Atheists expelled from Creation ‘Museum’

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

http://www.examiner.com/x-9090-NY-Atheism--Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m8d9-Atheists-expelled-from-Creation-Museum

[murielm99]

1. Damn, that's funny.

My brother and I were just talking about this. He wants to go there. I told him I could not, because I would be ROFLing and I would probably get in trouble.

[Union Yes]

2. Hilarious! knr

[DrDan]

3. I have a feeling the headline should have been "disrupters expelled . . . "

they were not expelled for being atheists. But for disrupting.

And there will be two sides to this story - the atheists who will claim they did not disrupt, and the museum staff who will claim otherwise.

Without some video - we will never know who was truly in the wrong.


no - I am not a defender of these folks. I just happen to believe that we are not as innocent as we would like all to believe.

[TokenQueer]

6. I don't need video to know that creationists are wrong.

:P

[timtom]

11. That's not the issue.

Why would your opinion be relevant to the event of some people being ejected from the "creationist museum?"

[TokenQueer]

27. Your issue is not the issue.

Why would your opinion about what is or is not relevant be relevant to the event of some people being ejected from the "creationist museum?"

:crazy:

See reply #26 down thread.

[timtom]

33. WTF???

Are you on drugs?

Or are you desperately struggling to defend a lame comment?

[DrDan]

18. wrong in their beliefs? or wrong to ask them to leave?

or just plain "wrong"

[muffin1]

22. Fer fuck's sake.

Has humor taken a holiday on DU?

By the way, I find it QUITE amusing when I'm told with a straight face that Jesus rode dinosaurs.

[DrDan]

23. it is quite elitist to believe you have the corner on the truth

why do you feel so superior in your beliefs? I am sure 100 years ago that the thought of autos influencing the atmosphere was quite an amusing thought as well. Anyone stating that would have drawn quite a few smiles as well I am sure.

[muffin1]

24. Sarah Palin? Is that you?

Sorry, I think the jury's in on this one.

[TokenQueer]

30. Lol

:rofl:

Wassup muffin? See what you've done to me? I am holding you personally responsible for my addiction to DU. As predicted... I'm not very popular 'round these parts. :+

[timtom]

35. Ooohhh...

You're a tag team.

And quite merry and witty into the bargain.

[TokenQueer]

36. What the fuck is your problem?

You are ridiculous...

[timtom]

39. I wonder why you would think

that you're not very popular around these parts.

Could it be...tone?

OMG! I see the problem. I had you on ignore some time ago and I took everyone off about 2 weeks ago.

I guess I'll put you back on.

[wininboy]

67. I don't wonder

They're absurd atheists, who wouldn't understand logic and reason if it slapped them upside the head.

[timtom]

70. +1

[devilgrrl]

93. They're absurd atheists, who wouldn't understand logic and reason if it slapped them upside the head

Sounds like you're projecting there bud.

[wininboy]

98. The ole "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument

A real popular one amongst the absurd atheists (as opposed to the non-absurd atheists)

[TokenQueer]

73. You had me on ignore before I started posting here?

Your clairvoyant abilities are something to behold.

Oh, enjoy your new "FRiend".

:rofl:

[boppers]

50. 100 years ago and autos?

1909?

Autos belching smoke?

When people were *already* leaving cities to get away from smoke?

Uhm, maybe a better example might work, like 100 years years ago people thinking about engaging in random arguments with complete strangers over a "network" of connected radio wires... for fun.

:P

[DrDan]

51. you missed the point

100 years ago (autos made their appearance in the late 1890's I think) someone makes a claim that these autos would impact our environment.

Do you think that might have drawn a few smiles?

[boppers]

53. Well, 2,000 years ago the atom would have drawn a few smiles.

That doesn't quite explain maintaining, or justifying, or defending present ignorance in the face of overwhelming data.

You see, having a corner on current knowledge isn't self righteous, it's simply being educated.

Those who don't bother to keep learning, or think that they know a final "truth" now (or ever did), are both worthy of being mocked.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Touchdown]

109. And 100 years from now, people will laugh at someone

for actually claiming that a virgin gave birth to a messiah in a barn.

[Veruca Salt]

91. Damn right!

Everyone knows that raptor jesus is the TRVTH and shall not be mocked!



