As to whom Adam and eve's children married, the answer obviously is other humans.

The problem with a literal reading of Genesis is that there is quite a bit of Ambiguity through out it.

The very notion of how many humans were created in Eden is not immedeatly clear. It is accepted that God created adequate breeding stocks of the other creatures of the land sea and air, and there is not a clear implication that only two humans were created.

The story of Adam and Eve is a seperate story within Genesis describing the fall from grace for humanity, but exactly when that happened is not immedeatly clear by a literal interpretation of the words on the page.

It is entirely probable that multiple humans were understood to have been created and that the fall from grace was a collective punishment for humans despite the fact that some would not have been the direct descendents. The Bible has numerous instances of collective punishment, so this interpretation is not necessarily out of line.

In the end, this museam is not a literal reading of the story of Genesis, it is an interpretation based on hundreds of years of presumptive scholarship, and bad reasoning.

When this museam's notions are presented to actual bible scholars they find it as laughable and natural scientists.

Also, with regards to the fruit. The Apple legend derives from a later verse in the bible (memory fales as to which book) which references the idea that one mother first laid down beneath an apple tree. As poor scholars had thought sex was the original sin (as Cain and Able were not born until after the fall) however that overlooks the original be fruitfull and multiply commandment.

The modern creationists have recognized that one bit of bad scholarship, and it took only a hundred years. Perhaps in another hundred years they will get rid of the rest of the poor scholarship.

My reference to those who have studied art but can not make a living in the arts going into teaching was not meant as a derisive shot. There are numerous reasons why people fail to make a living in the arts and talent, skill, and knowledge are probably the least important. As a physics major who has opted to make my career in the arts, I am probably exacerbating the problem myself, though I am also painfully aware that talent alone does not determine success or failure in the rarefied air of the Arts.

That being said, my real complaint is pedagogical compounded by administrative concerns.

My pedagogical argument I've already made, that science is taught backwards from the macroscopic to the microscopic, and that mathematics and science education is far more concerned with taxonomic memorization and tables. The administrative concern is tied to this as those who administer schools are more likely than not to be people who were not drawn to science, and for whom the elegant beauty of mathematics and science remains a mystery. Since they have themselves shied away from the sciences there is little impetus on their part to believe in or implement a pedagogical change.

At the heart of the problem is an inherent misunderstanding of math and science. Think of the number of people in the world who say "I can't do math" or "I just don't think scientifically" and how many teachers accept such a ludicrous notion. We don't accept such a statement with regard to language or history and we shouldn't accept it in regard to math and science. We keep the failed model for education because those who are educating have never been given a better model, and accept the notion of scientific mystery, something people trained in the sciences simply don't do.

Science is at its heart the simplest of subjects. Nothing is moved without a mover, nothing acts without a reaction. I don't think our world is doomed, because clearly enough young people make it to the higher grades and are granted insight into the true nature of science, but the majority of student for whom science is left as a mystery is truly a tragedy in our country.