Sunday, December 16, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Creationists plan British theme park

by Observer UK

Thanks to John Allison for the link.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2228201,00.html

Creationists plan British theme park

A business trust is looking at sites for a Christian showplace to challenge the theory of evolution

The latest salvo in creationism's increasingly ferocious battle with evolution is about to be fired in Lancashire. Not in a fiery sermon preached from the pulpit, but in the form of a giant Christian theme park that will champion the book of Genesis and make a multi-media case that God created the world in seven days.

The AH Trust, a charity set up last year by a group of businessmen alarmed by the direction in which they see society heading, has identified a number of potential sites in the north west of England to build the £3.5m Christian theme park.

The trust claims it already has a number of rich backers who are keen to invest in the project, which will boast two interactive cinemas, a cafeteria, six shops and a television recording studio, allowing it to produce its own Christian-themed films and documentaries.

The 5,000-capacity park will be the first of its kind in Britain, but not in the world. In Orlando, Florida, hundreds of thousands of visitors make pilgrimages to the Holy Land Experience, where they can see a bloodied Jesus forced to carry his cross by snarling Roman soldiers.

Peter Jones, one of the Lancashire theme park's trustees, said the emphasis would be on multimedia rather than the costume re-enactments of famous biblical scenes favoured at Holy Land. 'It will be a halfway house for youngsters,' Jones said. 'Today all they do is binge drink. We will be able to offer them an alternative.'

By producing its own films, the trust believes it will be able to provide an antidote to modern culture. It says on its website: 'On television today there is so much sex and violence, it is no wonder our youth are binge drinking ... This is a revolutionary scheme requiring innovative people with the vision to bring about change and a new direction.'

It declined to say who the backers were, but admitted it is talking to a number of businessmen who have invested in city academies, leading to speculation that it may have approached Sir Peter Vardy, who has given millions of pounds to advance the claims of creationism - the belief that God created the world and that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong.

While the plans for the park are still in their infancy, the trust has big ambitions. A business plan available to prospective investors suggests the park could bring in £4.8m a year - apparently 10 times its estimated overhead costs.

The trust also says it plans to apply for government grants and European funding to help it realise its dream of turning the television studio into 'an international leader in promoting family-oriented Christian programmes'.

Although concerns about the direction of modern society are the trust's main motivation for building the theme park, it is also in response to what the trustees identify as a sense of drift within the Church of England.

'The church in this country is in crisis and many church leaders living in Australia, America and Canada have openly proclaimed that God has left the church in England,' the trust states on its website.

'Evolution has falsely become the foundation of our society and we need the television studio to advocate Genesis across this land in order to remove this falsehood, which presently is destroying the church foundation.'

The theme park's anti-evolution bias and its emphasis on Genesis has raised eyebrows among planning officials, according to Jones, who originally wanted to build the park at the site of an old B&Q store but was refused permission by the council.

'Wigan council slammed the door in our faces. You mention the C [Christian] word, and people don't want to know,' Jones said.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 101 - 150 of 180 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

101. Comment #99446 by Diacanu on December 16, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Re: fatcitymax, post 86-

Awww, gee willikers, leave the poor persecuted christians alone.
They just want to undermine science, and rewind human progress, and have people live in drooling retard ignorance.
It makes them feel all sparkly inside, you big meanies.

Hock, ptoooey!! B(

Other Comments by Diacanu

102. Comment #99449 by rev on December 16, 2007 at 5:11 pm

fatcitymax, been posting on this site once or twice, but being the working class ignorant uneducated sort i am, lol . i have decided the only way to reach, for us, as in us the uneducated is speak and dam the ridicule lol.so here i am. and i agree let who ever they are , put up and show what ever they want, but woo betide them not being criticized for there stupidity and ignorance's. argue and debate bye all means , but argue to learn and never to win.at least in our defeate of this we gain knoledge .

Other Comments by rev

103. Comment #99450 by rev on December 16, 2007 at 5:13 pm

and im on the wine so keep off the spelling ?

