Creationist Zoo

June 9, 2005 12:30 AM

Did any one ask the elephants what they think about creationism? I guess this addition will just complete a diorama that already includes Ganesh and the symbol of the Republican party.
posted by pkingdesign (44 comments total)

Ganesha: Art and Mythology

Ganesha: Lord of Categories
posted by homunculus at 1:31 AM on June 9, 2005

I wonder if the new "display" will show that God created dinosaurs on the sixth day.
posted by pruner at 2:00 AM on June 9, 2005

great! let's bring creationism out in the open where we can all point and laugh at it.

put it right next to the exhibit showing how early man migrated from asia to north america 30,000 years ago. surround the creationist display with stone age cave drawings and paleolithic artifacts that predate the fiction of christian orthodoxy by tens of thousands of year.

sow the seeds of doubt into those young minds...

"mommy, how can these tools be 30,000 years old when the bible tells us the earth is only 5,000 years old?"
posted by three blind mice at 2:24 AM on June 9, 2005

This can't end well.
posted by mek at 2:31 AM on June 9, 2005

I don't know...if you had like a hundred displays showing all cultures' views of creation, it would rather dilute the effect wouldnt it?
posted by dhruva at 2:51 AM on June 9, 2005

You're looking for Brahma, not Ganesh. Ganesh is supposedly the son of Shiva and Parvati, definitely not the "creator".
posted by madman at 3:17 AM on June 9, 2005

It refers to the cultural significance of elephants...why should they talk about brahma?
posted by dhruva at 3:24 AM on June 9, 2005

madman, the article doesn't claim that. The inclusion of Ganpati is meant to demonstrate that the zoo already has religious items and that adding creationism won't suddenly introduce religion into an otherwise areligious institution. Of course, this comes down to whether the creationism exhibit would signify as an endorsement or just a documentation of a belief.
posted by Gyan at 3:29 AM on June 9, 2005

If they add a display about Christian creationism, they should be forced to give equal space for all known creation myths.
posted by D.C. at 4:12 AM on June 9, 2005

exactly: and then, there'll be no space for the animals :)
posted by dhruva at 4:13 AM on June 9, 2005

"Tulsa Zoo exhibit curator Kathleen Buck-Miser estimated it would take about six months to research and organize the exhibit. "

Really? This long? It only took six days to create the world for Christ's sake, you would think they could whip a little display up more quickly than that.
posted by OmieWise at 4:16 AM on June 9, 2005

This is looney.
posted by caddis at 4:20 AM on June 9, 2005

Yes it is looney but its not too often the looneys give us something we can laugh at. Pile it on, I say.
posted by donfactor at 4:29 AM on June 9, 2005

Oh no! Bevets is going to appear soon!
posted by acrobat at 4:37 AM on June 9, 2005

Kathleen summed it up nicely: "I'm afraid we are going in the wrong direction."
posted by effwerd at 4:40 AM on June 9, 2005

three blind mice has it right.
posted by mania at 4:55 AM on June 9, 2005

So, now that USA is of the list, which nation is currently the beacon of science, technology and human progress?

China?
Japan?
Europe?
Australia?

*snickers*

I second caddis' comment.
posted by spazzm at 5:04 AM on June 9, 2005

off the list, I mean. Sorry.
posted by spazzm at 5:09 AM on June 9, 2005

You're off the list spazzm. Why do you hate America so much?

*snickers back*
posted by OmieWise at 5:31 AM on June 9, 2005

The *snickers* was for Australia, really.
posted by spazzm at 5:41 AM on June 9, 2005

Glad to see that "Europe" is now a country.
posted by trey at 5:49 AM on June 9, 2005

You left Africa and South East Asia 'of' your list of countries.

*snicker*
posted by i_cola at 5:52 AM on June 9, 2005

After all, answersingenesis.org is run by an aussie.
posted by spazzm at 5:53 AM on June 9, 2005

And while I don't harbour any animosity towards USA, I'll sate your curiosity:
Many people hate USA because it's full of and run by fundamentalist, and seem hell-bent on reshaping the world in its image.

Or so I've been told.

Also, nation != country.
posted by spazzm at 5:57 AM on June 9, 2005

E.g. 'nation of islam'. If you've got to nitpick, at least get it right.
posted by spazzm at 6:01 AM on June 9, 2005

From pruner's link:

The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old.

Wow. Imagine if you heard this in school instead of learning about carbon dating?
posted by Crushinator at 6:18 AM on June 9, 2005

OED says: 1. a. A large aggregate of communities and individuals united by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, or occupation of the same territory, so as to form a distinct people. Now also: such a people forming a political state; a political state. (In early use also in pl.: a country.)
In early examples notions of race and common descent predominate. In later use notions of territory, political unity, and independence are more prominent, although some writers still make a pointed distinction between nation and state. (My emphasis)

Nation meaning country is a perfectly valid use of the word, particularly as in the context used it clearly refers to countries.
posted by biffa at 6:19 AM on June 9, 2005

spazzm-I was kidding around. That's what my *snickers* was supposed to show. The "Why do you hate America" thing is a joke.
posted by OmieWise at 6:26 AM on June 9, 2005

Why do fundamentalists always want their myths depicted next to other myths? I mean, shouldn't they have simply said that since the Native Americans and Hindus were obviously wrong, they didn't feel slighted?
posted by klangklangston at 6:27 AM on June 9, 2005

I think they should put the Christian creationist exhibit right next to the animals portrayed as holy in that culture. Oh wait, there aren't any, really. I suppose they could put a little garden of Eden picture next to the snake exhibit, but beyond that they'd be out of luck in most cases.

