@rosborne979,
It is a well know fact that no atheist scientist can object to a comparison between his scientific curiosity and that of an energetic puppy dog sniffing at whatever it takes its fancy to sniff at. In both cases the drive to investigate has biological roots and a biologist, more than most, ought to be the first to recogise the fact. Science is, after all, the exercise of idle curiosity for no particular reason outside of that curiosity. Mr Myers seems to be in a rut.
To the extent that Mr Myers is engaged in biology in the pursuit of money or dignity he betrays the absence of a sound biological understanding. He may well be a dignified person but we are entitled to regard him as an animal on his own recommendation, and presumably that of members of the NCSE , and to see his character, in relation to money and dignity as not being a derivative of biological forces but of another force essentially religious.
His assumption that students will need " remedial instruction" if they expose themslves to what most of us will view as an entertainment is obviously necessary, however silly it is, to his logic. He himself, as a young person, will have been exposed to many such entertainments with no ill effect except maybe the one I have drawn attention to; namely, being somewhat confused.
If demonstrating a need for "remedial instruction" is a stigma then I think a large number of us might justifiably hang our heads in shame and especially any of us who have sought the aid of psychiatrists, psychologists or counsellors of various degrees of competence.
It is also well known that it doesn't take a large number of people to flood an institution with "calls and e-mails" and even less than that when the level of "flooding" is left floating in the air in a most unscientific fashion. As is the category of "other bloggers". I assume that "evidently" means than somebody told him.
Has he a biological explanation of his urge to cut a dignified figure in the community?
And what other activities in the field of entertainment does he seek to prohibit on the same grounds he is using for the Creation Museum?
Methinks taxpayer's money would be better employed if he sniffed out some biological unsniffed corner and reported his findings in the usual way rather than be seen taking advantage of the directors of the Cincinnati Zoo having waylaid their sense of humour all of a sudden.
