The SSA needs YOU

Our trip to the Creation “Museum” was sponsored and organized by the Secular Student Alliance, a wonderful organization that helps build and support freethought on college campuses all across the country. The meeting this past weekend, for instance, was for training student representatives in how to grow and maintain their campus groups.

I have good news and bad news, though.

Here’s the good news, and it is exceptional, wonderful, excellent news: secular student groups are booming, popping up all over the place, and there’s no end in sight. Look how SSA has grown:

i-e0fc14b3b37cdd60d8f4eefc97a2d130-goodnews.jpeg

The bad news, though, is a common problem for non-profits everywhere — the economy is doing poorly, and donations are declining. They are entirely dependent on the generosity of the supporters of freethought, and we’re all feeling the pinch.

i-7fce71879e7f1c345e5c8aa8f80b2b5a-badnews.jpeg

If you can, make a donation or join — every little bit helps. There are a lot of us and our numbers are growing, and if we all just shared a little, then maybe income would be a slightly better approximation to membership growth.

More details are available in a pdf online. Check it out and do what you can.

I think we successfully poked him with a sharp stick

Uh-oh, get the muzzle: Ken Ham is practically foaming at the mouth. He’s upset that I pointed out that one of his displays is a relic of a racist theory of human origins. And it is! He does a bit of yelling about credentials, too.

And this professor seems to have a fixation on me–yet, our own full-time PhD scientists and many other scientists who work in the secular world provided the research for the museum scripts. But, then again, he wouldn’t want to acknowledge that people with better qualifications than he holds (qualifications obtained from secular universities, including PhDs from Ivy League schools like Harvard and Brown) were behind the Creation Museum teaching. This man is obviously very angry at God and relishes in mocking Christianity–spending a lot of his time fighting against Someone he doesn’t believe exists!

These highly qualified PhD “scientists” believe in talking snakes, global floods, an earth that poofed into existence more than 10,000 years after the domestication of the dog, and that they can make a case against evolution by ignoring almost all of the evidence. They can wave their diplomas all they want, but against that palpable nonsense, I reject them bemusedly.

By the way, I’m not fighting against any of the gods, since they don’t exist. I do oppose the charlatans who claim they speak for the gods, because those frauds do exist. See “Ham, Ken” in the Kentucky phone book.

His anger stems from the fact that I showed this image from the museum.

i-a4a344770f2f60fa59a28c6a71515ba1-hamite-thumb-337x200-17254.jpeg

I then wrote this:

With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham.

He demands that I document my claims…but I already did.

Look at the pretty picture (you can click on it to get a larger, readable version). Several times, it states that all races stemmed from the children of Noah. The picture specifically shows that Africans are descendants of Ham. Now go read the book of Genesis, which as we all know, AiG insists we must take absolutely literally.

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

So Ham, the father of all African peoples by this account, sees Noah drunk and naked, and Noah curses his child Canaan to be a servant of servants (what a nice Grandpa!). This is the doctrine that led apologists for slavery to declare that the children of Ham, that is Africans, were ordained to be servants. That’s the Hamite theory. It’s a completely bogus theory, wrong in all of its facts, and if Ken Ham is trying to defang its implications, good for him…but he’s still promoting a racist Biblical explanation that is false in all of its particulars.

We actually know quite a bit more about human ancestry than a gang of bronze age goatherds did. This is my genetic history, a map of the migrations of various genetic groups over tens of thousands of years. Note that we all came out of Africa. Note also that this map does not correspond at all to Ken Ham’s map of the magical diaspora of 2348 BC.

i-a99f343a7ff771620ce75cd1a86b5d89-pz_hapgroups.jpeg

It’s very nice of Ken Ham to now clearly deny the racism implicit in any literal interpretation of the Bible, and I urge him to continue in his progress towards recognizing the metaphorical aspect of these fables. Maybe soon we’ll even get him to realize that you can’t use the Bible to argue against “millions of years”, either!

However, I do recommend that he avoid the “some of my best friends are black” excuse. It’s very condescending and hokey.

Ironically, as this atheist was falsely accusing us of racism, I was in Seattle speaking in the church led by a black pastor–and a good friend of our ministry. See the photo of me and Pastor Hutchinson a former NFL football player. And I spoke Sunday evening against racism!

