The Tulsa Park and Recreation Board recently reversed itself and voted not to add a creationist exhibit to the Tulsa Zoo. The proposed exhibit would have added a Genesis account of life’s origins to the zoo displays for balance. After creating a public outcry by approving the display, the board looked over its handiwork and saw that it was not good. Amid the sound and fury, a victory for common sense.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- parkay on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
47 Comments
Suitable for Exploration Place, huh Randy?
Oh come on. Who cares about a Genesis exhibit? Stuff like this gives us liberals a bad name. It’s a zoo exhibit, for crying out loud, not a classroom or courthouse.
Tara,
I dunno: first they came for my fossilized dinosaur bones, then they came for me.
Stop ‘em at the gates of the Halls of Science, I say.
Has anybody checked with the monkeys there? after all this brouhaha, they might not want it known that we might be related to ‘em.
Thank goodness for reason peaking it’s head in on this one.
Boy, that’s going to make the Fundies mad. I can only imagine what’ll happen in Sunday services in Tulsa.
What a close call!
It is a good thing none of the creation stuff made it onto the public scene…
I never been to Tulsa’s Zoo. Is it any good?
I agree with Tara.
Democrats who make such silly objections make hay for the fiery Christians of the Right coalition – hay which leads directly to both energy and votes (e.g., the “deny gays civil rights” movement that won GWB at least 8 states, including Ohio, in the 2004 elections).
As Tara noted, a zoo is a perfect place for such an exhibit. And Democrats used to be clever and wise enough to know that.
Sometimes I think the Democrats can unerringly hit only one target when they unload: their foot. Repeatedly.
Filke,
You’re right. Democrats should just stop criticizing the ridiculous actions of the religious right because it makes those people hopping mad. Hey, that’s what the religious right do — they don’t do a lot of stuff cause they know it will give Democrats ammunition. I totally agree with you that Democrats should be as wimpy as the religious right.
I don’t know what zoos you’ve been visiting lately, but zoos ARE classrooms. They’re filled with all kinds of displays about evolution, geology, astronomy, taxonomy, conservation, physics, chemistry and much more. They take in thousands of school kids every year into actual classrooms at the zoo to teach them about these things.
When will people think for more than two seconds before they invoke the tired “nothing to see here, move along” argument when it comes to putting religion into science facilities?
GetReal, do you really think that a creationism exhibit at a zoo is seriously putting religion into science facilities?
I do not.
I know it takes more than a passing knowledge of comparative anatomy, but a place where structure of the hind leg of a zebra can be compared to that of an ostrich is surely rich soil in which to till the theory of evolution, no?
Food for thought here, in my humble opinion:
From Sun Tzu, the famous Chinese military philosopher:
“The art of war recognizes nine varieties of ground:
(1) Dispersive ground – When a chieftain is fighting in his own territory, it is dispersive ground;…On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not…”
This statement coming from a person in “evolution-challenged” Kansas really shows the need for people dive deeper into these issues, and give them some thought. Here in America, science is in a fight for its life in our classrooms, zoos, science museums, and just about everywhere else where objective science is being threatened with religious teachings.
Are we being paranoid about religion creeping into science facilities?
The state just redefined science in our kids’ classrooms, and lowered science standards because of heavy lobbying by proponents of creationist Inteligent Design who falsely claimed that there is a scientific controversy about evolution. Of course, no such controversey exists in the science community.
But in this case, how could you argue that religion isn’t putting the teaching of solid science in peril? It’s but one example in an ever growing American fad to replace science with religion.
Would a creationist display at a science museum be putting religion into a science facility?How about if you brought your kids into a theater at the zoo and saw this appear on the screen?
“How the world began: A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.
From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma.”
What’s the difference between science museums, our science classrooms, and zoos? Zoos aren’t science facilities? I’m sure the American Zoological society would argue with that, as would the Ph.Ds who run the place, and the certified educators who teach and make the signage, and the researchers actually performing science behind the scenes.
