The Kentucky Park Service has a problem. People are going to the Creation “Museum”, getting their heads filled up with idiocy, and then they go to the state parks and pester the rangers with stupid assertions. The parks department had a great idea: let’s send the rangers to the museum to find out what exactly they’re facing. I approve! You should know the enemy well if you’re going to out-argue him, and this is one of the few legitimate reasons for visiting that pile of dreck in Petersburg.
Only…they’re going to hobble themselves, tie one hand behind their back, and wear a blindfold in this fight.
Tichenor emphasized that the park naturalists do not want to try to dissuade park visitors from their religious beliefs.
“We will tell the person if they want to believe what they saw at the Creation Museum that’s fine and good,” he said. “And then we explain to them why we are saying what we say at the park — which is interpreting the scientific evidence produced for the site.”
WHY???? Why don’t sensible people want to dissuade confused visitors of their phony-baloney beliefs? This is so wrong, and exactly what I complain about when I say those so-called moderate believers are enabling the more pathological forms of religion. OK, I would understand how they wouldn’t say they are only allowing atheists in, or that rangers will only answers of those sufficiently pure in their godlessness, but this is different: these are people being indoctrinated in lies that defy the evidence of the natural world, the evidence the park naturalists are expected to explain, and they are going to take pains to avoid disagreeing with dumb-as-sticks visitors.
Yes, Mr Tichenor. You want to argue with creationists and explain that their beliefs are completely bogus. You want to confront them with the evidence right there in your parks that shows that Ken Ham is a big fat wicked liar. You don’t want to tell them that the crap they learned in the Creation “Museum” is “fine and good.”
This insane idea that any claim that is associated with religion must be respected is going too far. The people who are expected to be rational and are even titled “naturalists” are groveling before the stupidity peddled by Answers in Genesis. Unfortunately, there’s also another reason they’re being so nice to a certifiable con artist: the Kentucky parks department is under the control of the Commerce Cabinet, headed by a fellow named George Ward, who approves of the Creation “Museum”.
Ward said he sees no conflict in his parks’ naturalists teaching the natural history broadly accepted by scientists while his cabinet promotes the Creation Museum.
“This trip will let our naturalists be better prepared to deal with questions they get, and they will continue to talk about the scientific explanations at their parks,” Ward said. “But we also have a role to promote tourism in Kentucky, and we see the Creation Museum as a tourism attraction.”
Hey, George! You know what else would be a great tourist attraction? A whole big tourist town, sort of like Jamestown in Virginia, dedicated to promoting the worst stereotypes of your state. You could call it “Yokelville, Kaintucky”, populate it with barefoot, toothless hicks in tattered overalls, have exhibits of moonshiners drunk and blind on kerosene and grain alcohol, make brother-sister marriages legal within its borders, and allow feudin’ with muskets with anyone who makes a rude remark about the War of Northern Aggression. It’s the same thing: it’ll make money, at the expense of your reputation and self-respect. It won’t matter that it’s not true — we already know that you don’t care about that.
Greg Laden has an excellent summary of the situation.
The creationists are not afraid to pull punches because no one among their ranks is telling them that fighting with the gloves off is rude, and they feel that they are on a mission from god. Regular Christians are not telling activist creationists that their disparaging and offensive, not to mention unsupportable, commentary is totally out of line.
But evolutionists are constantly reminded by those in their own ranks to treat the delusional criminals and miscreants that call themselves Followers of Jesus (of one form or another) with kid gloves because rationalists have only the truth to hide behind, and in human societies, the truth is not as powerful as mumbo jumbo, the heebiejeebies, the evil eye and the bogeyman.
Or as powerful as white-beard-in-the-sky-guy, so hands off, everyone. You better not even criticize the idea of a 6000 year old earth lest some religious person take offense.
Come on, PZ. Can’t you see that the park rangers are simply being instructed on how to frame the scientific evidence?
Maybe the park ranger guy had a more snarky tone of voice that didn’t translate through the article…like “Whatever they want to believe is fine and good[eyebrow arched, corner of lip lifted] but we’ll show them why we talk about things you can see and verify. “
I’ve been a long time reader of your blog (first time commenter) and am in agreement with you in most things, however this I can not agree with. We are in consensus about the fact that creationist lunacy does need to be confronted with reality, I just don’t think it’s the Kentucky Park Services’ job to do it. How annoying would it be when the majority of a guided tour around a park was the guide and a creationist arguing their different points of view? Regardless of the fact that the Naturalist is right, the only purpose that would serve is to drive away tourists.
Uh, off topic, but I think I just found another atheist denier of evolution…
Err, Dante, I think you just missed the entire point of PZ’s article.
Stupid question: Do you really have that many cre_ti_nists in the USA that this would matter!?! Because that is very hard to believe.
Stupid question: Do you really have that many cre_ti_nists in the USA that this would matter!?! Because that is very hard to believe.
Regular Christians are not telling activist creationists that their disparaging and offensive, not to mention unsupportable, commentary is totally out of line.
This Christian is, but I am probably neither typical or regular. For one thing, I’m not threatened by non-belief, nor do I feel that it serves any good to keep the kid gloves on when dealing with believers. If a person has a good argument, based on evidence, they should use it and if the Christian can’t handle it, that’s their problem.
I like to say “have a non-blessed day” when I hear the opposite. Give them some opposition folks!
