…and this is a 
Our visit to the Creation "Museum" is being reported on ABC News now — not a bad report by a reporter who was actually there. You can also read Ken Ham's account, which basically backs up everything we've said about it. Ham tries hard to highlight our 'bad behavior' and their forbearance, since they only threw out one person and say they only warned a second.
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.
Comments
Posted by: 6-bleen-7
|
August 8, 2009 10:18 PM
Great—I'm impressed how positive the report is.
Posted by: Rieux | August 8, 2009 10:26 PM
Re #1--indeed. The SSA folks come off very positively. Nice work!
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
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: Horse | August 8, 2009 10:27 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.
Imagine someone being tossed out of any other museum for wearing a "God is Great" t-shirt.
meh.
Was fun following the crowd on #creozerg. I'm looking forward to the continuing post coverage.
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: jblilie | August 8, 2009 10:28 PM
Getting hammered by Thor right at th moment ...
Hope we can report back a demaine ...
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: jblilie | August 8, 2009 10:30 PM
We are ok. In spite of Thor's hammering.
Posted by: Jadehawk | August 8, 2009 10:30 PM
good article. :-)
from hamster's blog:
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: James F | August 8, 2009 10:31 PM
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA!!!!!! Oh, I haven't heard this one! How was the floating tree exhibit?
Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 8, 2009 10:32 PM
This is good. Stuff like this needs more publicity.
Posted by: co | August 8, 2009 10:33 PM
Same text -- strangely -- at the AIP website. Oh, I see, they both picked it up from "Inside Science".
http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2009/090807_museum.html
Posted by: Jadehawk | August 8, 2009 10:35 PM
they ARE part of a cult.
I'd get cable (and a TV) just to watch that
Posted by: Jackal | August 8, 2009 10:37 PM
They got the text of the shirt wrong:
Actually, it's: "There is probably no God, so stop worrying and get on with your life." You'll notice quite a difference in tone.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: Wowbagger, OM | August 8, 2009 10:42 PM
Would you imagine that a secular natural history museum would lie its ass off about science because it conflicted with someone's dusty, poorly-written-and-edited book of archaic folk tales about monster-gods, talking donkeys and a magic zombie with a distaste for recalcitrant fig trees and a penchant for bad performance art and large-group catering?
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: Skeptical | August 8, 2009 10:44 PM
From Ken's Blog: "Would you imagine that a secular natural history museum would give someone a third chance after being warned twice for their behavior?"
Come on! Is he honestly comparing they way they acted with security at a Natural History museum?!? As mentioned above, no Natural History museum on the planet would ask a patron to turn their shirt inside out or leave just because it said "Jesus is Lord" or something similar. And it certainly wouldn't try to remove people just because they laughed at exhibits. Security at a real museum deals with protecting the exhibits, protecting the patrons, and maintaining order, NOT policing the thoughts of it's patrons!
Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 10:46 PM
Je suis un petit peu ivre se soir ...
Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 10:50 PM
Grappa di castello di Banfi. Benissimo
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: Newfie | August 8, 2009 10:51 PM
Collins needs to pick a side to play for. otherwise, he's humoring one viewpoint, or working both sides of the street, as it were.
Posted by: Afterthought | August 8, 2009 10:51 PM
boire beaucoup d'eau et de sommeil
Posted by: Helene | August 8, 2009 10:53 PM
Read the article. Go pharyngulites - class act all the way!
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: dorcheat | August 8, 2009 10:55 PM
Ken Ham had an opportunity in his blog to thank some 300 paying customers, yet he chose not. Sadly, he chose to focus on the SSA critiques and mild lampooning. As customers, several SSA members traveled long distances and properly payed the admission price for a service. Ken Ham could at least acknowledge this and at least say thank you for your business.
My mother always told me to not talk to people if one can say not say very nice things. I hold my silence as I do not have anything nice to say about Ken Ham and Mark Looy.
I look forward to the constructive critique and even some lampooning of the pictures of the exhibits.
In the meantime, may I suggest that we all support our local science centers and museums. A good start is through the Association of Science-Technology Centers at the following linky. I have visited several: most importantly with three my children.
http://www.astc.org/
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: Lance | August 8, 2009 10:59 PM
Mocking or critiquing/asking questions? Wait, questions aren't allowed there.
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: nick bobick | August 8, 2009 11:03 PM
Why do you evil atheist evilutionists insist on misspelling Canned Ham's first name as "K-e-n"? How rude!
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 11:09 PM
ORLY?
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 8, 2009 11:11 PM
#29
'He-who-must-not-be-named'
Posted by: markoramius | August 8, 2009 11:16 PM
Score one more for the Enlightenment, and hopefully those kids from Virginia will start questioning the Noah's Ark bullshit their parents have been feeding them.
Good job everyone :)
Posted by: NitricAcid | August 8, 2009 11:20 PM
"Dalhouise University"? Dalhousie.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 8, 2009 11:21 PM
Wow. That true? Yikes. I'd say I'll start limiting the personal stuff, and the skirmishes, and... But I know I'd revert in time - too easy to think of this as an intimate local hangout.