Other Comments by rev

104. Comment #99451 by home8896 on December 16, 2007 at 5:16 pm

rev... well thanks for that hearty laugh, if nothing else - and really someone should get you the "life lesson" statuette from Discovery/TLC with the caption that says something about wine and the internet not mixing.

Other Comments by home8896

105. Comment #99452 by rev on December 16, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Diacanu, hi dude, always agree with most of your post`s . 1.25 in the UK, to much talking and family tonight but hay, we move ever froward. night and sleep well .

Other Comments by rev

106. Comment #99453 by the great teapot on December 16, 2007 at 5:19 pm

That's the nouveau working class for you.
Wine? wht's the world coming to. Beer too good for the working classes these days.

Other Comments by the great teapot

107. Comment #99454 by The Architect on December 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm

In a way I have to admire Christian fundamentalists, as it must take a lot of dedication and stamina to block out all forms of logic and reasoning for so long.

Other Comments by The Architect

108. Comment #99455 by rev on December 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm

hay home8896 i totally agree x

Other Comments by rev

109. Comment #99456 by rev on December 16, 2007 at 5:24 pm

lol it was,a long time ago in a galaxy far far away , but , the great teapot, but wine is so cheap now days , compared to a bottle off ....... the red stuff.

Other Comments by rev

110. Comment #99457 by theantitheist on December 16, 2007 at 5:36 pm

The last bit about the foundations of the church of England been eaten away made me laugh! We're getting somewhere people!!

I am of two minds actually as to whether it's a good thing or bad thing.

Good Thing - They will lose money and it will be treated as a joke, only damaging the creationist cause further. Plus let's face it, if you build it in somewhere like Wigan you will have some scum (i'm from Bury, i know the area) writing shit all over it and people breaking in just to trash it for kicks, further making it a joke.

Bad thing - It will maybe sway the minds of children who were realising that there parents were wrong into believing them. Even one or two good kids lost to the world and being brainwashed into "I did not come from a monkey!! and if i did why are there still Monkey!! (I came across this one again yesterday and at the end of it had a Nun doubting her believes, KUDOS to me !!) is a waste and will futher add some credibility to the cause.

But good on Wigan anyhow for slamming the door in there face, hopefully it will carry on, not only for this time of joke but for churches, mosques, temples and golden cows.

Other Comments by theantitheist

111. Comment #99458 by rev on December 16, 2007 at 5:42 pm

theantitheist, Bury is a great place is shh, not as good as Manchester as a whole but none the less good. your eloquence is agreeable and almost profound, so i bid you a sober good night in agreement lol.

Other Comments by rev

112. Comment #99460 by the great teapot on December 16, 2007 at 5:46 pm

rev
GO TO BED.
(lol)

Other Comments by the great teapot

113. Comment #99462 by rev on December 16, 2007 at 5:48 pm

the great teapot, my foot is on the first step or is it the third hik up, night

Other Comments by rev

114. Comment #99465 by Psythor on December 16, 2007 at 5:50 pm

This isn't the same Peter Jones from Dragons Den is it?

Other Comments by Psythor

115. Comment #99467 by phasmagigas on December 16, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Then why don't you Brits institute separation of church and state? (Hint: it's tradition)

i went to a CoE primary school in the UK, daily hymns and prayers and then compulsory religious (comparative)education right through to being 16 leaves you taking religion non to seriously, i suspect my exposure to religion is preferable to non atall in school than having it evangelised to me as could happen in the USA. religion in the USA is oprahfied, people are so confident in looking like they are on prozac shouting 'believe' and 'joy', the brits generally just arent into that shit.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

116. Comment #99470 by Goldy on December 16, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Brian, methinks old Neil suspects something...

I'm not sure where the flury of skeptics came from today, but I wanted to give you a few suggestions.

http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/

Other Comments by Goldy

117. Comment #99471 by Dutchie on December 16, 2007 at 6:03 pm

This is, from a financial point of view, disgusting.