Of course it is the job of the Park Rangers to point out any falsehood with which they are confronted, even if it is religious in nature (no pun intended). They are there to educate the public with information based in science, this is one of the few reasons I don’t mind paying taxes. If I was on a tour and mistakenly got stalagmite and stalagtite mixed up (which I frequently do) I would expect to be corrected and educated, not patronized. I almost always believe tact is in order, but there is no need to perpetuate lies through silence.
Dante-
I am a naturalist at a nature center, and I would never pander to the religious when explaining natural history or processes. It is ridiculous and out of place in explaining science. I know my boss would agree. Our nature center takes a fairly non-political welcome-everyone type of stance so that we don’t frighten anyone away so to speak, but still…
I think the approach I would take if someone posited some biblical contradiction to what I was saying is more or less blowing them off and continuing my lecture. If they continued to be a bother, even when I asked them to please just enjoy the program without causing a debate, then I would have to ask them to leave. Just my opinion I guess.
The park rangers really shouldn’t have to get involved in a debate at all. They should present what they know to be the facts, and leave people to accept them or not. If faced with a confrontational question, they should just say, “that’s not science, sir (or madam),” and just go about their business. A creationist who then gets abusive to the ranger should be thrown out of the park for creating a disturbance.
@MH
Perhaps I did, however it seems to me PZ was saying he had a problem with the Kentucky Park Service dodging confrontation. And while I agree that there should be more confrontation between creationists and evolutionist/naturalists, I disagree that it should be the KPS’s job to bring it about. They are there to give accurate information on what science has discovered about nature, whether or not any one person believes it or not is ultimately irrelevant, and criticism of an organization for not correcting them seems misplaced.
@Kuhl
I completely agree with you, that’s definitely how a confrontation should be handled. I didn’t mean to imply that you should take biblical contradictions lying down.
I am planning on taking my family on vacation to Kentucky either next summer of the summer after that. If I run into any of these creationist yokels when I visit Mammoth Cave National Park, I will be sure to put them in their place when they start spouting off nonsense.
When I go to a state park or museum that has educational content, I want to understand what is being explained and am assuming that the interpretations are based on sound history and science. I expect historical interpretations to make me cringe at times (like the time I went to a Revolutionary battle ground and learned that a blood soaked surgeon was probably more sterile than if he washed with the local water which could contain urine and feces, as well as other nasties) but it should be as accurate as possible.
The minute that the history and science is laced with revisionist crap is when I will no longer enjoy going to these places and they will lose my attendance.
Those of you who think the park service should avoid confronting people on the idiocy of Ham’s tripe: then what exactly is the purpose of sending them to the “Museum” to learn about it all, anyway?
Dante and Ya’all, check it out:
Forget about AIG or the Creation Museum. Just think of it this way. You are a ranger/tour guide hired on the basis of your skill and training, further trained, and paid with taxpayer dollars to do your job.
You show the group of tourists a series of small rocky prominences, flat topped, about 35 to 100 feet in diameter, depending, between 6 and 30 feet high, standing above an otherwise fairly flat terrain.
You mention that “ancient concentrations of heat having to do with magma, when this area was still far below the earth’s surface, made the rock harder in selected vertically-oriented places, so later on, when erosion exposed this area, you get these very interesting, odd little rock formations. It only happens in a few places in the world, and this is one of them. Nice, eh?”
Then some guy pipes up: “Actually, these vertical formations are places where energy flux line pass through the earth. These are the same energy flux lines that dowsers use to find water or minerals. They are related to the energy that makes your aura. You can’t see them, but I can … the flux lines are visible only to people with special abilities. In fact, I can use the energy from the flux lines to see into the future, and if you let me lay your hands on your body I can even diagnose and possibly cure any illnesses you have … I just need to go into a trance for a moment…”
Now, the ranger is supposed to say what, exactly? “Oh, that’s all fine and good” and lead the rest of the group to believe that as far as the science of geology is concerned, either way of interpreting these features is about the same?
(The above scenario is VERY closely based on an actual event, by the way.)
LISTEN! GET REAL! The people who bring up issues from Answers in Genesis Creation Museum on these tours are hecklers. They are crackpots. Maybe sometimes they are really people asking actual, legitimate dumb questions, but you know damn well this is the minority.
This is no different than the crap we see in public schools, where the same student asks the same set of questions every day of the biology teacher, prompted to do so by their pastor or would-be-homeschooling yahoo parent. Just to harass the teacher, just to feel good that they are doing their jobs as christians trying to convert the masses to their religion.
GTL
I’m a Park Ranger and I disagree that there should be more “confrontations” between Rangers/naturalists and creationists. Creationists, among other kooky extremists, occasionally come up to me wanting to start a confrontation. There is no benefit to engaging. It only creates a scene and detracts from other visitor’s experiences.
Wow, just visited the creationist museum website. Certainly an eye opener!!!! I couldn’t help myself and had to leave them some feedback, not something I normally do, maybe I was moved in some way my little mind could never comprehend!!!! I am sure the creationists are sufficiently broad minded to explain my epiphany and hopefully will respond to my post in good time!!!!!
Actually, I think this is a tricky one. I do think the Park Service has an obligation to present science accurately. But I see their point. I don’t support state-sponsored atheism any more than I support state-sponsored religion.
