I mean, that's sort of the whole point of religion, that the universe was designed and wasn't happenstance.

Interestingly enough science makes no statement contrary to this notion. Science is just the mechanics; questions of purpose in those mechanics are for philosophers.

In that, ID perhaps does deserve a place in schools, in a philosophy course. But ID isn't creationism, and that is something to be clear about.

ID is the philosophical notion that the inherent complexity of the universe and the missing points in our knowledge of its origins implies something which has influenced the universe to come to its current point with a tool using, self aware, and aware beyond self animal, capable of asking philosophical questions.

Every person who believes in any sentient super force in the universe believes in ID. One can easily accept all current scientific thought from the age of the universe to the origin of the species and never once contradict the notion of such an intention in the universe. As I myself believe in a clock work universe, I fully believe that the outcome we see for the universe is the only possible outcome that could have occurred given the amount and placement of the matter and energy that existed at the start of the universe.

Creationism, which is what this museum is espousing, is a very different notion. One can believe in any super force and believe in ID, Creationism requires belief in only one possible super force and belief in only one interpretation of that super force’s message to its creation.

Creationism has never been a strongly held notion among actual scholars of religion. Williams Jennings Bryant did not argue for either a young earth or the world in six days during the famous trial, and even during the renaissance the Pope's objections to Galileo were more based on his flawed mathematics than his rejection of literal biblical explanations.

It is likely that the COE, like the RC, wishes to make sure people know that they accept our knowledge of physical laws with the caveat that their God is responsible for the authorship of those physical laws. This is a relatively benign philosophy in our modern age, and not one deserving of concern beyond philosophers. What the Creationists argue is far more dangerous and divisive, fortunately it is not particularly compelling the more one researches.

In truth this museum may do much more to undo the Creationist philosophy than bolster it. Historically speaking, people who studied the bible reject this simplistic notion of creation. As such as people come to study the legend of Genesis they are likely to be struck by the many flaws in this visual presentation of a broken philosophy.

Isn’t ironic, don’t ya think?

That's the only part that confused me, aside from that good strip.

The moral of the story: George Bush is a strong leader who will guide this country on the course he sees fit, based on what he feels is in the long term best interests of the country, regardless of polls or opposition politics.

And by contrast the opposition party members are weak vacillating politicos with no real plan or course of action for engagement of the president or his policies.

Is that what you were going for Tom? Perhaps a better image would be for a muscular powerful Harry Reid (made strong by the will of the electorate) still bowing down to the visibly weaker George Bush. Otherwise it implies the Democrats rather than being the majority party with a popular mandate they are ignoring, are a weak shadow party unable to truly confront the president.

Perhaps in the next time Tom approaches the Charles Atlas Parody, he'll have the muscular Democrat hectored by the weakling George Bush. That would be an image indicative of the current political climate. The nation is squarely behind withdrawal, and still the Democratic Party vacillates and wrings their hands, because they fear a fickle voter who may yet be unsatisfied with getting exactly what they requested.

The troubles with democracy for certain.

ID is a philosophy, Creationism is a religion.

There are proponents of the ID philopshy who endorse the Creationist religion, but there are many who do not.

ID is an interesting notion for philosophical (not scientific) debate, there is no debate in Creationism. Creationism is an absoulte orthodoxy seeking to superceede scientific discoveries, ID is a philosophy seeking to interepret scientific discoveries.

You cannot combat something if you do not understand who it is you are fighting.