Scary, though.
***
BTW, are you behind or did I miss some Molly stuff?
***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/
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 11:25 PM
@35
And I thought is was pronounced "Dal-hooooosie" instead of "Dal-hausie" ...
Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 11:28 PM
Jim B -- you are scaring me ...
Posted by: didymos | August 8, 2009 11:29 PM
jackal @14:
Looy-via-Ham's description is worse:
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: 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 11:37 PM
Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 11:39 PM
Mon orthograpgie est mauves se soir, n'est pas?
Posted by: AVSN | August 8, 2009 11:41 PM
So yes you did behave, but I TOLD YOU SO, a waste of time overall. You gained nothing, they gained nothing. perhaps you should stick to the electronic.
Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 11:41 PM
Encore un boir, n'est pas?
Posted by: Ian.A | August 8, 2009 11:48 PM
'"One family of religious people told me that I had ruined their trip, and they drove all the way from Virginia," said Rogers.'
If somebody wearing a t-shirt expressing an opinion you disagree with is able to ruin an entire trip then you should probably not leave your house.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 8, 2009 11:51 PM
Fermez la bouche!
Posted by: CortxVortx | August 8, 2009 11:54 PM
Re: #12
In reference to the article, my last name is spelled Watkins. And that's me, the bearded dude at the end of the sign, in the last picture.
AND I got my picture took with PZ! Memorable day.
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: Paul Lundgren | August 8, 2009 11:56 PM
@Alan Kellogg,
I like your spirit, but I must point out something about your choice of term. Even Richard Dawkins has sworn off using the terms "Darwinist" or Darwinian" because the implication (at least from our opponents) is that we are a religious group following the precepts of a revered leader who must not be disobeyed. If Darwin hadn't pieced the theory of evolution together, someone else would have. Thus, even though we respect Darwin, scientific truth runs deeper than the person who makes the discovery.
Love the attitude, though. Spread it around.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 8, 2009 11:56 PM
I think PZ is behind. Now, where are my lists...Posted by: Vince | August 8, 2009 11:56 PM
Many thanks to PZ and the students for taking the time and effort to go to the so-called museum and represent "darwinists" everywhere who wished we could join you.
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? Usually you get wet...oh, of course, walk on water...never mind.
Posted by: jblilie | August 8, 2009 11:56 PM
"Fermez la bouche!"
D'accord!
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 8, 2009 11:57 PM
Wow. Honest Tom has decided, based on nothing but a blog post by Canned Ham, that the guy with the t-shirt is a LIAR!!!!one!!! Just amazing.
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: Zeno | August 8, 2009 11:58 PM
Dr. Jason Lisle is one of the more fascinating figures at AiG, since his scientific credentials as an astronomer are genuine. What he's chosen to do with them, of course, is warp scientific facts (with a dollop of wild speculation) to fit preconceived notions of young-earth creationism. Weird.
I just read the AiG summary of the SSA visit to the Creation Museum and Lisle's statement that no one was able to shake his "proof" of creation. Big surprise. Nothing can. Lisle's current book is The Ultimate Proof of Creation, but he's been down this road before. I perused his Taking Back Astronomy book and posted a review (A creationist tells the truth) in which I take him to task for special pleading and casually trotting out the "God did it" argument whenever it suits him (e.g., "God transforms the water into other materials," citing an argument by a fellow creationist). You can't beat miracles for covering all your bets!
If only real life worked like that.
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: Robert Madewell | August 9, 2009 12:00 AM
Man! Are creationists bad at PR or what?
You guys do know that you don't have to do anything to offend the ultra religious. Just being openly atheist is quite enough for them. I know. I used to be one of them.
Posted by: jblilie | August 9, 2009 12:01 AM
But i am enjoying the conversation ...
Posted by: Kelseigh | August 9, 2009 12:02 AM
Wait, Derek went to Dal? That's awesome! I went there twice!
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: jblilie | August 9, 2009 12:06 AM
Some day I wish I were a Canadian ... this is one of them ...
Posted by: Jason A.
|
August 9, 2009 12:06 AM
Vince #52:
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: jblilie | August 9, 2009 12:10 AM
days F-me!
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: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 12:24 AM
"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."
Ooooh there is SOOO a Super Mario style platform game to be made out of all the loony creationist claims!
Jumping from log to log, like frogger, hopping from dino to dino, trying to cram all the critters in the proper slots on the ark, maybe a Dig Dug style romp through the layers of detritus from the flood... wait - Dig Dug digging out the Grand Canyon!!
Sometimes I wish I were a coder. Goodness knows I have the necessary fashion sense and hygiene.
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: Mixter | August 9, 2009 12:46 AM
#21:
Oh, we're blogging about it. And, we're just getting started. I was there along with No Guy in the Sky, who took hundreds of photos. We'll be posting about this for quite a while.
Mixter
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: No BS | August 9, 2009 12:50 AM
I must say the "Walked across logs" thing...
Has anyone walked across a log jam?
I have, it's a nasty piece of hike.
I'm trying to image walking across one the length of the Bering straits.