And it seems like that’s the point the Park Service is making. It’s their job to present the science, but if they start arguing against people’s religious beliefs — in a Park Service uniform, on the tax-paid clock — then I think you’d have one of the rare cases where the Religious Right and the ACLU would be lined up together against them so fast it would make your head spin. And I’d probably be lining up, too.
I think they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to present science that opposes a widely-held religious belief, but they can’t speak out against the religious belief per se without violating the establishment clause of the Constitution. I can’t think of another way out of it than what they’re doing, which is trying to finesse it.
Scott Hatfield writes:
If a person has a good argument, based on evidence, they should use it and if the Christian can’t handle it, that’s their problem.
Uh, got it backwards, Moose. It’s usually the Godly making the ridiculous assertions based on no evidence. Can’t you retards get that into your woo-woo addled brains? Why don’t you bring a few good arguments based on evidence to the table and then you can play with the adults, OK?
We’re not talking about using the park service to promote atheism. Someone wants to listen to the ranger’s spiel, then praises god’s majestic handiwork and the great forces at his disposal, fine, let’s not use this opportunity to try and smash some Episcopalian’s faith. Some wackjob comes up and argues with the ranger and says those rocks are no more than 6000 years old, not fine and not good — the ranger’s job is not to simply accommodate whatever the tourists say, it is to educate.
Oh, wait, maybe not. There has been considerable erosion of the park service’s duties over the years. Maybe now their job is to play glorified janitor, picking up litter and hosing out the porta-potties. That would be a shame if their job as responsible educators has been abandoned.
I think I’m being misunderstood– we’ll chalk it up to my poor writing skills. I’m not trying to say park rangers should be silent when approached by the ridiculous notions of creationists, like I said previously, it is their job to inform the public on what science has discovered about nature. If that comes into conflict with someone else’s views, politely disagree, point out why they are wrong, and move on. It seemed to me in PZ’s article that he was saying rangers should actively challenge the creationist’s thinking. And as I’ve stated a number of times, while I full-heartedly agree that creationists should be challenged and shown that their logic is faulty, I don’t think the Park Services is the arena it needs to take place in.
As far as sending the rangers to the “Museum” goes: You’re right, unless the purpose was to better understand the creationist argument it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense; unless they are trying to “pander” to the religious, which of course is blatantly wrong.
The No Conflictists can go jump in a Kentucky lake.
Stop kowtowing to the nuts.
If someone wants to believe in and pray to a human being who became undead and flew up to Heaven, I see no reason to be considerate.
Being considerate means taking their nutty notions seriously, which I refuse to do.
Their god-intoxication is hilarious and they deserve, first and foremost, our laughter.
When they become obnoxious, they deserve our scorn.
If they attempt to justify their god-beliefs, they deserve to be ripped to shreds.
The social deference to religious beliefs is a problem, and it does tend to enable extreme beliefs if it means that they won’t be challenged. However, I emphasise that it is not just religious moderates who are enablers in this sense. Indeed, some (perhaps many) are while some (albeit few) aren’t. The problem is that many secular people, including intellectuals who should know better, are enablers.
There’s an unfortunate view among left-wing secular folks that criticising religion is similar to racism. Speaking for myself, I find that that has applied more pressure on me to go easy on religion than anything said by moderate religionists. Moreover, it is as much the job of all these secular people to criticise religion as it is the job of the moderate religionists – perhaps more so, since all religionists have something in common and are natural allies to an extent. Extreme or moderate, they share a common image of the world that includes spooky stuff like spirits, deities, souls, etc. What bugs me is the deference to religion from (presumably) secular intellectuals, such as Terry Eagleton and Stanley Fish, who don’t actually show much sign of having spooky beliefs.
As for park rangers, they have a difficult tightrope to walk when confronted with religious nutjobs. It’s their job to present the facts and explain the scientific basis, but not their job to get involved in altercations. There has to be a balance if they’re to do their job properly and safely. I’m not sure how far they should be expected to press the point if some weirdo comes along wanting to argue with them that the rocks are only 6000 years old.
Zeolite, Greta: This is not a question of park rangers “confronting” creationists. No, not at all.
It is a matter of creationists confronting rangers and other guests on a tour.
How a ranger deals with that is a matter of his/her training, and it is not too different from what a teacher has to do. Nobodoy is state sponsoring religion or atheism. Indeed, the creationists, initiating this sort of confrontation, is creating an uncomfortable and difficult situation that the ranger has to deal with in a professional manner.
The real problem here is not what these rangers are doing or not doing, it is what the creationists are doing, AND it is the specific statement that the head of the park service made, that both PZ here, and me in my post on the topic, object to: The official line that the version of geology that seeps like some kind of stinking putrid sewage out of the AIG Creation Museum is “OK” or in some way on par with the results of decades of scientific investigation being interpreted in the context of an educational tour.
Stupid question: Do you really have that many cre_ti_nists in the USA that this would matter!?!
David Marjanović – Yes. Hell, look at what we’ve got in the White House.
How about a response along the lines of:
“Sir/Madam, you, personally, are entitled to believe anything you wish. Anything from the Earth only being a few thousand years old to believing that the Tooth Fairy is real and shacks up with Santa. However on this particular tour we discuss reality, evidence and proven facts. If you wish to discuss your beliefs I strongly suggest you wait for another tour.”
Nice, simple, non-confrontational and puts the entire weight of looking like an arse on the creationist, woo-wooist or whatever reality challenged yahoo happens to try and disrupt the tour.
