The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Atheist group warns public schools against field trips to Ark Park ...

Posted 13 July 2016 by Matt Young

... and Ark Park responds predictably. More specifically, the Freedom from Religion Foundation sent a "warning" to more than 1000 school districts in Kentucky and neighboring states, advising them against field trips to the Ark Park. The Ark Park, says FFRF, is a Christian ministry (as opposed to an educational museum), and they quote Ken Ham as having penned a letter, "Our Real Motive for Building Ark Encounter," in which he writes:

Our motive is to do the King's business until He comes. And that means preaching the gospel and defending the faith so that we can reach as many souls as we can.

FFRF says,

Taking public school students to a site whose self-professed goal is to convert children to a particular religion and undermine what is taught in public school science and history classrooms would be inappropriate.

And they add that courts have summarily rejected arguments that making the field trip "voluntary" makes it constitutional. Ark Park today responded predictably, if a bit hysterically:

The atheists are on the rampage again, and this time their target is our just-opened Ark Encounter in Northern Kentucky.

Their lawyers crafted a response, which is largely pabulum, but the gist of which is

If classes are coming to the museum or Ark in an objective fashion, however, to show students world-class exhibits and one group's interpretation of the origin of man [sic] and earth history, then the field trip is just fine as an exceptional and voluntary educational and cultural experience.

I suppose that would be true if that group's "interpretation of the origin of man and earth history" were not a purely religious interpretation. The author of the article, Mark Looy, goes on to say that the atheists "can't handle the truth" and accuses them of being "secularists," which I suppose is true, and of being specifically anti–[fundamentalist] Christian, which I rather doubt. Mr. Looy repeats the pretense that the Ark Park is an educational museum:

Such antireligious zealotry causes secularists to grossly twist the First Amendment and then scare educators with a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. To repeat: as long as a school trip fits an educational, recreational, or historical purpose, for example, it would be constitutionally appropriate. The secularist religion of humanism and naturalism is being taught in the public education system without challenge in most schools. This false teaching is deceiving many young people. Students are being taught that there is no God and that they are merely the products of random processes. [Italics added]

The FFRF letter provides chapter and verse, if you will pardon the expression, to explain why "it is unacceptable to expose a captive audience of impressionable students to the overtly religious atmosphere of Ham's Christian theme parks" and concludes that

Ham is free to erect monuments to his bible, but public schools are not permitted to expose the children in their charge to religious myths and proselytizing.

68 Comments

DS · 13 July 2016

The secularist religion of humanism and naturalism is being taught in the public education system without challenge in most schools. This false teaching is deceiving many young people. Students are being taught that there is no God and that they are merely the products of random processes.

Bullshit. Humanism and naturalism are not religions and they are also not "false teachings". Students are not being taught that there is no god, nor are they being taught that they are the products of "random" processes. If you are willing to lie so many times in one paragraph, how many times are you willing to lie in a "museum" exhibit? Children should be protected from lying scumbags, even if they were not breaking the law by trying to force their religion on public school children. Maybe it's time that atheists go "on the rampage" for real.

ashleyhr · 13 July 2016

I see that rabble rouser Ken Ham is complaining:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/07/13/stand-up-to-ffrf-bullies/

ashleyhr · 13 July 2016

In fact the Ham piece, like the Looy one, is dated 13 July.

harold · 14 July 2016

In a sane world their own response would be damning.
Such antireligious zealotry causes secularists to grossly twist the First Amendment and then scare educators with a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. To repeat: as long as a school trip fits an educational, recreational, or historical purpose, for example, it would be constitutionally appropriate.
What is an example of a valid "historical" purpose that is not an educational purpose? Is it true that purely "recreational" field trips are appropriate? I don't like the idea of my tax dollars being used to take students on a "field trip" to an actual amusement park with no educational content. Characterizing the Ark park as "recreational" is absurd and disingenuous at any rate.
The secularist religion of humanism and naturalism is being taught in the public education system without challenge in most schools. This false teaching is deceiving many young people. Students are being taught that there is no God and that they are merely the products of random processes. [Italics added]
This amounts to an overt confession that what they are complaining about is 100% accurate. It's a blunt statement that their goal blatantly is to undermine science classes and attempt to convert students to a particular dogma. The fact that they instantly responded with hysterical defensiveness is also, to the rational mind, strong evidence that they want captive audience students. If the Ark park was intended, appropriately and legally, as a place of reflection for those who already share their faith, or a something for consenting adults to explore, they would have said "Of course, a public school trip to us would be just as inappropriate as a public school trip to the church service of a rival sect". Instead, they tip their hand and reveal that involuntary indoctrination of other peoples' children is a major goal.

eric · 14 July 2016

harold said: Is it true that purely "recreational" field trips are appropriate? I don't like the idea of my tax dollars being used to take students on a "field trip" to an actual amusement park with no educational content.
Me neither, however that particular aspect is constitutional (IMO/AIUI). Which is why FFRF focused on the religious aspects of the park. To paraphrase SCOTUS, wasting money on poor choices in education (like taking kids to an amusement park) doesn't violate the first amendment, teaching religion does. IANAL but I think FFRF has one big problem and one big asset if such a case ever comes to court. The big problem is standing: they have to articulate a 'harm' done to an actual person by an actual field trip that goes beyond "my tax dollars were spent inappropriately," since the courts don't consider that a harm. Likewise, a student choosing not to go on a voluntary, parent-permission-required field trip may not rise to the level the courts consider a harm. Their big asset is the effect prong of Lemon. I.e., even if a school's motives are purely recreational, the primary effect of taking kids to the Ark Park is to advance (a specific) religion. That is, as FFRF points out, the park's very mission statement. This being Kentucky, who knows what would happen. If they don't get a qualified kid for a plaintiff or they get the wrong judge, and it may not matter how good their substantive constitutional argument is.

Matt Young · 14 July 2016

I see that rabble rouser Ken Ham is complaining: https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/[…]frf-bullies/

More than that, he is fighting back. Under the head, "Stand up to FFRF bullies," he says,

If public school students are booked as a group through their school to come to the Ark Encounter (or Creation Museum) for educational, recreational, or historical purposes during 2016, we will allow them to do so at a cost of $1 per child with accompanying teachers free. Just call our customer service line at 855-284-3275 to book the school group. It must be a legitimate public school group booked through their elementary, middle, or high school.