I mean if I was standing on the shore and say and unending mile upon mile of logjam what would posses me to say
"Well this dry land sucks, I'm gonna get me some of that logjam to walk on."
Yeah right.
Now if an angel had come down and said
"Look dude, you're all alone here, but on the other side of this wet, slick, dangerous, mess there is pussy, lets say 72 virgins... and mounds of rice pilaf (topped with bacon)... "
I might start to warm up to the idea.
Nah...
Now if I was being chased by a T Rex...
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: POSTY McPOSTERTON | August 9, 2009 12:55 AM
Christians are obviously water and science the oil.
I'll choose science. It tastes better on salad dressing.
~Dan
http://jazzsick.wordpress.com/
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: anthonzi
|
August 9, 2009 12:59 AM
fucking ad at the beginning...
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: Kel, OM | August 9, 2009 1:02 AM
That bit about Ken Ham defending removing such a shirt was hilarious. That's exactly what being thin-skinned means you tool!
Posted by: anthonzi
|
August 9, 2009 1:03 AM
oh the video wasn't even related lol
Posted by: superposition
|
August 9, 2009 1:03 AM
I wasn't able to get Friday off, much to my chagrin. Looks like it was entertaining. I am going to down Adams County Ohio with my wife next week on a fossil hunting trip, and it's not terribly far from Ham's Folly. Still, I'm thankful my wife entertains the fossil hunting, I don't think she'd stand for having to tolerate Ham's inanity. I'm sure it wouldn't be as much fun with just the two of us either.
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: formosus
|
August 9, 2009 1:08 AM
That Looy goon's report is hilariously fun to read. You terrible "atheists/agnostics" committed horrible acts of "mockery" and uttered such foul language as "garbage". Seriously. That is the best he could come up with. That and the fact that:
I wish I could have been there, but alas, I'm at college actually learning things.
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: Dan W | August 9, 2009 1:16 AM
I've read (or rather, skimmed) Ken Ham's blog post. He's far too predictable. It said pretty much what I expected. What a pretentious douchebag.
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: David Wiener | August 9, 2009 1:19 AM
What I liked about the article were the comments after the article. There's a good debate there between freethinkers and the god-bothered, and the god-bothered look rather...silly.
There just seems to be an ever growing trend of atheists standing up and saying that religion is silly, there is no proof, etc., and they are not being refuted (by any logic and/or proof).
One of the responders at ABC said something to the effect that religious people are worried because people are willing to stand up and say that silly is silly, and that 200 years of a steady march by science is really wreaking havoc on the believers. Its turning into a core of believers too stupid or stubborn to see their way out.
Nice work!
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: Dave Nichols | August 9, 2009 1:27 AM
The reporter was with a group called 'Inside Science', the original article was posted on the wire here: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2009/090807_museum.html . that's me in the middle of that first pic.
Was talking to the guy on the left, who was a sorta-christian, not convinced of anything. I had walked into a convo he was having with a creationist who tried to tell him that there is no proof of evolution. I piped up that there was mountains of evidence and it could all be sourced in thousands of places across multiple disciplines. The creo immediately challenged me about blood clotting, to which I was prepared, explaining about other animals with fewer (but similar) proteins with blood clotting. When he started the normal claim that all those proteins can't just be created in evolution, I rebutted with the 'tinkerer' angle, and he admitted he'd not heard that and walked away. That's when the guy in the red shirt asked to keep talking, and we quickly drew a crowd of a couple dozen people for several minutes.
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: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 1:33 AM
I do hope Mooney is watching and taking notes.
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 1:48 AM
Mixer #68, thanks, actually those two blogs are ones I was waiting for more from. I had seen yours about strengthening disbelief and was eagerly waiting for the full post. Glad to see No Guy in the Sky has added a post as well.
Posted by: Travis | August 9, 2009 1:59 AM
Sorry, Mixter...
Posted by: beth | August 9, 2009 2:09 AM
That AIG report totally makes me think of that Malkovich SNL skit "You Mock Me!"
http://www.hulu.com/watch/19312/saturday-night-live-you-mock-me
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:
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: Joshua Fisher | August 9, 2009 2:29 AM
Ham asks this question:
And I think the attempt at a comparison is a mistake.
Would someone--anyone--touring a "real" natural history museum in a group of about 300 quiet and civil creationists who, for example's sake, ALL wore shirts that read "God is real, and Jesus rode a dinosaur" be pulled aside and asked to cover up that message because it was "offensive" to other museum guests?
The answer to that question is no.
And the reason is that the veracity of the information displayed in a "real" museum is backed up by evidence, not by the zealotry of its security detail.
Posted by: jpf | August 9, 2009 2:32 AM
Joshua Fisher: wow man, synchronicity!
Posted by: cliff | August 9, 2009 2:35 AM
me: not reading any comments.
pathetic: anyone agreeing to turn their shirt inside out in the USA.
Free speech! Sue 'em.
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: jpf | August 9, 2009 2:48 AM
FTR, here's the website for Biblically Correct Tours. PZ mentioned them back in 2006.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 9, 2009 3:01 AM
I'm behind, will update the molly stuff when I get back home on monday.
