A Creation Petting Zoo?

I decided to take some time and write a follow-up piece to my adventure at the petting zoo at the Creation “Museum” and fulfill Mr. Hammer’s offer of guest posting.

A little about myself… I finished my PhD in Toxicology in 2005 at the University of Kentucky and am now teaching part time at my undergraduate alma mater. I used to blog as a graduate student, mostly on politics and religion, and gradually slacked off. After the SSA visit to the Creation “Museum”, I decided it was time to come back, and put together a blog on what is happening in the biological sciences today, and how you could present that information in a manner that would engage students and promote learning. Daniel offered to let me write up a guest post on the visit, and so, here I am.

You can probably guess how I responded to the faux science of this place. The good news is that it seems like an incredibly boring place to take a kid. The bad news is that lots of kids get hurried through there, and find themselves lied to about how science works. Of course, that makes my job harder, because the theory of evolution is a central concept in biology, and without it, there are lots of unconnected lines of evidence, begging for something to unite them. Answers in Genesis hopes to provide a replacement concept in a very narrow interpretation of Genesis, and hell take you if you dare to disagree. The problem is, even if they were able to disprove evolution by natural selection, it wouldn’t make a six day version of biblical creationism, by default, correct. The worst part is that they can’t even come up with any new claims. They are stuck with arguments that are decades, sometimes more than a century old, and all long debunked. Even intelligent design isn’t a new concept.

Science is a system by which we attempt to remove our bias and prejudice, and seek naturalistic and materialistic explanations for what we find in the world around us. The supernatural doesn’t enter into our examinations, unless somebody makes the claim that the supernatural can be measured or otherwise proved to exist. So far, nobody who makes those claims has been able to offer any concrete evidence for their claims and while it is impossible to disprove them, the “Museum” is being academically dishonest and is ethically bankrupt by plainly admitting that they start with a conclusion and ignore any evidence that doesn’t support their conclusion. They abandon any pretense of science from their starting point and they don’t even know it.

Keeping up with the amusement church theme found on the rest of the grounds, Profit Prophet Ham has a lovely little petting zoo, perhaps one of the two interactive exhibits available to catch the attention of children.

Of course, like any petting zoo, and like everything in Ham’s “Museum”, Ham is making a buck. This time in corn to feed a variety of animals, all presented with the expected pseudo-scientific rationalizations that science supports young earth creationism. A family of four could easily burn $120 on a trip to this place between tickets and lunch, not including gas. Actually, burning $120 would be much more educational unless you treat it as an exercise in cultural anthropology, like a visit to a ren faire without the corsets.

To get to the petting zoo, you have to take a long winding walk through their garden, which includes a nice little bog including some pitcher plants (sadly, I didn’t get a good shot of these).

creozerg robsterFCD 122

Like most of the museum, this is not a small child, elderly, stroller or wheelchair friendly area. There is no shortcut back to the air conditioned museum or parking lots (unless you came in a bus or RV) and no water fountains, but you can buy a coke or ice cream. The paths wind back and forth somewhat randomly, sometimes depositing you at the pond or in front of a wireframe dinosaur stuffed with green straw, festooned with lights.

creozerg robsterFCD 143

There were a couple pavilions for large groups, and finally, the zoo. A giraffe sculpture marked the entrance.

creozerg robsterFCD 123

The rest was the regular county fair stuff with a few neat critters tossed in. A camel, llama, some goats, chickens, peacocks and a few exotics (including a cute little wallaby, crikey!). I’m sure that you are wondering why have a petting zoo at a creation museum? Well, they haven’t managed to find any living dinos…

creozerg robsterFCD 058

so they have to find some other way to make the claims that there is no such thing as evolution.

Again, we return to the fuzzy concept of “kinds” used by creationists. What is a “kind?”

creozerg robsterFCD 026

So hoofed animals that are horse-like are a kind, all cats are a kind, canids are at least one kind, perhaps several if you were to draw the line between wolfs/dogs and foxes. This line gets fuzzy very quickly and if you look into the creationist musings, you will find lots of disagreements as to where the kind line should be drawn, all of which is more philosophy than research. Perhaps this is what the “scientists” do at the Discovery Institute’s super secret research facility. (Interesting detail, the Discovery Institute and Ham’s Answers in Genesis don’t like each other very much, as they differ on the interpretation of Genesis, but don’t fight each other while evolution still stands).

