This one campaign still keeps me smiling

Oh Ken. Poor Ken.

Gee willakers, I almost feel bad for the guy...sort of...not really.

Nice to see someone actually concerned about a stir over science.

The Ham-handed cretinist PR is vulnerable.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Soon he will only have his menagerie of animatronic dinosaurs to keep him company :(

Soon he will only have his menagerie of animatronic dinosaurs to keep him company :(

And his prized collection of research material Flinstones dvds.

Fan-F~~kin' Tastic!

That. Is. Too. Cool!

His God, Mammon, will not be pleased.

Happy Monkey indeed.

And when the Cretinist Museum goes out of business, I'll use it as the set for a post-apocalyptic style movie, where the only survivors are rational thinkers.

"Well, fuck me. No wonder the world ended, when they had morons on this scale running around." <-sample dialog

Kinda off topic, but I went to Google News to search for any Ken Ham wackiness (slim pickings: Pharyngula, three Christian news sites, and the drearily named "World Socialist Web Site" -- with that sort of PR, I'm guessing he's welcoming the controversy of being dropped), and I discovered that Google has a new(?) pull-quote feature. Here's Ham's quotes. Utterly boring, but new to me.

Perhaps Ken can sponsor a NASCAR car...
The car could be a Flintstone-mobile, Fred could be the driver, Barney the crew chief, and Dino the mascot (or something.)

Yeah it's late.

-DU-

Fuck Ken Hambone and his fraudulent bullshit Flintstones "museum".

AiG is evil incarnate. Lying to children about how the world works.

Fuck them.

I hear the prominent travel group chose to highlight a roadkill museum instead.

"But it is Shaftingfraud, a mischievous delight in the misfortunes of fraudsters, which remains the best trait in human nature."

Ahh, Nascar and Creation Museum, the perfect redneck holiday..

Sucked in Ken, well done infidels.

Maybe he can get a sticker on the Christmobile

Wow, that's the worst website I've seen in a long time, not just due to the content.

Fuck Ken Hambone and his fraudulent bullshit Flintstones "museum".

AiG is evil incarnate. Lying to children about how the world works.

Fuck them.

What he said.

Ah,hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Super sweet!

Happy Monkey indeed!

PZ, you're like a one-man AiG wrecking crew! Keep it up and before you know it you'll bring the whole organization to its knees!

Ahh yes, NASCAR and Creationism. The perfect storm.

Whiskey, Good Dead tunes and Monkey to all.

Someone got monkeyed in the monkey hole.

Happy Monkey!

The Christmobile needs sponsership for the '09 season? Would they accept a big ol' scarlet "A"?

I got my name on one of those dinosaurs when the creation museum goes belly up.

Humans: up from the apes, or down from the angels: you decide.

Ah, sweet music...

In honor of Ken Ham, here's a repost of Lewis Black's take on the Creation Museum and related topics.

Ha! This made my day and it is only 12:55 in the morning! Thank you PZ!

I wonder how the creation pseudomuseum is doing? Since Ham is crying about some small deals falling through, maybe not so well.

I thought it would do OK. As PT Barnum so correctly stated years ago, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

The problem that I saw was that it was static. Real museums are always bringing outside exhibits or moving things around. Since their creation myth hasn't changed in 4,000 years, what could they add or change to make it a dynamic exhibit space? Once you've seen ancient Jews riding a dinosaur or a T. rex cracking open a coconut once, what would be the point in seeing it again?

They really need to add some additional features. An amusement park with rides. Nightclubs and bars. A replica of Hell. Maybe do some rock concerts. A casino for sure. Got to have a casino.

I checked, Kenny is still a registered teacher here in Queensland. I hope like shit that doesn't mean he's ever thinking of coming back.

Hm. Perhaps we should find out who that 'prominent national travel group' is and send them 'thank you for rejecting nonsense' letters.

I wonder how the creation pseudomuseum is doing? Since Ham is crying about some small deals falling through, maybe not so well.

