to think that if you are going to present intelligent design to children as fact there should be some indication of this?

[ArmadilloDaMan]

Took ds to a zoo today. As it was half term they were running some extra events.

One was a talk on the animals with the chance to bottle feed lambs and to stroke an alligator. So we went.

It was a detailed talk on different kinds of farm animals and things like crops (they are also a working farm) and well aimed to cover all ages of children.

So far so good. Me and dp thought it was a little odd when they showed a donkey and said the cross was the result of Jesus (you probably know the story) and then the slide show changed from pictures of animals to crosses on a hill in the sunset. They presented it as fact rather than an idea, but we thought no more than odd.

Then they started discussing how chickens grow in an egg (with live chicken, baby chick and egg along with slides). All fine (well the picture on the screen of a live chick next to one lying down with the caption - live body, dead body, both the same body- but they didn't talk about it adn the children were too interested in the chicken trying to escape).

However then he started talking about DNA and genomes. And how they are obviously designed. Therefore there must be a designer and that designer is God. Talked for a few minutes on the subject.

As we went around other areas of zoo there were posters on 'why men and apes are not related' and other such topics, but mostly you would need a GCSE level in science to even start to understand them, so again not too bothered about that (anyone of that age knows enough to make their own mind up).

However there is no indication on the advertising stuff that they are even a christian organisation, let alone one that believes in intelligent design. And if like us you did not go into the undercover areas until the talk you would have no idea.

So AIBU to think that they should at least promote this on their leaflets so people are aware and can choose whether or not they want their children introduced to this as fact before they go?

Actually ID postulates a 'designer'. It doesn't have to be a 'god', it could be a band of pan-dimensional aliens.

Frankly, I couldn't give a sod. We're all here now, and guinea pigs can be quite sweet to cuddle.

did I mean postulate? I've been drinking, is that the word I meant, or is 'postulate' a skin condition?

We went there a couple of years ago, wihtout reaising it was a Christian zoo.

ut I don't remember all of that bit.

I od rememebr the gift shop, though, as that was a clue to the religious side.

But it was a very nic eplace, and lovely staff.

Didn't know thta about Windmil Farm either.

Postulate is a fine word.

It's true that most ID literature doesn't say the designer is God - but that's what they mean anyway. ID is generally a mealymouthed way of trying to pretend creationism is science, when it isn't. I have a lot more respect for people who just say they're creationists, rather than pretending they're following science, when they're not.

We had the exact same problem as OP, took ds to Noah's Ark last month for the first time & didn't realise about the posters etc, some of them are quite strong!
But the animals are good, did anybody read they have a zebra now...it lives with Gerald the giraffe

Well, I don't approve of any place being surreptitious about their agenda. And I'm a churchgoer.

I have no idea (nor do I care) about the finer details of it but as far as I'm concerned, I have no trouble in accepting that God designed the process of evolution - about which science is still learning - and did it so well that it did not need any help along the way.

Intelligent Design is Creationism with the references to God removed and, as such, is intentionally deceptive. I don't approve of that.

Oh, I'm an out and out creationist, and I so agree with you NQC. ID just strikes me as a bit of a ruse, really.

That is rubbish, NotQuiteCockney.
As I said earlier there is a difference between macro and micro evolution.

I don't know what you think ID is, but it is a theory which exists in conjunction with evolutionism.

People who consider ID a plausible theory normally completely accept evolution as a fact. There is overwhelming evidence to support micro-evolution.

Evolution does not answer the questions about the origin of life. It explains the diversity of life, and the pattern or design of life.

People who believe in ID believe in God. Scientific theories (you know, the ones that are actually scientific) don't require people to believe in God. Or fairies. Or snuffleupaguses (snuffleupagi?).

ID seems to be an attempt to hide God in whatever gaps anyone can imagine in evolutionary theory. I don't know how anyone can believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution (aka species differentiation) - the two are not different, really, are they.

Am PMSL at having a debate on creationism intelligent design with someone who has 'raptor' in her name ... aren't you supposed to believe that the dinosaurs are anti-religious propaganda?

NQT, they are totally different, and ID has nothing to do with God.

Have an open mind.

ID is just an idea trying to explain how the whole process of life started. Evolution does not try and answer that question.
No one has ever claimed to have a definate answer to that question.

I thought ID was interested in explaining macro evolution, which is something that evolutionary theory does explain.

And how does 'some creature or force or fairy or snuffleupagus did it' explain anything? Doesn't that just leave us with the question of 'where the hell did the creature/force/fairy/snuffleupagus come from?'.

I think scientists are working on how life began in the first place, and their attempts are a lot more convincing than a rousing game of 'oh, um, something magical did it, might have been some bloke with a big beard and sandals, not sure'.

lol NQT. I am not a creationist. I am just interested in the different theories.

That is the point. No one knows, and ID at the moment has as much weight as anything else. Spontaneous generation is just as unbeleivable.

You shouldn't dismiss a theory out of hand because it stretches the imagination.

ID isn't a theory - it's a thinly veiled version of creationism, intended to get past barriers against teaching fairy tales as facts.

Looking at human anatomy, 'intelligent' is the last term I'd use for any designer involved in such a botched job. Let's see:

• the appendix
• male nipples
• blind spots in the eye (all the nerve endings are the wrong way around)
• the clash between women's hips, upright walking, and our giant heads
• the windpipe/oesophagus arrangement (choking)

Like in 'Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy' with the Megratheans having to hide fake dinosaur fossils in the crust?

No, I'm dismissing a theory out of hand because:

• it is supported only by religious people
• it fails Occam's Razor rather spectacularly
• it is completely ludicrous

Right, I've got to go to bed. I've become convinced that Bambiraptor doesn't exist, and is instead a small pink pixie inside my computer. (Don't dismiss a theory just because it stretches your imagination! You don't know you're not a small pink pixie inside my computer!)

Look if you are interested in this you should do some research. You keep saying the same thing about ID being the same as creationism, maybe if it is but it is still nothing to do with God necessarily.

As for the the anatomy bit, well if you look at any creature the evolutionary design of it is staggering.

I am a small pink pixie.

Yes, staggeringly bad.

I have read up a bit on ID, albeit in the New Scientist, which is oddly enough as close-minded as me.

Anyway, small pink pixie, I think I am turning off the puter for the night, have a good sleep.

You too NQT.

"I don't have any problem with a Christian run petting zoo being run according to Christian beliefs."
Neither have I, I suppose. But I do think it's a bit wierd. How about a Conservative petting zoo? Or revolutionary socialist one?

My the way, did someone say that Intelligent Design and Evolution were compatible? I thought ID suggested that God created all the fossils 6000 years ago and included them in his creation as a sort of practical joke? Or have I got it wrong?

LOL at Conservative petting zoo.

It's an empty field with a big fence round it saying 'The European Union will never succeed in allowing alien animals to swamp this overcrowded field'.

Message withdrawn