Keep speaking against racism, Mr Ham. But I think your words would be more meaningful if they were accompanied by commendable actions…such as ceasing the promotion of ignorance.

AiG is angry with us for reporting what they claim

Ken Ham is spluttering in indignation. It’s wonderful. He’s really peeved at the ABC News report because it mentioned a detail that is thoroughly trivial, but he claims is wrong. The report describes how animals spread around the world after the Flood on floating islands of matted logs and plants.

We do have replicas of Darwin’s Finches in the exhibit on Natural Selection where we discuss genetics and speciation, not God’s will!!–and we do talk about floating log mats after the Flood, but certainly nothing about “mankind spread from continent by walking across the floating trunks of trees knocked down during the Biblical Flood.”

Now see, this is where all the pictures we took in the museum become a very useful resource. I just rummaged about, and there they are!

Here’s a text panel that talks about his imaginary “floating forest”, giant rafts on which plants and animals spread around the world.

i-3ee41111495eb9201aa8d9cf502edd1e-floating_forest.jpeg

Here’s his big map of the routes life took. One thing I can’t find a picture of, because it was a video that was playing, was this same sort of map, animated, with streams of log shaped objects swirling about in the ocean currents. It was there, believe me.

i-e1003f7816270bec055f71fb110c3da1-routes.jpeg

And then there’s this. It was a huge painting of one of his giant floating islands. I remember it vividly, because it contained the only image in the whole place of a cephalopod (the small blob on the far right).

i-358d8a23f0acd30e1720cf9ed3d16bc6-island.jpeg

This is precisely how Ham explains the dissemination of humanity after his Big-Ass Flood. Humans rode across the oceans on mats and clumps and lumps of floating debris that were churning about in the ocean currents.

PWNZ0RED, Ken Ham!

One more display from the museum: see, they were talking about log rafts.

i-6a549bcf48ab53a77b2ae84ce1c335a1-rafting.jpeg

The Mooney/Kirshenbaum crusade flops again

Oh, no. Mooney and Kirshenbaum have written another loopy op-ed. I’m reading it in complete bafflement: what is their argument? What are they trying to do? Because none of it makes sense. It’s confusing, right from the beginning, in which they sneer at Richard Dawkins for publishing a new book about science.

This fall, evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins — most recently famous for his public exhortation to atheism, “The God Delusion” — returns to writing about science. Dawkins’ new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth,” will inform and regale us with the stunning “evidence for evolution,” as the subtitle says. It will surely be an impressive display, as Dawkins excels at making the case for evolution. But it’s also fair to ask: Who in the United States will read Dawkins’ new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?

Surely not those who need it most: America’s anti-evolutionists. These religious adherents often view science itself as an assault on their faith and doggedly refuse to accept evolution because they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness. An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they’ll heed.

Hmmm. It looks to be a very good book, and I can practically guarantee it will appear on the NY Times bestseller list in very short order (I think I can also guarantee that its sales will leave Unscientific America in the dust, which may be the prime motivator for this sniping). There will be people who have epiphanies when they read popular science, just as happened to me when I started reading about evolution in my youth, and as I’m sure other people will testify in the comments here, but I think most people write, not for epiphanies, but to inform. Do Mooney and Kirshenbaum seriously believe the new Dawkins book will accomplish absolutely nothing? What an attitude of futility.

That’s a cute trick, though, parlaying a mention of a science book by Dawkins into a condemnation of his existence as a harbinger of total moral depravity. That’s what the leaders of creationism do; I think we can give the rank-and-file a little more credit, though, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of them, after hearing all the hysteria about Evil Old Man Dawkins from people like Ham and Hovind and Mooney, might actually read something by him and realize that he’s a decent fellow after all, and he actually explains evolution clearly. It can’t hurt.

But what do Mooney and Kirshenbaum want now? Is this a plea for Dawkins to stop writing books of any kind, to cancel the print run for The Greatest Show on Earth, or to convert to some conventional piety? This opening makes no sense, unless it’s just that they don’t like the fact that an openly atheist scientist writes without compromise.

