The Ark Park . . . Disney It Ain't!

Nothing surprising, little kennie ham is 'restructuring' his ticket prices, well that's not totally true.  He's raising the Adult prices, lower the Kids prices, and eliminating Group Discounts.  I am sure the net plan is to see a bump in revenue overall.  After all, what business lowers prices to make less money.

My guess is the group discounts weren't bringing in many groups, so eliminating them probably doesn't affect much.  If they were a cash cow, he would probably be keeping them to entice more groups visits.  But since kids rarely travel alone, you know every child is accompanied by at least one adult, that change should be more profitable, and we know kennie is all about profit.

But what cracked me up is little kennie comparing his ministries to Disney World:

It's not just a dollars comparison, here is a quote:

"Many of our visitors have told me that the quality of our Christian-themed attractions exceeds what they’ve experienced at the Disney parks, Universal Studios, and the Smithsonian museums."

I would like to see what context of the word 'quality' his 'Many visitors' were using.  If they were talking about entertainment quality, I doubt there is a valid qualitative or quantitative comparison with anything other than another religious ministry.  If they are talking about a construction quality as in how well little kennie's exhibit creators did against Disney and others, he might have a point.  He did spend lots of money to make sure the quality of the construction isn't as cheesy as say a roadside attraction in Roswell:

Little kennie's mock-ups are well done.  If that's the quality he's talking about, he might have a point.  Of course if you are talking any other quality, he tends to fall short.  With kennie, the cheesiness isn't in the construction, but in the message.  It's not a Biblical message, but the Bible according to little kennie ham, two very different things.

Here is another quote:

"Disney’s parks and AiG’s attractions are, in a sense, competing for a family’s time for vacation, offering the best possible quality in all they and we do. However, you can spend many hours waiting in long lines for short rides at amusement parks. At our Ark and museum, however, you can easily spend a full day or two at each location, experiencing edu-tainment all day and rarely standing in a long line."

While there is probably competition for the same vacation budget, in the terms and money and time, does little kennie really think his ministries offer the same quality as an entertainment location as Disney, Universal, or even the Smithsonian?  His only criteria seems to be 'standing in line'.  Well based on that, maybe -- if that is one of the things people base their vacations on being in lines.  But do you really use that when comparing vacation options?

No, the lack of 'standing in line' tells me two things.  First of all, the massive crowds kennie kept predicting have not materialized.  Therefore there is no reason to wait in a line because no one is queuing up.  The second thing is why do people stand in line anyway?  They anticipate something worthwhile for their small investment in time.  So what that tells me is that little kennie's exhibits aren't worth that sort of investment.

Let's compare with the Smithsonian for a moment, since kennie uses one of his selling points as 'edu-tainment'.  You remember when he tried to explain that his ministries were more educational than entertainment.  He tried that argument a couple of years back.  We discussed it here: The 'Ark Park' is not an Educational Institution! Nor is its purpose Recreational or Historical!.  Little kennie tried to claim his ministries fit an educational, recreational, or historical purpose in order to justify public schools paying for trips to the ark park.  So something like the Smithsonian, which it's wealth of educational and historical information, comparable to kennie's ministries?  Unlike kennie's Creation pseudo-museum and his ark park, the Smithsonian has a mission statement:

“For the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.” (Smithsonian Institution Mission Statement)

Does anyone really belief that is similar in any way to kennie's mission statement?  Here, you compare them, here is kennie's:

• We proclaim the absolute truth and authority of the Bible with boldness.
• We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.
• We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.

Little kennie even stated his real reason for building his pseudo-museum and ark park:

"Our real motive for building the Creation Museum, and now the Ark, can be summed up in these verses:

• Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations. (Matthew 28:19)
• But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15)
• Contend earnestly for the faith. (Jude 3)
• Do business till I come. (Luke 19:13)"

It makes it hard to see much of any comparison with kennie and his ministries with any non-religious organization, be it in the entertainment industry or educational.  For further comparison, look at Disney theme park mission statement:

"We create happiness by providing the best in entertainment for people of all ages everywhere." (Disney Theme Park mission Statement)

Does it succeed?  Well I have been to Disneyland in California and Disney World in Florida with my daughters and granddaughter on multiple occasions -- the answer is an unequivocal "Yes!"  To quote my granddaughter, who had no idea we were going and was asleep in the back seat as we drove up to the entrance.  We shook her awake and she exclaimed "Best Day Ever!" before we even got in the park.

