PZ Forward | 28.07.2010 10:22
here is a zoo near Bristol called — you'll see there are already problems right from the name — Noah's Ark Zoo. It is unambiguously proud of its status as a blatantly creationist institution.
After looking at the current explanations for origins and evolution; it is our view that the evidence available points to widespread evolution after an initial Creation by God. This is viewed as controversial by some and welcomed by others; but whether currently popular or not we believe the evidence supports a world-view somewhere between Darwinism and 6000BC Creationism and we encourage interested readers to look into the claims being made.
They are disavowing the strictly young earth creationist approach, so they reassure us that the world really is older than 6,000 years old. Ha ha, how silly — 6,000 years is far too short. Aren't those dogmatic creationists absurd?
So, you might wonder, how old do they think the earth is? And they cagily hem and haw and refuse to answer, although they do suggest that 4.5 billion years is just way too old, ha ha, goofy evolutionists. They do reference a creationist site that invents a new geology, and which argues, for instance, that the Cretaceous was a period that was actually 4,000 years long.
Real geologists, the ones who actually understand the science, say the Cretaceous was 80 million years long. So they're only off by about 4 orders of magnitude. I guess that means they think the earth is tens of millions of years old instead of a few billion, which makes them what? Adolescent Earth Creationists, instead of Young Earth Creationists? Maybe we can call them Tweenie Creationists. They're still wrong, though.
Anyway, this joke of a zoo that miseducates children (but apparently cheerfully and with colourful and interactive exhibits and stories!) has won an award from the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom. It's a peculiar gift — they're basically rewarding them for good, effective teaching of lies.
You can read about the award here. Apparently, one of the qualifications is supposed to be about providing "accurate information"; shouldn't this zoo have been instantly disqualified on that basis alone?
Original article on IMC Bristol: http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/692779