I think the problem is that the Christians have spent so many years hating and decrying learning that it's inbuilt in Jesus-freaks to shy away from anything that might teach them anything - even if it is a faith-based museum.

FSM I hope he doesn't think about returning to Australia

This Christmas Ham, as yet uncured,
gives pause to question, Why endure

The sad museum Cincy has?
No one can be as silly as

The lack-of-introspection goofs
Who think their nonsense is some proof.

My heart goes out to chili fans
5-way, 3-way, onions sans.

Christmas comes but once a year
But Happy Monkey's always here.

So has anybody thought of visiting the museum dressed as Fred and Wilma? Or are these characters that already wander around the museum, Disney like, as photo ops for the kiddies.

As PT Barnum so correctly stated years ago, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Bartlett's Familiar Quotations attributes that quote to H.L. Mencken, not P.T. Barnum (who's given credit for "There's a sucker born every minute").

RNA replicating solo in a bottle!?!

Wired: Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html

In a nutshell: These people engineered some custom RNA that could replicate itself, if situated in the right soup. Thing is, when they put it in the right soup, it goes apeshit, replicating and mutating and competing and evolving. After not too much time, the originals aren't even represented in the population, which is instead now composed of a variety of mutations, dominated by 3 superior strains.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this to be... HUGE?

RNA replicating solo in a bottle!?!

Wired: Self-Replicating Chemicals Evolve Into Lifelike Ecosystem

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/replicatingrna.html

In a nutshell: These people engineered some custom RNA that could replicate itself, if situated in the right soup. Thing is, when they put it in the right soup, it goes apeshit, replicating and mutating and competing and evolving. After not too much time, the originals aren't even represented in the population, which is instead now composed of a variety of mutations, dominated by 3 superior strains.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find this to be... HUGE?

But see, it still had to have a designer, so that just prooves that goddidit and evilution fails and ID is right, see!11elevenone!!

*goes off to read article*

I hear the prominent travel group chose to highlight a roadkill museum instead.

A geology professor of mine, who is a devout an anti-creationist as they come (my class had the fortune of being scheduled on 12 February on which he brought a cake in honour of Chuck), spent a post-doc putting together a comparison of roadkill and fossilisation as a didactic experiment--they both involve disarticulation, soft tissue decomposition, compressive forces, etc.).

There's nothing anti-scientific about roadkill. Or Dr. Machel for that matter, though both are weird.

Someone should try this:

Find a bunch of kids who are dinosaur freaks. Kids who are well versed in and enthusiastic about learning more of the story of life from a scientific perspective. Shouldn't be hard. Tell them a field trip is afoot; destination: the Creation Museum.

Inform them fully that they may see things in the museum that are silly and not in accord with current understanding. Encourage them to think out loud and talk freely, not too loudly please, about things that they agree or disagree with. Record the visit in as much detail as possible. Distribute widely, including copies to the kids and their schools. Possibly local media.

Sit back and enjoy as Ken Ham earnestly engages children in an argument he has rehearsed rather than studied as he weeps over his gradually dwindling returns.

It is sad, that a man might so invest his talents. It is also undeniably hilarious that he has a following. (In an ominous sort of way.) He gets so many things wrong. Scramble my brain from the get go wrong..

Just ask any twelve-year-old with a brand new dinosaur book.

Bride of Shrek OM - has anyone else noticed that, as initials, that spells BOSOM? Heh heh heh.

Ah, I'm in a strange mood today. I blame the flu-drugs.

Cripes! Now, if you'll all recall, the original event merely involved PZ kicking up a rather minor fuss over what was undoubtedly some overzealous PR flack's modest attempt at blue-sky solutioneering to leverage synergies across multimodal platform domains. Or something.

Point is, it's doubtful there was ever any honest attempt on the Zoo's part to sully its good name by associating it with that carnival fun-house of a Creation "Museum"/Sideshow.