These are places where science is the focus. NO one wants to restrict religion – there are places for that. Given what’s happening right now, we need to be on the side of science, and keep it free of religion. Our kids will grow up the better for it.
Evolution is a thory not fact. It should not be taught as fact!
Gravity is a theoryCell Division is a theoryAtomic is a theoryKinetics is a theoryRelativity is a theoryGerms are a theoryInheritance(Biology) is a theory
What I think that creationist do is disort the word THEORY.
Here is a good source to describe what a Law, Hypothese, and Theory means.http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
Intelligent Design in not a theory. It is Pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience: refers to any body of knowledge or practice which purports to be scientific or supported by science but which is judged to fall outside the domain of science.
Mr. Joe Williams and Getreal have dont a fine job of clearing this up. How is it the Eagle cant do this?
Is the earth flat? Just checking?
Yes, evolution is a Theory with a capital T, as in Scientific Theory. Something called a Scientific Theory is the closest thing to a Law that you can have. To be elevated to a Theory, it must have a massive amount of evidence for it, withstand an equally more grueling hammering from its opponents over the course of decades or centuries and be essentially infallible enough to become a Law. As the reference that Joe links to says:
“Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt.”
The only thing a Theory has in common with a “theory” that you or I or the Intelligent Design Network may have is that it’s spelled the same. The meanings couldn’t be more different.
By the way, don’t look now, but the computer you’re typing on is operating under the Theory of Electromagnetism. Given the right anti-science argument, I suppose we can expect all computers and electronics in the world to instantly break down, as all the electrons realize that they are only goverened by a lowly “Theory”.
Such is the complete and utter nonsense in these challenges and criticisms of the Theory of evolution.
You know, I’ve often thought that the Intelligent Design folks and their fundamentalist cousins are somewhat “Talibanesque” in their approach to science. The parallels are discomforting.
The whole ‘intelligent design is an alternate explanation for the appearance of life on earth’ position is really just an attempt to save orthodox Christian theology from the inevitable conclusions that one must draw if the Theory of evolution is correct. If man ‘evolved’ then he evolved from lower, mortal, imperfect life forms. He was never perfect and immortal and so the very idea that he needed a Messiah or redeemer to restore to him things he never had collapses. Unfortunately ID advocates, especially Biblical literalists, generally seem to be of the opinion that ‘if there is a conflict between Biblical theology and empirical evidence then so much the worse for the empirical evidence.’ Rather than trying to make the facts fit the theology perhaps it would be better to adjust the theology to fit the facts.
“Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe in the God idea, not God himself.” – Unamuno, Miguel de (1864-1936)
Dagett,
I would love to see these “parallels” which you find so discomforting…
You would? Nathan, I’m flattered by your intrest.
I’d love to see a list of active duty Marine posts in Kansas, not including Recruiting offices. Can you help me out, Nathan? Google doesn’t seem to be much help.
There are many parallels between all fundamentalist religous sects. Science is in the cross hairs of both Christian fundamentalists (referred to as the religious right) and the Taliban, as it challenges the world view of both of these religions.
The most obvious parallel related to our discussion is that both the religious right and the Taliban reject the the theory of evolution – the well established scientific Theory that says that humans, along with all life forms on earth, evolved over long periods of time from previous species all the way back to a common microbial ancestor.
In other science-related parallels between the Taliban and the religious right, both groups also reject geology – that the age of the earth as its well-defined scientfic age: 4.7 billion years old. They also reject the findings of astronomy, that the Universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, and that stars and galaxies are millions and billions of light years away.
So, you can see that when you reject science, you’re putting yourself in some pretty nasty company.
Also, the Taliban and the religious right advocate the banning of certain books from being read, and the ceremonial burning of literature. What books has the American religious right in the USA attempted to ban or burn? How about Harry Potter (Kansans tried to ban those books), Maya Angelou, and Mark Twain? Oh yes, that’s your USA religious right at work.