Baby raptors are adorable. :loveya:

[immoderate]

105. Yeah, only elitists think the earth is more than 6000 years old.

--imm

[DrDan]

113. well . . . doesn't "elitist" suggest a sense of entitlement

and that is certainly the feeling of these creationists . . . they are the ones headed to heaven

nothing is elitist if not that

[TokenQueer]

26. Moonlighting as the creation "museum" security detail, I see.

I was taking a light-hearted jab at the seriousness surrounding this puff piece. :puffpiece:

Sheesh.

:eyes:

[MadHound]

9. Disrupters? Doesn't sound like it

Sounds like they were making some joking remarks among themselves and the "museum" took offense. Sorry, but joking around with your friends isn't disruption.

"And according to Myers and at least one of my other sources that attended, aside from joking to each other about the ridiculous nonsense in the “museum”, no one misbehaved."

[DrDan]

17. its the manner of the joking - was it done in a disruptive manner?

if so - then the museum has the right to ask them to leave.

Only a video would answer that question. Either side would be biased in their answer.

[Rage for Order]

19. Joking around in their "museum" could be very disruptive

It depends on how it was done. Would it be disruptive for some at the Holocaust Museum to loudly joke, "Have you heard about the new German microwave? It seats 1,000!"? Just someone joking around with his friends, right? How disruptive could it be?

I find the idea of a "Creation Museum" to be ridiculous, but I'm not going to go to their "museum" to mock them and be disruptive.

[moggie]

10. "Two sides to this story"

The difficulty here is that on one side you have an organisation - the "museum" - which is founded on lies, and whose business is to deceive people, every day, for money. So, why should anyone treat anything the museum employees say or do as trustworthy?

[DrDan]

15. because they have a right to their beliefs

[HarveyDarkey]

38. And I (and others) have a right right to mock those" beliefs"

i,e. acceptance without proof

[DrDan]

42. and as owners, they probably have the right to ask you to leave

[mamaleah]

106. Is it public property?

As in does it get gov't funding?

People like to think that everything is public property. Unless the government owns it, it's not. The mall isn't. The Taco Bell isn't. A privately funded museum isn't. And all those places can expel people. Even in truly public places, you cannot do whatever you please.

[Touchdown]

110. We should do some research and see if this museum got Faith Based funds

It was built under George (Gog and Magog) Bush.

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

25. Because Americans typically just don't care about the truth.

[DrDan]

40. regardless - they have a right to their beliefs - no matter how absurd

[dorkulon]

45. Is anyone arguing they don't?

No.

[DrDan]

46. no - the argument is whether they have the right to have their views respected

sorry to confuse you

[dorkulon]

47. No, they don't. No one does.

That should be obvious by the way creationists smugly dismiss scientific evidence. And, as someone else posted, imagine the ado if a couple of creationists were tossed from a real science museum for sniggering at the Darwinism.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, no matter how stupid or misinformed it may be. No one has the right to expect everyone to heed their beliefs or remain silent and uncritical.

[DrDan]

49. so you do not respect their right to their opinion

interesting that you want to be a part of this site, imo

[wickerwoman]

52. I respect their right to *have* that opinion...

but not to be exempt from ridicule when their opinion is ridiculous.

The Creation Museum features animatronic dinosaurs drinking from a river next to human children. Every single reputable piece of science gathered in the past hundred years proves that that is a complete absurdity. The owner's justification for putting the display in his "museum"? "That's what the Bible says... God created man and animals on the same day."

I respect the right to free speech, but reserve the right to use it myself in the face of blatant propaganda, especially when that propaganda is targeted at children. I deeply, deeply resent people who discourage children from thinking for themselves.

They can believe whatever ridiculous stuff they want but I draw the line at dragging kids into it.

[DrDan]

54. I agree with everything you say

but just because we realize how ridiculous those views are, I don't think it gives us the right to disrupt their exhibit.

[moggie]

59. Would you accept the words of a Presbyterian minister who was there?

The party included a minister, who witnessed the whole thing, says the young man was respectful and didn't deserve to be kicked out, and has kind words to say about the party as a whole.

Contrary to the article linked from the OP, only one of the 285-odd party members was "expelled", at least according to the museum. Like I said, I don't trust them, but I assume they'd want to maximise their sense of outrage, so that part is probably true.

My guess - and it is just a guess, worth what you pay for it - is that they had decided ahead of time to eject at least one of the party. They need to be able to portray atheists as bad people, and kicking one out serves that purpose. It must have been frustrating for them that the party was so well-behaved!