According to the same article, incidentally, the Associated Press says,

Kentucky Education Commissioner Stephen Pruitt sent a message to school districts Monday in response saying that neither outside groups nor state education officials should dictate field trip selection. A school’s site-based decision-making council approves trips.

A true statement, I suppose, but you might think that they would be guided by questions of legality.

Doc Bill · 14 July 2016

Both Ham and Looy are first class liars. There is no way they are ignorant of case law and Supreme Court decisions regarding creationism and science. They also must know, even though they deny the fact, that science is not a religion and specifically regarding the law, has been ruled to be not religion over and over again.

How can I read their minds? Simple. Just look at the convoluted shell companies they set up to insulate the ministry from the commercial side of the Ark Park. Turns out it was all for nought as old Hambo just couldn't stand to have "impure" employees, thus giving away his own game. Unfortunately, a political change in Kentucky has allowed Hambo to go full-blown Moses and declare the entire enterprise a ministry, to hell with the state.

Still, I give it a year for the Ark to be floating in the Red Ink Sea and the whole thing goes down the tubes. Ironic that it will cost Kentucky a fortune to clean up the mess.

Jose Fly · 14 July 2016

DS said:Bullshit. Humanism and naturalism are not religions and they are also not "false teachings". Students are not being taught that there is no god, nor are they being taught that they are the products of "random" processes. If you are willing to lie so many times in one paragraph, how many times are you willing to lie in a "museum" exhibit? Children should be protected from lying scumbags, even if they were not breaking the law by trying to force their religion on public school children. Maybe it's time that atheists go "on the rampage" for real.
The anti-public education mindset of fundamentalist Christianity comes through clearly in their lawyers' response. Notice how they first refer to public schools as "government run schools". I'm hearing this phrase more and more from the right wing, and I think it's obvious what's going on. After decades of court rulings against their efforts of trying to get/keep Christianity's special access in public education, and now that the FFRF and other groups are constantly on the lookout for church/sate violations, the fundies tacitly realize they have only one recourse left....abandon public education altogether.

Joel Eissenberg · 14 July 2016

An entertaining riposte:

http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/07/liberal-redneck-trae-crowder-100m-noahs-ark/

Henry J · 14 July 2016

Re "they have only one recourse left.…abandon public education altogether."

Hide from the educated segment of society?

Jose Fly · 14 July 2016

Hide from the educated segment of society?
I don't know about hiding, but there seems to be a definite call for fundamentalists to not send their kids to public schools ("government-run schools") or non-Christian universities (lest they lose their faith, which the data clearly shows happens a lot). It's interesting to watch this play out. We've all seen the data indicating the decline of Christianity in the US, but if you look closely you'll see that it's the mainstream and liberal denominations that are losing people, while the evangelicals are largely remaining steady. Play that out for a bit and you end up with US Christianity being overwhelmingly composed of right-wing evangelicals who eschew education. IOW, it becomes a faith of the loony and ignorant.

Joe Felsenstein · 14 July 2016

Owing to their demographics (birth rate, reflecting status of women) the "black-hat" (haredi) sects are also going to be the strongly dominant part of American Judaism. (Let's not even ask about what will happen in Israel). They too will be "right-wing evangelicals who eschew education", living in a bubble even more than the Protestant evangelicals do.

It used to be that Orthodox Judaism had a somewhat flexible attitude towards evolution, but now I increasingly encounter black-hats who take their information on evolution straight from Protestant evangelicals, repeating the arguments word for word.

The one bright spot is that for practical reasons they are increasingly becoming involved on the internet, where their young folks come into contact with outside ideas.

Dave Luckett · 14 July 2016

Well, it is only to be hoped that it will come to the test. Some bunch of closet creationists in a public school somewhere in northern KY or southern OH will ignore warnings and attempt an excursion to the Ark Park, and a parent will sue for First Amendment rights. I think such a suit would be possible even if the school treated the parent's child differently for not going on such an excursion.

And then, it's another battle like Dover, but on a slightly different field, and the game of whack-a-mole goes on. But it would be pleasant to watch that particular mole getting whacked.

eric · 15 July 2016

Dave Luckett said: Well, it is only to be hoped that it will come to the test. Some bunch of closet creationists in a public school somewhere in northern KY or southern OH will ignore warnings and attempt an excursion to the Ark Park, and a parent will sue for First Amendment rights. I think such a suit would be possible even if the school treated the parent's child differently for not going on such an excursion.
I'm not as sure. Every year, loads of voluntary school field trips are done. Every year, some kids don't go because the parents don't give permission. And I'm very willing to bet that every year, some of those parents hold their kids back for religious reasons (think creationist parent and field trip to a real museum). I don't think the courts are going to buy the argument that when you choose not to let your kid go because you religiously object to some of the content presented during the field trip, this counts as a legal 'harm' or 1st amendment violation. If that were true, that would give a heckler's veto (on field trip suggestions) to every crazy sect out there, preventing any school field trip to any place unless the school could get unanimous parental support for it. That's not the standard now, and I really don't think we want it to be the standard. I'm not saying its impossible to win, just that it's more complicated than Dover. IIRC some court cases have been won where the school was bussing kids to weekly elective religion classes at a local church. However (not participating in) a weekly class has much more social impact than a one-day-per-year event; its perfectly reasonable for objecting parents in that case to say that the 'voluntary' nature in reality leads to the kid being treated as an outsider or second class citizen by the school. But a one day per year field trip to the Ark Park? Its probably going to be much harder to make that claim that missing such a thing is equivalent to the State treating the kid as an outsider. Of course you could always send your kid, then sue. But the first question out of the defense's mouth is going to be 'if you objected to the content, why did you sign the permission slip?' They're going to argue that the parent already has a legal remedy to the problem, so the school doesn't need to fix anything. I think if the school makes it non-voluntary or you we get a situation where a teacher or administrator punishes a kid who says they don't want to go (that happens with kids who don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes), that would be really easy to litigate. But if the administrators behave and the trip is voluntary, I think this may be a tougher case to win than some of the church-state cases in the past. The content of the Ark Park's Ark clearly and obviously has the purpose and effect of advancing religion (at least IMO). The problem is finding a plaintiff that gets exposed to it through the mandatory or even strongly supported action of the state, because a voluntary field trip may not count.
But it would be pleasant to watch that particular mole getting whacked.
I'd prefer the schools just not go on school time, rather than go and then get whacked. :)

PaulBC · 15 July 2016

Joe Felsenstein said: I increasingly encounter black-hats who take their information on evolution straight from Protestant evangelicals, repeating the arguments word for word.
I find that perplexing. As a Catholic (raised as one anyway) I would not give any weight to information from evangelicals (other than confirming what they believe). As a thinking person, I reject YEC as nonsensical on the face of it, but even if I didn't I would reject it for sectarian reasons.

