Noah's Ark Zoo Farm Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

Andrew Swales said:
Quite a lot of the comments on this thread appear to have been cut - but I wonder if this above is the case, how schools can organise visits to Noah's Ark,? - as such visits have a curriculum link and are surely being made as an adjunct to the teaching of biology, and not r/e?
Click to expand...

Great point. To evidence my post, here's a succinct overview of the government's position:

"Creationism does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method. Outside of science lessons, there is scope for young people to discuss beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things in religious education, providing that these discussions do not undermine the teaching of the established scientific consensus around evolution.

"The Government expects pupils in all state funded schools to study the nature of, and evidence for, evolution by the end of Key Stage 4. The Government’s expectations are set out in the National Curriculum, which maintained schools are required to follow, and in the funding agreements to which academies must adhere. The Department investigates complaints made about schools that are teaching creationism as a scientific theory contrary to the National Curriculum or their funding agreement."

Nick Gibb, Minister of State for School Standards, 13 April 2017

Creationism: Education:Written question - 70286
 
Giant Panda said:
This legal argument undermines your case. Yes, it's mandatory to teach religion in religious education classes. On the flip-side, it's prohibited for state-funded schools to teach creationism in biology classes. I have no problem with a zoo exploring the bible from a spiritual, historical or cultural perspective (e.g. see Jerusalem Biblical Zoo). The issue arises from explicitly teaching pseudoscience as science, and explicitly undermining 90 years of consensus in biology. Noah's Ark Zoo Farm's "educational" materials would be illegal in a state-funded school.
Click to expand...

Good point and well said Giant Panda !
 
I think I might have missed the party when it came to some of the comments :p but evidently it seems that my comments (some of which appear to have since disappeared) caused a bit of a stir which really wasn't my intention. o_O :confused:
 
Giant Panda said:
This legal argument undermines your case. Yes, it's mandatory to teach religion in religious education classes. On the flip-side, it's prohibited for state-funded schools to teach creationism in biology classes. I have no problem with a zoo exploring the bible from a spiritual, historical or cultural perspective (e.g. see Jerusalem Biblical Zoo). The issue arises from explicitly teaching pseudoscience as science, and explicitly undermining 90 years of consensus in biology. Noah's Ark Zoo Farm's "educational" materials would be illegal in a state-funded school.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying the legal stance on education but are you sure that NAZF are promoting religion in the way you suggest? Personally I haven't read any of the religious information they have there but then I don't go in the play barn. I know that they used to have religious signage more generally around the place and this has been removed or access to the areas it was displayed hes been stopped (e.g. the monkey house.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ned said:
Thank you for clarifying the legal stance on education but are you sure that NAZF are promoting religion in the way you suggest? Personally I haven't read any of the religious information they have there but then I don't go in the play barn. I know that they used to have religious signage more generally around the place and this has been removed or access to the areas it was displayed hes been stopped (e.g. the monkey house.)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your gracious reply. When I visited in 2016, the educational graphics were very clear: "intelligent design" is right and evolution is wrong. This was "evidenced" with various silly examples, such as the complexity of bacterial flagella (Michael J. Behe's famous go-to) and human/gorilla skeleton comparisons (a bizarre choice, given their obvious homology). Despite the owners' claims, there was no accurate representation of "alternative views" (read: the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, I believe that four years ago this was probably the case but as I say, a lot of the information seems to have been removed, either entirely or to some place I don't visit. The zoo as a whole has changed in recent years with better enclosures and information that is more typical of that found in most zoos. A change in leadership can't be far off and I wouldn't be surprised if there was already an influence coming form this direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ned said:
Yes, I believe that four years ago this was probably the case but as I say, a lot of the information seems to have been removed, either entirely or to some place I don't visit. The zoo as a whole has changed in recent years with better enclosures and information that is more typical of that found in most zoos. A change in leadership can't be far off and I wouldn't be surprised if there was already an influence coming form this direction.
Click to expand...
It is still puzzling (and not really answered) as to how such creationist propaganda, be it historic or maybe partially hidden, dovetails into the legal requirements of the Zoo Licencing Act.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/zoo-licensing-act-1981/#:~:text=The%20Act%20also%20requires%20zoos%20to%20promote%20public,animals%20kept%20by%20them%20and%20their%20natural%20habitats
This includes the following: "The Act also requires zoos to promote public education and awareness in relation to the conservation of biodiversity. Generally, this will be achieved by a zoo providing information about the species of wild animals kept by them and their natural habitats." Does the Noah's Ark Farm comply with this? Please note that this does not mention evolution or creation.
 