That was over a month ago, and these intellectual giants are still screaming their pious little heads off over the repercussions of what that mean ole atheist did. All over a coupla blog posts. I couldn't enjoy this any more if I tried.

One of the best moments in "Religulous" is when Maher sits in Ham's office at the creation museum,to see the raw hate and murderous anger in the man when Bill asks him about the shit he has on display here is truly priceless.

Wonderful if other people should start to realize that as well.

Wowbagger,

its BoSOM,dont you know that,where are your manners man?

One of the best moments in "Religulous" is when Maher sits in Ham's office at the creation museum,to see the raw hate and murderous anger in the man when Bill asks him about the shit he has on display here is truly priceless.

Damn it, why does he have to be from Queensland? It detracts so much from the world-class, talented banana-benders like Greg Norman, Pat Rafter, Cathy Freeman, Kieran Perkins and Geoffrey Rush.

Monkey Happy people know IDiots not monkey off-spring.

Ken should be grateful, this allows for that oh-so-necessary christian persecution complex. He'd be utterly lost without something to whine about and agonize over.

Damn it, why does he have to be from Queensland? It detracts so much from the world-class, talented banana-benders like Greg Norman, Pat Rafter, Cathy Freeman, Kieran Perkins and Geoffrey Rush.

Uh, he sounds more like the banana-benders everyone with just a minimum of decency despise, starting with Joh Bjelke-Petersen and then the rest of the rotten, corrupt, RELIGIOUS assholes that made QLD the shit-hole it was for anyone half decent.

So when Ham's Folly closes down, what will become of those priceless dinosaur saddles ?

Frame it. No really, put it in a picture frame and stick it on the wall... it's an award.

whee! awesome and funny news just before going to bed. Happy Monkey indeed.

and in other news:

I hear the prominent travel group chose to highlight a roadkill museum instead.

Kseniya wins the thread.

Don't forget this pointless poll, Pharyngulites:

http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/

Humans: up from the apes, or down from the angels: you decide.

Alternatively, we could follow the evidence wherever it leads and leave our personal preferences out of it. Just a thought.

Fastpathguru @ #36:

Wow! That's incredible!

happy monkey right back at ya alls.

Donations to Answers in Genesis are tax-deductible in the United States. I thought that, to qualify for such charitable status, an organization had to demonstrate some sort of value to humanity, or to society, for example educational value. Since AiG uses its money to promote mis-education, actually teaching demonstrable scientific falsehoods, how do they get away with being classified as a tax-free charity? Any lawyers out there, can you explain this? What would be the chances of challenging it in the courts, and trying to get AiG stripped of its tax-deductible status? If such a suit had a realistic chance of success, I would gladly subscribe towards the expense, especially as it might serve as a precedent for attacking other such organizations.

Prof Dawkins,

it is my understanding that I could buy myself a tent now,found the religion of say,the green cricket ball,and receive tax-excempt status in the USA.
I wasnt under the impression it had anything to do with teaching the truth of the green over the red cricket ball,say,or any value of my teachings to humanity.

There should be a few lawyery people around here to answer that question anyway !

I wish it could be done, Richard. AiG is tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3), and this gives a blanket cover to religious organizations, to do pretty much whatever they consider religious.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175418,00.html

But, I am not a lawyer.

Dr. Dawkins,

The qualifications for tax exempt status for an "educational" non-profit are very low, and are probably better defined by what it can't do, endorse candidates. The free speech protections in the US are pretty strong.

To get specific,

I thought that, to qualify for such charitable status, an organization had to demonstrate some sort of value to humanity, or to society, for example educational value.

It makes sense to you and me. But per the IRS:

The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion;

So advancement of religion, in and of itself, is assumed to be charitable. There need be no further demonstration that an organization does something substantive to improve a community.

Now, a lawsuit challenging this presumption would be a beautiful thing. And under the John Roberts court, probably a non-starter.