From the above image, we know that Prophet Ham doesn’t have a problem with natural selection, but he claims that this isn’t evolution, nor does natural selection lead to evolution. Its one of those details that makes anybody who has had a biology course say “Huh?” even before you start to scratch you head at denying the possibility of a link between dinosaurs and birds, which is a very solid theory in itself. Any brainy kid who comes along and sees this and also comes across a discovery channel show on the evolution of birds from dinos is going to have a major fit. It is something like a piggy living in a straw house. Perhaps even similar to building your house on rock instead of sand… I’m sure there is a fable or parable in there somewhere.

So why is this important? It all comes down to logistics. Ham wants to offer you an explanation that will keep you from asking questions like “How did Noah fit that many different species on one boat?” The species of beetles alone would have packed the ark from stem to stern with no room for Noah and his family! Well, it turns out that a thinking mind is almost as bad as idle hands. The concept of kinds lets Ham explain this away. You only need a few hundred kinds instead of millions of species, and those kinds will, in the span of a few thousand years, miraculously produce all the species we see before us. Interestingly, this process appears to have slowed down immensely since humans started paying attention. Also, human “kind” is immune to this process.

It is a fair point to note that species is also a somewhat changeable concept, but for a legitimate reason instead of a frantic apologetic one. A species is defined by its ability or inability to produce fertile offspring with other closely related groups. A few examples of these differences are behavioral (wrong dance or song, no mating), temporal (fertile periods for males and females don’t synchronize), or even mechanical (wrong shape or size of penis, very important to ducks). If you do get live offspring, if they are infertile, that line of same vs different species stands. Since we can’t breed fossils, determining if there is a reproductive barrier between fossil A and fossil B isn’t possible. We can’t mate bacteria with one another and we can’t breed purely asexual organisms with one another either. Also, there are “ring species” which across their geographical distribution change gradually. Not so much that neighbors can’t successfully produce fertile offspring, but instead, when the two ends of the ring are brought together, they cannot pass that biological test.

But most importantly, all life is still evolving even as we speak, and new species are in the process of forming, sometimes its just too slow for we impatient humans to notice.

On to the critters.

zorse creozerg robsterFCD 032

Yes, tigons and ligers are the hybrid offspring of mating captive lions and tigers, but the males are sterile, so you don’t have a functional species of both males and females. Tigers and lions are separate species because the genome of the hybrid has enough of the required genes to produce a living animal, but enough genes are missing or turned off that you get a “tigon”—a very large cat (now that would have been impressive at a petting zoo), with any males being sterile. Second generation offspring of female tigons and lions or tigons and tigers are very rare and have poor health. This is exactly what you would predict of a ring species where the middle has been broken off and become extinct. The lion and tiger are far enough removed from each other that attempting to breed them is difficult due to behavioral differences and genetic differences. Even the male hybrid’s sterility is predicted by Haldane’s rule, where if one sex of the hybrid is sterile, it will be the male (XY) and not the female (XX). Theories like the Theory of Evolution have predictive power, something that non scientific ideas like creationism and intelligent design lack. You can make a prediction, test it, and see what happens.

You can’t do that with creationism. Creationists and ID fans look at the evidence, throw up their hands and say “I don’t know, so God must have done it!” Of course, when someone else does figure it out, you just look silly and your God gets a little smaller. I would actually argue that creationists and IDers are among the atheist’s closest unintentional allies.

So what about “zorses.” If you cross a male zebra and a female horse or pony, you get a hybrid zorse. A male horse and female zebra gives you a hebra. Just like crossing a horse and a donkey, these are all sterile, hence, the horse and zebra to a scientist would be different species, but to a creationist, the fact that you cannot do the same between cats and dogs to get a cog or dat means that they are different kinds and wholly unrelated (please ignore any evidence, fossil or genetic demonstrating common ancestry). Same with the “zonkey.” It is another sterile hybrid.

zorse creozerg robsterFCD 071

Also displayed, but with no explanation, are some hybrid birds, some of which are extremely pretty, but again, are a better proof of the scientific concept of evolution.

The camel and llama will probably be joined by a cama hybrid eventually. I suspect they will also have a goat/sheep cross on display eventually as well, since goats are such a staple of petting zoos like this one. They will have to be kept separate, though, because the male sheep/goat hybrids are randy little buggers. But all it will add are more sterile hybrids for a scientifically barren philosophy. It would be funny if so many people (and such a large part of the voting public) didn’t buy into it. It becomes one of the most important things facing a biology teacher. How can you present evidence contrary to religious belief in such a way that it is honest and forthright, but not so jarring that it causes a wholesale rejection of entire branches of science?