If Vardy is a backer, then no doubt some of his money is that left over from the funds given to him by New Labour in order to fund Creation Lience.

In other words, taxpayers' money is being used to fund scientific lies - and worse, in a private, non-Gvt. enterprise.

Worse, they are after DIRECT funding from the British Government and the European Governments too.

We need to contact the EU forewarning them of this (preferably with an attached petition). Does anyone know how to directly contact the EU? What is the relevant office in this case?

Other Comments by Dutchie

118. Comment #99491 by atheist_peace on December 16, 2007 at 7:22 pm

A charitable trust to set up a theme park and television studio? Why does Britain still allow religious organisations automatic charitable status?

Other Comments by atheist_peace

119. Comment #99493 by robotaholic on December 16, 2007 at 7:41 pm

What you people don't realize is that even if they are empty, large empty religious buildings are a monstrocity.

Other Comments by robotaholic

120. Comment #99501 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Does not seem that happy to debate, does he? He has a strange definition of the word "hostile", meaning almost anyone who puts forward any serious challenges.

Other Comments by steve99

121. Comment #99506 by silverlight on December 16, 2007 at 11:14 pm

and what's next? christian disneyland?

Other Comments by silverlight

122. Comment #99509 by Diacanu on December 16, 2007 at 11:47 pm

The way Disney caters to the family values crowd, it pretty much already is.

Other Comments by Diacanu

123. Comment #99511 by scottishgeologist on December 17, 2007 at 12:11 am

Just hada thought, and if you think it is pish, then shoot it down...

Maybe this is some sort of "kite flying" exercise - you know, suggest something without it being totally serious, just to see what the reaction is.

And if it looks like a total lamer, then drop it and quickly move on, no big fuss, no great PR disaster, no great waste of time.

On the other hand, if the idea attracts a lot of positive interest and decent promises of funding, then re-frame it with a serious professional business plan and PR exercise.

Of course, this guy might just be an atheist winding everyone up!

:-)

SG

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

124. Comment #99512 by Communist on December 17, 2007 at 12:16 am

theantitheist wrote among other things:

Good Thing - They will lose money and it will be treated as a joke, only damaging the creationist cause further. Plus let's face it, if you build it in somewhere like Wigan you will have some scum (i'm from Bury, i know the area) writing shit all over it and people breaking in just to trash it for kicks, further making it a joke.

I have seen this sort of reasoning before, and I think it is a dangerous underestimation of the opponents. Here is a possible outcome:
* 1. The theme park opens.
* 2. The majority laughs and ridicules.
* 3. The laughter gradually dies down.
* 4. The theme park goes on, with a steady trickle of believers.
* 5. Believers establish a compromise with surrounding society, siphoning off a steady amount of tax payer's money or tourist incomes.

We should have in mind that the true believers have an impressive endurance, and that when it comes to tactics and incremental moves, they may suddenly act in very smart ways.

Other Comments by Communist

125. Comment #99518 by Philip1978 on December 17, 2007 at 12:49 am

'It will be a halfway house for youngsters,' Jones said. 'Today all they do is binge drink. We will be able to offer them an alternative.'

Sorry, but I would rather kids binge drink!!

On television today there is so much sex and violence, it is no wonder our youth are binge drinking

huh?

Sex and violence on the TV has bugger all to do with binge drinking, I haven't met a single kid whose motivation to go out on a bender was thinking to themselves "Well, after a good day's watching sex and violence that's it, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOZE!"

I hate it went religious folk do this, making sex out to be wrong etc when we are talking about a bloody theme park? (Well, ok the Bible does contain scenes of graphic violence and shed loads of sex - I take it nobody has pointed that out to them?) I hate this thinly disguised message that has nothing to do with the actual message they are wanting to put out, like as Diacanu said, stuff that undermines science and prods us back towards the dark ages - We don't want kids actually learning anything valuable!

Perhaps if kids had something better to do than hear all this drivel they might actually learn to stop binge drinking because of the dangers involved?