TomS · 15 July 2016

PaulBC said:
Joe Felsenstein said: I increasingly encounter black-hats who take their information on evolution straight from Protestant evangelicals, repeating the arguments word for word.
I find that perplexing. As a Catholic (raised as one anyway) I would not give any weight to information from evangelicals (other than confirming what they believe). As a thinking person, I reject YEC as nonsensical on the face of it, but even if I didn't I would reject it for sectarian reasons.
Doesn't that also happen with Muslim creationists? That they copy arguments from Christian creationists? And the original arguments were the work of Seventh Day Adventists, who wouldn't be thought of as real Christians by evangelical Protestants?

PaulBC · 15 July 2016

TomS said:
PaulBC said:
Joe Felsenstein said: I increasingly encounter black-hats who take their information on evolution straight from Protestant evangelicals, repeating the arguments word for word.
I find that perplexing. As a Catholic (raised as one anyway) I would not give any weight to information from evangelicals (other than confirming what they believe). As a thinking person, I reject YEC as nonsensical on the face of it, but even if I didn't I would reject it for sectarian reasons.
Doesn't that also happen with Muslim creationists? That they copy arguments from Christian creationists? And the original arguments were the work of Seventh Day Adventists, who wouldn't be thought of as real Christians by evangelical Protestants?
Yes, I suppose that is true in practice. The part I find perplexing is the idea of creationism as such a core doctrinal issue that it creates a common cause between groups with IMO far more significant doctrinal differences. E.g., it was striking to me that Ray Martinez claimed an equivalence between belief in the literal truth of Noah's Flood and belief in the Resurrection--which strikes me as a really bizarre take on Christianity (note that Easter is almost universally celebrated, but there is no Flood Day or Rainbow Day or whatever it would have to be). What's going on? Maybe it is a shared belief in the slippery slope view that if you stop accepting even the most ludicrous claims of your religion, you will eventually throw it all away. Oddly enough, that is the main commonality between Dawkins-style atheists and YECs. But for most people, there is no slippery slope at all. People are quite capable of containing Walt Whitman's multitudes of contradictions.

eric · 15 July 2016

PaulBC said: What's going on? Maybe it is a shared belief in the slippery slope view that if you stop accepting even the most ludicrous claims of your religion, you will eventually throw it all away.
I would guess that's sort of it. Though I might phrase it as: shared belief that public schools should include religious indoctrination. What do fundie Protestants, fundie Catholics, (and probably) orthodox Jews and fundie Muslims all have in common? The strong desire to have 'education' include a religious component.

PaulBC · 15 July 2016

eric said: The strong desire to have 'education' include a religious component.
Must be. But that was settled by the Supreme Court so long ago that their persistence is astonishing.

PaulBC · 15 July 2016

eric said: I would guess that's sort of it.
To be clear, I'm not just speculating idly. The slippery slope "argument" has been in my head recently since I ran into such a clear articulation of it when following up on something else:
https://www.icr.org/article/520 The questions seemed so far-fetched that many European churchmen dismissed the idea that the Flood was global, adopting the local flood concept which still dominates Christian colleges and seminaries today. Like dominos, other doctrines soon began to fall—the young age for the earth, the special creation of plants and animals, and the inerrancy of Scripture.
To start with, we have the acknowledgement that even the most credulous person has trouble with flood waters reaching the peak of Everest. But it is apparently vital to address this concern without conceding that there was obviously (obviously!) no global flood. I mean... I find this weird. I had 12 years of Catholic education, during which their was nothing problematic about identifying parts of the Bible as allegory (without in any way contradicting its status as the Word of God; Jesus can tell parables, and scripture can contain allegory). Now it is also true that I am not a believing Catholic. However, this is more likely to be the result of culture norms that grant me the freedom to be a non-believer while functioning in society, a freedom that was less common in the past. If the only way to maintain faith is to cling to every last shred of a fairy tale as literal truth, then there is no hope for the continuance of religion at all--or at least, there is no way such religion can coexist with the progress of rational thought. Personally, I think the human mind can easily contain both and does for many (I would say most) people.

Doc Bill · 15 July 2016

Henry J said: Re "they have only one recourse left.…abandon public education altogether." Hide from the educated segment of society?
Hide in plain sight. The model is a Texas legislator, son of a preacher, went to Christian schools, got a "law" degree from Falwell's Liberty U, and then went into government where he sponsors bills that are pro-gun, anti-women, pro-religion, pro-"traditional values," i.e. his, and other nonsense. He simply clogs up the works with a bunch of social nonsense legislation. He should be on the "B Ark," but, alas, he's in Austin.

TomS · 15 July 2016

Christian fundamentalism in its earliest stages was not concerned with the issues that we Panda's denizens notice: evolution, age of the world, the Flood. The big threat was biblical scholarship, things like whether Moses wrote Genesis through Deuternonomy, the virgin birth, etc. Young Earth Creationism was mostly a concern of small groups like the Seventh Day Adventists. What we call Old Earth Creationism seemed to arise in the early 20th century, and then YEC got its boost in 1960. In other words, Fundamentslism began as something which was something was mostly something of interest only to Christians, and only grew to take on science, just as science began to really develop its strength in understanding evolution and determining "deep time".