The article underestimated traffic. Pharyngula receives approximately 2 million visits per month.
Posted by: Nibien | August 9, 2009 3:04 AM
"pathetic: anyone agreeing to turn their shirt inside out in the USA.
Free speech! Sue 'em."
/facepalm.
You know, as a general rule, you can't really go onto another person's property (after signing a waiver, no less) and say whatever you want and get away with it.
Hopefully you're being facetious and I missed it.
Posted by: Northernskeptic | August 9, 2009 3:06 AM
Nicely done, despite what they claimed sounds like everybody was well behaved.
Posted by: DeafAtheist | August 9, 2009 3:06 AM
I think it's really pathetic that they had that guy turn his shirt inside out because it was "offensive". The fact that it said, "There's Probably NO GOD So Quit Worrying And Enjoy Your Life" is hardly offensive at all. T-shirt Hell used to have a shirt that said, "Every Time You See A Rainbow It Means God Is Having Gay Sex". That one doesn't even have an atheist perspective and it's more offensive than the former.
I like how he basically said the same behavior by a Christian group in a "secular" museum wouldn't be tolerated. I'm sure plenty of Christians wear Christian themed t-shirts to secular museums and I seriously doubt any of them have ever been ask to turn their shirt inside out.
I get a kick out of how they expected things to be worse than they were. Did they think you guys were gonna burn the place down or something?
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: Pareidolius | August 9, 2009 3:10 AM
Quoth the tragic astronomer Lisle:
How do you successfully refute a fairy tale? I imagine most skeptics who attended were too gobsmacked or burned from the close proximity to teh stoopid to formulate cogent questions.
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: Jason A.
|
August 9, 2009 3:13 AM
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?
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: Sauceress | August 9, 2009 3:16 AM
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/08/the-day-285-atheistsagnostics-visited-the-creation-museum/
“When you addressed the young man to have him apologize to the offended family, a gentleman stepped from the prof’s mob to try to film the action and listen in. I stepped in front of his camera and informed him it was a private conversation. He kept sidestepping me and being rude about it, like I didn’t exist, so I motioned for an officer to escort him away. Our officer said: ‘Sir, will you come with me?’ The photographer said nothing; he just followed him. Nothing else was said. He escorted him to the crosswalk. That’s when he made the comment that he hadn’t done anything.”
Interesting that Mangus decided on the private conversation spin to have the videographer removed. After all this security guard (Mark Looy) was acting within a professional capacity was he not?
I would think that if Mark Looy's presentation of the tone and content of his actions toward Derek, and vice versa, were wholly accurate then Mangus wouldnt object to the incident being recorded. Personally if I were in Looy's and Mangus's position, and my professional conduct were reasonable to the situation, I would have been happy to have evidence of that being dispersed to anyone interested.
As someone who has previously done time behind bars in nightclubs, and also worked serving alcohol at more than a few large rowdy social events, I'm all too familiar how the fragile the egos of some power-tripping rent-a-cops can become. On more than one occasion has my honest contribution to a he said/she said account of a physical altercation between a patron(/s) and security made me unpopular.
On another note, I have worked side by side with quite a number of very balanced and capable security professionals who had/have my trust and respect and none of them would have ever objected to being filmed carrying out their professional duties.
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: BBCaddict | August 9, 2009 3:53 AM
Damn.
Could they mention that "family from Virginia" just ONE more time during that write up?
If that family is that thin skinned I'm shocked they were even able to make the drive from their compound in VA to KY - given the multitude of people who surely disagree with them along the way.
"Oh mah... ah've got the VAPORS!!!"
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: jpf | August 9, 2009 4:31 AM
Here's another flip-side story from earlier this year (I think PZ also covered this): "Creationist Students Take Field Trip to Hotbed of Evolution: The Smithsonian":
Here's Denyse O'Leary paranoid-projectionist take on it:
I'm quoting/linking to these for the sake of those critics of PZ et al.'s little excursion who have been claiming that there's something untoward about atheists going to a "creation museum" for the purpose of being critical of the displays. Motes and logs, you know.
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: fly44d | August 9, 2009 4:55 AM
I fully enjoyed the show watching the twiting or whatever it's called. Question: what is the Zerg part of CreoZerg? Is it part of some word I am having a senior moment on? It is bugging me, I feel I am missing part of the full experience.
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–
He had the courtesy to properly source all his other quotations, however. Maybe that is because they were not also Satan-loving atheists? It must be, because, as the second URL I provided above showed that Mr. Strobel has intentionally been avoiding Mr. Lowder. Also, I have not received a reply for my question yet, so I cannot assume otherwise.
The purpose behind the refusal to identify the atheist being referred to by Mr. Ham or Mr. Strobel fools nobody.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | August 9, 2009 5:07 AM
The Zerg are an alien race that appears in the video game Starcraft. They are insect-like creatures whose primary tactic is to swarm enemies with lots and lots of weak (but cheap) units.
The Zerg have become an icon in gaming. As a result, in gaming and internet culture the term 'to Zerg' means to swarm something in large numbers.