It’s not just Dawkins. They really don’t like me at all.

The New Atheists win the battle easily on the Internet. Their most prominent blogger, the University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers, runs what is probably the Web’s most popular science blog, Pharyngula, where he and his readers attack and belittle religious believers, sometimes using highly abrasive language. Or as Myers put it to fanatical Catholics at one point: “Don’t confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god.”

Man, I like what I say sometimes. Here’s the full quote, which was a reply to the people complaining about me trashing a cracker.

What effort I put into it was not in response to the reality of your silly deity, but in response to the reality of your dangerous delusions. Those are real, all right, and they need to be belittled and weakened. But don’t confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted, and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god.

Perhaps Mooney and Kirshenbaum would like to suggest some alternative language? It has to communicate (you know, that precious word) my actual intent and feelings and beliefs, though, not their imaginary precious deference to faith. Clarity is a good thing, I would think.

But then, these guys don’t understand anything.

Long under fire from the religious right, the NCSE now must protect its other flank from the New Atheist wing of science. The atheist biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, for instance, has drawn much attention by assaulting the center’s Faith Project, which seeks to spread awareness that between creationism on the one hand and the new atheism on the other lie many more moderate positions.

The NCSE is not under attack from us. I love the NCSE, and think it is a valuable institution; when I give science advocacy talks, I tell people to join the organization. That does not mean, however, that we therefore think that we cannot criticize the NCSE. Eugenie Scott isn’t our Pope. We think that they’ve taken a wrong turn and are plainly speaking out in protest, while (at least in my case) still sending in our membership dues, and encouraging others to donate as well.

Our criticism is that promotion of “moderate positions”. The NCSE should not be taking any position on religions at all. Mooney and Kirshenbaum have just berated Dawkins for being openly atheist, claiming that that means no creationist will ever listen to him. Do they think that if the NCSE endorses the Episcopalians and Methodists and Universalists, that that will somehow endear them to the fundamentalists?

Finally, M&K take the low road and dig up the corpse of Darwin and make him waggle his bony finger at us.

Despite the resultant bitterness, however, there is at least one figure both sides respect — the man who started it all: Charles Darwin. What would he have done in this situation?

It turns out that late in life, when an atheist author asked permission to dedicate a book to Darwin, the great scientist wrote back his apologies and declined. For as Darwin put it, “Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science.”

Darwin and Dawkins differ by much more than a few letters, then — something the New Atheists ought to deeply consider.

Oh, Jebus. What a crock.

Darwin is not our saint. We disagree with Darwin on many things; we can agree that he was a brilliant scientist and entirely admirable person without feeling that we must therefore emulate him in every particular, or obey his every dictum. I also don’t think that Mooney and Kirshenbaum have earned the privilege of hiding behind Darwin’s skirts.

Darwin was a bourgeois Victorian gentleman, living in the 19th century, with fairly conservative social sensibilities. In case they hadn’t yet noticed, we are now living in the 21st century. Our culture is, I hope, a little bit more flexible on matters of religion than his was, and we aim to push a bit more.

Also in case they hadn’t noticed, what Darwin is advocating is the gradual illumination of minds with science by, for instance, publishing books about science for the lay public. Books that, for example, might lay out the evidence for evolution. Books with titles like The Greatest Show on Earth. Books that M&K belittle.

Seriously, try comparing the opening of their essay with its high-minded conclusion. Have we just determined that a 12 paragraph span is far enough that M&K will lose their train of thought and contradict themselves?

Finally, I can quote Charles Darwin, too. I prefer this line, in which he argues how best to defend his theory of evolution. It also applies to any idea anyone might think worthy.

Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for thus only can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed.

I choose to conscientiously express my convictions. I will laugh at those who think the best way to advance my ideas is by being more mealy-mouthed and by pandering to superstition.

Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style

You know, I think communicating science is an extremely important enterprise, one that I think scientists need to work at more. That interface with the general public is poorly cobbled together and we often seem to be working in completely different directions, producing a lot of, well, chafing, where the citizenry is off supporting some lunacy like creationism or homeopathy and pissing us off, and we’re grumpily tossing off thunderbolts of scorn and pissing them off…and unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of the automatic deference given to such scoundrels as the clergy. I suppose we could aspire to indoctrinate the public into believing in our infallibility and saintliness, but it seems to me that learning how to communicate better would be easier. Not easy, of course, but at least achievable.