[DrDan]

66. isn't the issue whether or not the museum had the right to expel these folks?

I am not sure why he would be more qualified to answer that question. He can testify as to their behavior as he saw it - but not necessarily answer whether the museum staff was within their rights.

As to maximizing outrage - seems to me both sides would want to do that - not just the museum.

imo, the group of visitors had the goal of painting the museum supporters as uneducated and uninformed. While I might agree with that, they still have the right to have their museum and express their views in relative peace.

[Bill McBlueState]

79. No, that's not the issue at all

I haven't seen anyone contest whether the museum had the right to eject the guy. The issue is whether the museum was right to eject the guy. Get the difference?

[moggie]

100. The rentacop would have the RIGHT to say "I'm ejecting you because I don't like your face"

But if he did so, don't you think people would comment critically on this?

If a creationist in a regular museum sniggered at an exhibit about evolution, or was heard to exclaim "ridiculous!" at a display about how the Grand Canyon was formed, do you think they'd be ejected? Ask any museum docent: in the US, it's rather common for creationist visitors to behave like dicks, but they have to cause a lot of trouble before they're thrown out, because real museums recognise that a certain amount of dissent is inevitable, and perhaps even desirable, in education. Perhaps it would be better if the creation museum rebranded itself as a church: this would make it clearer that unquestioning reverence is what they're looking for.

imo, the group of visitors had the goal of painting the museum supporters as uneducated and uninformed

A visit really isn't necessary for that. Anyone who believes in the young-Earth creationism and biblical literalism peddled by the museum is uneducated and uninformed; as someone else wrote with admirable succinctness elsewhere in the thread, the jury is in. The visit was organised so that the participants could see in detail what Ham and co are up to, the better to refute it, both in print and in subsequent discussions with creationists and the undecided. Remember, creationism isn't a harmless eccentricity, like collecting dolls or enjoying Garth Brooks: these people are continually trying to sabotage school education for everyone, not just their own kids. Countering them is important.

You can read one of the resulting write-ups here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/the_creation_museum_1.php

It's lengthy and detailed, and could not have been written without visiting the place. There will presumably be many more such pieces, from some of the other 280-odd visitors on this trip. That sort of exposure of bad ideas is a good thing.

[Boojatta]

118. "trying to sabotage school education for everyone, not just their own kids"

Their own kids, having been unwise in their choice of parents, should accept having their education sabotaged.

[dorkulon]

56. You're willfully misreading what I plainly wrote

Do I have to write it again?

[DrDan]

74. whoa . . . lets get real here

I asked - "do they have the right to have their views respected?"

you answered "no"

I replied - "so you do not respect their right to their own opinion"


seems pretty darned clear to me - not sure why you are stating that I am "willfully misreading" what you wrote.

[dorkulon]

85. Let me walk you through it.

1. You said "they have a right to their beliefs".

2. I said "is anyone arguing they don't"?

3. You said, "no - the argument is whether they have the right to have their views respected" - which actually isn't what said previously.

4. I said, "no they don't," responding to the idea that we all have a right to have our views "respected." And I stand by that. I clearly stated we have a right to our views, not a right to have them respected or protected from criticism.

5. You responded that I do not respect their right to their opinion, more bullshit and changing the parameters. So, to sum up:

You say "they have a right to their views", I say "sure they do", you say "no, they have a right to have their view respected", I say "no they don't", and then you say I don't think they have a right to their opinion. Well, that's bullshit. And no, it's not the same to say "I respect their rights," and "they have a right to my respect."

And that's my view, which I guess you're compelled to respect for some reason.

[hatrack]

75. Uh, no, it isn't. They have the right to believe any damn thing they want.

Conversely, I (or you, or anybody else) isn't bound to respect those beliefs.

Let's say I choose to live my life in accordance with instructions whispered in my ear by the Lucky Charms Leprechaun during his nightly visits. Let's further suppose that these are visits which no one else can see or hear or perceive in any way at all, with or without instruments.

Well, to hold, cherish and build upon that belief system is my absolute right, end of story.

It's also your right to ridicule, mock or deride said belief, since it is, by any rational or (for that matter) religious standard, utterly absurd.

Freedom Of Thought - It's Magically Delicious!