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: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 5:25 AM
Looy was quite obviously looking for a confrontation. When one didn't materialize, he created one.
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 5:47 AM
From Ken Ham's blog about the CreoZerg:
The children probably "could not quite understand all the concepts" because even young kids who think about things with any degree of common sense realize how preposterous the story is.
And, there's nothing like a child's realizing how terrible their parents' God must be to have drowned so many other children and all those animals. I know reading the story of Noah's Ark in a preschool book was when my older son first realized what a mean and ugly character God is.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 9, 2009 6:02 AM
Oh, and another damning to PZ quote from Ham's blog:
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: echidna | August 9, 2009 6:26 AM
Travis@113,
I'm not too sure what the rules are, but even on private property, if you allow public access and charge a fee for entrance, then you have a different set of obligations under the law than you have in your private house. This is true for most countries, including the US, although the actual obligations vary. ( I think the term is "quasi-public".)
For example, I'm sure that the creation museum would not be allowed to refuse entry on the grounds of gender or race. If it were a private club, the rules might be different, but not when the facility is open to the public.
I suspect that the ejection of someone only on the grounds of a non-offensive t-shirt was getting close to discrimination on the grounds of religion.
Posted by: skepsci | August 9, 2009 6:33 AM
Didymos (#40) wrote:
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.Posted by: landrew | August 9, 2009 6:48 AM
Well done!!
While I'd certainly like to PZ get nailed on Colbert. Keep in mind that Bill O'Reilly might want the scoop too. Since BO's MO is attack journalism via his producers, I recommend that if PZ is confronted/ambushed that he repeat the name Andrea Mackris.
Don't mean to sound like a concern troll, but I've read enough DailyKos, Media Matters, and Crooks & Liars that the possibility of a BO ambush.
Nonetheless, congratulations one and all
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: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 7:29 AM
"For enlightenment visit http://hardtruth.squarespace.com/"
I wasn't aware that enlightenment was now a synonym for lies, willful ignorance and prideful stupidity.
I especially like this little tidbit of "enlightenment" from that link:
"PZ, have you ever heard of Lucy? You know that ape that supposedly walked upright because well, she needed to? (I know, very scientific.)"
Now, I'm no paleoanthropologist, but even I know that scientists don't surmise that Lucy walked upright from no evidence as you suggest, but rather because of the shape of her pelvis, and because of the position and direction which her spinal cord was entered her skull.
Now, either you don't know that, which makes you deliberately ignorant AND deceitful because you attempt to persuade your readers that you are in possession of and conveying the full extent of scientists' data about lucy's upright posture... OR you DO know that, and have deliberately left it out so as to mislead your readers to an even worse extent.
So that is how we are now enlightened, Pastor Tom.
We now have a clear impression that unless you're so insane as to not even comprehend what you're doing, you're a fucking liar. Which,in my book and most other people's, make you an immoral piece of shit.
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: Spiro Keat | August 9, 2009 7:37 AM
Pastor Balls is just a fool.
Don't waste any time on the poor, sad cretin.
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: Vainglorious | August 9, 2009 8:05 AM
The word "mock" or variations thereof appeared 14 times in Ham's blog entry. Ham and his staff need either thicker skin or a thesaurus.
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: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 8:11 AM
Holy crap... I'm starting to suspect Shaun is a poe.
Was I taken in by a poe?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 9, 2009 8:21 AM
No, he is a dungeon inhabitant (last entry).Posted by: Mu | August 9, 2009 8:25 AM
Gabriel @ 128, while the Smithsonian probably has no issues with that t-shirt, you might get accosted by some elderly gentlemen wearing it to the Holocaust museum, who somehow take offense. And that t-shirt will get you jailed in Germany and Austria, so the "just a t-shirt" thing is relative.
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: Wowbagger, OM | August 9, 2009 8:35 AM
Evidence, please. You'll need to demonstrate that 'taking Jesus as your saviour' can provide any measurable difference in a person's life that cannot be explained by any other means - or cannot be applied to any other deity, for that matter. You specified Jesus, so anytime a Hindu or a Buddhist can be shown to be peaceful as a result of their religion means a fail for you.
In return we'll continue to think for you - since you seem unable to manage this yourself.
Sadly - for you - reality begs to differ. Take this research, for example.
Care to try again? You should probably stick with Pastor Tom, who isn't concerned about letting the truth get in the way of his sad attempts to smear science and atheism. But then again, lies are okay when they're lies for Jesus, right?
Posted by: Alf | August 9, 2009 8:36 AM
That place is really Disneyland for the Dumb!
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 9, 2009 8:41 AM
How does that explain Piltdown Man then?Posted by: AJ Milne | August 9, 2009 8:42 AM
... 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: Comrade PhysioProf | August 9, 2009 8:42 AM
No, the article sucks motherfucking shit, and is evidence for the complete utter degeneracy of "journalism" in the United States.
A *real* journalist *assesses* the claims made by two parties to a dispute or controversy and attempts to determine who is right, and who is wrong. This is the role explicitly envisioned for the Press by the Founders of the United States. It was considered an absolutely essential element of a functional constitutional republic.