Now, if you doubt that kennie is building ministries and not theme parks, he said it himself:

"Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost."

So what's the purpose in raising . . . oh, I mean re-structuring  . . . ticket prices?  Why else . . . to make more money!  No one with a working brain is going to see an honest comparison between his ministries and Disney, or any other theme park.  But kennie doesn't really care, as long as they spend more money!  If they think they are getting Disney, maybe they will spend more.

So let's do a little comparing of our own, when Disney World opened in 1971 a single day ticket was $3.50, which is the equivalent of $21.68 today.  Little kennie opened his ark park last year with ticket prices at $40 for an adult.  So his tickets started at nearly double what Disney started at when you count for inflation.  Granted Disney's price for one park for one day has topped $100 today (although you can find deals for $59), Disney has added and updated a great many attractions over the years.

Of course multi-day and annual passes have a different price structure, but in a realistic comparison just based on prices, little kennie comes up short no matter how you want to look at it.  I mean, how many days do you need to go through his ark park?  I visited his Creation pseudo-museum and it didn't take very long.  And it wasn't a just walk through, you were in a line what went through in a structured way to tell the story little kennie wanted to tell in the way kennie wanted to tell it.  Your pace was the pace of the line, not your own.  My guess it would have taken even less time, remember I described it as more a carnival ride than a museum visit.

So, my advice to any one planning a vacation.  If you are looking for recreational, historical, or educational vacation, little kennie's ministries are not the way to go.  If you are looking for a religious experience, I would recommend the tour of St Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.  But if you are looking for a small laugh at the expense of your children -- tell them you are going to a place 'just like Disney' and end up at little kennie's version.  Just wait until you see the look on their faces when the truth dawns on them.

True, you won't have to wait in any lines, and that's all that's important, right?

More Misdirection from the Discovery Institute

In my last post (Skepticism vs. Scholarship (From James F. McGrath)) I said:

"As new scientific discoveries are made, you can bet that shortly thereafter they will try and put an ID [Intelligent Design] spin on it, regardless of the fact the discovery doesn't support it."

This new post over on the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution and 'news' and Views (EnV) blog bears that out. "University of Alabama "Space Archaeologist" Seeks Evidence of Intelligent Design".  As you read their post, I want you to identify where Intelligent Design . . . not intelligence or design . . .  but something from the Discovery Institute, being being used in Sarah Parcak's work.  If you can't see it, don't worry, it's only in the very limited imagination of the DI.

In a nutshell, the associate professor of anthropology (University of Alabama at Birmingham) pioneered the use of satellite imagery to discover ruins, tombs, and more.  She's highly recognized, well regarded, and apparently quite successful.  What she is identifying signs of human habitation in ways that would have been impossible before today's modern satellites.  So what does this have to do with the DI?  Nothing, but since when does nothing stop the DI?

What the good professor is looking for are patterns, patterns that when combined with her other research, indicate the probability of being a former location of a town or village.  We recognize patterns all the time, but does there being a pattern automatically mean an intelligent source?  Here is a quote from Professor Parcak from the Smithsonian article::

"Any discovery in remote sensing rests on hundreds of hours of deep, deep study. Before looking at satellite imagery of a cemetery or a pyramid field, you have to already understand why something should be there."

I am surprised the DI used this particular quote, because I believe it defeats their own argument.  Parcak isn't just looking for patterns, she, and I would guess her team, spend hundreds of hours studying a location before looking at the imagery itself.  Her own words, "you have to understand why something should be there."  I this as a parallel to actual scientific work, you look, you study, you learn and what that does is frame any discoveries.  You don't just look at something and declare you are done!  But isn't that the modus operandi of the DI?

Parcak is looking for patterns, the DI insists on calling it 'design', they do that so they can tie into their pet idea of 'Intelligent Design'.  Does Parcak call it design?  Certainly no sign in the Smithsonian article.  The DI wants to call it 'design' so they can compare what she is doing to what they should be doing in examining DNA.  Of course they aren't exactly doing what she is doing.  They are making lots of declarative statements, but never seem to follow up with any supporting evidence.  The reason I am surprised they want to draw such a parallel is because I believe they are missing two points of Parcak's work.

One is illustrated in the quote above.  Where are the hours of deep study of DNA that would lead you to understand why design should be there?  There isn't any.  The DI looks just deep enough to recognize what they claim in the 'appearance' of design, and then they declare victory and demand to be taken seriously.