[DrDan]

76. not to the point of a public disruption

but . . . I have a feeling you hold that right dear to your heart

[hatrack]

92. No, you know nothing about me, but are happy to jump in with condescension boots on both feet

Your posts throughout this thread have been evasive and display considerable evidence of either

(A) inability to comprehend simple, logical statements and distinctions or

(B) willing disregard of simple, logical statements as needed so as to keep the flame-chum leaving the bucket and hitting the water.

You are wasting my time. Goodbye.

[HarveyDarkey]

119. Sam Harris on conversational intolerance of religion

No one has the "right" to have irrational views "respected"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXg-yy-riEg

[snooper2]

120. you should hang out in the dungeon- there are some no-planers

who you can help make sure their "views" are respected :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[timtom]

86. See, using a word like "lies" is disingenuous in this case.

Lying carries with it the intent to deceive.

Being wrong, on the other hand, means being wrong.

It is the intentionality that defines a lie.

If people want to pay money to go to a museum of that sort, then let them. Have they been lied to by some malevolent cabal?

Now, the rest of us HAVE been lied to by some malevolent cabal, and it wasn't about some damn museum.

[Viking12]

89. Errrrrr. Intent to be willfully ignorant is intent enough for me. It is a lie.

[timtom]

95. I see you're one of the enlightened thinkers in this world.

[Viking12]

97. Indeed.

As I notice you lack the capability to think.

[timtom]

102. Well, now, buckaroo...

ya got me there. (Tee Hee).

I'm not even clever and you're too clever by half.

[DCKit]

43. "... without some video...". I don't think they allow recording devices.

Trying to limit the ridicule.

Can you imagine the damage if Stephen Colbert were to do a video tour? They'd have to turn it into a mockumentary which could end up re-invigorating science education in the U.S..

[DrDan]

44. pretty standard policy - not just here

[PVnRT]

64. Yet disrupters are termed "protestors" and allowed to shut down town halls

[wininboy]

69. Private property vs public property

This "museum" is private property. Town Halls are on public property. There are different rules for the two.

Atheists would be doing their side a favor if they were to learn the issues and the facts surrounding them. Comparing these two jokers with protestors is irrational. They weren't protesting anything

[PVnRT]

78. What "issues and facts" would those be?

The fact that creationism is no way a science, and is nothing more than another stealth attempt at teaching religion in schools?

[wininboy]

82. I'm not surprised you don't know the issues or the facts

as you seem to think the only fact that counts is that it involves a creationist - just like the wingnuts think that the only fact that counts is that Obama is a black man.

When it comes to kicking people out of a place, whether it is a public place or a private place is a fact that is important. Your atheism, and it's attendant hatred of all thing religious, does nothing to make that fact any less important, even if it has convinced you otherwise

[TokenQueer]

87. "just like the wingnuts think that the only fact that counts is that Obama is a black man."

:popcorn:

[wininboy]

88. What's the matter? Don't have guts to comment yourself?

[Raineyb]

81. There's nothing in the article that says that the atheists were being disruptive

Despite your claims to the contrary you are defending those folks.

[Touchdown]

112. It's a Christian thing. Repeat the word "disruptor" enough and it's the truth.

Kind of like all the frogs dropping in to say "Hi!" to Pharaoh.

[DrDan]

114. whatever - I just think there are two sides to this story

and that irritates you . . .

[immoderate]

104. What's disruptive at an amusement park?

Smiling? Giggling? Being amused? Of course they were expelled for being atheists.

--imm

[DrDan]

115. glad you cleared that up . . . how did you come to that

non-debatable conclusion? Listening to the atheists by any chance?

[Touchdown]

107. Somebody's lying. My bet is on the x-tians. They've lied as much as they breathe.

I've never come acrossed an atheist who's lied to me yet. I do have thousands of incidents when x-tians lied to me though... including a plumber with a jesus fish i his yellow pages ad.

[DrDan]

116. well . . . statistical proof

that should put an end to it. . . .

[WeDidIt]

4. They should sue

The museum violated their constitutional rights.

Religion (or lack thereof) is a protected class.

They could shut these fuckers down over this.

[Stevenmarc]

12. It would be hard to argue for damages when the video shows them having a chuckle over it

[Raineyb]

111. Since when is chuckling considered being disruptive? n/t

[onenote]

13. unless the museum is run by the government it didn't violate their constitutional rights

[WeDidIt]

20. Wrongo

Otherwise diners could throw Jewish people out for being Jewish.