This article, conversely, is typical "while some say.., others say.." lazy, craven, corporatist bullshit churned out by motherfucking asskissing douchebags who care about nothing other than pleasing their corporate masters and sucking up to celebrities, politicians, and other sources of power.
A *real* journalist would have *investigated* the claims of the dumbfuck museum and PZ's band of skeptics and *DRAWN A CONCLUSION ABOUT WHO HAS THE BETTER CLAIM*! This article makes me fucking puke.
It is because of their complete total abdication of their professional ethics that the press of the United States bear major responsibility for horrible bad shit like the Iraq war, the Bush/Cheney near-dictatorial power grab, the destruction of health care reform, and any other horrible corporate/fascist shit that is going on in this country. Fucking scumbags.
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: crs | August 9, 2009 8:45 AM
Can we just refer to him as Pastor Tom or T.Estes? I'm rather fond of balls in a more vulgar sense, and the thought of two of him hanging between a partner's legs makes me want to hurl.
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: KevinC | August 9, 2009 8:51 AM
PZ @ #99 wrote:
Which, divided by 30, yields an average of 66,666 visits per day. *Dunn-dunn-dunnnnnnn!*
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. "Myers" is a Jewish name. PZ has a Levitically-incorrect trimmed beard like Jesus, and like Jesus, PZ is a noted dinosaur rider.
PZ's middle name is "Zachary," a derivative of Zachariah. In Luke 11:12, Jesus is portrayed saying:
Zachariah is used symbolically here to represent the last martyred prophet of the Hebrew Bible ("Old Testament") era. PZ's first name, Paul, is that of the Apostle who was the last to see the risen Christ (I Corinthians 15:8), who was also martyred under Emperor Nero. Nhose name, with a final 'n', i.e. "Neron Caesar," adds up to 666.
So, the names that make up PZ's moniker are both symbolic of the martyrdom of the last followers of God in each Covenant age ("Old Testament" and New Testament). The passage in Luke is explicitly eschatological, referencing the generation that would pay for the martyrdom of God's prophets, proof that the time is at hand. The relentless pwnage PZ dishes out on God's saints must surely make him the Nero of our time, even if he never actually hurts any of them physically. They certainly feel like they're being set on fire to light PZ's gardens, just ask them!
I'm sure with enough effort at diddling Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek gematria, PZ's name could be made to equal 666 or "lightning from heaven" or "Wormwood" or something else spookily meaningful.
In a nutshell: Move over, Obama, there's a new Antichrist in town!
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: 'Tis Himself | August 9, 2009 8:58 AM
Reporting both sides of a controversy and letting the reader decide is a fair journalistic practice. Stating "who is right and who is wrong" is very close to propaganda.
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: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 9:00 AM
"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."
Truth? Only truth legal? No "world" series? An NFL "sometimes good but usually pretty crappy" Bowl?
A presidential candidate who says, "no I can't make that promise, that's beyond the powers of the President?"
"I Find It Fairly Easy To Believe It's Not Butter?"
Beer commercials that say "It's Budweiser, if you wanted flavor you'd look elsewhere."
GOP platform: "We'll lie to you and fuck you over?"
Democratic Party platform: "We'll lie to you and fuck you over, perhaps slightly less often than the other guys, but don't hold us to that promise?"
Our entire system would collapse.
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: PeterKarim | August 9, 2009 9:07 AM
Then last 30 secs of this video is the saddest thing I have seen on the interwebs,... ever.
Sorry if it is off topic (or is it ?)
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80698342/
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: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 9:12 AM
Louis Theroux did a show on the Westboro Baptist Church.
One young woman had left the church briefly but then went back, and when she was spouting out the church bullshit to Theroux you could just see the pain in her eyes... she left the church but couldn't take being shunned and losing her entire family... you could see the obvious doubt, how she didn't really believe the crap she was spouting but just couldn't bear to lose her whole world and be on her own.
It was heartbreaking.
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: Gruesome Rob | August 9, 2009 9:34 AM
For those of you with a MySpace account, this could use some education.
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:
...because children can see right through bullshit.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | August 9, 2009 9:42 AM
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.
And it's quite possible that the reporter was indeed only covering the story for the Star-Trib. News organizations routinely buy stories from one another, ie the AP has few reporters of its own and is primarily a syndicate for sharing news among its member news organizations. It's quite possible that ABC was not even aware of this event until after the story was published.
Ham is straining at gnats, and displaying a profound lack of media sophistication.
Labelling the reporter as "so-called" is not helpful, Myers.
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: daveau | August 9, 2009 9:48 AM
Katkinkate @157
Kind of like it is now.
Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 9:51 AM
Is it? I think both "Meyers" and "Meyer" are, but I'm not sure if "Myers" is.BTW, I just switched to Firefox 3.5, and I'm really enjoying the drop-shadows behind the post titles.
Posted by: Teh Merkin | August 9, 2009 9:56 AM
Ken Ham's account of what happened? Wait a minute Hambone... WERE YOU THERE?!?
Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 10:00 AM
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: Katkinkate | August 9, 2009 10:02 AM
Posted by: daveau "Katkinkate @157 "Then the deepest pockets buys the truth they want."