Hopefully the rest of the tour will be so busy giggling that the disruptor will keep his/her mouth shut and think twice about trying something like that again.
I see no reason why the rangers should be required to hand-hold these fragile creationists through reality. It’s not like the creationists are there to learn anything anyway. They’re there to confront, disrupt and harass those who would actually like to learn something.
In response to PZ’s comment:
“the ranger’s job is not to simply accommodate whatever the tourists say, it is to educate.”
Agreed. Using a creationist comment regarding the age of a rock formation is theoretically a good opportunity to explain how science determines the age of geologic formations. Unfortunately, most of the time a creationist won’t patiently wait and listen. Even if they did it wouldn’t matter to them (it may be beneficial to others listening, however) but as the saying goes, “you can’t reason people out of what they didn’t reason into.”
Its been my experience that many creationist comments are meant to hijack an interpretive program by drawing the ranger into a hopeless debate. Its similar to a child acting-out to get attention, its best to just let it pass and move on.
You can’t reason with religious zombies. There is no point trying. Long, long ago, they decided that rather than trouble their brains with having to think, they would just accept what their parents told them was true. Its too late for them now. The best thing we can do is try to prevent this kind of abuse from damaging another generation of children. Religion must be exposed and dissected at a young age – before the zombification takes hold.
I disagree with your interpretation of the instructions given to the rangers.
The park rangers are asked to confront Creationists. They confront them politely by explaining the scientific evidence. I’m not sure what else you could ask for. Did you want them to say “Creationism is crap”? While this claim is true, it is worthless as an argument without support. By explaining the science, they explain exactly why Creationism is crap, without sacrificing civility.
PZ asks: Those of you who think the park service should avoid confronting people on the idiocy of Ham’s tripe: then what exactly is the purpose of sending them to the “Museum” to learn about it all, anyway?
Look, many of us have wasted plenty of valuable time confronting creationists to no avail. There’s a good, cogent reason to confront them — in the courtroom as well as in any other forum available — when they attempt to hijack a public educational system or, for that matter, any governmental services in any way. When they visit a park, though, they’re free to believe any crap they want. It’s not the park ranger’s job to enlighten them, just as it isn’t the park ranger’s job to explain evolution to two-year-olds or schizophrenics. In answer to your question, though: the park service is probably being sent to the creation museum in order to learn what kinds of moronic questions to anticipate. Certain rangers may choose to try to enlighten the ignoramuses who ask such questions, to explain to them why what they’ve seen at the “museum” is fairy dust. But I doubt strongly that even the most anti-foolishness ranger feels that it’s his or her job to try to convert these boobs. Why use that time when there are other people who have legitimate questions to ask? And what would be the point? As I’ve said elsewhere: We atheists who supposedly pride ourselves on reason, ought to have enough of it to recognize that it’s unreasonable to debate with unreasoning people.
Can’t you retards get that into your woo-woo addled brains?
OK, so I get the point that many here think that we have no obligation to respect religious thought, and I agree. But this kind of ill-mannered, and frankly unprovoked attack, is bullshit. Mind your fucking manners. Ripping someone’s arguments to shreds need not involve personal acrimony, though calling someone a retard is not much better than saying “Nanny nanny booboo” as an argument.
I agree with the idea of sticking up publicly for what you believe as an atheist. Arguing with someone is proper. Likewise, I don’t think you have an obligation to go easy on anyone, if they assert something you disagree with. Their beliefs themselves deserve no special respect. But at the same time, I don’t see that disagreement frees you to be a dick. Condemnation of others as ‘retards’ is not a vigorous disagreement. It’s offensive on multiple levels, and it doesn’t do much as a counter argument to religion, either.
It is a subtle thing, perhaps, but thinking that being correct gives you the right to take a swing at someone, even verbally, is exactly the reason I think religion is a danger to society, and I shudder at atheists deciding to adopt the habit.
It is possible to confront misinformation without being confrontational. By going to the Creationism “Museum,” the park rangers can get insights into their adversaries and maybe devise some verbal jujitsu that will help them deal with both creationist hecklers and the uneducated.
Frequenting Scienceblogs, PT and other sites, where I am exposed to creationist arguments has certainly helped prepare me to deal with zoo visitors who have problems with common descent. (I volunteer as a docent in the primate building.)
PZ, I’ve got two words for you: Hillbilly Days. Celebrated every year in Pikeville, Kentucky.
You’ve been beaten to the punch, I’m afraid. :)
It is illegal under the U.S. Constitution for any government employee to try to smash anyone’s faith … for exactly the same reason we won in Dover.
But isn’t this a whole lot of angst over a single sentence quoted with little context (by a journalist for goodness sake!) that can just as easily be read, given Tichenor’s juxtaposition of the Creation Museum versus science, to mean that it is fine to hold religious, anti-science beliefs. A distinction he is duty-bound under American law to make.
Russell, #25: Stanley Fish–who regurgitated from, of all sources, a Wikipedia entry when trying to legitimize presuppositional apologetics (…”the reasoning is circular, but not viciously so….”) and who (I have to think deliberately) conflated two statements Dawkins made regarding naturalistic altruism and endorsement of evolution, which he then proceeded to criticize? (same essay). Stanley Fish is a conniving twit, and having any concern for his ramblings is fine waste of your time.
