to say.

Posted by: Jason A. | August 8, 2009 11:11 PM

#29

I like how looy and hammy never adress PZ by name, only as "the prof."

'He-who-must-not-be-named'

Posted by: NitricAcid | August 8, 2009 11:20 PM

"Dalhouise University"? Dalhousie.

Posted by: Jim B | August 8, 2009 11:24 PM

Can anybody who was there briefly state was were the main points of the "Ultimate Proof of Creation"?

Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 11:28 PM

Jim B -- you are scaring me ...

Posted by: Rich Stage | August 8, 2009 11:30 PM

I think I can say that I was the one warned. I was standing almost directly behind you, PZ, when Derek was sharing his story. I had made the following comment:

"Wow. I guess free speech is only free if we agree with them."*

At that point Looy (I didn't know who he was at the time) comes rushing over to me, touches my elbow ever so gently and suggest that I should exit.

*Yeah, I know freedom of speech only applies to government silencing us, but they use it to mean ANYONE silencing them, so why can't I?

Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 11:39 PM

Mon orthograpgie est mauves se soir, n'est pas?

Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 11:41 PM

Encore un boir, n'est pas?

Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 8, 2009 11:51 PM

Fermez la bouche!

Posted by: Numad | August 8, 2009 11:56 PM

"Mon orthograpgie est mauves se soir, n'est pas?"

Your orthograph is purples this evening, is not?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 8, 2009 11:56 PM

BTW, are you behind or did I miss some Molly stuff?

Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 11:56 PM

"Fermez la bouche!"

D'accord!

Posted by: handthatbites | August 8, 2009 11:58 PM

I laughed very hard at the thought of this(from Ken's blog):

I am happy to report that we had many people around the country praying for us and the SSA group (they had read your blog, Ken—or had been following the prof’s blog). Inside, our staff met for prayer at 8:30 am, and then throughout the day, we had staff gathering in the board room at certain hours to pray for our visitors.

Just imagine the heathen meter going nuts and "management" saying, "We must quell it with prayer."

Posted by: Sir Craig | August 8, 2009 11:58 PM

What I enjoyed reading from Hammy's report was Lisle's statement about how there were no "counter-arguments" to Lisle's devastating evidence of Christian truth (isn't that an oxymoron?). I suspect in all the spinning that the fact the SSA participants had been threatened with expulsion if they dared raise any uncomfortable questions might have been conveniently overlooked.

I also find it funny that PZ's little blog records more visitors in a month (1,000,000) than Hammy's little sideshow has seen since it opened two years ago.

Posted by: jblilie | August 9, 2009 12:01 AM

But i am enjoying the conversation ...

Posted by: VolcanoMan | August 9, 2009 12:02 AM

I find it exceptionally suspect that TWO Canadian students were interviewed in the story; everyone knows us crazy godless Canadians would say stuff like that/attend such a display of godmockery. The message would be more powerful if they interviewed students from Texas or Mississippi. My question is whether this is a fluke, if there were just a lot of Canadians there, or did they deliberately pick Canadians to avoid offending American sensibilities?

Posted by: Jason A. | August 9, 2009 12:06 AM

Vince #52:

and "walking across the floating trunks of trees" First I've heard of that one. What, did their god give them ESB? (extra special balance) Ever try walking across a floating log?

Imagine going continent-to-continent across ocean swells. What, were there so many logs they coated the entire surface of the ocean? Wouldn't that have, uhh, consequences for sea life? And where did all those logs go if they're not coating the oceans anymore?
Maybe there weren't that many and they just happened to line up end to end from one continent to the other, and Noah's kids just ran across before they drifted away. Like playing Super Nintendo.

Posted by: Malachi Constant | August 9, 2009 12:10 AM

PZ said: "One other amusing fact: Ham/Looy make disparaging remarks about a so-called reporter who only "stated that he was with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune" — that's the same reporter who authored the ABC News story."

Just to keep ya honest, PZ, Ham/Looy claimed that the reporter could only produce evidence that he was a freelancer.

In a hot situation like this even I'm not surprised they were wary of crazy YouTubers who would exploit this kind of thing.

I've shot in malls where security came down on me for shooting a store's signage for a commercial, just because I was in the mall proper with a real Betacam. Heck, I've had authorized shoots (at a strip club) interrupted by the owner when he saw me shooting his sign.

I suspect they didn't want that episode made public, but I've encountered the same thing for non-religious reasons.

"Don't attribute to malice...", etc.

Posted by: Sanction | August 9, 2009 12:42 AM

PZ on Colbert. That... that almost caused me to pray to the sky fairy...

Oh hell, I'm weakening...

Please, Zeus, make it happen!