Kind of like it is now."
Kinda ... not really. At least now you can't be hauled up before the courts and charged for having a different world view than a officially mandatory one. You're free to do your own research and learn the truth about anything you want. You're free to talk/write about your worldview, even if it is different to everyone else's. Now, the deepest pockets buy political influence and media attention to push their worldviews, but individuals don't have to buy into it.
Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 10:03 AM
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: raven | August 9, 2009 10:03 AM
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: Randy Crum | August 9, 2009 10:06 AM
Certainly the "Creation Museum" is a silly idea. If I'm ever in the area, I would like to visit it as well for the laughs.
But they say that "All publicity is good publicity". When something like this gets on ABC news it is likely that some people who didn't know about the museum find out about it. Many of those people support creationism. In the long run visits such as this may actually help the museum financially and otherwise.
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: Citizen Z | August 9, 2009 10:26 AM
"We're not thin-skinned and easily offended. It's all our creationist patrons that are thin-skinned and easily offended! Big difference!"
Posted by: KevinC | August 9, 2009 10:29 AM
@XD #159:
It's spelled "Meyers" on his Kenyan birth certificate.
Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 10:45 AM
Well, that settles it. PZ is definitely Samoan.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: JafafaHots | August 9, 2009 11:15 AM
So when does Mooney chime in echoing Ham's thoughts, complaining that a "might not be a god" shirt is offensive?
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: raven | August 9, 2009 12:10 PM
What is this nonsense about walking across in the oceans on logs!!!
The children of Noah exist because dad built a big boat full of animals and supplies.
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.
I guess when you are just Making Stuff Up, all fairy tales are equally true.
For extra credit. How come the Polynesians, Native Americans, and Australian Abos, don't look Jewish?
Posted by: didymos | August 9, 2009 12:21 PM
skepsci @ 123:
No, Looy's description was not "100% accurate". Shirt says:
And Looy said:
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: Dorkman | August 9, 2009 12:22 PM
Shorter family from Virginia:
"We didn't drive 8 hours to this museum to have our kids start thinking!"
Classy of Derek to apologize anyway, even though "ruining" their smooth indoctrination ritual is probably a good thing in the long run.
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: XD | August 9, 2009 12:46 PM
It's not like it's the first time a creationist has resorted to quote-mining in order to vilify their opponents. Actually, it's pretty much their M.O.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: catta | August 9, 2009 1:16 PM
Bit of a hijack, but since this is something I've always been interested in:
No, it isn't a Jewish name. Not even Yiddish. The name is an occupational one. Like a Miller/Müller etc. is someone running a mill, a Meier, Myer, and variations are derived from the German word for a dairy farmer - which in turn comes from a word for a landowner/important person. The term "Meierei" is still used for a farm or plant where milk is processed.
Since many "Jewish" names were assumed at a time when people took on names that were pronouncable, writable and understandable in the regional language, but not necessarily with a historical meaning, since that regional language was often German (e.g. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern - Rosewreath and Goldenstar), and Yiddish has heavy German influences, it may be easy to get confused about what is Yiddish and what is German. :)
The Yiddish/Germanic/medieval Jewish names are usually not occupational descriptions. Not that after centuries of Jews living in Europe, intermarriages etc., you wouldn't have a Jewish "Meier" or "Myer" etc. -- but it's not a Jewish name.
Posted by: XD | August 9, 2009 1:20 PM
@ #180
Thanks, Catta. I always find things like that interesting.
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 1:30 PM
Travis, #113
You can invite people onto your property, but it remains your property. What the Creationist Museum is doing is inviting people onto private property. Much as a store invites people in to shop, but not to disrupt, agitate, or sell their own stuff.
Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution and the various state constitutions strictly apply only to the government. Some have even insisted the U.S. Constutition only applies to those laws enacted by the U.S. Congress. As numerous fathers have explained to their teenaged children, "My house, my rules." You could insist on mandatory nudity in your house, and that is your right. It would limit your visitors, but it is your right.
So what the Creationist Museum personnel did regarding two visitors is entirely within their rights. Not the most prudent thing to do, but they had the right to do it.
Remember, your constitutional rights apply in a public or governmental venue, not in private.
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: Marcus Ranum | August 9, 2009 2:02 PM
How come the Polynesians, Native Americans, and Australian Abos, don't look Jewish?
Doesn't jewish law prohibit travel on the sabbath? How do observing jews cross oceans if it takes more than a week? I've always wondered 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: Travis | August 9, 2009 2:16 PM
Marcus, #186, oh, good point, I have never thought of that. Do you have to make yourself stay in one place on the sabbath or would expending all that effort to do so be considered travel?
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: SMo | August 9, 2009 3:08 PM
It really bothers me that the reporter got the words on the T-Shirt of the student who was escorted out wrong.
A reporter's JOB is to get the facts right to inform the public. The tone completely changes from a positive message ("stop worrying and enjoy your life") to something almost passive aggressive ("so get over it").
And to follow it immediately with "One family of religious people told me that I had ruined their trip", just adds salt to the wound.