Only slightly OT: the superhumanly strong powers of cognitive dissonance demonstrated by the Pope today.
Y’see, the very fact you don’t hear your imaginary friend talking back to you is proof that he’s just pouting so you’ll learn to appreciate him more.
I just saw a U-Haul truck that featured the Cape May Virginia crater. I can’t remember the exact date, but it sure said it was way older than Young Earthers would allow. Will U-haul now start taking crap from YECs. I live in a strong secularist area of Houston, but I work as a fish specialist in a pet supply superstore in a Mega-Fundie suburban area. I love to point out that the “red tailed shark” is more anatomically similar to a human than it is to a real shark. As a ray finned fish, it’s not that close a relative; I wish there were a lobe-finned fish appoipriate for aquaria, but at it least it gets people thinking.
The evidence of common descent is in our pets. Our cats have false heel pads and our dogs have dewclaws. They clearly evolved from animals that walked flat on their feet. Couldn’t God have designed a cat without heels?
PZ,
I have to agree with the argument that the park service officials have to remain neutral. The problem is, if they are openly condemning religion (read that as correcting the BS fables these folks picked up at the creation museum)the park service can very well end up caught up in the “they’re attacking our religion” governmental agency battle. Non-religious conservatives would love the opportunity to cut park service budgets and open up wildlife preserves, etc., to corporate usage, resource exploitation, property development, etc. If you have the situation where religious loonies are attacking the park service for “Jesus-hatin’!” This administration would have the excuse to cut budgets, if the money isn’t there, why bother with the park/preserve, etc., at all? Why not open it up for exploration, development, etc.
The training may help with their understanding what the hell the creationist is babbling about, but their responses should probably be limited:
“I’m sorry sir/madam, I cannot comment on your religious beliefs. The park service presents the information in a manner that is consistent with the scientific understanding of the natural phenomena at work.”
Or something along those lines. In my case it isn’t to protect the feelings of the religious, it is an effort to protect the park service and their employees.
What Dave Eaton (34) said.
Especially since Marcus Ranum (21) has actually managed to what Scottt Hatfield, OM (7) wrote completely backwards, and is therefore abusing him for saying the opposite of what he did say. Duh.
“the ranger’s job is not to simply accommodate whatever the tourists say, it is to educate.”
I get that. I’m not saying they should just nod and smile. I’m just saying that they have a real need to be careful that when they educate, they’re educating about science and not presenting a view of religion with a government stamp of approval.
(And I agree with everyone here who’s pointed out that arguing isn’t going to get anywhere anyway, and is just going to derail them from their educational mission if there’s anyone else on the tour.)
I personally like dogmeatib’s (#41) version of the finessed answer somewhat better than the one proposed by Tichenor. But I’m also not going to give people who are on my side a hard time because they’re stuck in a difficult position and are finessing it slightly differently from the way I would finesse it.
Dave Eaton writes
Mind your fucking manners.
Oh, the irony! You’re very witty.
Everyone deals with religion in the way they find most appropriate and effective. After spending years and years and burning lots of glucose trying to reason with them, I’ve found that a verbal kick in the eye works better. After all, if reason was going to work on them, they wouldn’t be religious now, would they?
With respect to my mis-understanding what Hatfield said – it’s possible. I just went back and re-parsed it a couple of times and I don’t see it differently. It appears to me that he’s saying that he’s a *tian (“This Christian is…”) and that he thinks that non-believers should bring arguments based on evidence to bear against belief. Did I get something wrong there? I don’t know Hatfield, so I’m just going by his words.
And I’m standing by mine. If he’s saying (as I understand it) that the way the faithless should confront the faithful is with evidence then he’s just got reality backwards, which is typical “believer logic.” If the faithful want to present some evidence, I’m all for it – but the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. Instead of arguing with the faithful and presenting evidence (how well has that been working, I ask you?) we should laugh at them for being gullible fools and ask to see their evidence.
mjr.
Re Comment #44:
I.e., this Christian is “telling activist creationists that their disparaging and offensive, not to mention unsupportable, commentary is totally out of line.”
It helps to read for context (including the quoted text that the commenter is actually addressing).
Which is not what Scott was saying. He was simply agreeing that creationists shouldn’t be moddly-coddled, and when evidence contradicts their beliefs, it should be asserted, not brushed aside simply because it might offend their religious sensibilities.
(Hint: “nor do I feel that it serves any good to keep the kid gloves on when dealing with believers” is the clue that gives it away.)
How about privatizing the parks, then? You wouldn’t have that restriction anymore.
@Marcus Ranum – yes, you got something wrong there.
If a person has a good argument, based on evidence, they should use it and if the Christian can’t handle it, that’s their problem.
This seems to me to be extremely clear, even if not what you would expect (wrongly or rightly) the average Christian to say. Your knee jerked.
As Russel #25 says “social deference to religious beliefs is a problem” – more so in my country – India, where a multiplicity of faiths is practised. as long as u practice some form of religion u are considered normal. an atheist is met with an arched eyebrow – why? and i answer why not? thanks to dawkins, pharyngula, blake stacey and a host of other bloggers i am becoming a confrontationist. hats off. keep up the good work.
Church/State. Government employees. I hope that connects enough dots.
Now I know why Park Rangers are armed.
How about privatizing the parks, then? You wouldn’t have that restriction anymore.