It's interesting because, living in a western country with a Christian-dominated history, I always thought that exhibits like the one at this zoo were slightly patronizing in a "let's look at the rest of the world" way. These people apparently think that their religion is marginalized enough to be seen as an "other."
posted by mikeh at 6:32 AM on June 9, 2005

Aaaah, Tulsa, my childhood hometown. If you guys wanna see something really freaky from T-Town, go to Oral Roberts University. Running around the giant praying hands sculpture on acid can't be beat.
posted by password at 6:43 AM on June 9, 2005

Can't we just feed all the Creationists to the ...say... lion exhibit?
posted by thanotopsis at 7:03 AM on June 9, 2005

Wouldn't a Noah's Arc display make more sense? I can't even imagine what a creationist display would look like, but a small boat crammed with 2 of every known historical species, now that would be funny.
posted by willnot at 7:12 AM on June 9, 2005

I suppose they could put a little garden of Eden picture next to the snake exhibit, but beyond that they'd be out of luck in most cases.

I can't imagine the reptile keepers would like that - snakes have such a bad rap as it is.
posted by agregoli at 7:17 AM on June 9, 2005

From the article, it seems to me that the zoo has already chosen to include religious displays. For the city's board members to start saying "I do not like the idea of scripture at the zoo," after including other sorts of religious displays belies an obvious desire to fund the promotion of some religions over another.

Sounds just like what most anti-Christians argue about funding the 10 commandments etc... Seems to me they should either remove all religous displays or live with having to represent any religous group that asks to be included.
posted by intheory at 7:33 AM on June 9, 2005

Wouldn't a Noah's Arc display make more sense?

excellent idea willnot. i think you're on to something... how did noah fit all those animals on the arc? and what about the fish and plants?

Reminds me of a joke:

A new flood is foretold and nothing can be done to prevent it; in six days the waters will wipe out the world.
The Christian fundamentalists go on TV and plead with everyone to accept Jesus as their personal saviour.

The Pope goes on TV and urges all Catholics to go to confession.

And the Chief Rabbi of Israel goes on TV and says "We have six days to learn how to live under water."
posted by three blind mice at 7:36 AM on June 9, 2005

From the article, it seems to me that the zoo has already chosen to include religious displays.

Undoubtedly which is one of the reasons I can't take their complaints seriously. But, I think what it actually shows is that the people at the zoo don't look upon Hinduism or Native American beliefs as religions so much as interesting and colorful cultural artifacts.

If they stopped to think about it, they'd know in their brains that they were religions, but in their hearts, when they think of religion it's probably the Bible that they think about.
posted by willnot at 7:55 AM on June 9, 2005

Also, nation != country.
posted by spazzm at 1:57 PM GMT on June 9 [!]


E.g. 'nation of islam'. If you've got to nitpick, at least get it right.
posted by spazzm at 2:01 PM GMT on June 9 [!]

Comedy gold!

*snicker*
posted by i_cola at 8:37 AM on June 9, 2005

You might think this to be funny, but as an American I find it depressing.
posted by ackeber at 9:32 AM on June 9, 2005

The fact that Ganesh and the GOP logo are both provided in the current incarnation of the display suggests to me (without having seen it, of course) that it is more akin to a cultural-message-thing than an endorsement of a particular religion (or political party, for that matter). I'm unclear as to the role that elephants, per se, played in the creation myth of the Hebrew Scriptures, but if it's as central as say, the elephant is to Ganesh's portrayal or the GOP logo then they may have a point. I just don't believe it is central: unless the 6-day, stationary flat earth rests on a turtle resting on an elephant.

Unless you think the Tulsa zoo is part of the nefarious Republican Hindu plot, then all bets are off.

It's the locale here that kills me. A creationist display at a zoo is like a Slayer listening booth at the Vatican or something.

Elephants all the way down,
posted by joe lisboa at 9:50 AM on June 9, 2005

Also, nation != country.
posted by spazzm at 1:57 PM GMT on June 9 [!]

So true. Who ever heard of Nation-fried chicken, for instance?
posted by catachresoid at 10:00 AM on June 9, 2005

Pistons in six.
Fuck off for not responding, you.
posted by joe lisboa at 6:22 PM on June 9, 2005

So, now that USA is of the list, which nation is currently the beacon of science, technology and human progress?

Eh, what does it matter if a bunch of people who aren't scientists have whacked-out ideas about science? It doesn't. They'll get their ideas into a few classrooms in the south and west where no one would be getting a decent education anyway. Big freakin deal.
posted by dagnyscott at 11:33 PM on June 11, 2005

OmieWise - I didn't mean my response to sound quite as snarky as it might have sounded. I didn't get the joke - please accept my apologies.

I also think mikeh's comment is interesting.

dagnyscott - you make a valid point, but is it fair that scientific inquiry should be solely an upper-class pursuit? What of the (potentially) great minds that might have been unfortunate enough to be born into poor circumstances?
What if the 'bunch of people' with whacked-out ideas are in the majority? What does that mean for a democracy?

And apologies for responding so late. I was expecting to be flamed to a crisp - instead there's a few responses (other than those noted above) dissing my spelling.
posted by spazzm at 5:14 AM on June 12, 2005