While I admit that scientists need to improve their communication skills, you may have noticed that I tend to be scathing in my reviews of pundits who try to tell us how to be better communicators. Too often they seem to have no understanding of how scientists actually think; they’re outsiders who don’t seem to understand our perspective while telling us to bow to the whims of non-scientists. They’re also fond of dispensing generic advice, like “get more education in communication!”, without actually telling us any specifics. It gets rather infuriating after a while.

And then there’s Randy Olson.

He can be very annoying, and even infuriating, too: his movies, Sizzle and Flock of Dodos, generate some interesting reactions from scientists, where “interesting” covers a range of emotions from bafflement to outrage. But the reasons he annoys are different from the way the communications experts and framers and media folk are exasperating: in his case, it’s because he actually is a real scientist, one who left the ivory tower to try and succeed in the fantasy land of Hollywood. He has more credibility and a more informed view of both sides of the argument, so his criticisms have a little more bite to them. He’s also a weird chimera, a kind of crocoduck of the science and media worlds, so he freaks us out a little bit.

Randy has a new book out, Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). It’s another of that genre that nags scientists to be better communicators, but it’s a productive kind of nag. He tells us exactly what the public finds annoying about us, and is specific about what we should do differently.

It’s a short book with chapters with simple commandments: don’t be so cerebral, don’t be so literal minded, don’t be such a poor storyteller, and don’t be so unlikeable, and each chapter is illustrated with stories from his experiences in the transition from science to movie making (See? He’s practicing what he preaches, by trying to be a good storyteller.) There is plenty of material here to convince any empiricist that we need to change our attitudes.

For example, he gives the case of the Pew Oceans Commission report, a major scientific policy report that should have fired people up to protect our coastal resources. Most of you probably haven’t heard about it — I hadn’t — because scientists sunk a huge amount of effort into it, and then plunked it down on desks in Washington DC…and left it to speak for itself. They invested a grand total of 3% of their budget in marketing. Randy reports that one of the staff members said, at the completion of the study, that “I’m not sure we’ve even got enough money for coffee at the press conference.” Compare that to a movie that was released at about the same time as the report, Napoleon Dynamite: 96% of the budget was marketing. You’ve probably heard of Napoleon Dynamite. It doesn’t matter if you liked it or not…it raked in the cash at the box office.

There are lessons worth learning throughout the book; one of them is one I’ve known for a long time, that science is at odds with popular culture because it is largely an exercise in constant criticism, and people hate being criticized. We encourage a culture of negativity, because it works for us…which means, of course, that I can’t simply let the book slide by with a happy two thumbs up. I must be such a scientist. One of the things Randy seems to be oblivious to is the fact that character and personality are an essential part of the style element he is endorsing, and scientists can capitalize on their particular, peculiar, aggravating set of common characteristics. He tells his story of being the scientific dufus in the company of artists; the guy who takes things too literally, who has strange stories, who can obsess over odd stuff that no one else cares about, and who has enough character that his friends can talk about “being a Randy” and everyone knows exactly what they’re talking about. He writes as if this was a problem, and I can sympathize with some of his embarrassing moments…but it was a strength. He sounds like he was one of the interesting people in his group.

So I end up feeling a bit torn. He’s telling us “Don’t be such a scientist”, and it’s true that there are many occasions when the scientific attitude can generate unnecessary obstacles to accomplishing our goals. At the same time, though, I want to say “Do be such a scientist”, because it’s part of our identity and it makes us stand out as unusual and, like Randy, interesting, even if it sometimes does make us a bit abrasive. But, you know, some of us revel in our abrasiveness; it’s fun.

It’s definitely a book worth reading, even if what I’m saying is that a better title would be “Be Conscious of When You Are Being Such a Scientist and Modulate Your Behavior According to the Situation”. But then I’m being such a scientist, and his choice of a title is a bit snappier. Probably more marketable, too.

You can find more about the book on the official website.