I sincerely hope that this is a joke. Privatization has worked so well in Iraq, in the former Soviet Union, in repairing Hurricane Katrina damage, in … [insert infinite cases of waste, corruption, poor management, etc.]
“The Alaskan Wildlife Preserve, brought to you by Standard Oil!”
Oh, wait a second, we already have privatization with this administration, don’t we?
The Kentucky Park Naturalists are in a tough position. Their job is to teach the visitors the truth (the scientific truth, that is). And while nutcases can make that hard, to try to tell the nutters that God doesn’t exist–which I think is what PZ is suggesting–is inappropriate on several levels.
1. You can believe in God while still believing the earth is 6 billion years old, etc.
2. It’s not park naturalists’ job to pick non-winnable fights with visitors.
3. As government employees, they are constitutionally obligated to be rather neutral toward religion while on the job.
Come on, PZ, don’t take it out on the poor guy who has to deal face to face with these people. He probably just wants to have a good day at work and have a peaceful evening at home, not provoke nutcases into yelling at him, picketing the park, following him home, and writing to their state representative demanding the Kentucky Park Service be shut down.
It is fun to imagine the perfect comeback from a park ranger that makes a cre_t_inist look like the numbskull that he is. But in reality, it would be difficult for a given ranger to actually win in a debate with the heckler and actually accomplish anything.
The right approach is to consider the challenge from the park visitor as a casual remark and answer it with something like dogmeatib suggests in post #41.
The right response is to resist all impulses to get drawn into the debate. If I were running the park, I would instruct the rangers to look the challenger in the eye and recite that response politely. If the challenger starts to debate, then repeat the phrase again more forcefully. If the persist, then treat the challenger as a disruptive heckler and ask them to please refrain from disruupting the lecture. Finally, if they continue, I the ranger should radio for a security guy to come and help extract the heckler.
The beauty of this is that it accomodates those who challenge only casually, but does not accomodate anyone who is out to be disruptive. It also allows the ranger to be appropriately neutral on the religious point of view without giving any dignity to the notion that the challenger’s comments are scientific. (I say “appropriately”, in respect to the Establishment Clause and the fact that the ranger is a government employee.)
As a Christian, the last thing I want is a government employee taking a non-neutral stance on my religious belief. As a scientist, however, the last thing I want is for a government employee to be hindered in representing established science. I assert both of these points with equal zeal.
My moderation in this does not extend to a given person’s private opinion of my beliefs. My rights to have certain religious beliefs and express them publicly are guaranteed by the Constitution. However, there is no guarantee in the Constitution that you find my beliefs palatable or even un-ridiculous. Neither should my beliefs get a “pass” because they are religious.
In short, only the government has to respect my beliefs, not another private citizen or any other non-government institution.
PZ, this is an absurd tirade. So here is one of my own in response.
I cannot say what the most effective response of the park rangers would be, but I can almost assure you that confronting each such people in the most offensive and aggressive way conceivable every time they showed up will not be particularly effective. At least, you will have to show me compelling evidence that it will be for me to endorse your suggestions.
I’ve had the conversation on this blog before about why I do not believe such tactics are at all useful, and I do not ask you to agree; however, using words like “insane” to describe those of us who feel that there are more productive approaches is not helpful or correct … and, ultimately, it will not be successful to convince me to join your battle.
I am a reasonable person — a scientist, non-theist, and empiricist; however, I am also utilitarian. I see no utility in your response for these confused fundamentalists, or for “accomodationists” like me. I see no (non-anecdotal) evidence for any third party pickup for such behavior. I see no logical argument that showing no respect (as opposed to disrespect) more “enables” people that your tactic “entrenches” them.
I wont get into word-smithing about “fine and good”, but the general tactic of deflecting their objections and moving forward in their own context is a perfectly reasonable response. It is neither respectful nor disrespectful. Pulling out the swords and bows for every tedious jerk wants to foist creationisms lies on you every time they visit the park after the museum can’t be productive. What you propose would turn would convert them from park rangers to why-creationism-is-wrong missionaries. Their job is elsewhere.
You don’t agree with that tactic. Fine. Rage, rage, against the dieing of the enlightenment. But you’ve not convinced me that yours is a useful tactic, and you definitely not convinced me that it is “insane” to chose a more constructive route.
Like you, I will not behave in a way someone tells me to simply based on their word that it is the “right” way to behave.
I respect your vigor, and I certainly understand your frustrations and anger; however, please do me to favor of recognizing that you will never bully we “accomodationists” into your line of thinking by being as offensive and aggressive with us as you are with your theist opponents.
Quite the opposite.
Heh heh! This can’t happen to an agnostic. =8-)
However, the age of the Earth is not something I’m agnostic about. After all, that’s something on which I have evidence. So, as far as possible, a park ranger should IMHO just say: “Yeah, whatever. Now look at that rock over there, it has nice Ordovician fossils in it that I’m going to show you…”
LOL!
Well… it has started privatizing the army (Blackwater, Inc., et al.) and democracy (Diebold, ES&S, Sequoya, Triad Systems, et al.), so I think you could have a point…
Heh heh! This can’t happen to an agnostic. =8-)
However, the age of the Earth is not something I’m agnostic about. After all, that’s something on which I have evidence. So, as far as possible, a park ranger should IMHO just say: “Yeah, whatever. Now look at that rock over there, it has nice Ordovician fossils in it that I’m going to show you…”
LOL!