[havocmom]

28. Andthey could throw out people of color for not being rinso white

[onenote]

32. sorry but you're wrongo

the reason they can't throw people out for being Jewish (or African American or Asian or Hispanic) is that there are statutes that prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of religion or race. Its not constitutionally required that those statutes exist. The atheists might be able to sue on the grounds that tossing them out was discrimination on the basis of religion,in violation of the law, but they would not have a claim that their constitutional rights were violated since there is no state action involved.

[wininboy]

71. The attheists arguments are getting hilarious

The atheists, who pride themselves on logic and reason, seem to be pulling "facts" out of their ass when it comes to discrimination laws and other issues of equal rights. They've become so rattled, they can't tell the difference between public property and private property nor can they distinguish between governmental actions and the actions of individual citizens

[onenote]

77. Nah, just a common misunderstanding about constitutional v. statutory law

I didn't think the poster I was responding to was ridiculous, just under a common misimpression regarding such things.

[wininboy]

84. I don't believe it is a "misunderstanding"

I believe it is a fact that havocmom is well-aware of but temporarily forgotten in the emotional reaction to having an atheist being thrown out of the museum.

IME, even young children understand the difference between a public place and a private place.

[Zomby Woof]

96. Those dirty stinking filthy atheists!

BURN IN HELL ATHEISTS!!! :nuke:


































:crazy:

[DrDan]

41. oh brother - the case would be thrown out by any responsible judge

just a pissing match between the two groups - not worth the time of our judges

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Reminds me how I used to be warned not to "misbehave" by my family.

:rofl:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. Oh, my, you scofflaw!!

Did you misbehave?

How did you misbehave? Inquiring minds wanna know.

[KittyWampus]

7. BLASPHEMER!

[heppcatt]

8. Here is a video after they were kicked out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ThvM9BKZU&feature=related

[Bjorn Against]

14. I thought the funniest part was that they were expelled from the movie "Expelled"

These people clearly don't understand what hypocrisy is.

[csziggy]

57. Yes, they kept PZ Myers out, but let Richard Dawkins in!

:rofl: :applause:

Irony R Us!

[struggle4progress]

16. PZ talked 240 people into paying admission to the Creation Museum?

What a waste of time and money

[Canuckistanian]

21. Ha! It's PZ Meyers of Pharyngula!

Here's his blog post of the event:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/expelled_from_the_creation_mus.php

[Xicano]

29. LOL..

[jmowreader]

31. Everyone here knows what this "museum" actually is

There are two ways of viewing the Creation Museum. Both are equally valid.

The first way is as the world's most expensive case of preaching to the choir ever invented.

The other is as a way of ensnaring the young. I drive the roads around Cincinnati a lot, and I see Hovind's billboards. Obviously little kids who see them are going to want to go to the "dinosaur place." When they get there, they'll be hit with Hovind's attempt to tie paleontology to young-earth creationism and they might actually believe it--adults used lots of words to write these things, things written with lots of words are always right to a little kid, and young kids haven't learned about agendas yet.

[buzzycrumbhunger]

34. I just saw that abomination

Just watched Bill Maher's movie, Religulous, and that place was one of his stops. Best part of the place was when the guy giving him the tour said something about how yes, it's ridiculous to see dinosaurs frolicking with children at the water hole--but they mainly did that for a "wow" factor as it's the first thing you see upon entry.

Honestly, the place was freaky--like the Landover Baptist deal explaining how Bomby the bombardier beetle shoots toxic chemicals out of his butt as a "testament against the false doctrine of evolutionism." LOL.

He also hit that bizarro theme park in Orlando and debated Jesus for a while. The movie was pretty good, though I found it more depressing than funny overall.

[Lorien]

55. "The Holy Land Experience" here in Orlando. It's right across the freeway from

the True Church: the Millenia mall, where very high end and lower end retail establishments are crammed into a monolithic tribute to American greed and consumerism.So fitting!

[dorkulon]

37. From comments: "I think they're still traumatized by this guy's visit:"

http://buffalobeast.com/117/let_there_be_retards.htm

:wow:

[and-justice-for-all]

48. Of course they were expelled...

creation nutter do not like having their ideology examined or the bullshit they call science exposed.

[ddeclue]

60. Why? Did they eat an apple in the garden?

:rofl:

[ddeclue]

61. Why? Did they eat an apple in the garden?

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Hysterical... but these are the folks accusing us of not being open minded

:-)

[Quantess]

63. Somehow I doubt the atheists got hurt feelings for being ejected

Or at least, they were probably able to laugh about it within an hour later.

