Noah's Ark and Other Lies to Children

Every now and again I permit myself a small chuckle. Just a little one. A chucklette, as it were, directed at some of our American colonial cousins and their strange ways.

I smirk at creationists and giggle at 'creation science', secure in the knowledge that such idiocy would never breach the defenses of this green and pleasant land.

For those who may not know, creationism is the idea that Genesis as written in the bible is absolutely correct. Everything. Six days, light before the sun and stars, plants photosynthesising before the sun is created, the whole lot. Oh, and following the calculations of Bishop Ussher which were published in 1650 the Earth is only 6,000 years old. He reached this age by simply working through the bible and adding up the ages of people who begat other people. Mind you, I think even he knew that was pretty flaky as in order to get an age that would simply not be laughed at he had Adam live to be 950 years old. As a hypothesis it was pretty much dead by the early 1800's.


Then along comes 'creation science', or 'Intelligent Design' as it is sometimes called. In this guise certain amounts of truth are accepted into the hypothesis (please note I am not dignifying it by calling it a theory). This is creationism with some science bits added. Not enough science bits, of course, otherwise the whole thing has to be chucked out, but enough to make it look sufficiently sciencey to the general public.

In 2005, in a landmark ruling, it was ruled unconstitutional that Intelligent Design be taught in science classes in the USA. I want to be very clear on this point: Creation Science and Intelligent Design are not science. Neither allows for testing, neither is able to make predictions and neither, and this is a biggy, have had any peer-reviewed papers published.

So I would chuckle at the inhabitants of a country who would have to go to these lengths to stop lies being taught in school.

My smirking has stopped, however, as a small zoo situated close to Bristol has opened.

The following pieces are taken directly from their website:-

On evolution-
"It assumes that this complexity accumulated gradually and accidentally, with each step representing a miraculous combination of mutations along a path extending all the way from bacteria to human beings."
Evolution is not accidental. Genetic variation is accidental, natural selection is not. Evolution has no goal.

"Life is a wonderful thing, and any explanation of it cannot but involve some belief in miracles: whether at the beginning of creation or natural miracles all along the way. "
Somewhat disingenuous use of language there, I feel.

"Man is a spiritual being, with a capacity for thought and language. Although an animal in his flesh, he has a nature which potentially reflects the nature of God. "
And this, bear in mind, is classed as science.

"Darwinism is a philosophy which attempts to contradict the obvious differences between man and the other animals by suggesting that in the past the differences were much smaller. It seeks to minimise the divine in our nature and maximise the animal, in the hope that it will seem plausible to imagine an evolutionary transition from animal to human."
Darwinism is a description of fact based entirely on evidence. It makes absolutely no case for or against a god of some sort.

On the publication of On The Origin Of Species-
"This extreme disappointment with God seemed to be the final trigger that prompted Darwin to publish the book that he became famous for. He had held, The Origin of Species in manuscript form for some years and this seemed the time to make the radical suggestion that creation did not require God as any more than a remote instigator of life. "

Not only do the above quotes show an appalling lack of understanding of evolution, in fact I would suggest a wilfull mis-representation of evolution, but the final statement about Darwin is simply incorrect. Darwin was forced into publication by the arrival on his desk of a competing manuscript by Alfred Wallace.

On information notices next to animal enclosures supposition is mixed with fact and religion - for example "Why are there stripes on zebras? There seems to be no adaptive advantage since zebras live in open country". Note the lack of information about stripes on herd animals being very effective at breaking up silhouettes.

I have written to Noah's Ark Zoo Farm asking for an explanation of some of these *ahem!* inaccuracies. I don't expect an answer.

I should point out that this place receives tax-payers help for advertising and organises school-trips around the zoo.(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/02/religion)

On the bright side I may have found a project to keep me busy for a while. I feel a leaflet campaign coming on.