We made a sad old man cry

And it feels good! Ben Stein, that old fraud, was recently fired from his gig as a columnist for the New York Times because he crossed an ethical line: he was shilling for one of those ‘free credit report’ scammers. Well, that’s what the NYT said, but he has written a long whine in which he carefully explains that what he did wasn’t unethical at all, and he was actually fired because he offended a cabal of Goldman-Sachs bankers, Obama supporters, and…neo-Darwinists and atheists! I think that last bit was a reference to me.

Watch him blubber.

One final thought. Well, maybe two final thoughts: first, it’s sad that the Internet has become a backyard gossip freeway for the whole world’s sick people to pour out their neuroses. I have seen a tiny fraction of all of the hate mail that’s come in the wake of the NY Times announcement (which they promised they would not make in any event). Too many sick people out there on the web for comfort.

Second, among those who are not really such hot items, I fully include myself. Without doubt, I have made as many mistakes as a person not in custody can make. I make no claims to anything even remotely like perfection or even desirability as a role model. It is just that in this case, I didn’t do anything wrong. In my life, I have done plenty wrong. I am not the master. I am the servant and a poor one at that.

Don’t forget “incoherent”! He’s also pathetically whiny! There are so many things Ben Stein could apologize for as he says goodbye.

Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Ridiculed

Awww, poor Billy Dembski. He really doesn’t get it. He picked up on our mockery of his ID class assignment to go leave comments on science blogs, and he thinks we’re annoyed at the trolls.

In any case, I’ll make you a deal: let Darwinist, atheist, skeptic, freethinking, and infidel websites state prominently on their homepage the following disclaimer — “Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Prohibited” — and I’ll make sure my students don’t post on your sites.

That’s not it at all, Bill! We wouldn’t discourage your students in any way. You have to imagine what was going through our heads that made us crack up at your silly assignment. We started recalling all the awesomely stupid comments left at our sites by creationists, and the thought that you were giving them credit for such inanity just gave us all the giggles.

We’re not prohibiting your students at all. Bring ’em on — they’re great for a laugh.

Tales of the 300 … more accounts of the Creation “Museum”

i-7ec486d08465043d56a827a011df04a9-DrEvolution02.jpeg

You know, it wasn’t just me at the horrible little creationist theme park — there were over 300 of us! In this blog entry, I intend to collect your stories about the zerg in Kentucky. E-mail links to me and I’ll add them to this list. Or, if you’d rather, just leave links in the comments here and I’ll promote them up top as I find the time.

I want more! Send them in to me soon.

News

We were the top story on the ABC News site for a while.

The Examiner covers the story.

Blogs

Tell us your side of the story!

No Guy in the Sky has some overall thoughts and thinks the Creation “Museum” is KY Jelly to Christians.

The Empirical Infidel rebuts Pastor Tom, flashes a nice t-shirt (I remember that one!) and gives a quick impression.

Le Café Witteveen confirms what I’ve said about it: no biology, and well-behaved atheists. He also has a photo collection.

Cincinnati Man also took lots of pictures.

Jen has two summaries up already. She also has a store — buy swag with PZ vs. Ham art!

Now added: Part 3! And 4 and 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! I think the blogathon has permanently warped her brain.

A Christian minister has several comments — he’s critical of the “museum”, but he’s also critical of the atheists (in which he is wrong — Sean Faircloth’s talk at the SSA meeting was superb.)

The Pensive Corner reviews some of the very silly displays.

Mark obviously got a laugh out of it.

The Ruffington Post captured both Hemant and me.

Freethought Fort Wayne sent a couple of representatives on the trip.

Some of you may have noticed a small odd green and white blob on the nose of the saddled triceratops. That was a little birdie placed there by Evo-Devo Mike’s son Alexander.

Greg Laden collects a few links.

Will of the People summarizes the whole conference, as well as the “museum” trip.

AiG claims the continents rearranged themselves during the Flood year. Here’s a little math to show how crazy that idea is.

The “museum” is full of dogmatic presuppositions.

Berlzebub learned a few things at the mausoleum. I missed Nessie in the pond.

Wait a minute. This fellow in our group is a Christian. Weren’t we supposed to stone him or something?

We didn’t just look — at least one person had a conversation.

The trip has already entered legend as the journey of the 300.