Dassie rat said:
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/zoo-licensing-act-1981/#:~:text=The%20Act%20also%20requires%20zoos%20to%20promote%20public,animals%20kept%20by%20them%20and%20their%20natural%20habitats
This includes the following: "The Act also requires zoos to promote public education and awareness in relation to the conservation of biodiversity. Generally, this will be achieved by a zoo providing information about the species of wild animals kept by them and their natural habitats." Does the Noah's Ark Farm comply with this? Please note that this does not mention evolution or creation.
Click to expand...
Yes - without doubt, I would have thought.
This is the rather cumbersome definition of a cage label, or information panel...
 
The link below gives details of educational workshops for schools offered by NAZF
Workshops | Zoo School | Noah's Ark Zoo Farm

One workshop is called Love Life details are below. Of particular interest is the phrase 'animals, including humans' under Y2 and akso under Y6 'recognise that living things produce offspring of the same kind, but normally offspring vary and are not identical to their parents' something familiar to evolutionists. Also note the absents of creationist propaganda. (Unless you can find it where I didn't)

Love Life!
Y1 - identify and name a variety of common animals including fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals
Y2 - explore and compare the differences between things that are living, dead, and things that have never been alive
Y2 - notice that animals, including humans, have offspring which grow into adults
Y5 - describe the differences in the life cycles of a mammal, an amphibian, an insect and a bird
Y5 - describe the life process of reproduction in some plants and animals.
Y6 - recognise that living things produce offspring of the same kind, but normally offspring vary and are not identical to their parents
 
FBBird said:
Imho Noah’s Ark performs a valuable function as the only specialist holding for bull elephants in the U.K.
Click to expand...

Apparently the decision to build an elephant facility came out of a prayer meeting, only a man who believed it was God's will would rise to the challenge of bringing in elephants. It couldn't have happened anywhere else in the UK.
 
Ned said:
Apparently the decision to build an elephant facility came out of a prayer meeting, only a man who believed it was God's will would rise to the challenge of bringing in elephants. It couldn't have happened anywhere else in the UK.
Click to expand...
This thread is getting quite odd!
With respect, the above is both bizarre and untrue. John Aspinall, Molly Badham and many others before them 'rose to the challenge of bringing in Elephants'. It has happened elsewhere in the UK, and there is no record of divine intervention in any of the the other instances.
 
Last edited:
Andrew Swales said:
This thread is getting quite odd!
With respect, the above is both bizarre and untrue. John Aspinall, Molly Badham and many others before them 'rose to the challenge of bringing in Elephants'. It has happened elsewhere in the UK, and there is no record of divine intervention in any of the the other instances.
Click to expand...

I think you miss understand my point. Noah's Ark is the first zoo in decades to go into elephants, the general trend has been to go out of them. How many decades ago did your quoted zoo begin keeping elephants? And out of Twycross, Howlettes and Port Lympne how many are still keeping them?
I wasn't suggesting divine intervention, more blind faith. Sometimes you need a blind faith in something if you're going to succeed where others haven't, not necessarily a religious faith but in this case it seems to have been.
 
Andrew Swales said:
This thread is getting quite odd!
With respect, the above is both bizarre and untrue. John Aspinall, Molly Badham and many others before them 'rose to the challenge of bringing in Elephants'. It has happened elsewhere in the UK, and there is no record of divine intervention in any of the the other instances.
Click to expand...

Andrew , how do you know for sure that there was no divine intervention in bringing elephants to the UK ? :rolleyes:

It can't be proved that there wasn't right ? so it must have happened ...
 
Ned said:
I think you miss understand my point. Noah's Ark is the first zoo in decades to go into elephants, the general trend has been to go out of them. How many decades ago did your quoted zoo begin keeping elephants? And out of Twycross, Howlettes and Port Lympne how many are still keeping them?
I wasn't suggesting divine intervention, more blind faith. Sometimes you need a blind faith in something if you're going to succeed where others haven't, not necessarily a religious faith but in this case it seems to have been.
Click to expand...
I only had what you wrote to go on, and that said nothing about timing - just the blanket statement :
Apparently the decision to build an elephant facility came out of a prayer meeting, only a man who believed it was God's will would rise to the challenge of bringing in elephants. It couldn't have happened anywhere else in the UK
...which looked pretty clear to me (if bizarre) so I don't think that I misunderstood it at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top