By: DAVID RICE
Re: PALUXY CLAIMS!
* Originally By: Len Flank
* Originally To: Shelby Sherman
* Originally Re: PALUXY CLAIMS!
* Original Area: EVOLUTION
* Forwarded by : Blue Wave v2.11
SS>Well the ICR is STILL actively lieing. When I was at the ICR, I
SS>picked up the September copy of _Acts & Facts_.
Here's another recent lie by ICR:
In the January 1996 issue of Acts and facts, the ICR's monthly
newsletter, the following small article appeared:
"TULSA ZOO REMOVES EVOLUTION EXHIBIT"
Tulsa architect Dan Hicks, supported by a petition signed by
2000 area residents, plus a scientifically conducted poll showing
that over 2/3 of the city's population believed the zoo should not
promote evolution, was able recently to persuade city officials
to remove exhibits depicting horse evolution and human evolution
from display at the zoo. Hicks and his co-workers credited the
influence of ICR materials with playing a significant part in
this action and also suggested that citizens in other communities
could undertake similar projects."
However, when I wrote to the Tulsa Zoo to ask about this, I
found that things were not at all as the ICR was attempting to
paint them. A copy of a memo dated January 8, 1996, was sent
to me. It reads:
"RECOLLECTION FROM THE 1995 ORIGINS ENCOUNTER:
Early in 1995, a private citizen (and member of Tulsa Zoo
Friends) by the name of Dan Hicks approached the Zoo staff with
requests that some Zoo signage be modified. He stated that he
was offended by some text, and confounded by that fact that said
text contradicted beliefs that he had instilled in his child at
home. He specified (a) graphic reference to a common ancestor
for chimps and man; (b) 'straight-line evolution' as represented
by Equus models in one of our displays; (c) another display's
reference to the age of the Cosmos. He offered to replace some
of the signage at his own expense, as well to provide a
'disclaimer' attesting to the 'non-factual' nature of
evolutionary 'theories'. He was thanked for his interest and
input, assured that some thought woul dbe given to his comments
about horse evolution, and told that his offer to provide new
signage at his own expense would not be necessary.
During the next six months, Dan frequently wrote to me and others
with the same basic requests. He appealed to ZooFriends'
Executive Director and President, the Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department, the Chairman of the Park Board, City
Council persons, and the Mayor of Tulsa. Many letters of protest
were received from private citizens; most of these were based
on a form letter, and many seemed to be affiliated with
fundamentalist churches in our area. Letters were written to the
editors of local newspapers as well. Petitions were submitted
with up to 2,000 signatures; to my knoweldge, these were not
prepared or conducted by an independent agency. Our City's
population is about 380,000; the metropolitan area is 745,000,
and I am unaware of a 'scientifically conducted poll'
representing two-thirds of either population number.
In September, City and PArk officials met with Dan Hicks and his
associate to discuss their concerns. Although we did not feel
it was appropriate to honor all of his requests, we did agree
to the following: (a) to place a sign at the Zoo's entry which
states, 'There are many views on the origin of biological species
and their behaviors. The information that accompanies our
displays is based on compelling evidence of the natural sciences.
Because scientific knowledge is subject to change, these displays
may be revised as new informatin becomes available.' (b) to
reword one line of signage from our chimp exhibit from
'Scientific blood tests show that chimpanzees are man's closest
biological relative, branching off from a common ancestor
about 6 million years ago' to 'Scientific blood tests, including
DNA analysis, show a biological similarity between chimps and
people'. (c) to modify the exhibit on Equus ancestry to more
completely reflect current sicentiifc thought, using the writings
of Dr. Bruce McFadden.
Although Mr Hicks volunteered to work with us on copy for the
latter modification, we declined his offer. The general tone
of our meeting expressed a need for sensitivity to the beliefs
of different groups, but confirmed that established scientific
principles could not be ignored or watered-down."
David G. Zucconi, Director
Tulsa Zoo and Living Museum
In a personal note to me, Director Zucconi says:
"Lenny--thanks for your letter; it made my day! As you can see
from this 'recollection', we did not remove any exhibits nor
turn our backs on basic biological information. We are trying
to avoid an 'in-your-face' attitude (this is, after all, the
Bible Belt), but not at the expense of objective interpretation
of data. The City (Mayor et al) has been supportive and
helpful. Your interest and support is appreciated."
A letter I sent to ICR, asking them to provide the name,
methodology and results of the person who conducted their
"scientifically conducted poll" (as well as asking them bluntly
why their Acts and Facts article claims that exihibits and
displays were removed when in fact they had not been) has so
far gone unanswered. Hmmm.
It therefore appears that nearly every sentence in the ICR's
newsletter article was blatantly untrue. There was no
"scientifically conducted poll" done by ICR or anybody else.
The Zoo did NOT remove any exhibits depicting horse and human
evolution. In fact, the distinct impression given by the
Zoo is that they cosnidered the cretinists to be a huge
pain in the neck, and wished they would just go away. They
apparently dealt with the ICR's minions by politely brushing
them off and making a few cosmetic changes.
If one were cynical, one would suppose that the ICR's inaccurate
story concerning this "victory" was deliberate, with the
unacknowledged goals of (1) rallying the cretinist troops ("see,
we won this time!"), (2) making sure those donations to ICR keep
coming in ("we can win elsewhere too") and (3) encouraging
other supporters to get out there and fight for the Lord. Thus,
ICR's newsletter article can best be viewed as a flat-out
falsehood which was told in order to keep those checks coming.
How typically creationist.