HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary - Jun 11, 2005 - Printable Version
- It's All Happening at the Zoo
by Robin Buckallew
Have you ever noticed how, when Oklahoma makes the national news, you can be sure it will be either embarrassing or tragic? When we elected Tom Coburn to the United States Senate in November, I began in earnest to practice my best embarrassed face, and I've found several occasions since he began his term to put it to use. Fortunately, thanks to a decision yesterday by the City of Tulsa Parks and Recreation, Oklahomans will not have to face the certain embarrassment that would have come by letting Kansas get the jump on us in regard to creationism. Let the word be spread - Oklahoma is winner, and still champ. We have cut them off at the pass. The City Zoo, a taxpayer funded institution devoted to the presentation of scientific fact, will now contain an exhibit detailing the Biblical account of creation, occurring in six days, with the seventh day devoted to a day of rest for the Creator, God. This controversy began in 1996, and has culminated in a favorable ruling (3-1) by Parks and Recreation, in spite of protest and testimony from the zoo management, as well as members of both the local scientific and religious communities. The city of Tulsa is destined to become the next eye of the evolution-creation storm that has been brewing in the heartland of this country for the past century and a half. Cheers, everyone, we're in the national news again! Break out the champagne and celebrate, as the AP prints the story that did not appear in this morning's edition of The Tulsa World. As I indicated, this controversy originated in 1996, when a citizen of Tulsa, Oklahoma by the name of Dan Hicks approached the zoo staff to complain about some of the zoo exhibits and signs. He indicated that the signs were annoying to him, as they contradicted the beliefs he had been working to instill in his child, who was a frequent visitor to the zoo, enjoying the exhibits of exotic animals from all over the world. His specific complaint referred to exhibits dealing with the scientific theory of evolution, particularly exhibits referring to our close relationship to the other primates (from here on referred to as "chimps"), the ancient age of the Cosmos, and an exhibit on the evolution of the horse that presented a "straight-line" theory of evolution. In the last complaint, he was on very good scientific ground, as more recent discoveries have indicated that the evolution of Equus is much more complex than this simple presentation of it would indicate. Hicks indicated that recent "scientific" polls had been done of the citizenry of Tulsa (380,000 people; 745,000 for the entire Tulsa metro area), indicating that two-thirds of the citizens felt the zoo should not promote evolution. Statements by the zoo staff regarding this incident have revealed that they were unable to find any evidence of such a poll. Following six months of frequent contact between Hicks and the zoo director, the agreement was made that the zoo would modify the exhibit on horse evolution to reflect the current state of scientific knowledge, and would modify slightly the wording of the sign on the chimp exhibit from a statement that "chimps are man's closest biological relative" to "a biological similarity between chimps and people". They also agreed to add a sign at the zoo entrance that indicated that the exhibits regarding evolution were based on compelling evidence of the natural sciences, and that because scientific knowledge is subject to change, the exhibits would be revised as new information became available. The evolution exhibits otherwise remained intact. Many assumed the issue was ended. But, as with all good evolution-creation controversies, this one proved to have more lives than the proverbial cat.
For Dan Hicks, however, this was not the end, only the end of the beginning. The controversy reared up again, as Hicks found a new exhibit that made his blood boil and gave him renewed vigor for the fight. It seems the elephant exhibit has a statue of the Hindu elephant god, Ganesha. Hicks complained that this was an indication of the openness of the zoo to all other religions but Christianity (also in support of this argument, he pointed to a large globe at the entrance to the zoo with the saying "the earth is our mother, the sky our father", which comes from Native American heritage). The zoo staff explained that the elephant statue was merely part of an exhibit showing the role of the elephant as a cultural symbol throughout the world, an exhibit which also includes the elephant as the symbol of the American Republican Party.
On Tuesday, June 8, the Tulsa Parks Board heard the controversy. Zoo staff joined with Tulsa religious leaders to protest the overt display of religious doctrine at a taxpayer-funded scientific institution. The curator of the exhibits expressed grave doubts about the zoo delving into the area of theological debate. In the end, those who supported the creationist view, including the mayor of Tulsa, Bill LaFortune, won out, and the zoo will begin working on a display that will depict the creation of the earth as described in Genesis. They predict it will take about six months to put the exhibit together, and have indicated that it will also display other religious viewpoints of the origin of the earth, and will include a sign with the disclaimer that this represents only one point of view.