Eric Finn · 15 July 2016

Such antireligious zealotry causes secularists to grossly twist the First Amendment and then scare educators with a misinterpretation of the First Amendment. To repeat: as long as a school trip fits an educational, recreational, or historical purpose, for example, it would be constitutionally appropriate. The secularist religion of humanism and naturalism is being taught in the public education system without challenge in most schools. This false teaching is deceiving many young people. Students are being taught that there is no God and that they are merely the products of random processes. [Italics added]
Secularist religions (or at least two factions of them) appear to be a major problem in the US. Especially in the light of the First Amendment. Lacking proper education and looking from overseas, could you please explain to me, how to distinguish between secularist and non-secularist religions ? It is my understanding that the separation of church and state was originally made to protect religions. Maybe that should be changed now, because it no more serves the interests of the True(TM) religion ?

Ken Phelps · 15 July 2016

eric said: I'm not as sure. Every year, loads of voluntary school field trips are done. Every year, some kids don't go because the parents don't give permission. And I'm very willing to bet that every year, some of those parents hold their kids back for religious reasons (think creationist parent and field trip to a real museum). I don't think the courts are going to buy the argument that when you choose not to let your kid go because you religiously object to some of the content presented during the field trip, this counts as a legal 'harm' or 1st amendment violation. If that were true, that would give a heckler's veto (on field trip suggestions) to every crazy sect out there, preventing any school field trip to any place unless the school could get unanimous parental support for it. That's not the standard now, and I really don't think we want it to be the standard.
I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there. The secular parent doesn't have a religious objection, they have a constitutional objection. It is the school that is introducing religion (and the Ark Park is openly and unambiguously religious) into a supposedly secular curriculum. The constitutional objection could as easily be raised by a Christian parent with a good grasp of the religious liberty issues. I see no parallel to a religiously motivated parent complaining about something that was not overtly religious (except in their own mind).

tomh · 15 July 2016

Matt Young said: According to the same article, incidentally, the Associated Press says,

Kentucky Education Commissioner Stephen Pruitt sent a message to school districts Monday in response saying that neither outside groups nor state education officials should dictate field trip selection. A school’s site-based decision-making council approves trips.

A true statement, I suppose, but you might think that they would be guided by questions of legality.
Pruitt also said, "It is important to remind educators that at all times and under all circumstances, field trips should be a direct extension of classroom learning. As a result, all off-site trips should be directly related to the school curriculum and should seek to maximize student learning by enhancing the classroom experience." Unless a school is teaching Noah's Ark as history, it's hard to see how a trip to the Ark Park could fit into this directive.

eric · 15 July 2016

Ken Phelps said: I'm not sure I follow your reasoning there. The secular parent doesn't have a religious objection, they have a constitutional objection.
[Devil's advocate] What's your constitutional objection? If don't want your kids to have contact with the religious material they might see at Ark Park, don't sign the permission slip.
It is the school that is introducing religion (and the Ark Park is openly and unambiguously religious) into a supposedly secular curriculum.
Ark Park isn't your school. Its under separate management, its run by different people who are not the state, they are a private entity. If they have a religious opinion and your kid comes into contact with it, that's the way the cookie crumbles. The same thing could happen at a museum or with the teen employed by sever flags.
The constitutional objection could as easily be raised by a Christian parent with a good grasp of the religious liberty issues.
Yes that's part of the point. Christian parents object to field trip content all the time, and the school shoots back that they don't have to address every single parental objection by stopping the trip, that the reasonable and legal solution to parental objection is don't sign the permission slip. Why should you be treated differently than other parents? Don't want you kid exposed to what's at the park? Return the slip unsigned and move on with your life.
I see no parallel to a religiously motivated parent complaining about something that was not overtly religious (except in their own mind).
Your mind, their mind, you're both parents making exactly the same argument; that the trip violates the first amendment's promise of religious neutrality. And in both cases, the school responds by saying they control the decision unless you can demonstrate a legal harm which isn't remedied by just not going. So, what is your legal harm that can't be avoided by not going? [/devil's advocate]

eric · 15 July 2016

tomh said: Pruitt also said, "It is important to remind educators that at all times and under all circumstances, field trips should be a direct extension of classroom learning. As a result, all off-site trips should be directly related to the school curriculum and should seek to maximize student learning by enhancing the classroom experience." Unless a school is teaching Noah's Ark as history, it's hard to see how a trip to the Ark Park could fit into this directive.
Excellent directive and I agree. Hopefully this nips the problem in the bud, and the administrative statement will prevent any need for a court case.

harold · 16 July 2016

Jose Fly said:
Hide from the educated segment of society?
I don't know about hiding, but there seems to be a definite call for fundamentalists to not send their kids to public schools ("government-run schools") or non-Christian universities (lest they lose their faith, which the data clearly shows happens a lot). It's interesting to watch this play out. We've all seen the data indicating the decline of Christianity in the US, but if you look closely you'll see that it's the mainstream and liberal denominations that are losing people, while the evangelicals are largely remaining steady. Play that out for a bit and you end up with US Christianity being overwhelmingly composed of right-wing evangelicals who eschew education. IOW, it becomes a faith of the loony and ignorant.
The contemporary right wing fundamentalist science denying Christian movement is interesting and odd. Many religious organizations offer some financial incentive to clergy and administrators, but Ark Encounter is an example of how extremely commercial this form of Christianity is. Every aspect of the creationist/fundamentalist experience is monetized. A good adherent starts out in life being home schooled with materials purchased from a for-profit company, attends an institution like Liberty University that has numerous high paying administrators and faculty, and once employed pays tithes to a right wing mega-church and makes donations to numerous religious right causes, possibly including the DI, AIG, etc. A lucky minority will get a ticket for the gravy train themselves. This form of Christianity has a very high rate of both losing and gaining adherents. Many of the new converts come from other mainstream churches that were "too liberal" for their taste. Another, overlapping source of converts is felons, drug addicts, and alcoholics who claim that they are changing their ways with the help of Jesus. One could argue that liberal Christianity like Unitarian Universalism would be just as useful for this, but there is a strong tendency for such people to gravitate toward authoritarian religion and politics. (I don't mean to belittle the problems of addiction and rehabilitation, and of course an approach that works for the individual is what matters. I'm inclined to think that approaches that involve respect for all others, rather than adoption of a stance that demonizes others, is best, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.) At the same time, a major source of anxiety for this sect is that it doesn't retain those raised in it. Of course, this is an expected side effect of the strategy for growth. Obviously, a major and successful strategy of this branch of religion is attacking vast numbers of people. This makes those who are "accepted" feel superior, let alone equal. The relevant conflict for this forum is with science and people who accept science. An adult who either converted for political reasons as an adult, or who was raised in it but faced their moment of truth and committed, is a secure member. But a child is a risk factor. They may ask "why do we have to deny science?". The market of potential new converts is large but limited. There will always be new sociopaths claiming to be giving up vodka and cocaine addiction, perhaps even sincerely, who will be attracted to an approach that lets them instantly go from sinner to member of a superior elite, requires no significant penance, allows unlimited backsliding as long as a stereotyped verbal "repentance" is issued after each infarction, and shifts negative attention by demonizing scientists, gay people, women who use birth control, etc (thus creating seeming equivalence between, say, having embezzled a lot of money and abused one's family while in the throes of addiction, versus accepting the theory of evolution or simply being gay - suddenly the cocaine-fueled wife-beating, embezzling compulsive gambler is instantly superior to the honest hard working person who happens to be gay and doesn't deny science). At the same time, though, all those who don't feel comfortable with the focus on attacking gays, women, scientists, etc, will look elsewhere. It's a formula for religion that works incredibly well from an economic standpoint, but it does have that one issue that say, Catholicism and Judaism seem to have less problem with - those who seek it out are moderately secure members, but those upon whom it is foisted, such as children, have a high rate of moving away from it. Hence the obsession with preventing children from gaining a mainstream education.

