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?

It provides Cretinists with a gathering place to discuss and confirm their collective belief in Cretinism.

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.

Just for the folks who think this is a silly discussion, here's a link to today's Guardian. The Church of England wants Intelligent Design taught in English schools. Just so you know this isn't just about America.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2093476,00.html

This blog on the Creation Museum is one of the funniest, most numerous and somewhat enlightening discussions I've seen in a long time.

Proves that sex, politics and religion are the best subjects to talk about!

Once again fundies have lost to science and as usual they have NO CLUE...

Hey, It's a sign of progress that they didn't make Eve blonde and blue-eyed!

Those who invested millions in their theme park probably have the right belief: It takes money to make money.

How do those who claim Genesis should be interpreted literally resolve the inconsistencies between the different chapters?

In Chapter 1, man is created after the plants and animals, whereas in Chapter 2, man is created before them. I like to think this was done deliberately in order to discourage literal interpretation.