on 6/16/07 9:49 AM, John Martinson's electrons arrived as:

> Because there is a difference of opinion on the subject of Evolution vs.
> Creationism, does that make one more correct than the other?

John -- I'm glad you're hanging in there on this subject.  Naysayers aside,
I think it is of interest to many.

As to your statement above -- the two subjects Evolution and Creationism are
not equal and competitive explanations for the origin of living organisms on
our planet.  There is no Evolution "versus" Creationism -- you can argue
that baseball is the better sport than football, but you can't have a
baseball team play a game of baseball against a football team playing a game
of football, in order to determine which it is.  With Evolution and
Creationism, one is science and the other is religion.  Creationism is
"correct" if you embrace a literal translation of the Bible as a means of
knowing the truth about such things.  But Creationism will never compete as
science, because it is playing an entirely different game.

The notion that the "jury is still out" as to whether Evolution or
Creationism will prove to be the correct explanation for the origin of
species is like saying the jury is still out as to whether gravity causes
objects to fall to earth because Jesus walked on water and ascended into the
heavens.  Whether the latter happened or not, gravity does in fact cause
objects to fall, and our clear understanding of gravity's effects come from
science not from the Bible.  Likewise, Evolution does cause species to
evolve, and our clear and confirmed understanding of it comes from science.
Evolution is fact.  You can insist that God played/plays a role in
Evolution, but you can't insist that the role He played is unscientific.  As
soon as you do that, you've changed the playing field to a religious
discussion, not a scientific one.  Whether there is a God or not is
irrelevant to the question of scientific Evolution.  If there is no God,
Evolution is scientific fact -- if there is a God, Evolution is still
scientific fact.

As to museums and Creationism, the term "museum" has long been appropriated
by fringe enterprises that deal not in scholarly research and evidence, but
in fancy.  The difference here is that the "Creation Museum" is
intentionally extorting the deserved credibility of natural history museums
by using the term.  This tactic of appropriating the style and nomenclature
of science has been employed repeatedly by the religious right in its
attempt to feign a scientific legitimacy that its beliefs cannot support on
their own.  This is and should be of concern to the museum community,
especially as it assaults the mission of natural history museums and
confuses the public about what is reliable information presented in a museum
and what is not.



______________________________________
S t e p h e n    N o w l I n

Director,
Alyce de Roulet Williamson Gallery
Art Center College of Design

http://xrl.us/williamsonGoogle
http://www.williamsongallery.net
http://www.artandscience.us
http://www.pasadenaculture.net
______________________________________

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).