Well… it has started privatizing the army (Blackwater, Inc., et al.) and democracy (Diebold, ES&S, Sequoya, Triad Systems, et al.), so I think you could have a point…
Nope, it’s not. Read comment 22. It’s obvious.
His point is that the age of the Earth or the “question” if Noah’s Flood happened fall on the science side of the NOMA line. There is such a thing as a fact, and there’s no reason why a national park should be neutral about facts.
Other people get it:
Nope, it’s not. Read comment 22. It’s obvious.
His point is that the age of the Earth or the “question” if Noah’s Flood happened fall on the science side of the NOMA line. There is such a thing as a fact, and there’s no reason why a national park should be neutral about facts.
Other people get it:
My preferred approach would be something along the lines of:
_______________
PARK RANGER: “Here we have a rock formation that geologists estimate to be about 400 million years old . . .”
IDiot: “The whole earth is only 6,000 years old, so that can’t be true.”
PARK RANGER: “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! . . . good one, sir. Moving on . . .”
_________________
Treat it as a joke. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. No need to debate, just laugh it off and move on with the actual education.
As a Louisville, KY resident, I see first hand what the KPS has to deal with. Louisville is home to one of the largest non-denominational Christian Mega-churches in the country, and has a growing contingent of Christian acadamies. We’ve also got the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where Dembski hung his hat for a while. PZ is spot on when he advocates confronting this idiocy head-on. It’s terribly frustrating is to encounter otherwise intelligent individuals whose critical thinking skills do a full-stop when the subject of origins turns up. It’s not a situation that will change if we continue to gently defer and respect their beliefs in a collection of antiquated fairy tales.
Sort of. I live in a country where Washington-sponsored “sell everything you have (including national parks) or your country will go to hell!” rhetoric has been dominant for decades, to the point where the only policy choices are Thatcherism and alleviated Thatcherism, so I couldn’t resist a “practice what you preach” dig.
Yes, we do have privatized parks.
This seems to me to be extremely clear, even if not what you would expect (wrongly or rightly) the average Christian to say. Your knee jerked.
Yes. And it’s wrong. Sorry – that wasn’t just a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe you should go back and re-parse what I wrote until you perhaps understand what I’m saying. Maybe you won’t agree with it, if you understand it, but that’s another matter entirely.
The point remains that bringing rational arguments in front of the religious is a complete waste of time. It hasn’t worked in hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of years, and it’s not going to work this year, either. We need to stop doing that. Instead of bringing rational arguments and evidence to them we need to:
a) laugh in their faces
b) ask for their evidence
Reason has allowed itself to be put on the defensive against woo-woo by well-meaning intellectuals who really don’t do a good job of thinking like a retarded woo-addled member of the flock. We (collectively) have allowed the faithful to “frame” the game in terms of “bring us your evidence that disproves the existence of woo woo…” which is why we have the kind of nonsensical situation in which a theory such as evolution can be deemed to be “controversial” as long as there is a single chink that some intellectually dishonest Behe-esque moron can point at. That doesn’t work.
“Where’s your evidence for the Hand Of God, dimwit, or shut up and go back to flippin’ burgers” is more likely to get their attention than playing in their back-court like a bunch of nice scientists trying to convince the unconvinceable of someting they don’t want to be convinced of.
Point and jeer. Sorry if that bothers people. Sure enough, being ridiculed is uncomfortable and makes people unhappy. Guess what? It should.
Embarrassment is just woo-woo leaving the body.
bring us your evidence that disproves the existence of woo woo…
But Scott wasn’t talking about evidence that disproves the existence of a god, he was talking about the evidence for evolution.
I don’t agree with your approach anyhow, precisely because I agree with you that being ridiculed makes people uncomfortable and unhappy. People who have been made uncomfortable and unhappy by other people, and particularly those who have been ridiculed by other people, never change their minds to agree with those other people. In fact, they become more entrenched in their original opinions.
But I particularly don’t agree with your approach if you are applying it to the truth of the theory of evolution, as opposed to the untruth of the existence of a god. (This is essentially the same point that PZ was making at 22).
Notice what the article says right after the bit about ‘if they want to believe what they saw at the Creation Museum that’s fine and good’ –
‘However, the Creation Museum has no qualms about trying to change the scientific beliefs of the park naturalists.’
Bingo! Hands tied behind back. The Creation Museum has no qualms while the Park Service has qualms all over the place. One side has no qualms while the other side wants to handicap its own self. And it’s the side with no evidence that has no qualms and the side with the evidence that is all shy and bashful.
Wronnngggg.
‘Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, said the trip by the state naturalists is a good idea. “You have to experience it firsthand to see how impressively bad the science is,” he said.
This is the problematic sentence. It too closely resembles the “we all have a right to believe whatever we want, and I so respect, honor, envy, admire, and encourage religious belief, please don’t ever change it” brand of gushing postmodernist deference we’re all heartily sick of. It also strongly suggests that science and religion are blurred together.
Here’s a (slightly) modified version which would probably not have tripped the Outrage Factor:
” Tichenor emphasized that the park naturalists do not want to try to dissuade park visitors from their religious beliefs — only their scientific ones. “We will tell the person they may believe in any religion they want, but if they want to believe what they saw at the Creation Museum that’s not science, it’s religion,” he said. “And then we explain to them why we are saying what we say at the park — which is interpreting the scientific evidence produced for the site.””