Now, where's that wine, its 8:48 in the morning :)!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

126. Comment #99528 by irate_atheist on December 17, 2007 at 2:01 am

What a bunch of dickwads.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

127. Comment #99531 by tangerine_tree on December 17, 2007 at 2:10 am

a theme park is about right for this sort of thing

lets keep the museums for the proper stuff.

Other Comments by tangerine_tree

128. Comment #99533 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 2:15 am

Even though I don't think this proposed project will come to anything, or that it can possibly thrive even if it does, there are some serious points in this story, and lessons to us atheists and pro-scientists too.

Firstly, by definition "evangelical" means "spreading the message". These people are motivated to spread their message to people who haven't heard it before. If this entails huge building projects and drumming up vast amounts of corporate and government funding to do it with, they will do it. They are prepared to work damn hard and take huge financial risks in order to get their message across - and they are also constantly looking for NEW ways of doing so.

Are we prepared to be just as committed and just as persistent and just as inventive when it comes to promoting NON-supernatural explanations for "life, the universe and everything"?

Just complaining when the creationists try to promote their worldview is nowhere near enough. Somehow - and I don't have the answers here - we need to find positive ways of getting reality across to more people.

Communist referred to the problem of the proposed Creationist theme park attracting tourist money. Given that tourists are (rightly) free to spend their money on anything they want provided it's legal, it seems to me that the only way to deal with this is to embark on a long-term project of promoting science - and a sceptical, rational approach - to the masses, thereby making such "attractions" less attractive. And I do mean "promoting science", not "bashing religion".

There must be ways of doing this and I'd really love to hear people's thoughts, ideas, and suggestions. Just a pointer: when it comes to creating new strategies, you have to start from the premiss that everything is possible. Once we've got some ideas that inspire us, THEN is the time to start thinking about how they'd be funded and all the other practical challenges.

Anyone?

Other Comments by Northern Bright

129. Comment #99536 by Roger Stanyard on December 17, 2007 at 2:37 am

The Wigan theme park plan involved public money which gives everyone in the UK the right to object to it. AH Trust is looking for public sector grants for its plans.

Moreover it is registered with the Charity Commission but at the same time is offering a competitive commercial rate of return for investing in the project. That means it looks to be in serious breach of Charity Commission rules - it is eiher a charity or a commercial operation and as it is heavily promoting its ability to generate profits and hand them out to investors, it is not, as far as I can make out, a charity.

Methinks that people in this group need to write to the Charity Commission (and to their MPs and European MPs) to complain. You may also want to write to HM Revenue and Customs.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

130. Comment #99540 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 2:53 am

The Wigan theme park plan involved public money which gives everyone in the UK the right to object to it. AH Trust is looking for public sector grants for its plans.

Agreed. Does anyone know what public sector grants might be applicable in this case? There may be scope for lodging protests direct with the grant-giving bodies too.

The public sector will sometimes award grants for such projects if there is an economic development case for doing so - if it will generate significant employment in an unemployment blackspot, for instance.

Clearly the construction WOULD generate considerable employment, but equally clearly it's hard to envisage subsequent employment - of staff at the park - not being offered on a discriminatory basis. I can't see too many atheists being offered jobs there.

So that might be potential grounds for objection. Equally, the case that public money should not be used for the promotion as fact of myths that have been shown by every single branch of science to be demonstrably untrue.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

131. Comment #99543 by stephenray on December 17, 2007 at 3:10 am

Quote Northern Bright:

"Is it just me, or is this a spectacular non sequitur?"

That's what I was thinking. It's when there's *no* sex or violence on TV that I think about getting drunk...

Other Comments by stephenray

132. Comment #99544 by mjwemdee on December 17, 2007 at 3:11 am

Please, why do we keep referring to these misguided people as 'true' believers? Is it just a figure of speech?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

133. Comment #99547 by stephenray on December 17, 2007 at 3:12 am

Generally, what I'd like to know is this.