If I was a religious person reading that article, I would come back feeling that atheists are passive aggressive and enjoy going out of their way to ruin the vacations of poor families from Virginia.
Posted by: CortxVortx | August 9, 2009 3:26 PM
Re: #106
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: Dr. P | August 9, 2009 3:39 PM
Uh,.....by virtue of the fact that you continue to hang around and try to convince everyone that you are a 'higher saved soul' it seems evident that you are seeking validation as being somehow better or higher;which just makes you pathetic.Seriously,is that the word of your God,or if you saw someone drowning(to attempt to put myself in your shoes) would try to have a little empathy?It speaks to the kind of twisted personality that has a need to see others as somehow not as deserving in the eyes of God, which puts you right up there with the Taliban and Al Qaeda;special, huh?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: Dan! | August 9, 2009 5:58 PM
For those of you waiting for more blog reports of the day's events, stay tuned! The conference ends today, and my 3-part report will be posted early this week. I'm sure most of the other reports are forthcoming, as well.
www.molecularfossils.com
Posted by: Myql | August 9, 2009 6:05 PM
Dr. Francis Collins sure is a windy old fart, isn't he.
Posted by: Capt Spaulding | August 9, 2009 9:02 PM
"A *real* journalist *assesses* the claims made by two parties to a dispute or controversy and attempts to determine who is right, and who is wrong. This is the role explicitly envisioned for the Press by the Founders of the United States. It was considered an absolutely essential element of a functional constitutional republic."
You wouldn't happen to have any evidence for those entertaining assertions, would you?
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: Alexandria | August 9, 2009 11:58 PM
You can't imagine my horror at seeing that article, there isn't enough money on Wall Street for me to associate with religious filth.
The "we are all same" quote at the end of the article filled me with the urge to purge. I have nothing in common with religious TRASH, ever.
Just so you know, the "Moral high road" you are on? It dead ends in Loserville.
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: Matty Smith | August 10, 2009 1:30 AM
This was great. Absolutely great. It's a pity I live in New Zealand, or I'd have jumped at the opportunity to go along. What I want to see now is either a mass visit to a real museum, documented and compared to Hamming-It-Up-Stock.
Failing that, I want to see Creationists visit a real museum en masse in response. Send in the clowns.
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: Kel, OM | August 10, 2009 4:32 AM
You mean like this?
Disclaimer: you watch at your own risk. If your eyes pop out of your skull, your brain starts to bleed or you get a concussion from pounding your head against the desk, I cannot be held responsible.
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: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 6:35 AM
catta@180,
To continue the OT theme, Myers is not always a German-derived name. It's also an English-derived one, in which case it is derived from living near a marsh ("mire"). Still not Jewish though; I've known a number of people called Myers, and the only Jewish one had adopted the name of his non-Jewish stepfather.
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: crs | August 10, 2009 7:45 AM
To Kel @ 202.
Thanks for the warning. While my eyes are still intact my morning is a little less bright. Absolutely sickening.
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: Randy Crum | August 10, 2009 11:10 AM
> JafafaHots:
> 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.
When I said that "all publicity is good publicity" I was referring more specifically to the museum than I was to religion in general.
Religion itself needs no additional publicity. But the museum might benefit financially and otherwise from well-publicized visits such as this.
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: Bill | August 10, 2009 12:50 PM
Posted by: Nomad
"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."
Oh were there 350 of them? Did the hype it up on blogs several weeks prior about how they were going to show up and laugh at everything they saw? Did they proudly boast about how intelligent they were and how everyone else in the museum were backward retarded hicks for believing in Darwin?
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.
Posted by: aratina cage | August 10, 2009 1:06 PM
But that's just it, isn't it? Entrance into Christianity is a sort of hazing of the mind. That's how Christians like Bill and T.Estes get to look down on atheists: misfits, babies--people too weak-minded to get in line with the flock. It takes a lot of guts to become a Christian and stand up for Christian beliefs that contradict reality.Posted by: sharky | August 10, 2009 1:46 PM
I like the way that Ham prays and hopes for hearts to be changed. Not only does that nicely accuse atheists of being evil without his coming out and saying it, but it underscores that he certainly doesn't think he could change *minds* with his museum.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 10, 2009 1:51 PM
Try to not bump your nose while staring deeply into the mirror there Billy.
Posted by: Jeff S | August 11, 2009 1:22 AM
Bill, the group that went to the creation museum don't spend their lives feeding lies to children to promote their agenda.
We have the moral high ground. We laugh because its ridiculous. We care because its disgusting people would purposely mislead children with lies.
You could argue 'offering a different viewpoint' of science isn't damaging. Most here would disagree. However, these creationist typically don't even stop at that. They use religion to instill their intolerance and hatred. Creationists impose ridiculous and damaging views of human sexuality on their children.
Any time a liar is discredited it can lead the one for one person who was duped to question what they have been told.
It is not for the benefit of the athiests and agnostics and skeptics, its for those who have or will be misled.
Sorry if we don't trip over ourselves trying to accomodate charlatans. They do not deserve it, and to do so would be a cowardly thing to do.
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.