You couldn't just let it go, could you?
Obviously, her intent wasn't to suggest anything but evolution, and we often use the phrase "designed" without necessarily implying a master designer. Your fanaticism is misplaced.

Let's just say that some zookeepers are underpaid--or think that they are. They have ways of earning outside incomes.

Because it's a knee-jerk negativity. It's doubly bad when expressed toward a child and triply bad when such a reaction could squish a fledgling enthusiasm.

I'm sure someone with better knowledge can comment on this, but I think that age-appropriate play, including dress-up play, is an integral part of children's development. It doesn't have to have a point (for example, she doesn't have to grow up to be a fashion designer), except to encourage their mental and physical development. Like author Alfie Kohn once wrote, the point of play is that it has no point.

I know we disagree about many things, Ted, but I want you to know that I appreciate differing points of views on the blog and thank you for expressing them civilly. You should only know how many comment threads devolved quickly into name callings and such.

Well, we're talking about an eight-year-old girl here, Ted. So she dresses up and poses in photographs. That may not a big enough step for learning about influential women of the 20th century for adults, but it's a solid and notable first step for her age group.

What she has done is an example of a positive self-expression in children, and it should be encouraged, not beaten down with negativity.