The second thing they are missing is based on another quote, this one near the  end of the Smithsonian article:

"Parcak often confirms discoveries made at her desk by visiting previously unseen sites and coring the earth or otherwise scouting for artifacts, a process called “ground truthing.”

Where is the 'ground truthing of the DI's arguments?  Where is the supporting evidence?  You will notice that Parcak doesn't just leave things at the level of the imagery, her discoveries are confirmed in the field.  The DI doesn't seem to think that's a required step, they even missed this quote from the article.

Let's imagine that Parcak made an announcement of a discovery and failed to follow-up with what she calls 'ground truthing'. Would she have been written up in the Smithsonian? Would she have been called "The Indiana Jones of low Earth orbit"?  Would she even be an associate professor?  She most certainly wouldn't have made over 3,000 discoveries with a hit rate of close to 100%!  What's the DI's hit rate on actual scientific discoveries again?  That's right: 0%?

As we have learned over and over again, the appearance of design does not mean it was actually designed.  The DI hasn't made the case that apparent design must have been designed and since they claim that only intelligence can design things, any 'design' must be the hallmark of an 'Intelligent Designer' (code word for the Christian God).  Yet their arguments fail on a number of points, particularly on a lack of evidence.  Conjecture and wishful thinking are not evidence.

What we have also learned, yet again, is that whenever anyone uses their brain (intelligence) and discovers anything that can be interpreted, or even mis-interpreted, as 'design' then the DI is going to try and claim yet another victory for their pet concept ID.  They, the DI, still cannot tell the difference between their Intelligent Design 'theory' and use of intelligence in scientific discoveries.  They keep confusing the two in order to confuse everyone else.  If they really want to make this claim, they should be able to tell us just what part of 'Intelligent Design Theory' is this particular professor using?

Well?

How about an Example of Creationist Obfuscation

One of my Google Alerts pointed me to this article on the Christian Today website: "No evolution? Ancient lizards preserved in amber support Creationism, say Christian scientists"  The article quotes a couple of Creationist mainstays, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and the Answers In Genesis (AiG). Here's a couple of quotes from the article, although you probably don't need them.

"Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research said the discovery of these ancient lizards clearly debunks the theory of evolution, since they did not evolve at all for 99 million years."

"Supporting Thomas' assertions, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell of Answers in Genesis pointed out that these newly discovered reptile species completely cannot be explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.  'There is no evidence for upward evolution through a transitional form in this lizard's amber tomb—just evidence for the sort of variation that ordinarily occurs within the created kinds of animals God made,' Mitchell said."

Of course, me being me wasn't going to take their word for it.  So I Googled "Lizards in Amber" and came across a Smithsonian article, "Pint-Sized Lizards Trapped in Amber Give Clues to Life 100 Million Years Ago".  Guess what?  The Smithsonian article says things quite a bit different than the Creationists.  Here is the best part:

"The set includes creatures similar to modern-day geckos and chameleons, as well as a range of species that sport a mash-up of features from both ancient and modern reptile relatives, according to the study published Friday in Science Advances. These animals help fill in the patchy evolutionary history of pint-sized lizards."

While the Creationists say that no evolution occurred, the Smithsonian article disagrees and points out several examples, particularly the . . . and I am going to use this term because I know how much it annoys Creationists . . . particular the Transitional Forms mentioned, although I am sure the Creationists simply neglected to mention the "species that sport a mash-up of features from both ancient and modern reptile relatives" in their article.  What AiG's Mitchell did say was:

"'There is no evidence for upward evolution through a transitional form in this lizard's amber tomb—just evidence for the sort of variation that ordinarily occurs within the created kinds of animals God made,' Mitchell said."

So, according to ICR there was no evolution, and according to AiG there was 'variation', just no transitional forms.  How did they come to those conclusions?  Oh wait . . . I keep forgetting.  They already have their conclusion.  They have to 'explain' as new evidence is uncovered how it absolutely has to fit into their already predetermined conclusion.  Here is a quote from AiG's Statement of Faith which demonstrates that point, in case you thought actual evidence might change their minds:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. "

I do have to wonder if they even bothered to read the actual study.  On last quote form the Smithsonian article:

"The fossils also help sort out when many of the modern reptile traits appeared. The tiny chameleon-like fossil shows early development of the lizards’ ballistic tongues—evidenced by the presence of a large bone that supports the modern chameleon’s sticky weapon, says Stanley. But the fossil did not have the specialized claw-like fused toes modern chameleons use to hang onto branches. Similarly, one of the gecko relatives has preserved toe pads with the modern designs already present."