This reminds me of the well-publicized Grand Canyon fiasco a few months ago – I think the Park gift shops were wrangled into selling Creationist books explaining how the canyon was created by Noah’s flood in order to present “alternative” viewpoints to actual geology. I think it was Sam Harris who pointed out that this is like saying that just because someone out there may believe that 2 + 2 = 5, that doesn’t mean we should present it as an “alternative viewpoint” just as valid as real math!
Speaking of geology BS, I recently explored the channeled scablands of eastern Washington. This area was scoured out by the catastrophic emptying of glacial Lake Missoula at the end of the last ice age. And, just as sure as shit sticks to a blanket, the creationists have come out with a website proclaiming that this is proof-positive of Noah’s Flood! Not only that, they also claimed that geologists refuse to endorse “catastrophism” because it’s proof that God destroyed the world with a flood. I was left wondering what the hell they were talking about. I thought pretty much all geologists were in agreement about such “catastrophic” events as earthquakes, huge volcanic eruptions, massive glacial floods, meteor impacts, etc., etc.!
These tools make such blatantly stupid statements it’s hard not to sink to their level and rip them a new one.
Marcus Ranum:
You seem to be interpreting the quote:
“If a person has a good argument, based on evidence, they should use it and if the Christian can’t handle it, that’s their problem.”
as meaning something equivalent to:
“Scientists should use evidence to argue against creationists”
or possibly even [viewing your initial response]:
“Scientists make ridiculous assertions based on no evidence”.
I, on the other hand, along with the vast majority of others replying, interpret this as meaning:
“Christians shouldn’t whinge about being shown stuff that contradicts their beliefs”
which does not appear to me to warrant your response of:
“Uh, got it backwards, Moose. It’s usually the Godly making the ridiculous assertions based on no evidence. Can’t you retards get that into your woo-woo addled brains? Why don’t you bring a few good arguments based on evidence to the table and then you can play with the adults, OK?”
I hope you can see how your response appeared to be a) extremely rude (which is something you seem to have no problem with), and b) a complete non-sequiter (which is something you don’t seem to have seen yet).
We can’t be sure exactly what the OP intended until he comes back and responds, but I think my interpretation is a reasonable one.
I would also ask you to cut some of the vulgarities. It always appears to me that someone using such epithets does so because he or she hasn’t got the vocabulary or the intelligence to phrase their thoughts in a more precise manner – and I like to think that my stance as a militant atheist is one associated with the intellectuals of the community, not the reverse.
bacopa @ #40, doesn’t the US pet trade have Queensland lungfish (Neoceratodus) yet? Despite Australia’s laws restricting export of native fauna (not as obviously sensible as quarantine of imports), I thought you could already buy just about anything over there. The cool thing about Neoceratodus forsteri (apart from being the only living lungfish that still has ‘lobe’ fins instead of filaments) is that the very same species has a fossil record extending back to 110 million years, which is probably a record for vertebrates.
I conduct tours of a fossil preparation lab a couple of times daily, and have had only two or three people actually spout creationist/flood garbage during tours in the last four years. The topic may also be raised obliquely: I sometimes notice a hostile edge when people ask ‘How do you date the fossils?’, but it doesn’t make any difference to how I explain freshwater carbonate geology, the theory and practice of radiometric dates and biochronology, or point out that quadrupedal omnivorous rat-kangaroos are transitional forms between omnivorous possums and modern bipedal grazing roos. I suppose that most creationists would fail to reach the door of my lab because they’re not in the least interested in science; I don’t particularly enjoy confrontation, but they seem to be letting me off a bit too easy.
Re:#44
I meant to show that I don’t take manners all that seriously, and I’m glad you picked up on that.
My point, and it has been made by others even better, is that confrontation of theism and being a vigorous atheist means something other than having a license to be rude without listening, or else it isn’t anything other than another kind of bigotry, however well-founded philosophically.
If you have reasons and support for your beliefs, yet react to the most casual expression of religious belief(and, in the case of Scott, surrounded by an avowed openness to reason) with venom, how is this ‘better’ than not having good reasons? After all, it isn’t the destination of atheism that is the point, it’s the journey of rationality that happens to end there.
I’m not saying you have to be a sucker for every atheist-baiting redneck, nor that you should respect a holy book or creed if it is proffered as an argument. But if a theist offers any common ground, I’ll meet them on it if only for the sake of further dialog. My scarlet “A” need not stand for ‘asshole’ is all I’m saying.
Ummm, has anyone else noticed that the white-beard-in-the-sky-guy at that link looks an awful lot like John de Lancie (the actor who played Q on Star Trek?
I know I’m late to the party here, but I’d like to say just one thing in defense of the rangers. I work at the Museum of Science in Boston, and we do NOT try to dissuade those who come in with creationist/ID bull. It’s a waste of everyones time. They don’t want to hear what we have to say, they only want to spout their ignorance. Now if we have someone with an *honest* question that wants to listen to us, and ask follow up questions, and is not aggressive about spewing the ID line, that’s fine. We’ll spend hours with you talking. However, if someone were to come in and tell us that they went to the Creation Museum and they believe that and what are we trying to do, we’re going to smile, nod, and take a step back. It’s not worth our time, and to me it sounds like the rangers are being instructed to do the same with those people who don’t have real questions, but just want to argue.
Just my $.02, from a person in a similar position.