Eric Finn · 16 July 2016

harold said: It's a formula for religion that works incredibly well from an economic standpoint, but it does have that one issue that say, Catholicism and Judaism seem to have less problem with - those who seek it out are moderately secure members, but those upon whom it is foisted, such as children, have a high rate of moving away from it. Hence the obsession with preventing children from gaining a mainstream education.
Do you know of any studies or published statistics ? This seems like an interesting hypothesis: The higher the risk of losing children from a sect, the more children are prevented from gaining education. I wonder, how might the scores look like among Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses.

Scott F · 16 July 2016

Eric Finn said:
harold said: It's a formula for religion that works incredibly well from an economic standpoint, but it does have that one issue that say, Catholicism and Judaism seem to have less problem with - those who seek it out are moderately secure members, but those upon whom it is foisted, such as children, have a high rate of moving away from it. Hence the obsession with preventing children from gaining a mainstream education.
Do you know of any studies or published statistics ? This seems like an interesting hypothesis: The higher the risk of losing children from a sect, the more children are prevented from gaining education. I wonder, how might the scores look like among Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses.
"Scores" might not tell you much. There's "education", and then there is general intelligence. Measures of the latter won't tell you much about the former. Plus, I don't get the impression that Fundamentalists are against "eduction", per se. They just want the "right" education, and are against the "wrong" kind of education. I'm sure that they are fine with math, for example. I'm sure they are fine with history as a concept, just the right kind of history. They do have Christian colleges, after all. "Science", of course, is right out. Though, you can get through a lot of "science" just like you can "history": memorize a lot of dry facts, without thinking about them too much. OTOH, they do seem to demonize "intellectuals", and praise the "common sense" of Joe Six Pack and Sarah Palin. This video about what "educated" Christians believe is chilling.

Eric Finn · 16 July 2016

"Scores" might not tell you much. There's "education", and then there is general intelligence. Measures of the latter won't tell you much about the former.
Of course I should have said "mainsteam education", as in the original post. The concept of general intelligence -- I feel that this concept is difficult even to define, yet to measure.

PaulBC · 16 July 2016

Eric Finn said: I wonder, how might the scores look like among Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses.
In my limited personal experience, Mormons are totally mainstream and I would expect to find nothing remarkable about educational level of choice of occupation. (Can't speak for Jehovah's Witnesses.) Mormons have the unusual burden of being saddled with scripture that is not shrouded in antiquity, and which looks like an obvious fake to everyone outside their religion. It is kind of an interesting natural experiment in that regard, and suggests to me that religious belief is almost entirely about binding a community through shared symbolism and values rather than reaching any logical or factual conclusions.

W. H. Heydt · 16 July 2016

harold said:... allows unlimited backsliding as long as a stereotyped verbal "repentance" is issued after each infarction, ...
Myocardial, no doubt, but if there is a major one, there may not be time to issue a "repentance".

W. H. Heydt · 16 July 2016

PaulBC said:
Eric Finn said: I wonder, how might the scores look like among Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses.
In my limited personal experience, Mormons are totally mainstream and I would expect to find nothing remarkable about educational level of choice of occupation. (Can't speak for Jehovah's Witnesses.) Mormons have the unusual burden of being saddled with scripture that is not shrouded in antiquity, and which looks like an obvious fake to everyone outside their religion. It is kind of an interesting natural experiment in that regard, and suggests to me that religious belief is almost entirely about binding a community through shared symbolism and values rather than reaching any logical or factual conclusions.
Mormons can also make it difficult to formally leave. patricia Neilson-Hayden wrote a rather eloquent (and amusing) essay on what it took her get her connection with the church severed. The essay is in "Making Book" (https://www.amazon.com/Making-Book-Teresa-Nielsen-Hayden/dp/0915368552).

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

Eric Finn · 16 July 2016

PaulBC said:
Eric Finn said: I wonder, how might the scores look like among Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses.
In my limited personal experience, Mormons are totally mainstream and I would expect to find nothing remarkable about educational level of choice of occupation. (Can't speak for Jehovah's Witnesses.) Mormons have the unusual burden of being saddled with scripture that is not shrouded in antiquity, and which looks like an obvious fake to everyone outside their religion. It is kind of an interesting natural experiment in that regard, and suggests to me that religious belief is almost entirely about binding a community through shared symbolism and values rather than reaching any logical or factual conclusions.
Going back to the hypothesis (High risk of losing children from a sect leads to intolerance against mainstream education), do you happen to know, if a larger portion of Mormon children remain within the sect when they grow up, compared to the portion of children remaining in for example Evangelical sects ?