[MindPilot]

65. Not too long ago i was in the geology section of the local natural history museum

a woman was rather loudly explaining to her young children how all these beautiful rocks were "gifts from god".

She did not get thrown out; in fact the few people who noticed her simply shook their heads and kept walking.

[Kalyke]

72. FWIW, many people believe in creationism and they also DO NOT believe

that dinosaurs walked with humans.

Please, folks in this thread, stop conflating the two.

There are a multitude of people who believe in God (or the same Deity by another name) and who also know the Earth is older than 6,000 years, housed giant reptilian and/or bird-like creatures 65 million years ago, are aware of the super-continent, the first mass extinction and the existence of asteroids, other stars, galaxies and planets and who accept that something akin to the Big Bang happened.

These people - myself included - can fully understand and acknowledge that the stories in the Bible, particularly Genesis in this case, are parables - you know those a brief, succinct stories that illustrate a moral or religious lesson.

[Bill McBlueState]

80. well, maybe those people should start a museum

This thread is about the well-known museum funded and operated by people who think that the Earth is 6000 years old, that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, that the Grand Canyon formed in its entirety in 2348 BC, etc., etc., etc.

Maybe the more reasonable Christians should think about how to counteract the very public face of young-Earth creationism.

[Kalyke]

90. We already have those museums.

They're called the Museum of Natural History and the American Museum of Natural History.

I'm guessing they're supported, funded and visited by quite a large number of Christians.

[dorkulon]

94. What you're decribing is called theistic evolution, not creationism.

But honestly, if the bible is just a collection of loose parables, why give it any more credence than the Illiad or any other old book? I almost respect the YECs more; at least they actually believe in the bible and don't retrofit it to accommodate every advance in scientific understanding--after all, what is science in the face of the Word?. And at least atheists can admit they don't know what started the big bang or life on earth, and understand that calling it God does nothing to make it any more sensible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be surrounded by you guys than the Ken Hams of the world. But it seems to me either you believe in the bible, or you don't. Six days, talking snakes, etc., or not. And if not, why bother to pretend you do?

[LanternWaste]

101. But we're told...

"more reasonable Christians should think about how to counteract..."



But we're told to keep our religion to ourselves and not force it on anyone, otherwise it's said we're not being reasonable... :evilgrin:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. Creationism is the belief that evolution didn't happen.

I.e., Creationists deserve to be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity.

[Bill McBlueState]

83. odd how this thread

is largely about whether an athiest should have worn a particular t-shirt and not about the fact that the museum shows people coexisting with freaking dinosaurs.

It's typical for Americans to get so worked up about a minor controversy and be mostly unconcerned about a wholesale disregard for facts.

[Tsar_Bomba]

99. I don't respect religous views of any faith or their

members. Evidence shows that in theocratic countries, atheists are persecuted and killed in the name of their god. What little protection offered atheists in this country is what keeps us from being killed now. So excuse me if I have doubt when xcians post the lame excuse of "well that's other Christians, not us", I don't believe you.

[Rob H.]

108. Update: PZ Myers has posted on how the visit went

on Pharyngula.

Excerpt:

You will also not make headway by coddling religious belief or respecting their delusions. I recalled this quote while I was there:

The American scientific community gains nothing from the condescending rhetoric of the New Atheists--and neither does the stature of science in our culture. We should instead adopt a stance of respect towards those who would hold their faith dear, and a sense of humility based on the knowledge that although science can explain a great deal about the way our world functions, the question of God's existence lies outside its expertise.

Mooney and Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America, 2009

This is precisely what Ken Ham wants. He demands that you respect his ideas, and he certainly does hold his faith dear. His whole premise in his theme park is to amplify uncertainty about science, to insist that scientists must be more humble, while asserting absolute certainty about the existence of his god, and that his belief is the sole explanation for all natural phenomena.

Don't give it to him. All his carnival act deserves is profound disrespect and ridicule. Go to his "museum" as you would to a cheap freak show, and laugh, laugh, laugh…and go home to publicly mock and heap scorn upon it.

Irreverence is our answer, not dumb humble deference.

Edit: spacing.

[marmar]

117. Since they believe that dinosaurs and humans coexist, why didn't they just sick a T-rex on them?

:think: