Mr. Sexton, you wrote:

But evolution is not science. Neither is archeology and much of astronomy. Not only are these conjectural, but, they take on a life of their own which forms the foundation of future work.

This is the problem with the creationist "science" arguments. They are all based on a premise,(that the Bible is true and valid), that goes unchallenged. For example, the proof that Creation Museum people give for the 6,000 year old earth is primarily based on Bible based calculations. There is no questioning of the validity of the books in the Bible that these calculations come from. Why not back these young earth theories with a detailed exploration of the origins and factual basis for each book in the Bible. If the Bible is what Creationists believe it to be, then historical research should strengthen their case and arguments. True scientists are open to restructuring their fundamental theories and beliefs when evidence proves them wrong. Creationist cannot claim to be talking science when they are unwilling to challenge the validity of their sources of information.

Going back to what I clipped from your posting, unlike science, the Bible isn't even taken as a theory or a conjecture, it is the unquestioned foundation on top of which Creationists place all of their "science."

If you don't believe in evolution, then you shouldn't be allowed to use anti-biotics.

Bacteria, like all life, evolves. We get to see it in bacteria because a 1000 generations of bacteria can cycle within a matter of years.

Eventually, the bacteria grows resistant to anti-biotics and adapts itself to survive what would have killed previous generations. Hence the need for newer forms of penicillin.

There should be a test of faith for creationists, if they truly believe, then they shouldn't have a problem saying 'no' to antibiotics.

Stupid bastards.

The real irony in the Christian movement to proclaim that the Old Testament is literally true is that the original owners of this book, the Jews do not believe that it is the literal word of god. I was raised Jewish and was sent to an Orthodox Day school where I spent half of my day in religious study. I was taught that the Old Testament was written by men who were inspired by the voice of God. Since they were imperfect and unsophisticated, they had a lot of trouble explaining things accurately and were in many cases reduced to writing allegorical tales in their attempt to document Gods word. The most complex subject that they tackled was how the earth was created and the resulting tale is a gross implication of a very difficult and complex undertaking. I understand that there are tiny sects that do take the book literally, but most Jews prefer to analysis the Bible and try to see how it fits in with current scientific explanations. Their position is that Science helps correct our interpretation of the Bible, rather then threatens our religious beliefs. For example, since the Old Testament says that day and night were not created until the forth day, there is no way to know what amount of time is represented by the first four days, an interpretation made famous in The Scopes Monkey. I find it odd that late adopters of the Old Testament, Christians, have decided to take something as literally true when the original followers of the tale do not.

Is there anything in that museum telling us how snakes lost the ability to speak? Did their vocal cords fall out when they left the garden?

I read this, seeing flaws in just about every sentence attributed to the workers at the 'museum'.

I go to the "Answers in Genesis" website to see their 'arguments' and it's all just babble couched in scientific-sounding terminology - and it really makes no sense. A series of non sequiturs. Their only purpose is to convince the poor people visiting that they really do have some sort of cunning argument that really SHOULD win against evolutionary principles, so that those same people don't actually LISTEN to the evidence for evolution.

I see all this, and yet it doesn't matter at all. Truth doesn't matter in the slightest when your opponent's trump card is "my religious beliefs are right because my religion tells me so".

And the one thing that Creationists would never do is to actually explore the historical evidence upon which their beliefs are based, at least not in an honest and open manner. The historical truths tend to vary far from the myths that have come to be believed as the truth.

A lot of words have been spilled on this story. But the only which matters is "pathetic." It is pathetic that in what was once a nation wherein science was respected and trusted, a museum like this could raise 27 million.

It is pathetic that we rank only behind Turkey in the number of people who disbelieve evolution. It is sad and pathetic that we are allowing our scientific progress, once our greatest asset, to fall behind the rest of the globe in deference to this same group of troglodytes.

How long will this mockery go on? How long will we allow the scientific future to be determined by a group of people retarded in every sense? How long will those with arrogant pride in their ignorance be allowed to guide our educational system, to dumb it down until we are a neo-Spartan nation?

Because that is the true and basic end to all of this: to make America a stupid, arrogant, but powerful warrior nation. And not merely a warrior nation, a warrior nation carrying the banner of radical Christianity. Clearly these people wish for us to fall back into a more technologically advanced Dark Ages; to lead us on a long-promised, global Biblical rampage, bringing destruction and conversion by fire to all nations which will not tremble, which will not immediately bow to our might and righteous message.

This is where "pathetic" returns to the conversation, because these fever dreams of armed and ignorant hoards overrunning those of more rational, less or no faith is sad, but that a great and proto-glorious nation like America allows these people to put forth their message without gales of laughter is the very definition of the word.