Where do I object to these pillocks getting any type of public funding? Fair enough if woo-woo mudwit rich businessmen want to waste their money on it, but there are far more important things for European and English grant money to be spent on.

Especially when, for example, arts funding has just been told to get ready for serious cuts.

Other Comments by stephenray

134. Comment #99550 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 3:28 am

Comments like this really annoy me. They are so blinkered. If you consider the Sun and the Dail Mail as gospel, then you might think that every under-16 in the country was skipping school and roaming the streets with bottles of cider in hand, but its simply not true. Most children go about their business of growing up without too much fuss and gain some good qualifications along the way.

To suggest that Britain offers no alternative to binge drinking other than Christianity is frankly offensive.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

135. Comment #99553 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 3:37 am

Our aim is to give youngsters an opportunity to learn to play music, perform on
stage, train as cameramen, lighting engineers, sound engineers, video editors,
videographers and ENG operators, and we believe that this unique project will
influence an end to binge drinking. We have the fund raising in place, and we
have the design and technology.

I've just looked at the AH Trust website and found this quote, and have realised that it's far more than a theme park they're planning here. The ideas they've come up with are actually really good - I'm sure loads of youngsters would be keen to get involved with activities like these. So I'm a lot more worried now, since it's perfectly obvious that they'd come with more than a side-serving of full-on evangie fundamentalist Christianity.

This reinforces the point I made earlier about the inventiveness and sheer commitment of these people. Where are the secular alternatives? How ELSE could youngsters get involved with appealing, interesting, exciting activities like the ones planned for the Creationist centre?

We HAVE to get wise to the tactics that the fundies are using, and we HAVE to find even better ways of getting to these youngsters.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

136. Comment #99560 by notsobad on December 17, 2007 at 3:53 am

Who cares as long as they don't get a cent or tax exemption from the government.

Also, what ever happened to "You shall not make for yourself an idol?"

Other Comments by notsobad

137. Comment #99561 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 3:54 am

The point about there not being a theme park on Holocaust Denial - or perhaps one on the merits of slavery - is because people would NOT stand for it.

Agreed. We wouldn't allow a combat 18 themepark which had a great deal of educational and recreational value, but which also sought to push racism on to children. Creationists teach preposterous stories and are virtually all homophobes, and therefore need to be stopped.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

138. Comment #99565 by Northern Bright on December 17, 2007 at 4:20 am

Flashback! This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I heard people say in the early 80s here in the US! "Oh, they'll just go away" or "Why are you so worried? Let them have their fun, no one pays attention" (all the while accusing me of over-reacting).

That's interesting, Beth. I've been under the impression that large swathes of the US have ALWAYS been under the spell of fundamentalist Christianity. Are you really saying that it's just been in the last 25 years or so? Was fundamentalism really not a major factor prior to the early 80s? I'm not challenging you - I'm genuinely curious and don't know the answer myself. Can anyone else shed any light on this?

Why do we tolerate this form of bigotry? Oh yes, because even atheists seem to fall under the spell of 'Well, its religion so we'll tolerate it'

Well, speaking for myself, I certainly don't subscribe to the view that religion should get an easy ride on such matters. Absolutely not.

The only reason I'd be happy to see this theme park go ahead would be if it were to fail - which I would fully expect it to do if it were really just the kind of visitor attraction (sic) that it sounded to be from the Observer article. Even then, I would oppose any public money going into it whatsoever.

Having since realised that they're more ambitious than this, I am much more worried about it. But I think we have to do much more than just protest (though we have to do that too, of course) - somehow we secularists have to find something positive to put in its place.

When I was growing up every village had a youth club and every town had several. Most of them, I daresay, were church-provided, though I was never aware of any preachiness about the one I went to. Today's youngsters no doubt wouldn't be as tempted as we were by the delights of a ping pong table and beakers of orange squash - something rather more adventurous would no doubt be required. But the point is, the church did at least provide something for us. What is there these days? The church has always had a strong community-binding role and, much as I delight in the decline in religiosity, I don't delight in the decline in community spirit that has also happened.

