Letters to the Editor
-
ELYDOG, of course the COE likes ID
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?