Now is the religious right as bad as the Taliban when it comes to the majority of the Taliban’s actions? Of course not. But again, there ARE disturbing parallels that are obvious when you take religion too far.
Why thank you, GetReal.
That was very well done. One of the things that really disturbs me is the “extremism”. The fundimentalist right wing of the GOP is emboldened by their recient advances, ie, they take credit for Bushes re-election, laws in several states that ban or reduce the rights of gays, ID, and of course, their demands concerning the next Supreme Court nominee. It reminds one of the old saying, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”. I just have to ask myself how far they’ll go? Of course they’re not as bad as the Taliban….for now.
Nathan,
I guess you don’t know where there are any active duty Marine posts in Kansas (excluding Recruiting offices…I know what a stickler you are for detail)?
My, that seems odd.
Dagett,
If only you could use that kind of deductive reasoning and research ability on the rest of what you do…
Dagett,
There are only 3 major Marine Corps bases: Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendelton, and Okinawa.
There happen to be many different Active duty posistions besides that of Recruiter all throughout the country.
I still dont see your point though.
Nathan, I’m fully aware of where the 3 Marine Corps BASES are located. I asked about POSTS. I’m curious where an active duty Marine would be POSTED in Kansas.
I don’t particularly have a “point”, but I have a couple of “reasons”, the first of which is purely personal and beleive it or not, has nothing to do with you. Hence, my curiousity. I know that many years ago there were a few Marines in Hutch, but I don’t think that’s the case now. At that time, there were no other Marine posts in Kansas and the nearest reserve unit was in Kansas City, to the nearest of my recollection. I could be mistaken. Enlighten me.
Hey Dagamundo!
Why don’t you quit beating around the bush (bush….ha, ha! I made a funny) and say what we’re all thinking, man? He’s either not a marine or he’s a weekend warrior. Either way, he’s a poser! Nathan dude! Tell us what you really are!
On another thread, I called Nathan out on his oft- mentioned active duty Marine status. His response was to invite me to lunch. But as his posts tend to prove, I believe he is already out to lunch.I try to stay on topic. But when a regular poster to many of the threads on this blog at least seems to be blatantly dishonest (by the way well done Dagget! on the marine posts thing) then I consider it a service to encourage that person to stick to the facts and avoid attempts at deception. Failing that, I think they should preface each post with a warning that the post may contain innacuracies, half truths, or outright lies.Nathan? You stand accused by a jury of your fellow bloggers of dishonesty in claiming to be a United States Marine. I’m not sure which commandment instructs against bearing false witness, maybe you can tell me.
At your back, JR.
Best,Dag
Dagett.
Sup, old man? Sorry I’m late. Wichita Kansas? Wow!
I am glad to see the love fest is going so well.
I don’t care if you believe that I am a Marine or not. ( I did at first, not anymore)
The only reason I ever brought it up was becuase in some other wat related topic it was mentioned that only someone who was serving had a right to an opinion or something like that ( I dont recall right off)
So believe me or don’t. Lets discuss the issues then.
Nathan, Nathan, Nathan,First you care, but now you don’t? Come on, son, that’s no attitude for a Marine! Lot of fine old tradition there. Show some pride, boy! So which comes first, party or Corps?
What is up with the time tag? Wichita is in the Central time zone, isn’t it?
Nathan, let’s discuss the issue here as you say. I read over the posts in this thread, and you haven’t really “adressed” anything, far as I can tell. You’ve made a few smarty remarks.
The issue is, the Tulsa Zoo caught a wealthy fundimentalist conservative trying to pull a fast one. Dan Hicks has been brow-beating the Tulsa Zoo Board for 10-15 years with his money and connections, and they finally stood up to him. The Zoo had put up a sign at the entrance stating that evolution was a theory, and in ‘95, Hicks was ok with that, even signed a statement and all, but now he’s back wanting the whole enchilada. He’d counted on his noisy fundimentalist friends to back him, but the good people of Tulsa weren’t buying into his crap.