Right, so it is a fact that AiG is a 501(c)(3) organization, and it qualifies for this simply because it calls itself 'religious'. Evidently, then, what needs to be challenged is the automatic assumption that religion is a sufficient qualification for 501(c)(3) status.

Presumably the historical origins of this anomaly lie in the absurd assumption that religions, by their very nature, do good. This is the assumption that now needs to be challenged. Would the way to challenge it be to bring a test case against a religious organization (AiG might not be the best example of this) where it can clearly be demonstrated that it is NOT doing good? Is the Church of Scientology a tax-exempt organization in USA? The Moonies? Fred Phelps?

I may be wrong, but I think British law was just recently changed by Act of Parliament, in such a way that religious organizations no longer AUTOMATICALLY qualify. I think that, under the new law, religious organizations have to DEMONSTRATE that they do good, just as any non-religious charity has to.

I think the problem is that the Christians have spent so many years hating and decrying learning that it's inbuilt in Jesus-freaks to shy away from anything that might teach them anything - even if it is a faith-based museum.

I think there are three problems with the museum:

1. It's not really located anywhere people might want to go in large numbers. No disrespect intended to the people of Cincinnati, but it's not high on my tourist list.

2. Despite how loud and obnoxious they seem to be, I am not convinced there are enough young-earth creationists to make such an enterprise successful. Once the initial wave of "I have *GOT* to see this" atheists and general "I love a good freak-show" enthusiasts have been through, who's left that would want to see it?

3. Once you've been once, what would draw you back? As someone else said, it's got to be pretty static. Creation bollocks hasn't changed much for a long time.

I volunteer at the Canada Museum of Science and Technology on Saturdays (I operate the amateur radio exhibit). I'm delighted to report that nobody has come in and asked if it's possible to talk to God on the radio, or if prayer works like radio, or any bizarre religion-related / god-magic questions.

Right, so it is a fact that AiG is a 501(c)(3) organization, and it qualifies for this simply because it calls itself 'religious'. Evidently, then, what needs to be challenged is the automatic assumption that religion is a sufficient qualification for 501(c)(3) status.

That's the alpha and omega of it.

Church of Scientology is 501(c)(3), as are the Moonies, under the Young Jin Moon Charitable Foundation. Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church, I can't find on http://www.guidestar.org/ so I'm not sure.

All of these are sure to countersue.

Scientology would not be a smart target, because they have so many secular "works," like their anti-psychiatry campaigns; these would be argued as a substantive contribution to the community. The ideal choice for a test case would be some church that does absolutely nothing with its money except expand its religious ministry and line its ministers' pockets.

This wasn't always a political third rail. Ulysses S. Grant to congress, December 7, 1875:

"I would also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land before the close of the nineteenth century. It is the acquisition of vast amounts of untaxed church property. In 1850, I believe, the church property of the United States, which paid no tax, municipal or state, amounted to about $83,000,000. In 1860 the amount had doubled. In 1875 it is about $1,000,000,000. By 1900, without a check, it is safe to say this property will reach a sum exceeding $3,000,000,000. So vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of government without bearing its proportion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes. In a growing country, where real estate enhances so rapidly with time as in the United States, there is scarcely a limit to the wealth that may be acquired by corporations, religious or otherwise, if allowed to retain real estate without taxation. The contemplation of so vast a property as here alluded to, without taxation, may lead to sequestration without constitutional authority, and through blood. I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation."

Just for fun, AiG's 2006 tax filing:

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/330/596/2006-330596423-03232…

"There's a seeker born every minute."
--Firesign Theater

I think British law was just recently changed by Act of Parliament, in such a way that religious organizations no longer AUTOMATICALLY qualify.

I SO want to emigrate. What's the market like in England for a reasonably good Unix systems person?

Sigh....

JC

Dr. Dawkins,

While I'm not a lawyer, I have looked into the IRS requirements pretty closely and the holes are big enough to drive an oceanliner through.