PaulBC · 16 July 2016

Eric Finn said: Going back to the hypothesis (High risk of losing children from a sect leads to intolerance against mainstream education), do you happen to know, if a larger portion of Mormon children remain within the sect when they grow up, compared to the portion of children remaining in for example Evangelical sects ?
This Wikipedia article looks informative, though it does not have any comparative statistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Mormon This is interesting:
A study of 3000 persons who were formerly affiliated with the LDS Church recorded that 74 percent of respondents cited a disbelief in church doctrine or theology as major reason for leaving the church, but only 4 percent of respondents cited conflict with other church members as a large factor in their decision to leave.
As someone raised Catholic, I would guess that the reasons for lapsed Catholics are more likely to be a disagreement with church hierarchy, disagreements on issues such as contraception, or a disinclination to attend church rather than doctrinal differences (which many Catholics don't know very well to begin with and readily conflate with beliefs of other Christian denominations). I suspect the benefits of staying in a Mormon community can be tangible on a regional basis (e.g. if you live in Utah or nearby western states) which would make it a stickier religion than others (including Catholicism).

PaulBC · 16 July 2016

W. H. Heydt said: Mormons can also make it difficult to formally leave. patricia Neilson-Hayden wrote a rather eloquent (and amusing) essay on what it took her get her connection with the church severed. The essay is in "Making Book" (https://www.amazon.com/Making-Book-Teresa-Nielsen-Hayden/dp/0915368552).

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

I couldn't see much on the Amazon link, but I found this and it is pretty amusing. http://nielsenhayden.com/GodandI.html

Matt Young · 16 July 2016

Good, sensible article, Ark park is impressive woodcraft, but its ‘facts’ don’t hold water, by Lexington Herald-Leader reporter Tom Eblen. To give an idea of the contents, here are the subheads that precede the article:

Noah’s Ark replica made of 3.1 million board feet of timber Creationist theme park tries, fails to make theology scientific Many Christians don’t see conflict between faith, evolution

TomS · 16 July 2016

Matt Young said: Good, sensible article, Ark park is impressive woodcraft, but its ‘facts’ don’t hold water, by Lexington Herald-Leader reporter Tom Eblen. To give an idea of the contents, here are the subheads that precede the article:

Noah’s Ark replica made of 3.1 million board feet of timber Creationist theme park tries, fails to make theology scientific Many Christians don’t see conflict between faith, evolution

It should be pointed out that the builders did not construct a water-going, fully wooden, animal-rescuing ark. They claim, however, that what they did is the largest structure of its kind, which claim does not do much to make a Noah's Ark seem feasible.

Just Bob · 16 July 2016

TomS said: ...what they did is the largest structure of its kind...
Since it's not the largest wooden construction, nor the largest timber-frame building, then what is its "kind"? Largest fake wooden boat-shaped building with major steel, concrete, and other modern material components?

Henry J · 16 July 2016

Largest boat-shaped scam?

harold · 16 July 2016

W. H. Heydt said:
harold said:... allows unlimited backsliding as long as a stereotyped verbal "repentance" is issued after each infarction, ...
Myocardial, no doubt, but if there is a major one, there may not be time to issue a "repentance".
Stupid spell check and subconscious.

stevaroni · 16 July 2016

Just Bob said: Since it's not the largest wooden construction, nor the largest timber-frame building, then what is its "kind"?
Largest wooden pulpit?

W. H. Heydt · 16 July 2016

harold said:
W. H. Heydt said:
harold said:... allows unlimited backsliding as long as a stereotyped verbal "repentance" is issued after each infarction, ...
Myocardial, no doubt, but if there is a major one, there may not be time to issue a "repentance".
Stupid spell check and subconscious.
I figured it was a typo, but I found it amusing, in its way.

Paul Burnett · 16 July 2016

Matt Young said: Good, sensible article, Ark park is impressive woodcraft, but its ‘facts’ don’t hold water, by Lexington Herald-Leader reporter Tom Eblen. To give an idea of the contents, here are the subheads that precede the article:

Noah’s Ark replica made of 3.1 million board feet of timber

"The primary wooden structure of Trestle was 1,000 feet long, 125 feet (about 12 stories) tall, and constructed of 6.5 million board-feet of lumber." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS-I

Buyuk Aslan · 17 July 2016

Creationists are allowed to lead tours of the Grand Canyon stating how the formation of the Grand Canyon fits their literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. They were allowed at one time to sell Creationists books in the Grand Canyon book store (not sure if this is still the case). Why not do the same with the Ark Museum? Scientists could lead tours pointing out all the incorrect information and discussing how religious fanaticism affects science. (I would imagine AIG, once they were made aware of a such a tour group, would kick them out claiming the museum is private property.)

verne_julius1 · 17 July 2016

I agree.

The ARK is no place for a School outing!

A School outing would not go to a TABERNACLE sanctuary replica, of the Bible of old where they worshiped this "god"!, somewhere in or near Pennsylvania, that the Amish have!

To mix Religion with a theory of origin or hypothesis, has nothing to do with non secular teachings of ETHICS and MORALS, etc.

Anyway, I would not waste my money and "hurt" my mind in seeing and believing such monstrosity of the Ark!

I do not accept either the Government of USA using Religion as the opiate of the people!

The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"

.
.
.

Just Bob · 17 July 2016

Buyuk Aslan said: (I would imagine AIG, once they were made aware of a such a tour group, would kick them out claiming the museum is private property.)
Well, the thing is, it IS private property, so the management does have the right to kick out someone doing something disruptive, like telling people that it's all lies. They DON'T have the right to bar entrance to someone with different beliefs--or of a particular race, for that matter--so long as the patron behaves himself. The Grand Canyon, OTOH, is public property, where all sorts of groups are allowed to visit and conduct tours. A non-disruptive, peaceable group can't be barred, just because they say incredibly stupid things about geology.