I’m a little surprised that in Oklahoma, the fundies didn’t get their way, but there it is. Oklahoma and Kansas for that matter, are known as hotbeds of right-wingnut fundimentalism. Nathan, what do you suppose is going on here?
Most average people are very uncomfortable about standing up to fundies (and conservatives for tha matter) because at the first signs of dissagreement, you people start accusing good Christian Americans of being God haters and Anti-American. You’re a bunch of loud bullies.Nathan, do you suppose the good people in Tulsa got tired of being pushed around by a bunch of nutcases?
Hammer,
Welcome to the blog!
Allow me to address some of your questions directed towards me:
“You’ve made a few smarty remarks.”
That is all I wanted to do. At least they were in line with the topic.
“The Zoo had put up a sign at the entrance stating that evolution was a theory”
A theory? How dare they do that… Um, wait a minute. Isn’t that what evolution is?
“Nathan, what do you suppose is going on here?”
More specific please.
“you people start accusing good Christian Americans of being God haters and Anti-American.”
Who does this? You say “you” as if I am one of them.
“Nathan, do you suppose the good people in Tulsa got tired of being pushed around by a bunch of nutcases?”
Who are these “nutcases” you are talking about, who are the “good people” you are talking about, and how are they being “pushed around?”
Why thank you for the warm welcome, Nathan. I assure you it’s most appreciated. I hope we’ll have several productive exchanges, over the next few days, possibly weeks. Alas, my time is somewhat limited. Also, please excuse my lack of familiarity on local issues, as I’m not from Kansas.
On to the business at hand, my friend. You don’t mind if I follow the format you seem to have set, do you? (with a bit of modification to fit my style, of course) I thought not.
You:”You’ve made a few smarty remarks.”That is all I wanted to do. At least they were in line with the topic.Nathan, that’s a little confusing considering that in your post this AM, you said:” Lets discuss the issues then.”
Tisk, tisk, tisk. Being smarty isn’t considered good form when one addresses issues.
You:A theory? How dare they do that… Um, wait a minute. Isn’t that what evolution is?
Why Nathan, you’re right! I’ll bet that’s why they call it the Theory of Evolution.
You:”Nathan, what do you suppose is going on here?”More specific please.
That’s a reasonable request.Not being local I can only go on a general sense of the atmosphere there in the Heartland. Here, we’re under the impression that the fundies have a great deal of influence as pertains to local issues. So let me restate and expand. Do the fundies have that much control? Are they loosing control to a more moderate and reasonable constituency? Did they ever have that much control to begin with, or is it the old saw about the squeeky wheel (ie, the squeeky wheel gets the grease)?
You:”you people start accusing good Christian Americans of being God haters and Anti-American.”Who does this? You say “you” as if I am one of them.”
Are you one of them, Nathan? I confess I’ve read some of the archives for these blogs, and while it’s not perfectly clear if you are “one of them”, I think it begs the question. In light of some of your postings, you seem to be of the fundimentalist bent. Am I laboring under a false assumption?Many people of conservative persuasion have a nasty habit of casting aspersion on anyone who doesn’t agree with them. You need look no further than these pages to see that. I don’t have absolute numbers, but my impression is, conservatives seem very quick to accuse people of being Un-American, Non-Christian, and even treasonous. That to me, seems somewhat extreme! This nation was founded by people who were considered traitors by King George and his supporters. But that’s gist for another discussion, isn’t it?
You:”Who are these “nutcases” you are talking about, who are the “good people” you are talking about, and how are they being “pushed around?”
Nathan, as I specifically stated, “the good people of Tulsa”, but we’re wasting time. And we reach the point. I’ve read a number of your previous postings, and while your style is effective, you’re predictable. Nathan, your last questions are loaded and are a set-up. As a condition of our further conversations, I will not respond to loaded questions. Word games are the realm of children, so let’s not engage in them.
Nathan, I’ve enjoyed this chat and I look forward to more. There are many other subjects on these blogs that I’m sure would be more interesting than discussing Tulsa, but I leave that to your choice.