One problem is with the process of automatic approval of 501(c)(3) status if a church is a member of an umbrella organization, which is probably where Phelps fits in. If the Westboro Baptist church is a member of the national Baptist church organization, all it needs to do to qualify as a 501(c)(3) is file a paper showing that affliation.

The biggest problem though is probably enforcement. There are simply not enough people available in the IRS to investigate every potential abuse of tax-exempt status. The last time I looked at the investigation information on the IRS web-site they showed they were only able to investigate about 50% of the complaints they recieved about churches. And they rarely investigate any 501(c)(3) organizations if they don't get a complaint.

Simply doubling the number of investigators, and allowing them to request independant audits of suspect churches even if there were no complaints, would quickly reduce some of the more obvious abuses.

Keep in mind that even then it would be hard for a church to lose its tax-exempt status. For a first offense it would probably be a warning to stop abusing the law. If that is ignored, fines would be levied. Removal of the tax-exempt status would be way down the list of actions taken.

The reasons for this are more political than legal. The idea that churches shouldn't be subject to taxation (even though they are subject to a certain amount of taxation even under the 501(c)(3) rules) is quite firmly embedded in the American consciousness. Any rescinding of their 501(c)(3) status would meet with general outrage unless the abuse is clear to the meanest intelligence.

Evolving Squid@61:

QCX? QRG CMST?

73

N4FFD. kn

Presumably this "prominent national travel group" is the AAA? They ended their national NASCAR sponsorship in 2008.

It might be useful for members to contact them and reinforce their concerns about being associated with Ken. His supporters (which for the sake of argument I take not to be the empty set) may be doing the opposite.

Why does God hate Ken Ham?

Not kosher, that's why.

Presumably this "prominent national travel group" is the AAA? They ended their national NASCAR sponsorship in 2008.

"Prominent national travel group" - former NASCAR sponsorship - membership cards for discounts... the number of possibilities is limited.

Well, this is gonna make Animatronic Baby Jesus cry, that's fersure.

I think British law was just recently changed by Act of Parliament, in such a way that religious organizations no longer AUTOMATICALLY qualify.

I SO want to emigrate. What's the market like in England for a reasonably good Unix systems person?

Well, there have been a lot of jobs lost, now that Unix is no longer qualified as a charitable...

Is today the day for orthodox Happy Monkey? It's not marked on my calendar. Ziggy aparently just doesn't understand.

Awesome. Poor Ham! That decision shows surprisingly good judgment on the part of AAA, but if it moves you to want to re-join and send them a Happy Monkey card, remember that they are one of the largest anti-environmental lobbies in the USA, opposing various environmental regulations as well as mass transit and other non-car modes like biking. Other organizations like Better World use largely the same tow truck network but don't hate on the planet.

For the record, a group doesn't need to be religiously religious to be a 501(c)(3). For instance, the New York City Atheists group (...whose website I've been promising to redesign for a while) fits in that category.

From the Internal Revenue Service:

"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

(emphasis mine; those are the areas a atheist/humanist/bright/etc. group can fall under.)

. Evidently, then, what needs to be challenged is the automatic assumption that religion is a sufficient qualification for 501(c)(3) status.

wouldn't that be great. it's wishful thinking at this point though, seeing as it's currently not even possible to get "In God We Trust" off the money and "under God" out of the pledge, and seeing as the Mormon church is getting away with their Prop 8 promo (which is technically against the rules and they should lose their status).

test. There haven't been any updates to the page for more than a day. Supposedly it is back on line, but there are no new stories or new comments.

Dan,

the page only went back to active a little while ago,and its 2am in the morning blogtime,so PZ wont have anything here for a few hours I assume,unless he has scheduled something before he went to bed.Comments are definetely back.

was it a print subscription? how many copies per year?

Ha ha ha ha, it brings a smile here also. AAA will discount the largest ball of twine, but not the Creation (anti)Museum.!