Just Bob · 17 July 2016

A second thought: If the Great Phony Ark allows private group tours, say after hours, then I think the law would require them to allow a tour by, oh maybe the Atheist Lesbian Evolutionist Alliance. There could be no argument that the group was interfering with any other patrons.

harold · 17 July 2016

Just Bob said: A second thought: If the Great Phony Ark allows private group tours, say after hours, then I think the law would require them to allow a tour by, oh maybe the Atheist Lesbian Evolutionist Alliance. There could be no argument that the group was interfering with any other patrons.
It's pretty straightforward that patrons who obey the rules at Grand Canyon National Park are free to express any idea they want about how the canyon was formed. Whether Ham can kick well behaved patrons out Ark Encounter for expressing disagreement with its contents is far more debatable. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing if Six Flags tried to kick someone out for making religious statements that management didn't like, in the context of otherwise good behavior, that might run afoul of basic anti-discrimination provisions. On the other hand, if a church kicks someone out for preaching against the denomination, that's probably different. Ham has made a big production of dissembling about the religious nature of his project. He could have just said that it's a non-profit shrine for those who share this belief (which I might note does not necessarily stop individual from paying themselves high salaries and so on), but he didn't, he promotes it as an entertainment business, to the extent of receiving a tax incentive restricted to for profit businesses. So it's not clear to me that he does have the legal right to order people out for expressing a religious opinion he doesn't like.

Scott F · 17 July 2016

I imagine that if he can discriminate in hiring, he can also discriminate in who he allows in.

Legal? Probably not. But, IANAL.

Buyuk Aslan · 17 July 2016

harold said:
Just Bob said: A second thought: If the Great Phony Ark allows private group tours, say after hours, then I think the law would require them to allow a tour by, oh maybe the Atheist Lesbian Evolutionist Alliance. There could be no argument that the group was interfering with any other patrons.
It's pretty straightforward that patrons who obey the rules at Grand Canyon National Park are free to express any idea they want about how the canyon was formed. Whether Ham can kick well behaved patrons out Ark Encounter for expressing disagreement with its contents is far more debatable. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing if Six Flags tried to kick someone out for making religious statements that management didn't like, in the context of otherwise good behavior, that might run afoul of basic anti-discrimination provisions. On the other hand, if a church kicks someone out for preaching against the denomination, that's probably different. Ham has made a big production of dissembling about the religious nature of his project. He could have just said that it's a non-profit shrine for those who share this belief (which I might note does not necessarily stop individual from paying themselves high salaries and so on), but he didn't, he promotes it as an entertainment business, to the extent of receiving a tax incentive restricted to for profit businesses. So it's not clear to me that he does have the legal right to order people out for expressing a religious opinion he doesn't like.
Whether it would be legal to kick someone out of the museum is unclear it is evident that they will ask you to leave if you openly state that the information is scientifically incorrect. I came across this article from a few years ago on the Kentucky Creation Museum - http://www.livescience.com/8501-creation-museum-creates-discomfort-visitors.html. From the article "Particularly nerve-wracking were signs warning that guests could be asked to leave the premises at any time. The group's reservation confirmation also noted that museum staff reserved the right to kick the group off the property if they were not honest about the "purpose of [the] visit."

ashleyhr · 18 July 2016

I submitted a comment (which awaits moderation) under the following link:

http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=1580&cpage=1#comment-600382
"Your lost squadron claim is a scam. I can elaborate further but basically the planes crashed near the coast where precipitation is much greater than in central Greenland where the ice core data were obtained.
And your claim about migrating kangaroos (less than 5,000 years ago) is beyond preposterous.

Other readers may wish to note that Ken Ham and co have MANY questions about their claims (not the Bible but THEIR claims) that they REFUSE to address:
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967 (see some of my more recent postings)"

DS · 19 July 2016

ashleyhr said: I submitted a comment (which awaits moderation) under the following link: http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=1580&cpage=1#comment-600382 "Your lost squadron claim is a scam. I can elaborate further but basically the planes crashed near the coast where precipitation is much greater than in central Greenland where the ice core data were obtained. And your claim about migrating kangaroos (less than 5,000 years ago) is beyond preposterous. Other readers may wish to note that Ken Ham and co have MANY questions about their claims (not the Bible but THEIR claims) that they REFUSE to address: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967 (see some of my more recent postings)"
Kenny is using the same tactic that Floyd employs: "It's not what I want, it's what god wants. It's not what I'm going to do to you, it's what god is going to do to you." Sure, but you are the one worshipping that god. You are the one who refuses to condemn such threats as morally reprehensible. So you are complicit in the immorality. Just like when you glorify the evil flood.

TomS · 19 July 2016

DS said:
ashleyhr said: I submitted a comment (which awaits moderation) under the following link: http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=1580&cpage=1#comment-600382 "Your lost squadron claim is a scam. I can elaborate further but basically the planes crashed near the coast where precipitation is much greater than in central Greenland where the ice core data were obtained. And your claim about migrating kangaroos (less than 5,000 years ago) is beyond preposterous. Other readers may wish to note that Ken Ham and co have MANY questions about their claims (not the Bible but THEIR claims) that they REFUSE to address: http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967 (see some of my more recent postings)"
Kenny is using the same tactic that Floyd employs: "It's not what I want, it's what god wants. It's not what I'm going to do to you, it's what god is going to do to you." Sure, but you are the one worshipping that god. You are the one who refuses to condemn such threats as morally reprehensible. So you are complicit in the immorality. Just like when you glorify the evil flood.
But, on the one hand, the Bible is silent about some of the things that they are claiming. There is nothing in the Bible about extinct animals and their fossils. There is nothing in the Bible about the relations between species, their evolution (whether micro- or macro-), their fixity or variability, their genetics, etc. There is nothing about the Grand Canyon. Anything that they say about such topics is based on their personal authority, not the word of God. While, on the other hand, they find ways to dismiss what the Bible has to say, for example, that the Sun makes a daily path around the fixed Earth. Why do they find that some modern ideas are acceptable?

Just Bob · 19 July 2016

TomS said: Why do they find that some modern ideas are acceptable?
It's all about what the rubes will buy. It's not hard to sell "I ain't no monkey!" and "Were you there?" But very few of the marks will still buy the biblical flat earth or geocentrism. Not enough to make it pay, anyway.