There is a huge need, it seems to me, for things - activities, places - that bind communities together. And the fundies have recognised this and are prepared to do something about it - whilst pushing their beliefs at the same time, of course.

So long as there are no secular alternatives for this sort of thing, there will always be those who view schemes such as the Christian Theme Park as a good thing, simply because they give youngsters something useful and constructive and engaging to do.

I can well imagine that youngsters who got engrossed in learning how to make films might find binge-drinking and other anti-social activities less appealing as a result. But because the film-making (etc) is being provided in the context of religious brain-washing, the fundies will declare any decline in anti-social behaviour that results to be the work of God. Whereas in fact, it will be just the result of the youngsters having something constructive and fun to do with their time.

I'm just afraid we're missing a trick here. Could it be that one of the best ways to keep the younger generation safe from religious influence is to never mention religion at all but to focus on providing the positive things that - at present - it's only really the religious who have spotted the opportunity for.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

139. Comment #99569 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 17, 2007 at 4:40 am

120. Comment #99501 by steve99 on December 16, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Brian, methinks old Neil suspects something...

Does not seem that happy to debate, does he? He has a strange definition of the word "hostile", meaning almost anyone who puts forward any serious challenges.

Indeed, it's a bit rich to be "moderated" after 10 or 15 exchanges, and nary a naughty word to be seen:-) I guess by hostile, he means "unwilling to accept religious pap without question." Still, I've seen worse, Neil is actually fairly intellectual in his approach.

Perhaps we should conduct such "raiding parties" more often, the internet is infested with these smug self righteous blogs. Even if the authors remain unconvinced, no harm in their audience hearing a few alternate arguments?

I sent yourself and Goldy a PM. Apologies all for the hopelessly off topic content by the way ... it just sort of happened.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

140. Comment #99577 by steve99 on December 17, 2007 at 5:16 am

Perhaps we should conduct such "raiding parties" more often, the internet is infested with these smug self righteous blogs. Even if the authors remain unconvinced, no harm in their audience hearing a few alternate arguments?

Yes, I think that is a neat idea. We could make use of my irritating politeness. That really seemed to get on that chap's nerves.

Ironically, he send me an e-mail to tell me he was not talking to me any more.

Other Comments by steve99

141. Comment #99579 by Clapton_is_God on December 17, 2007 at 5:32 am

"I wonder if Alister Mcgrath will do the opening ceremony and ribbon-cutting?"

To be fair, McGrath is not a fundy and would not subscribe to such creationist silliness.

Melanie Philips would be a whole lot more appropriate ribbon cutter.

Other Comments by Clapton_is_God

142. Comment #99581 by irate_atheist on December 17, 2007 at 5:38 am

To be fair, McGrath is not a fundy and would not subscribe to such creationist silliness.

I suppose that would depend upon one's definition of a 'fundamentalist' and precisely what the definition of 'Creationism' is.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

143. Comment #99582 by Peacebeuponme on December 17, 2007 at 5:42 am

Steve99 and Briancoughlanworldcitizen

Just went over to the site and saw a few of your posts. Great stuff chaps. It would be good you could organise a time and a chosen theist site, so that a bunch of us could go over there and deluge it for a bit. Even though most of the fun would be winding the theists up, there may be a few who get something positive out of a bit of rationality.

Actually, I'd like to see Josh link a few sites here. That way whenever someone has a bit of time they could visit and get involved. May it could be the "Muddy-thinking stagnant pool" corner?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

144. Comment #99585 by Diacanu on December 17, 2007 at 5:51 am

Well, if McGrath believes in the doctrine of inerrancy as I heard he does, then he damned well better be a creationist!
How can the Bible be inerrant, and yet Genesis isn't literal?
Tch, probably some slippery obscurantist bullshit argument.
The kind that pour out of him like a ruptured sewer pipe anyway.