And so, we come back to where we started. We have either human reason, which is based on experimentation and evidence, supported by multiple independent lines of evidence and refined as new information becomes available, or God’s Word, at least as interpreted and delivered by Prophet Ham, unchanging in the face of contradictory evidence, ready to grab onto the flimsiest excuse to believe in a literal biblical creation of a specific… kind. Any attempt to be a Christian and believe anything other than Ham’s interpretation and you are jointly responsible for the destruction of civilization with evil scientists and atheists, and even atheist scientists! All this time, I thought the stink was coming from the petting zoo.

creozerg robsterFCD 077

It certainly is interesting how often God believes exactly what the believer does, with as many different and contradictory beliefs as there are believers.

Crossposted at camelswithhammers and Teaching Sapiens.

Teach on.

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • Paul


    Just visited with the family. Tickets for one day were more than an annual family pass to a real science museum. And we had to pay extra for the planetarium show.

    Everyone at the museum was very nice. And the displays were quite beautiful.

    I’ve never been to a museum which presented so little information in so much space. The sum-total of the entire display space probably wouldn’t need a 10-page paper to explain everything in detail.

    I kept looking for information at the petting zoo about the viability of the hybrids. There was none. I tried the “walking tour via cell phone” number to see if the were going to say anything interesting. It had just the speech about “kind” that you mentioned. After you listen to a section of that speech you can dial “10″ to hear the conclusion. Don’t bother.

    Here’s my list of the top wild theories presented without any evidence:
    1. The speed of light was different in the past.
    2. Oceans should be saltier than they are now since the rate at which they accumulate salt is constant and should have, over billions of years, turned them into solid crystals of salt.
    3. All of the layers of sediment in the paleontological record were put down in the flood. This one is amusing because just after that we learn that marsupials filled the earth first after the flood because they could carry their young and move faster. And this is why we find marsupials in the fossil record just after the dinosaurs went extinct. Excuse me? How did they get into the fossil record if there was no flood to dump thousands of feet of sediment on them?
    4. Radioisotope dating must be wrong because the numbers disagree when different techniques are used. Several numbers were given showing dates for some material using different methods. They looked something like this:
    850 (+/- 100) million years
    1040 (+/- 120) million years
    800 (+/- 60) million years
    Anyone familiar with scientific measurements would conclude that these numbers are in good agreement. The errors given (that’s the plus and minus) part say that the measurement can only be considered to be approximate within that range above or below the number given. A measurement different by two or three times that “error” would be comparable. Such measurements are difficult to do perfectly. If you gave a blind man a straw and told him to use it to measure the length of a football field you would be pleased if he reported 80 yards. The answer is correct plus or minus 20 yards. The display wanted you to draw the conclusion that the numbers must all be wrong. In fact, for such a measurement they are all in excellent agreement.
    5. I’m not a member of a racial minority here in the US. So perhaps it’s a little too big of me to be offended on behalf of others. I did appreciate that Moses and Abraham did appear to be Jewish. They were short, had large noses, and engaging eyes. Every other mannequin in the place (and character in the video dramas) was a white European. Noah’s daughters were rather gaunt-looking fashion models.
    6. The animation of the flood waters covering the earth shows them shooting a few thousand miles into space. This is just a pet peeve about distance scale. I know what the artists were trying to show in that animation. If you compare the scale of the water spouts to the size of a continent you’ll easily see that the flood waters were being launched into a very high orbit.
    7. The magnetic fields of the earth are decaying therefore they can’t have been around for billions of years protecting the earth from solar radiation. They like the theory that the speed of light can change, but they haven’t done their homework about the models of of the Earth’s core. Why couldn’t that have changed also?

    Thanks for letting me vent. I should put this into some more cogent form…. or a blog.


    • Robert

      Hi Paul,
      Sounds like you came away with a similar opinion of the “museum” as I did. Their claims as to things like the speed of light changing is without evidence and since e=mc^2 kind of relies on the speed of light, it would have some pretty wide reaching effects. I don’t know why they don’t just go for the easy claim and say that the light was made en route.

      You might enjoy my post on my home blog about the rest of the museum.

      Best, Robert B

  • Daniel Fincke

    Thanks so much for your reply, Paul! The reason I asked Robert to write this up for us was that I wanted scientists to go through some of the details of precisely what was so scientifically inaccurate about the various things the museum said. This reply of yours is terrific and filled with solid detail. If you have more you’d like to share, let me know privately and I’ll give you a forum. In the meantime, I’m going to quote your comment above in its own post, so be sure to watch for that thread and any comments it generates!