It’s late and I have an early deadline in the morning, so I must bid adeu. I’ll look forward to your response in the AM.
Regards,
Hammer
Hammer,
“Do the fundies have that much control?”
I don’t know what your definition of “fundie” is.
“Are they loosing control to a more moderate and reasonable constituency?”
Even though I don’t know who the “they” are in your question, I see that you insert the word “reasonable” into the question so I wouldn’t answer it anyhow. It is a loaded question as you would say…
“Did they ever have that much control to begin with, or is it the old saw about the squeeky wheel (ie, the squeeky wheel gets the grease)?”
Again, I will need to know who the “they” are in your question.
“Are you one of them, Nathan?”
No.
“Am I laboring under a false assumption?”
It depends on what your definition of fundamentalist is.
On this and all other blogs on which nathan posts, I submit that we ignore him. I know that is hard to do, liberals seek truth and justice. But nathan has revealed himself? as a liar and therefore irrelevant.By the way welcome hammer(bad choice of name maybe) hammer you will find all too many such as nathan among those living in rightfully called flyover country. A caveat here; you can’t talk sense to someone who thinks “GOD”is on the side of stupidity.Nathan? Whatever else you are, you are a dead duck here. I will shake my head and laugh at your silly posts. I will expose you for what you are. It is my hope that in time you will be seen as a ranting clown. Take heart! “our president “is also a ranting clown.
JR,
LOL. You gave me a good laugh. Have a wonderful night and God Bless.
JR,Thanks much for your warm welcome; a mutual friend speaks well of you. My, there seem to be some very friendly people in Kansas; your reputation for hospitality seems to be well-earned.You think “Hammer” is a bad name choice? I’ll pass your concern on to my parents. You see, Hammer is part of my given name and I’ve been called that for as long as I can remember. You can only imagine the amount of fun my friends have had with that considering Tom DeLay’s recient ethical lapses (The Hammer).Your local Conspiracy Theorist and Anti-Semite sure seems to take issue with the name (along with my taste for Southern Rock, ie, Faster Guns). I’m a little surprised a guy that far out hasn’t run afoul of the authorities.Be that as it may, I look forward to a productive association.
Good things your way,
Hammer
Ah, Nathan.
I was warned you would be one to twist words and definitions. Seems that’s the case. But I’ll be glad to humor you, for now.
Fundie: Would it be easier if we substituted the word “Evangelical”?Surely you know what an evangelical is? As for the term “reasonable”, I think the context speaks for itself. You’re a bright young fellow, Nathan, I’ll bet you can draw my connection between “moderate” and “reasonable”, since I did use them in the same sentence.
You profess not to understand who “They” and Them” are, yet you claim not to be one of “them”.
“Are you one of them, Nathan?”
“No.”
If you don’t know who “they” are, how do you know you’re not one of “them”?
Nathan, you sound very Clintonian. I almost expect to hear,” What is the meaning of “is”?Are you also an admirer of Bill Clinton?
Regards,
Hammer
Good Morning, Hammer. I see you’re making yourself at home in our merry little band. So you’ve met our Nathan? Quite a piece of work, what?
Hammer, what did you do to set Ed off? He sure seems to have it in for you. No matter, he’s a little strange, but harmless.
Welcome to the blog, Hammer. I’ll look forward to your contributution.
PS,Saw the piece you did for Black at E. Well done!
Nathan.Off subject for a mo, I haven’t seen any posts by you today. I hope Ed’s “super secret” computer weapon didn’t get you, ha, ha. There seems to be one in every blog….
Regards,
Hammer
Hammer,
I don’t have the slightest idea what Ed is doing.
I guess I give him something to live for in life. His hopes and dreams are to silence me.
So, I am still posting. I guess whatever it was didn’t happen yet or will not at all.
Nathan,Glad you didn’t fall victim to some bizzarre tin-hat plot. I’ve run across some snti-Semites in my day, but Ed really takes the prize.
I detest bigots.
Regards,
Hammer