Certainly contradicts the Creationist claims of no evolution and nothing but 'variation'.  Just in case you didn't catch it, the whole 'variation' argument is nothing more than a restatement of the whole micro-macro evolution nonsense that has yet to gain any actual traction with real scientists.  We've discussed it multiple times, including "Macro - Micro Evolution" and "Micro-Macro re-dux".  But you know it won't matter to most Creationists, especially hard-core ones like ICR and AiG.  They really need to stop looking at everything through their Biblically-colored glasses.

Who could argue with support like this?

In a follow-up article to something I posted a little about already, David Klinghoffer, who I less than affectionately call 'klingy', posted this little gem:  "Natural History Museums Bear Witness to the Debate over Intelligent Design".  This time around klingy is 'confirming' the viability of the debate over Intelligent Design (ID), or I should say that's what it appears he's trying to do..

This has been one of the common theme's since the DI released their latest set of excuses about Stephen C. Meyer's 'Debating Darwin', which I also commented on recently (That's it? An admission of failure?).  The theme from their latest effort, "Debating Darwin’s Doubt: The Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied" is to try and legitimize the scientific debate over ID.  Now no one I know doubts there is a debate over ID, but what there is not is a scientific debate.  There is a cultural debate over their efforts to substitute pseudo-science for real science, but there is no scientific debate because, frankly, there is no science supporting ID. 

Klingy and his buds claim to have the science, but they cannot seem to be able to communicate it to anyone else.  Dembski's 'design filter', Behe's 'irreducible complexity', Nelson's 'ontogenetic depth', none of it makes any sense when it comes to being science.  Oh it sounds scientific, but once you look past the wrinkled lab coat the words are dressed up in, you get nothing.  Not a single scientific advance is based on Creationism/ID, none!

What I find misleading is the title, it seems to be trying to convince readers that one of the more famous Natural History museums is confirming the debate.  Which is an interesting tactic.  It's similar to the one where little kennie ham tried to link his Creation 'Museum' with the local Cincinnati Zoo, which we all know failed and more than likely caused kennie many hours of anguish over lost revenue.

This time around, does klingy use quotes from the institution?  Did anyone from the Smithsonian confirm the debate?  No, if you read it, did you catch who klingy's source is?  Read carefully, he only mentions this once:

"An email correspondent points out that the different methods stem from the specific decades when the halls were respectively updated and redesigned" 

That's it.  An 'email correspondent' and klingy goes wild then this correspondent offers this opinion :

"They are in a fight, and they know it."

That's all it takes for klingy to rattle off yet another post confirming the 'scientific' controversy that only seems to exist in the minds of folks over at the Discovery Institute.  So to be clear, an unidentified email correspondent makes a comment that is never confirmed by the institution, nor even addressed by the institution, then klingy takes that as the institution's implied acceptance that they are a witness to an imaginary scientific debate over ID.  Oh yea, that clears things up.

Scientists are well aware of the cultural controversy represented by ID.  The reason isn't because ID threatens science, but because of the negative impact ID/Creationism have on science education.  It wasn't until folks like the DI started organizing, marketing, and making demands did any scientists give them much thought at all.  Now, if the DI was willing to do actual science to support their ideas things might be different.  But as long as the best confirmation of a scientific controversy are unnamed 'email correspondents' of klingy's, I don't think we are nearly to the point of treating ID much differently than we treat Astrology, Numerology, and Parapsychology.  Oh we may have to deal with them more often, because they are a well-funded and vocal set of Evangelicals, but there isn't much different amongst the pseudo-sciences.

What's next with klingy, will he be getting calls from the Psychic Network?  There's a thought.  Have you seen any of those commercials for various tele-psychics?  I know, you probably ignore them like I do.  But someone once pointed out that in the small print on the screen includes a little disclaimer.  Maybe klingy needs to add it to the bottom of all his posts.  There's an idea - "For Entertainment Purposes Only"

That is not what happened! Sternberg redux

Little davey klinghoffer, who I less-than-affectionately call 'klingy', is re-writing history . . . again.  In a recent post he whines about he Smithsonian's treatment of Evolution.  Nothing really new there, but this line caught my eye:

"That corollary is not stated in the museum exhibits, but the Smithsonian is the same national institution that drummed out evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg for admitting that doubts about Darwinian theory could have some merit."

