Peter Bronson of the Cincinnati Enquirer is wondering why secularists are so afraid of the Creation Museum.
The live Nativity at the Creation Museum will have an actual, living, cud-chewing camel. Frightening.
There will also be goats and sheep. Terrifying.
Cuddly lambs might seem harmless to the average visitor, but some people are scared witless by the possibility that some innocent, devout secularist could accidentally wander onto the grounds of the Creation Museum and get exposed to radioactive Christianity or other dangerous ideas that should be outlawed.
Let’s just cut straight to the chase. Bronson is making up shit. The reasoning for the reaction to the Zoo/Museum combo ticket has nothing to do with fear or any other bull like that. Evolution is a settled question among scientists. There is zero doubt that it happened. It is just as sound a theory as gravity – insofar as it taking place. Precisely how it has taken place is still a huge field of study and interest and wonder and beauty. Much has been decided – random variation is acted upon non-randomly by natural selection. A fuller, more robust history of life is still waiting to be discovered – not by belief in ancient texts and magic, but through the power of the scientific method.
The Creation Museum web site gets about 1 million hits a month that could have been linked to the zoo. But the zoo got angry calls and e-mails that protested the promotion.
Here’s a sample of the flavor, from the Enquirer Web site:
“Asking me to ‘tolerate’ this kind of worldview is akin to asking me to ‘tolerate’ illiteracy. Both are problems of education and intelligence. Creationist thought is … naïve, it is anti-intellectual, and it harkens back to pre-enlightenment thinking. I don’t have any tolerance for that.”
Got that? Creationists are stupid, illiterate, naïve and backward.
It was an analogy, Bronson. That person did not say creationists were stupid or illiterate. Given that he was presumably writing a letter to voice his opinion to both rational people and creationists, it’s safe to assume he’s well aware creationists have the ability to read; they are, afterall, a bit attached to one of the greatest literary publications in history. What the e-mailer was saying was that creationist thought is unworthy of tolerance because it is shallow and dismisses evidence when that evidence doesn’t match a presupposed conclusion. It opposes the scientific method. For that reason, it is a bad thing. You are naive and backward, however. Good job.
“They’re the ones who are being intolerant,” [Museum owner and notorious creationist, Ken] Ham said. “We’re not afraid of creationists going to the Zoo and seeing their messages about evolution. People have to stand on their own beliefs. It’s not up to us to say you can’t go to this place or that place.
“But they’re sure worried about people hearing about creationism,” Ham said. “More and more, the secularists and atheists don’t want people to even hear the other side.”
First of all, no one is stopping anyone from going anywhere. Insofar as creationist thought should actually be tolerated it is in the sense that no law should be made which prevents people from their free thought – of course, that is concern for a principle, not creationism specifically. Second, a large portion of Americans believe “the other side”, Kenny. That makes this whole martyr complex all the more perplexing.
It makes me wonder: If the science is so unshakeable, what are they afraid of? Why wouldn’t they welcome a debate? Why not encourage open-minded exploration? Isn’t that what scientific inquiry is all about?
I’m going to let PZ Myers take this one.
Again, abandon that premise. We are not afraid. The real issue is that this is a settled scientific question, long resolved and with growing evidential support, and there is little point in continuing the discussion.
Anyone who has had kids knows this situation: when they discover the word “why”, they learn that it is a tool for starting an unending conversation. Give ’em an answer, and they just say “why” again; explain that, and it’s “why” again; the game keeps going until the adult gives up in exasperation. We all know that the kid is not trying to think or get a complete answer — he just wants attention. We can answer for a while with patience, but at some point we have to stop and insist that the child exhibit a little more honest curiousity to trigger more answers.
Creationists passed the point of honest inquiry long ago. I would suggest to Mr Bronson that he go through his little essay and try replacing every instance of the word “afraid” with “exasperated” and he might see his way through to a little more truth.
Filed under: Creationism, News | Tagged: Cincinnati Enquirer, cincinnati zoo, Creationism, Creationist Museum, Evolution, Ken Ham |
For the Sake of Science 
Well, Myers does have a valid point insofar that creationists couldn’t care less about the science. To them, evolution is an evil atheist ploy and nothing more. In my humble opinion, the appropriate response to this essay would be to wonder aloud if the curators of the creationist museum project much. They are after all the people who fought for over fifty years to forbid teachers to even discuss evolution in the classroom.
And now, wouldn’t you know it, they’re being unfairly picked on because they think T. rex was a herbivore despite serrated canines the size of a butcher knife and an estimated 12,500 psi bite force. I don’t know of any herb that requires that much bite force and piercing power to chew.
This whole issue reminds me of this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604
And just an afterthought, would Ken Ham let me drop by the creationist museum and do a Q&A on evolution? I’m not all that horribly far away from it…