Posted by: GMacs | August 9, 2009 12:47 AM

Yeah, PZ. That triceratops was for children 12 and under. Adults couldn't ride those... well, they could before The Fall.

Posted by: co | August 9, 2009 12:52 AM

No BS, @ 70: Don't be silly. There's enough rice pilaf for the T Rex, too.

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | August 9, 2009 12:58 AM

Mark Looy and Ken Ham hate PZ Myers so much they will not refer to him by name. He is simply "the prof".

Posted by: DA360 | August 9, 2009 1:02 AM

Damn my job, I REALLY wish I could of came to all of this... I am surprised it got media coverage like this. Heck, I have yet to even hear about it in the local news here in Cincinnati with the exception of Channel 12 here: http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Atheists-Visit-Creation-Museum/E4noXeswdEKnpyqG8upQeQ.cspx . I am pretty sure, due to the uber-religious mentality here, the comments are full of anti-atheist hatred and whatnot.

Posted by: anthonzi | August 9, 2009 1:03 AM

oh the video wasn't even related lol

Posted by: Dan W | August 9, 2009 1:06 AM

I'd be willing to bet Ken Ham's blog is full of bullshit where he whines about how many of the atheists chuckled and mocked the exhibits among themselves, and claiming that they had legitimate reasons for trying to throw out Derek, and so forth. Bet they'll bring up that Virginian family who claimed their trip was ruined, and any other pathetic things to make your visit seem really bad for the "museum" and for Christians in general. Of course, technically your visit IS bad for the "museum" because it shows how ridiculous and full of faulty science it is.

I did like ABC New's report of the trip, though. Yay for ABC, for frequently reporting reality!

Posted by: DA360 | August 9, 2009 1:11 AM

Reading though the comments at my local website, I am surprised by them on how they know the place is BS and some are defending our side so far, though obviously you got the mega-religious wingnuts that I see commonly around here. Maybe the smart ones went to the Museum in Union Terminal in Cincinnati that is well, showing an exhibit of dinosaurs based on REAL science and showing evolution, true and tested biology, etc. of dinosaurs with their REAL AGES ^^;.

Posted by: Dave Nichols | August 9, 2009 1:18 AM

yeah we rocked the house. Hammie's toy poodle had to work hard to make up a critical report. They can't really blame us for laughing the whole time when they worked so hard to make the "museum" so hilarious. That's my quote at the end of the abc article. W000

Posted by: Troy | August 9, 2009 1:21 AM

Unbelievable, that Francis Collins guy is a FUCKING IDIOT, and people respect him?

It's like he never encountered any atheist argument or even thought about anything.

He is a total buffoon.

Posted by: co | August 9, 2009 1:32 AM

A vaguely related [and very new] topic: Hitchens and Lennox debate the future of religion in Europe. It's very well filmed and produced!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqer8GfpP2U

Posted by: David | August 9, 2009 1:36 AM

Is it just me, or did Looy's "report" to Ham read a LOT like a press release? If those are the kinds of reports filed on a regular basis, no wonder Ham does not have time to learn somthing.

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 1:59 AM

Sorry, Mixter...

Posted by: jpf | August 9, 2009 2:29 AM

The ABC article had a link (under the related stories section) to something interesting from last year: creationists offering "Biblically Correct" tours of science museums:

Standing in the lobby of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Bill Jack and Rusty Carter pointed to the enormous teeth on the reproduced skeleton of a Tyrannosaurs Rex, and told a group of children and their parents that the fearsome T-Rex was really a vegetarian.

[...]

Jack asked, "If this creature was designed to eat meat from the very start, what would he have to do until Adam and Eve sinned and death entered the world? What would he have to do?" The children replied in chorus, "Starve."

"Fast and pray for The Fall. Is that likely?" Jack asked. "The answer is, everyone look at me and say, 'No.' Try that with me.'"

"No!" the children replied.

[...]

Carter asked the children, "Is evolution a religion?" and they replied "Yes."

"Yes it's a religious belief," Carter said. "It's a philosophy."

[...]

"This is a fairy tale," Jack declared to the children. "How do they know your teeth evolved from scales? Everybody, try that with me, how do you know?

"How-do-you-know?" the kids repeated in unison.

Isn't it disrespectful to the other museum visitors to be saying things like that so others can hear? What if some evolutionist family who traveled all the way from Virginia had their trip ruined because of it?

Sarcasm aside, imagine the reaction from the creationist side if one of those kids was harassed by the museum security for wearing a shirt that said "Dinosaurs and Humans Lived Together in Eden" or if the person leading the tour was hauled before the evolutionist family and asked to apologize for his disrespect.

Posted by: jpf | August 9, 2009 2:32 AM

Joshua Fisher: wow man, synchronicity!

Posted by: cliff | August 9, 2009 2:38 AM

oh, and if they even so much as touch you its assault. don't accept thuggery !

Posted by: Northernskeptic | August 9, 2009 3:06 AM

Nicely done, despite what they claimed sounds like everybody was well behaved.

Posted by: Nibien | August 9, 2009 3:08 AM

"oh, and if they even so much as touch you its assault. don't accept thuggery !"

Incorrect again, unlawful touching is "Battery" in the United States.

That's zero-for-two.

Posted by: Jason A. | August 9, 2009 3:11 AM

It's not a 'right to free speech' thing. The creation museum is private property and they can allow or deny access on their terms. Just because their terms are unreasonable doesn't give us the right to ignore them. What you can do is probe just past the edges of their terms so that if they decide to call you on it, they only highlight their unreasonableness. In this course it's important to remain calm, ask for them to clearly explain what the problem is, then comply (or leave).

That's what they're pissed about. They called out Derek for being 'over the line', but he was calm, he asked them what the problem was (highlights that 'the line' is unreasonable), and then he complied. Well played. If he had made a scene about his 'right to wear whatever he wants' then he would have come out looking bad. Instead, they're the ones who made a scene.

Posted by: Kseniya | August 9, 2009 3:15 AM

What a fun and interesting visit that must have been! I wish I'd been there. I wonder if I could have been thrown out for wearing a cropped Wilma Flintstone teeshirt with 1 Timothy 2:12 on the back?

Posted by: MadScientist | August 9, 2009 3:18 AM

I'm still confused about a few things.

1. The Creation Themepark claims to be private - that's fine - privately owned. BUT

2. It is apparently open to the public

I honestly don't know what rules need to be followed by a private group opening an area to the public. In some parts of the world that makes the area exactly like any public (government owned) area except that the private group is responsible for the upkeep. So throwing people out because of the T-shirt they wear is a bit silly; why are people so afraid of a T-shirt? I can understand why people would be offended by t-shirts worn to church meetings (but not t-shirts worn by tourists in churches open to the public).

Congratulations to the rowdy group for not giving Ham much to talk about (other than the invasion of those horrible godless people). I loved that photo of PZ riding the dinosaur.

And congratulations to Derek for being thrown out without actually doing anything offensive; that was pretty funny - I hope Derek's not put off by it.

Posted by: Alan | August 9, 2009 4:10 AM

Paul Lundgren, #50

Dawkins wimped on a subject? Well pooh on him. God botherers are going to think we're religious nuts anyway, because religious nuts is what they understand.

I see it this way, Charles Darwin is the one who did the work, he gets the credit. Another might have done the job, but another didn't.

Yankee Doodle went to London
Riding on a pony
Stuck a feather in his cap
And called it macaroni

Yankee Doodle keep it up
Yankee Doodle dandy
Mind the music and the steps
And with the girls be handy

That was originally sung by the British as an insult. They hated it when the patriots adopted it as their own.

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 4:34 AM

MadScientist, where in the world is private property treated like public property like that? I have never heard of anything like that before. They allow their private property to be visited by people if they pay but it is still their property.
They own the building, they run the place, it is private and much like my own home I am not forced to let anyone in, and I am not forced to let anyone already inside stay if I no longer want them.

Posted by: Kevin | August 9, 2009 5:04 AM

I, too, like how Mr. Ham refused to even refer to Prof. Myers by his name. That attitude reminds me of Lee Strobel for the following reason. At Hemant Mehta's blog, Friendly Atheist, there was a topic asking readers for any questions for Mr. Strobel, as Mr. Strobel had "offered to answer questions from this site’s readers." So I submitted the following post:

Mr. Strobel–

In your book, The Case For Christ, you quote a section of an essay by Jeffery Jew Lowder. Mr Lowder says this shows that you “visited the Secular Web” and that “while journalists normally identify their sources, Strobel neither provided the URL for that essay nor mentioned the author’s name.” He calls this a failure of your journalism. (I got this from his “Review of Lee Strobel THE CASE FOR CHRIST“, specifically under “Part III: ‘Researching the Resurrection’”, “(b) Evidence of the Missing Body”.) I was wondering why you didn’t source him?

Also, more interestingly, Mr. Lowder had this to say about the chance to have you comment on his review: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel2.html What say you?

Regards,

Mark

The purpose behind the refusal to identify the atheist being referred to by Mr. Ham or Mr. Strobel fools nobody.

Posted by: jpf | August 9, 2009 5:07 AM

fly44d: "Zerg" is a reference to a space-war game called StarCraft, where one of the playable factions (the Zerg) can create large numbers of cheap, weak units that can be used to rush ones opponents en masse, thus overwhelming their defenses.

Posted by: firemancarl | August 9, 2009 5:37 AM

Mocking! Wow! That was the worst thing that happened? They way moons over my Hammy wrote his blog intro, you'd have thought that you and the SSA were going to plant thermo atheist bombs that whem detonated, would mass convert everyone to a godless horde.

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 9, 2009 6:02 AM

Oh, and another damning to PZ quote from Ham's blog:

Strangely, the prof wrote on his blog—just before he visited—that “285 people signed up so far. There is some concern that we’ll strain their parking …” Now, the SSA made up only about 12% of our total guest count on Friday, so parking challenges were a non-issue (we have three large parking areas and have had many days with many more cars than we had Friday). We have handled even 4,000 people in one day. But the prof was somehow concerned that 285 people coming in and probably no more than 100 cars (there was a lot of carpooling among the SSA group) were going to be a problem for us. The professor also wrote that we provided them with a special check-in tent outside the museum because his group was so large. Actually, the tent is there regularly, and we had nine other groups sign in there yesterday. Also, I want to note that we had 900 people in one group come to the museum last month—perhaps the prof shouldn’t be too boastful.

Oh, PZ! How could you have been so, so...wrong about the parking and the tent. Now, I have grave doubts about your credibility WRT to the other important issues you blog about!

Obviously, you wrote about your concerns for parking and about the check-in tent because you thought that you and your group were oh so special! Well, you're not! And with these examples, Ham has now incontrovertibly shown what a bad scientist and evil atheist you are!

Posted by: skepsci | August 9, 2009 6:33 AM

Didymos (#40) wrote:

Looy-via-Ham's description is worse:

A young man (apparently from Canada) was asked to turn his atheist T-shirt inside out (it had wording on it similar to what was seen on some atheist bus campaigns in some cities, blaring that there is no God—and the words “NO GOD” were in big letters on the shirt).

How hard is it to just say what the shirt actually said? Oh, wait: that wouldn't be quite as offensive, now would it?

Posted by: Discombobulated | August 9, 2009 7:14 AM

@landrew:

Seeing as how PZ is such a VIP, we should definitely keep any appearance on CR on the QT, lest it get out to BO and he ends up MIA after being kidnapped by BO's AS.

Posted by: Gabriel | August 9, 2009 7:30 AM

AA Question for everyone here, are you not a bit chocked at the comments of a t-shirt?

Do you think anyone, anywhere, would get thrown out of Any other kind of Museum for a T-shirt? WHATEVER it would say?

Go to the smithsonian with a t-shirt saying "The HOLOCAUST NEVER HAPPENED", and see how much the staff would care? WHY? Because its a T-SHIRT?

IT is MUCH MUCH more offensive having a t-shirt saying 'God exists' especially if it refers to the horrible evil Christian/Jewish lord...

There people are sick.

Posted by: Shaun | August 9, 2009 8:02 AM

Jaffahots your anger and agression are athiestic ills which can be cured by taking Jesus as your savior.

We will say a special prayer for you at Chapel today.

Why are athiests such bitter people unlike us joyous higher saved souls ?

Posted by: Kingasaurus | August 9, 2009 8:11 AM

Vainglorious, being mocked is what they live for. It's part of their theology.

Their own Bible tells them that the more the world makes fun of them, the more "right" they are with god. It never occurs to them that people who are hopelessly and totally wrong also get viciously mocked by the world, and there's no way for them to honestly distinguish themselves in that area. Should set off alarm bells for them, but it never does.

Even if they aren't mocked badly, they need to invent it or ramp up the intensity in their own minds. Twisted.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 9, 2009 8:21 AM

Holy crap... I'm starting to suspect Shaun is a poe.

Posted by: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 8:26 AM

"Further blasphemy will not endear you to The Lord #133"

You don't fucking say? Well God damned if that doesn't suck. Jesus fucking christ, what will I do now?

I am a bit surprised, though, to find that calling someone a poe is blasphempy. Unless...

Are you God, Shaun? OK, now I'm flattered.

Anywho, if you want to pray for me, that's up to you, pal. :)
Say a prayer, send in three box tops, knock on wood, say "bloody mary" into a broken mirror three times while walking under a ladder holding a black cat. Whatever floats your boat.

Ok, no more feeding the trolls. I apologize.

Posted by: Alf | August 9, 2009 8:36 AM

That place is really Disneyland for the Dumb!

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 9, 2009 8:42 AM

Was I taken in by a Poe?

... erm... lessee... 'joyous higher saved souls'? 'athiest*'?

Well, okay, that doth look like about six steps over the deliberately silly line to me, at least, but then, you do grasp that the real problem of Poe is there's Noe way of Noeing, right?

(Which Bloes, sure...)

Phrased another way: the wackjobs in this area are not only more hilariously unreflectively absurd than we imagine, they are more hilariously unreflectively absurd than we can imagine... So no, you really can't tell, sometimes... And it works both ways. Not only can you easily risk mistaking satire for the real lunacy, the real lunacy so often is mistaken for satire. And honestly, at a certain point, they're pretty much interchangeable for all intents and purposes anyway...

That said, yeah, even if it were satire, it is worth saying: I've really heard more than enough about and from this whatshisshmuck 'Pastor Tom' character (Ground control to Pastor Tom: we're pushing the button to blow up yer rocket... Regrets 'n all, but yer lyrics are boring)... I mean, that was his URL, right? And using the term 'enlightenment' anywhere in his vicinity, while sorta funny, I guess, is pretty much an insult even to Robespierre.

(/*Ah'm so much athier than thou... But ah, it's been done. And done. And done...)

Posted by: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 8:44 AM

Well I am willing to accept the possibility that becoming Christian could lessen anger and aggression in some people, much like a lobotomy.

A lobotomy might be marginally preferable.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 8:49 AM

Shaun isn't a Poe, he's a member of Pastor Tom's vacuous Jesus-humping cheer squad over on his laughably inept blog-o-lies.

Considering that people from here are going over there and taking turns pointing out exactly how incompetent Pastor Tom is at logic, debate and basic comprehension, it's not that much of a shock that one of his short-bus-passenger offsiders has managed to think well above his or her weight and found their way here.

Posted by: Gabriel | August 9, 2009 8:52 AM

Mu, but that is GOOD, you should not be ALLOWED to spread lies that can hurt the people of society, such as denying a important historic event.

I agree with the German decision to make it illegal to deny the holocaust, but a t-shirt would not be an issue, I lived there so I know.

Its ignorance that make united states and americans so extremely violent and dangerous, this needs to be fixed. Imagine a law in the U.S only allowing truth to be spread, no gods, no made up american history ('we saved the world' comes to mind) and parents are made illegal to lie to their kids saying their country is the best, god exist and the world is 6000 years old.

Wow, then i would sleep more peaceful ..

Posted by: VolcanoMan | August 9, 2009 9:00 AM

You know, the more I read about peoples' reactions to this, specifically Hammy (on his blog), I realise once again that some people just don't grow up. It's like freakin' high school...making fun of PZ for how small and pitiful his group is, compared to what the "museum" has gotten in the past...seriously?

I wonder how many people go to church and refuse to question anything that their parents and minister taught them when they were kids, and engage in "fellowship" with other people just like them who will not challenge them or force them to think, just because they feel welcomed there, part of something - it's like the world's largest clique, an effective and impervious echo-chamber. I very much doubt that the bulk of fundies, the true literalists who would believe everything they see in the Creation "Museum" are actually capable of thinking thoughts of their own, separate from their cultural and religious training. An event like this, where people of whom they have an immutable opinion come and question, criticise and generally think for themselves will be seen as nothing less than the work of Satan and communists, because their worldview is Truth (tm).

In keeping with the Unscientific America theme that seems to pervade the atheists' collective unconscious this summer, I would argue that it is impossible to bring science to adults of this perspective; rationality simply doesn't apply to them. That doesn't mean we should not try, just that we should recognise it as a lost cause, and not design our approach with them in mind, or spend all that much effort on them. Their children are less steeped in faith, but remember that the parents, church leaders, and religious "museums" such as this one will distort our message and will even flat-out lie because they're "saving" their children from Hell with the only Truth (tm) that matters. Most of them will follow in their parents' footsteps.

Aside from the indoctrination issue, there is a second distinct disadvantage a non-religious worldview faces, especially amongst children - it doesn't make you feel special. Nobody is in control...nothing has meaning beyond the human...there is no evidence for an afterlife...no certainty that regardless of what you do, God's will will prevail. A failure of God to answer a child's prayers or to deliver those special feelings and awesome blessings upon his life is more likely to get him questioning His existence than a science teacher showing him that there's no evidence for the Biblical version of creation events. Fairy tales kind of blend together as a kid and a life-pervading story written in a special book doesn't necessarily need evidence, especially if that child was raised in a non-rational household where everyone believes the story.

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 9, 2009 9:03 AM

Shaun is also one of those responsible for putting the home address of Mr Looey on the other thread, apparently.

Nerd, I can't see it in the dungeon? The last entry for me is Guardian of the Poll, AKA Guradian of the Polls.

Posted by: Frank Lovell | August 9, 2009 9:11 AM

WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPLAINT THAT SOME OF THE FAITHFUL AT THE "MUSEUM" HAD TO ENDURE OVERHEARING SOME OF US "MOCKING" THE EXHIBITS AND YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM:

I can understand Ken Ham's and Mark Looy's concern that some of the paying faithful (many who had traveled with their families a long way for the day) had their visits marred by overhearing some of us mocking the exhibits and young-Earth creationism. I really can.

And after all, YECs never mock evolution or evolutionists, not in their books, not from the pulpit or podium, not on the Internet or radio programs, and not on the streets or in our museums, no Sir! Indeed I must confess that in my 30 years as a creationist-watcher I haven't experienced creationists mock evolution or evolutionists more than 1 or 6,947 times -- they are always so charitable and pleasantly respectful.

(Yeah, right!)

Honestly, I do always try to take the thoughtful high-road whenever YECs are within eye-sight/earshot, but occasionally I do lose m'head. However, during the PZ does AiG zerg I tried extra diligently to be on very best behavior, and with rare exception (and even then, more playful than ornery -- a slipped-out snort here, an irrepressible guffaw there) what I observed throughout the tour was that so too did the vast, vast majority (the virtual whole) of we old-Earth evolutionists constituting the PZ/SSA entourage.

Posted by: Surfer Without a Handle | August 9, 2009 9:19 AM

ABC News article wrote: ”over a million readers each month.”

PZ wrote: ”The article underestimated traffic. Pharyngula receives approximately 2 million visits per month.”

Seems to me like 2 million visits probably correspond to far fewer readers?

(Or is a very big portion of the readers visiting less than twice a month?)

Posted by: daveau | August 9, 2009 9:36 AM

What Ham & Looy should fear is not 300 athiests coming to their "museum", it is 300 scientifically literate atheists.

Regarding the infamous family from Virginia:

They said, for example, that they were hoping to explain some of the significance of the Noah’s Flood to their children, who could not quite understand all the concepts...

...because children can see right through bullshit.

Posted by: Katkinkate | August 9, 2009 9:43 AM

Posted by: Gabriel 145 "... Imagine a law in the U.S only allowing truth to be spread, no gods, no made up american history ('we saved the world' comes to mind) and parents are made illegal to lie to their kids saying their country is the best, god exist and the world is 6000 years old. Wow, then i would sleep more peaceful .."

I'm not so sure it would work. It would spark off a violent national debate over what was the truth. Eventually the govt. or courts will have to be call on to decide what is the official truth, so they know who is can be charged under the law for lying. That would spark off a lobbying effort to buy preference for certain viewpoints. Then the deepest pockets buys the truth they want.

Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 9:51 AM

"Myers" is a Jewish name.

BTW, I just switched to Firefox 3.5, and I'm really enjoying the drop-shadows behind the post titles.

Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 10:00 AM

Seems to me like 2 million visits probably correspond to far fewer readers?

Yeah, it could be 2 million unique IP addresses per month, but that does seem like a heck of a lot. I suspect that it's more like 2 million hits per month. The most avid readers probably clock up a thousand hits per month each, while occasional browsers may only account for a dozen-or-so. I think it's reasonable to say that Pharyngula has thousands of readers per month, which is certainly not shoddy.

Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 10:03 AM

Ken Ham's account of what happened? Wait a minute Hambone... WERE YOU THERE?!?

He was hiding inside the dinosaur all the atheists were riding on. Some may call that a perversion, but it's harmless enough.

Posted by: daveau | August 9, 2009 10:06 AM

Katkinkate-

Speaking specifically about that one line.

I am grateful that there is not really an "official truth" in the context that you suggest.

Posted by: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 10:24 AM

By the same token, Randy, atheists got free publicity too.
Considering the fact that the religious get free publicity in this country every second of every day by the bucketful, this particular bit is just a drop in that bucketful for them.

On the other hand, this is a comparatively large amount of publicity for atheists. So this is a net win for our side in this case, a very lopsided win in our favor even without taking into account that the publicity made atheists out to be reasonable while revealing the creationists to be the drooling morons that they are.

Posted by: KevinC | August 9, 2009 10:29 AM

@XD #159:

It's spelled "Meyers" on his Kenyan birth certificate.

Posted by: Medusa | August 9, 2009 11:08 AM

>

Aww, my heart bleeds!

Seriously, if someone cannot deal with opposition to what they believe, they don't have a very strong case, do they?

Well done, PZ and the rest of the group! Ham tried his best to make you look bad, but you didn't.

Posted by: Ape's Nephew | August 9, 2009 11:58 AM

This is a link to the 2008 "Log rolling Championships"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngDGiGYycT0

I think god must of nerfed the sport since 2348 b.c. If anything he must of been laughing his ass off watching them flood survivors doing this across the oceans.

Posted by: didymos | August 9, 2009 12:21 PM

skepsci @ 123:

I'm not sure how you can say that Looy's description (which after all was 100% accurate as to the contents of the T-shirt) is worse than the reporter's mistake, which substituted the correct text for an incorrect version which is much more aggressive and stand-offish than the original. The reporter's error bothered me much more than a paraphrase a-la-Looy would have.

No, Looy's description was not "100% accurate". Shirt says:

There's Probably NO GOD So Quit Worrying And Enjoy Your Life

And Looy said:

It had wording on it similar to what was seen on some atheist bus campaigns in some cities, blaring that there is no God—and the words “NO GOD” were in big letters on the shirt

He got the "NO GOD" in big letters bit right, but he completely mis-characterized the message. It's certainly not "blaring that there is no God". It's saying there probably isn't and it's no big deal. Going by Looy, especially in the context of the rest of his report, you'd think it was some sort of militant atheist propaganda. Also notice how he says it was "similar" to the bus campaign. No, it was identical. Again, given the context, it's made to seem more aggressive than it is. Note: I'm not talking intent here, just effect. I don't know if Looy was deliberately imparting some bad spin there or not.

Now consider how the typical readership of Ham's blog will react upon digesting that: do you really think they're not going to assume the worst about this atheist shirt that was so awful it had to be hidden from view? Not bloody likely. Do you really think more than a handful will even bother to check into it? Again: not bloody likely. That's why it is worse than the "There's probably no God, so get over it". While that does have a harsher tone than the actual shirt, it is actually quite accurate in terms of the essential meaning: "So Quit Worrying And Enjoy Your Life" is just a more polite version of "Get over it".

And now I am talking intent, or rather probable intent:

a. It's quite likely that the reporter just made an honest mistake, as he has no discernible interest in making teh nasty atheists look bad (Sure, dock him some points for not fact-checking, but other than that....meh).

b. Taking into account creationism's utterly dismal track record in the area of general honesty, and the fact that Ham and Co. have a clearly discernible interest in making teh nasty atheists look bad, it's reasonably likely Looy was deliberately imparting some bad spin there

I mean, wasn't bad spin sort of the whole point of Ham's blog lament? Does what Looy wrote in his report impress you as somehow different in that respect?

So, if both a and b are in fact true, Looy's account, already the worse of the two, becomes yet worse still.

So yeah.

Posted by: 386sx | August 9, 2009 12:23 PM

If they could build a boat to save themselves from a flood, why couldn't they build a boat to sail across the oceans. Like normal people.

Haahaahaaaha. Lol. I guess the ark was a one time deal. It must be one of the "lost arts". They had all those billions of logs floating around but they forgot how to build more arks. Lol.

Posted by: BlueMonday | August 9, 2009 1:02 PM

When I was at AMNH, there was a man wearing an "Our God is an Awesome God" t-shirt. He loudly declared at the ice core exhibit that global warming was a farce--in direct defiance of the exhibit. Security completely left him alone. Maybe they were just too in awe of his knowledge and didn't want to halt the prophet's declarations. Maybe.

Posted by: gingerbeard | August 9, 2009 1:20 PM

I am really disappointed that my fellow Canadian atheists that saw the crossing over the ocean on logs, didn't immediately burst out in song, and potentially dance.

After all our own NFB produced a documentary on exactly how this crossing would be accomplished:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ekqsHP9Sck

Now everyone sing along
For he goes burling down and down white water
Thats where the log driver learns to step lightly;
its burling down and down white water,
a log driver's waltz pleases girls completely...

Posted by: livinformyself | August 9, 2009 1:29 PM

KevinC @144 wrote:

"IIRC, Jerry Fallwell was on record as saying that the Antichrist must be a male Jew, standard Dispensationalist doctrine, on the premise that the AC must copy Jesus in all major particulars."

This sounds much like Ray "Banana Man" Comfort.

That settles it, Ray is the Anti-Christ. Game over.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 9, 2009 1:40 PM

Comrade PhysioProf, #140

Poe!

What? It doesn't involve religion? Sure about that?

Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 2:12 PM

#181, thanks for posting that, I love that one so freakin' much.

#184 It was late and I was tired so I feel bad for what I wrote earlier, as was pointed out earlier there are different rules for a house and this kind of public property, I really just wanted to make the point that I did not think that because they open their doors it became in essence public property. Anyway, thanks for clarifying that. It makes me wish I used the store example you used, I thought of it after posting and it seemed like a much better example to be using.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 9, 2009 2:28 PM

Vainglorious wrote:
The word "mock" or variations thereof appeared 14 times in Ham's blog entry

I am guessing it didn't appear in the form of "it's a mock museum" or "this is a mockup of noah's ark" or "mock science" huh?

Posted by: CortxVortx | August 9, 2009 3:26 PM

Re: #106

Oh yeah, and what's the deal with everything being vegetarian before the fall because there was no death? Do they not consider plants to be alive?

Oddly enough, it seems they don't. A line from one of Henry Morris' books has always stuck in my mind: "[Plants] are merely complex chemical replicating systems." So, no, they don't consider plants to be alive. Interesting claim, since plants cells and animal cells have many similarities.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 9, 2009 4:03 PM

Re: the Francis Collins video on the page...

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/08/for-francis-collins-when-god-intervenes.html

Posted by: Myql | August 9, 2009 6:05 PM

Dr. Francis Collins sure is a windy old fart, isn't he.

Posted by: riktov | August 9, 2009 11:21 PM

While the image of "walking across the floating trunks of trees" might sound silly, the concept is actually reasonable. It's theorized that monkeys crossed the Atlantic Ocean from Africa in this way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafting_event

Posted by: CulturalIconography | August 10, 2009 12:04 AM

Well, I'm an a non-bitter atheist (ref. #192) but I am baffled that the family from Virginia had their trip "ruined" by seeing a T-shirt. Is their belief so shaky that a T-shirt would challenge it? Why are they so easily disturbed? That's not very "joyous", now, is it?

The Creation Museum is private property, so I believe they can have whatever rules they like--and that's fine.

I've seen and heard plenty of anti-atheist messages; some mild, some violent in nature, but, although they may irritate me, I try to reflect on something a friend in Public Radio once said about Rush Limbaugh: that's the price we pay for having free speech.

The fundamentalist Christians do believe in free speech, right? I mean, at least within the limits of the whole "shouting fire in a crowded theater" thing, right?

Hugs,

A Joyous Atheist

Posted by: Jeff S | August 10, 2009 4:27 AM

@#200

Creationist have and still do visit real museums. They use museums with material based on actual evidence to introduce their children to ignoring facts in favor of their chosen superstitions.

It is a shame that creationists drill ignorance and lies into their children. Children are expected to listen to their parents and trusted adults. Especially in a religion that relies on a scriture that advocates killing children that disobey parents but no where says anything about protecting children.

Posted by: Nomad | August 10, 2009 5:53 AM

I can add another story about creationists at a real museum who clearly expressed disagreement with the subject matter but strangely were not kicked out by the security guards.

It was the Smithsonian museum of natural history, at en area that dealt with human ancestors. I don't remember the exact discussion now, but two people were reinforcing each others opinion about how none of this evolution stuff is real science and that there was no evidence for any of it.

The idea that someone walking around in the museum with a "there's probably no such thing as evolution so quit worrying about it and enjoy life" shirt would be thrown out by security for being disruptive is laughable. Of course that'd never happen.

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 10, 2009 7:27 AM

I can say from direct experience you can giggle at exhibits at a secular Natural History Museum without being bothered by security.
I can also say they don't bother about you visiting drunk, as long as you are discrete and confine yourself to giggling and visiting the water fountain to try to ward off headache several times.

If you don't normally drink alcohol, don't buy a cocktail at lunch before going to the museum, just because it has a nice name and fruity flavors. But not because the security guys will trouble you; it's just that the memory of giggling because the bones are so BIG will always be faintly embarrassing. :)

Posted by: zzames | August 10, 2009 9:19 AM

To Kel & crs

The commenter crystalsky84 is an elementary school teacher.

Don't know if I should laugh, cry or vomit.

James Lawrence

Posted by: Jeff S | August 10, 2009 11:59 AM

Oh no. The goggles, they do nothing!

Exact quote from a creationist at the link in #202

Liar and Charlatan: "And, again, are you seeing any scientific evidence here?"
Children in chorus: "No."
Liar and Charlatan: "No, what are you seeing?"
Children in chorus: "Art"
Liar and Charlatan: "Artwork. Its a great fairy tale, but its not good science."

At least Nightline calls them on the bullshit.

A weird coincidence, the curator was raised as a YEC. Obviously, he is not one anymore.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 10, 2009 1:06 PM

I've never heard such belly aching from adults in my life. You can say whatever you what in response to this, but those who keep on about this, you’re a bunch of babies. Grow up. -Courageous Bill

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 1:51 PM

I've never heard such belly aching from adults in my life. You can say whatever you what in response to this, but those who keep on about this, you’re a bunch of babies. Grow up.

Try to not bump your nose while staring deeply into the mirror there Billy.

Posted by: Jeff S | August 11, 2009 5:53 AM

I should add, the quotes around "offering a different viewpoint" are to imply I am only refering to the creationist view, which is a different viewpoint, but one not based on any evidence, and is a viewpoint thats only defense is constant critiques of evolution based on ignorance of the actual science.

A viewpoint based on evidence is a different matter.

Thats what I get for not reading what I write more closely.