Bullshit!  That is not what happened, and I think klingy knows it, but you don't sell being a victim by admitting when you have less-than-honest about the events, do you?  He even has a link to the DI's take on things, which he wrote!  Does he dare link to the Wikipedia page, the one called the "Sternberg Peer Review Controversy"?  Of course not, because that one certainly doesn't paint Sternberg as a victim, or him being 'drummed out' of the Smithsonian.

When I picture being 'drummed out', I picture a military ceremony where the offender, usually following a court-martial, is stripped of the badges of their office and summarily removed form the military post while a row of drummers perform a drum roll during the serious parts.  When I think of Sternberg's departure from the Smithsonian, I picture more a little boy running away thinking he got away with something. 

Sternberg, an unpaid research assistant and voluntary editor of the Biological Society of Washington, took it upon himself to be the sole reviewer of a paper by Stephen C. Meyer.  Not only was Sternberg not qualified to review the paper [based on his education and background], his relationship with the author meant he should have recused himself from the process.  In other words, Sternberg violated the established process in order to publish the paper in a respected peer review scientific journal paper that did not meet the standards of publication.  That's why I think of him as someone who thinks he got away with something.

Of course immediately upon publication, the Discovery Institute lauded over Meyer as having published the first Intelligent Design supportive article in a peer review journal.  And, of course, they immediately started whining and crying when the journal released this statement repudiating the article:

"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history." 

The journal wisely didn't publish a rebuttal, since the DI would have further crowed about it, more than likely claiming "See, there is something to ID because we have a paper and a rebuttal in a peer review journal!"

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) had this to say about ID:

 "Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

• Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
• Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
• Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
• Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;"

That's not the AAAS's complete statement, you can see the rest by clicking the link above.  What I found interesting is that they made that statement in 2002 and re-published it in 2013.  Doesn't look like much has changed in ID research, does it?
               
Some other interesting facts, Sternberg, who had already resigned as editor, kept working there in the same role as an unpaid research assistant for 3 years.   I will admit that some organizations move slow, but three years is an awfully long 'drumming out'.

In an interview with Barbara Bradley Hagerty, National Public Radio's religion reporter, said Sternberg himself believes intelligent design is "fatally flawed."   Hmmm, so according to klingy calling intelligent design 'fatally flawed' is the same thing as 'admitting that doubts about Darwinian theory could have some merit'?  I don't think so!

Sternberg is also signatory to the incredibly foolish petition "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", which I usually refer to as the '700', you know the list that supposedly shows a bunch of scientists who scientifically don't like the current theory of evolution.  But in reality their dissent has little to do with actual science, but a more evangelical difference and often the affiliations were overly inflated.  I recall Sternberg was also mentioned in this post from a few years back:

"Also, in early editions of the list, Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy. Later versions of the list dropped mention of Sternberg's affiliation with the Smithsonian in favor of Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University. At present Sternberg is a Staff Scientist with GenBank, the genetic database at the National Institutes of Health."

Do you know where Sternberg works now?  According to the DI website: 

"Dr. Sternberg is presently a research scientist at the Biologic Institute, supported by a research fellowship from the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute."

If you aren't aware, Biologic is the pet lab of the Discovery Institute.  So after publishing a paper by Meyer, who is one of head honchos at DI, Sternberg now works at the DI's pet lab and his funding comes from the DI.  The only thing that could make that look any shakier is if Sternberg was a relative of Meyer!

If this were a TV drama, I could easily see Meyer something like this to Sternberg:

"Yea, Richie, I know it'll put an end to your scientific career, but think of the brownie points you'll get from God!  We'll also get lots of mileage painting you up as the victim, like we did for Guillermo and Caroline.  Besides you've already quit so I'll hire you once the legal stuff blows over!"

OK, so now you know why I write a blog and not screenplays!

So what we have here is klingy's re-telling of the past, primarily to paint Sternberg as some sort of victim, a status klingy claims for all supporters of ID, regardless of the reality of their stories.  Spinning tales like this may make good press, but it does make it easy to see why the DI's publishings are usually in the Christian Fiction section of a bookstore.  To bad they do not use the same energy and zeal in performing science!