We learned a few interesting things about Martin Luther and Charles Templeton.

It was the Flintstones Museum!

“Creepy as hell” is a good description of the animatronics.

Some people learned things at the “museum”. Alas for Ken Ham, they weren’t what he intended.

Some people brought their children into that den of ignorance. It was OK, though, since it inspired some rational discussion.

The Obligate Scientist has several posts on the museum.

Hemant has a round-up of his impressions, which includes a sampling of the offensive t-shirts people were wearing.

Images

Have you turned something from the visit into art? I’ll put it here. (My pose atop the dino seems to have caught a little attention here.)

i-733bd0ef7639b3b16b1ad1eee685625a-PZVOLUTION2.jpeg
i-cf9f1ebe5ce53c4de6e1ad41e419df33-obamacized.jpeg
i-0497a866ac388e041c5f7e2fc5b16f74-PZridesAgain.jpeg
i-149326a9f0ca3cd1f92e79fdd95ac850-DrStrangeSquid.jpeg
i-9cf51b63d9d04aff475926a92f16be39-pzfsm.jpeg

Flickr

Lots of people had lots of cameras, and the images are being dumped onto Flickr right now.

i-23fb90bc04026ad7b1ec44a7e6fbb810-creatorium.jpeg

i-b35c53b2db6a0a8b3484d251b8d64d11-creozerg.jpeg

i-c5bbd493e02d5e3125cf5ec9948bbed2-satans_parakeet.jpeg

i-23519d83ddeeec5fb606a320fdf36a16-spoonfed.jpeg

i-d852388f9936adbc3f5593591cd476e2-robster.jpeg

i-51fa9b202747fc55d63263bf81a1d272-abandon.jpeg

i-ee133cc2180350ba08f03696f5b82fc4-lisle.jpeg

i-bb14e1ecc7c752ad9a9be552648ed7c7-300.jpeg

i-e45de3ec1a605a2cc72daa3f47920624-rider.jpeg

i-f7fccf255e3b69dec1b0e3893977e2aa-skepkid.jpeg

i-ea754bf81153c8a02e6529d45775045d-corruption.jpeg

i-ebdec925227c227e77cf6245ea14e111-rock.jpeg

YouTube

People and their new-fangled video cameras…



Epic Poetry!

“A visit from PZ”
by Rich Stage

There was a Professor from Morris
who gathered the cast and the chorus.
And we all headed down
to visit the clowns
and the bibleists that all abhor us.

As day broke, sunny and grand,
the heathens from all o’er the land
north, east, west and south
all by different routes,
for reason we’d take a firm stand.

To Kentucky we all did flock.
Racing so we’d beat the clock
so if we were inclined
we might head up the line
so we could be the first to mock.

With ticket and button in hand
we followed through with our plan:
for ourselves to see
the insanity
of Ken Ham’s folly first hand.

As soon as we walked in the door:
Behold! A large pterasaur!
Graceful and free –
or not. It could be
it evolved to stay off the floor.

The next thing we saw was bizarre –
a grazing and growling brontosaur!
Then we saw what they did
with the raptors and kids.
The Flintstonescan’t be too far!

The Grand Canyon was, so they say,
carved by the flood in mere days.
If you ignored all the facts,
or hit your head with an axe
or replaced your brain with mayonnaise.

They said if we came we’d believe,
but not after Adam and Eve!
We laughed, not from spite –
we could tell from first sight
that this place was built to deceive

Next was Noah and his Ark.
The departure from fact was stark!
While the rain quickly poured
God put the dinos on board
but didn’t have room for the shark.

Heaven forbid if you doubt them
cause no one’s more honest than Ken Ham!
He said “You can trust us!”
“We’re just lying for jebus!”
and the creo-zombies echo “Amen!”

If there was one part of that twaddle
that kept me from coming unraveled
was the sight of PZ
gloriously
on the dino that was wearing a saddle.

While there we laughed and we learned.
We left wondering how facts could be spurned.
The day went as we thought.
The science was naught.
So we vowed we would never return.

Here is the moral of my tale:
stay away from this shrine to fail!
But if visit you must,
to hide your disgust
go filled up with whiskey and ale.