Other Comments by Diacanu

145. Comment #99586 by paulifa1 on December 17, 2007 at 6:10 am

Although I don't think for a minute we should be complacent about these born again nutters, I can't see this ever happening here, whereas most xtian types in the states are creationist loons, this just isn't the case in the UK, apart from a minority of born agains, most churchgoers in the UK will think this is just as mad as we do, and the opposition to it will be from all sides including the good old church of england.

Another interesting point though, I think, is this type of evangelical behavior creates more Atheists/Agnostics than born again xtians, as it gets all the church of england moderates, who go to church for the warm and fuzzy "be good to each other" type sermon, that our local kind vicar preaches, as I used to do to(and my wife still likes to:( ) actually think about just what it is they are subsribing to with the xtian faith. The end result in many cases must be losing thier faith altogether.

A case in point is Ken Hams arguaments that if you don't take Genesis seriously and literally, the whole basis of the xtian faith including the new testament is undermined and falls apart, what he doesn't realise though, is that he is working for our cause, as when you analyse this, he is absolutely right, but I expect in most cases, (including mine) this leads to the conclusion it is all absolute rubbish! as opposed to what he actually desires, ie. conversion.

Or maybe I'm too optimistic?

Other Comments by paulifa1

146. Comment #99589 by Flagellant on December 17, 2007 at 6:19 am

I like the idea of adding some zest to sites that, er, don't quite agree with us. I thrill at the thought of someone's chagrin after being 'politessed' to death by Steve99 :-) ...

However, organised trips, especially from an RD thread, invite retaliation in kind. It's always interesting to see some Christian hard man try his luck with us. They'll always get trashed, of course, but if we get too many it may disrupt serious discussion of issues such as manifestations of The Wedge Strategy exemplified by this delightful theme park.

Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

147. Comment #99592 by thirdchimpanzee on December 17, 2007 at 6:28 am

Comment #99575 by Beth

Thanks for the insight there - it certainly seems that my American friends are generally unaware of the extent of the rot. Their concepts are still rooted in the US of the 1970's, and I think that's probably the case for most moderates in this country. It's really hard for them to imagine that a religious coup d'etat is being attempted.

This same group of people have a hard time accepting the data showing over 40% of their fellow citizens believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. When shown the data (like the Science survey of August 2006)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125653.700

too many will defend the status quo as a matter of personal belief - something America is supposed to support.

When four GOP candidates for President (including the two front runners) - can proudly put up their hand and declare they don't believe in evolution, and not be laughed off the podium, there's more wrong than just a stealth campaign by the religious right.

It should be as ludicrous to reject the obvious data of evolution (which is not a belief but a set of observable facts - Natural Selection is the theory) as it would be to reject the data that the Earth is round and not flat. The challenge before us is to come up with some really simple observation that would seem obvious to any one, and would cause them to think twice about dismissing the evolutionary relationship between living things.

For example - why are there no animals with backbones that have 6 limbs? You can certainly imagine lots of advantages to having six limbs (four for running, two for grappling prey), and mythical creature like Centaurs had six limbs. So in a designer world you would think that at least one of these kinds of animals (to use the Biblical terminology) might reasonably be designed with an extra pair of limbs.

But we don't EVER see a vertebrate with six limbs (except for development mistakes) - not now, or in the fossil record. Evolution provides an answer, creationism has no answer.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

148. Comment #99594 by epeeist on December 17, 2007 at 6:30 am

Comment #99589 by Flagellant

I like the idea of adding some zest to sites that, er, don't quite agree with us.

Can anyone remember the URL for Ruhts blog...

Other Comments by epeeist

149. Comment #99602 by joeyoap on December 17, 2007 at 6:56 am

What scares me the most isn't the idea of the theme park but the fact that these people are already peddling the creation myth in our schools and trying to pass it off as science.

Other Comments by joeyoap

150. Comment #99603 by irate_atheist on December 17, 2007 at 6:58 am

150. Comment #99592 by thirdchimpanzee -