This is, of course, not the first time that Oklahoma has made the news in the forefront of the evolution-creationism debate (and I'm sure it won't be the last). In 1999, supported by then-Governor Frank Keating, the 11 members of the Oklahoma Textbook Committee voted to add a disclaimer to all high school textbooks proclaiming that evolution was only a theory, and that it was unproven. Although the Supreme Court had recently declared a similar disclaimer in Louisiana unconstitutional, the Oklahoma Textbook Committee felt that this one would be able to pass muster, as it did not mention God. This episode ended rather quickly and quietly when the State Attorney General, Drew Edmondson, declared the disclaimer violated the authority of the Committee, and would not be able to be legally placed in state science textbooks. Governor Keating, in defense of the disclaimer, indicated that he felt that creation science should be taught in the public school science classes. When reminded of a recent Supreme Court ruling that stated the teaching of creationism constituted religion, and could not be constitutionally taught in taxpayer funded public schools, the governor said only, "I Dissent". The Tulsa World rang in quickly with an editorial in which they had this to say about Governor Keating: "Declaring that he doesn't believe he is descended from a baboon, Governor Frank Keating promptly proved himself to be an ass when discussing the controversy he has brought about over the evolution v. religion issue". The paper concluded "No, the governor is not descended from a baboon. But it's a close call". Also in response to the action of the Attorney General in striking down the disclaimer, a state representative from Nardin, OK, introduced an amendment to a bill dealing with the makeup of the Textbook Committee. This amendment was known as the "One God of the Universe" bill, and would have required all science textbooks approved for use in Oklahoma to contain the "acknowledgement that human life was created by one God of the universe". This amendment passed the Oklahoma State House of Representatives unanimously, by a vote of 99-0. Fortunately, the state Senate showed a little more caution in their approach to violation of the First Amendment, and refused to bring the law out of committee.
But, perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on the good people of Oklahoma, or Kansas. It's hard to expect much more, when the National Park Service now approves a creationist pamphlet for sale in the gift shop of the Grand Canyon. This pamphlet rejects all current scientific thinking on the creation and great age of the Grand Canyon, one of the grandest geologic marvels this country (or this world, even) can boast. The Grand Canyon has been determined by scientific dating methods to be approximately 1.3 billion years of age, and is believed to be one of the oldest exposed rock formations on Earth. This has posed a bit of a problem for young-earth creationists, who claim the canyon is in reality only a few thousand years of age, and was created in 40 days and 40 nights during the Noachian flood described in the Bible. This is the view that is propounded in the pamphlet "Grand Canyon: A Different View". For a long time, such creationist literature was not available in national parks. Since these parks are public property, purchased and maintained with taxpayer dollars, this has been long regarded as a violation of the First Amendment's restriction against establishment of religion. Recently, however, this pamphlet has been added to the other canyon literature available to visitors. Lest you should begin the inevitable protest that it's only fair, everybody can hear all views and make up their own mind (of course, the Grand Canyon is nearly large enough that if one were to create pamphlets of ALL the various views about the origin of the universe, it might actually be able to hold them all), let me point out to you that this has been accompanied by a decision of the park rangers to "make no comment regarding the age of the Grand Canyon". It saddens me that this awe-inspiring place of beauty and wonder should have become a pawn in a sick tug-of-war that is going on in this country between the two giants of philosophical and natural knowledge, science and religion. Where will it end? One thing I can predict, if it continues like this, with the vitriol and the venom that are currently being hurled at the discipline of natural science, there will be no winners. Dogmatic, fundamentalist religionists cannot win without losing those supporters that favor a more moderate, allegorical view of Biblical instruction. But science can lose, becoming marginalized and unable to function in this country, as scientists find themselves spending more and more of their valuable time simply fighting for their right to exist. Research will suffer as hours that would have been spent in the laboratory are spent in the courtroom. It is time for a truce. Knowledge and beauty are both significant parts of the marvelous world in which we live. We must not be scared of either one, and we must recognize that knowledge does not necessarily repel beauty. The story of the Earth as explained by science can be every bit as inspiring and wonderful as the words of Genesis. There is room in the human heart and human mind for many things. We frequently hear the question from creationists "Why are scientists scared of Christianity?" I will answer that. Scientists are NOT scared by Christianity. We simply cannot test its precepts, and feel it is better left in the church than in the laboratory. I would like to ask this question of the creationists, "Why should Christians be scared of science?"
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).