PaulBC · 19 July 2016

Just Bob said:
TomS said: Why do they find that some modern ideas are acceptable?
It's all about what the rubes will buy. It's not hard to sell "I ain't no monkey!" and "Were you there?" But very few of the marks will still buy the biblical flat earth or geocentrism. Not enough to make it pay, anyway.
I agree. The gold standard of believability is the appearance of science even among those who claim to have faith, so you still need a plausible pseudoscientific explanation. If you say that some geologic feature is the result of a global flood, there is enough room for doubt among non-geologists to get away with it (honestly, I couldn't tell you what caused some particular feature without doing my homework first). They don't need to follow the details, just be lulled into the belief that the details could work. On the other hand, if you have to argue for a literal firmament, for example, you run into the near unanimous understanding that we have sent rockets into space and they didn't hit a wall. You could still explain this away with a conspiracy theory or theological argument. The problem is that nearly everyone is more likely to trust a scientific argument. Ken Ham specializes in creating the appearance of science around ludicrous fairy tales. He's skilled in this craft, but there are limits to what he can do.

Mike Elzinga · 19 July 2016

PaulBC said: Ken Ham specializes in creating the appearance of science around ludicrous fairy tales. He's skilled in this craft, but there are limits to what he can do.
What Ham and his staff of "experts" are able to get away with depends on several things having to do with the availability of information and the willingness on the part of individuals to dig into that information. Ham and his staff go out of their way to spin readily available information into "interpretations" that both reinforce sectarian beliefs and demonize the sources of that information. They have become masters of this process among their followers because their followers are lazy thinkers and wimpy investigators; they allow Ham and his staff to filter all their information and do all their thinking for them. As to the general public, the situation is quite bit more complex. Where public education is tied up in ideological politics, education suffers from a similar type of screening that Ham uses. Right Wingnuts despise the informed citizen; and they will even go so far as to pass laws making it illegal to collect vital information about a serious social issues - just as Congress did in outlawing and throwing roadblocks into the efforts of social scientists to study the causes of gun violence. The authoritarian mind hates the informed thinker; and given the power to do so, it will cut off all sources of information that anyone else can use to challenge the proclamations of ideological authority figures. And, unfortunately, this is what our current Republican Party is becoming.

Just Bob · 19 July 2016

Mike Elzinga said: And, unfortunately, this is what our current Republican Party is becoming has become.
Tense corrected.

Mike Elzinga · 19 July 2016

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said: And, unfortunately, this is what our current Republican Party is becoming has become.
Tense corrected.
I stand corrected. Thank you. :-)

RJ · 20 July 2016

Thank goodness I'm Canadian. Down south there, you have a conservative party, and a loop-de-loo party. Despite almost eight years under a guy who isn't a zealot, times remain dark. Let's hope the loop-de-loos finally have gone too far this time.

ashleyhr · 20 July 2016

http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=1580

My further response to Chaffey, still awaiting moderation, reads:
"Tim

I would be grateful if you would back up your claim – not with a YEC article but with peer reviewed findings – that dozens of snow/ice layers have been observed to be deposited in Greenland in a single year (and not even in the places where ice core data are obtained).

There has also never been any recent ice age glaciation that was accompanied by warmer than normal polar sea temperatures. And real ice ages tend to produce less precipitation in the arctic (and Antarctica), not more. Also there is no ice age in Genesis – absolutely none.

Simply saying an explanation concerning kangaroos is not preposterous does not make it not preposterous, sorry. For one thing the continents were in their present positions 4,500 years ago.

My bias is simply in favour of facts – and against highly imaginary apologetics scams.

I trust you will view that BCSE link I tried to post and see all the scientific questions that Answers in Genesis have dodged.

Ashley"

Matt Young · 21 July 2016

Interesting followup article (see my comment of July 16) by Tom Eblen Noah’s Ark theme park column unleashes epic flood of email. Subheads,

Some fundamentalists pray for columnist, or question his faith Mainstream Christians say they see little conflict with faith, science Also: another Ark in Europe and internet hoax about ‘real’ Ark’s discovery

PaulBC · 21 July 2016

Matt Young said: Interesting followup article (see my comment of July 16) by Tom Eblen Noah’s Ark theme park column unleashes epic flood of email.
I thought this was a pretty good summary by the columnist:
Answers in Genesis works hard to make its theology look like science, but it isn’t. Scientists observe evidence and conduct experiments to reach conclusions. Answers in Genesis starts with conclusions and tries to muster evidence to support them.

Michael Fugate · 21 July 2016

If you want a tour of the Ark Encounter....

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/4rwt9v/im_an_atheist_and_i_visited_ken_hams_ark/

Public schools can't proselytize, but they can expose students to religious myths.

Matt Young · 26 July 2016

I just received an e-mail advising me that AIG has reiterated its invitations to public school groups. I will not bore you with the details, but the high point is a letter from a student called Tina, who says, completely correctly,

A student can practice their religion freely and without discrimination outside of school, so promoting a single religion at a school field trip discriminates against all other faiths. . . . It is unfair for public schools to take students to your museum, and dangerous to risk violating the Constitution. A field trip is not the only way students can learn about creationism and God. Outside of school, students can read books and go to museums. It is unconstitutional to take students to your museum on these field trips, and allowing them to happen causes more harm than good. . . . [ellipses in original]

Continuing to read, I had the impression that Ken Ham and Mark Looy were refuting the irrefutable; leave it to a high-school student to set them straight. They admit, however, that

not very many public schools at all have visited the Creation Museum, contrary to popular myth. It’s been a rare occurrence over the nine years we have been operating. Schools are well aware that the ACLU and other so-called civil liberties groups will threaten lawsuits against school districts for bringing their young people here.

I have high hopes that the offer ($1 per student) is a desperate measure that reflects the low attendance at the Ark Park.

eric · 26 July 2016

From Matt's link, Ken Ham's reply to Tina:
Surely, you and liberal civil rights groups like the ACLU and the FFRF would not argue that on a field trip to a local theatre, the school inherently endorses and adopts all of the viewpoints and themes that may be presented in each production? What do you think?
Why Ken, I think a musical/theater production is an excellent analogy to make to the Ark Park! Thank you for pointing out that a visit to your park should be treated legally just the same way the school would treat a production of all-Christian Christmas music. I'm sure the ACLU will agree. [Aside: I still maintain the field trip case would be a tough legal suit to win. But Ken here is certainly making it easier.]

sadri · 29 July 2016

Going back to the hypothesis (High risk of losing children from a sect leads to intolerance against mainstream education), do you happen to know, if a larger portion of Mormon children remain within the sect when they grow up, compared to the portion of children remaining in for example Evangelical sects ?