John,
Thanks for the interesting quotes. Much of that sounds very much like when
some of my more religiously motivated friends try to claim that the
founding fathers did not intend or desire freedom of religion. They are of
course trying to support their fervent desire to see us returned to a
"Christian nation", not realizing that we never were. I always gently
explain that if that were the case, the Constitution would not read as it
does. They often do not get it, and go away confused.
Please do not feel that I am singling out the quoted section as the most
critical element. It just caught my attention as most ripe for comment.
>>What better place to carry forth that idea than in the halls of learning
(schools AND museums). But *- some say not in either? Then where? Isn't
it wrong (not singling out anyone now) to stifle free thinking and
learning? Who is to say that science and religion cannot go hand-in-hand,
and that someday they may someday just "merge" as one? Really, they both
deal with theory----and unconcluded fact *- and rest on faith until another
theory or archaeological site pulls up more evidence. <<
Stifling learning and free thinking is certainly a very bad thing, which is
why ID and similar movements should be fought with all our attention. I do
not believe, and certainly hope, that we have not been discussing whether
or not museums should be places of learning and exposure to new ideas, nor
whether they should take on the "hard" questions. I feel we should
definitely do both. The point is that those topics should not be chosen
without consideration of the facts and how the topics might influence
visitors in inappropriate ways. ID is anti-science and political
maneuvering. If the exhibitions generated by it make that clear, perhaps in
conjunction with other similar movements over the years, then no problem. I
also see no reason museums could not educate people about religions in
counjunction with history, art, and even science. The problem arises when
someone tries to bring the topics together in inappropriate ways. I think
that is generally what we are discussing; what is appropriate.
Essentially, the past 600 years or so is what says science and religion can
not and will never "merge." Coexistence is the best we can hope for, and
that will remain uneasy. There is just too much continuous growth in
science to ever be reincorporated into a religious world view, such as was
possible in the less-sophisticated past. The authoritarian and restrictive
social structure required to make such a thing to work is hopefully
becoming a thing of the past. Of course, that in no way obviates faith,
being an entirely separate concept.
Essentially, science and logical rational thought will always appear to be
in conflict with religion to some people, even though any apparent conflict
has no more substance than any apparent conjunction.
The last sentence above is what really confuses me. First, religion does
not deal in theory, it deals in faith. There are no religious theories.
Just ask any fundamentalist Christian how their "theory of creation" stacks
up against the theory of evolution. You will find their response
instructive. There is an infinite difference between a philosophical
premise and a scientific theory. Second, "unconcluded fact"? Which facts
are we talking about that faith has to offer in relation to science? No
scientific theory rests on faith of any kind, much less "faith" in science.
Lastly, archaeological sites only provide evidence for archaeological
theories, and have no bearing on faith or religion. Rediscovering Biblical
sites provides evidence that the Bible is a marginally accurate historical
text, but offers no support to its philosophical underpinnings.
Mark Janzen
Registrar/Collections Manager
Edwin A. Ulrich Museum of Art
Martin H. Bush Outdoor Sculpture Collection
Wichita State University
(316)978-5850
John Martinson
<[log in to unmask]
BR.GOV> To
Sent by: Museum [log in to unmask]
discussion list cc
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM> Subject
Re: Leggy my Ego: A simple man's
view of Evolution & ID
07/05/2005 12:13
PM
Please respond to
Museum discussion
list
<[log in to unmask]
SE.LSOFT.COM>
IMHO, and I am sorry to disagree, but separation of Church and State is not
allowing the government to enforce, create or accept any or just one
church. And yes, I understand it is more than tthat, but it has nothing to
do with a private (or even public) museum putting on an exhibit, displaying
or providing learning experiences to the public on a point of view such as
if man evolved from a lower life form or created by a Higher Being.
There is also constitutional rights of free speech, and part of that would
imply to museums having the right to present any point of view it deems
necessary, supporting its mission or simply providing the public with both
sides of the story so the visitor can learn both views and make up their
own mind. Isn't that the process/purpose of museums and the learning
process?
I'm sorry, but I cannot see anything in the Constitution that mentions that
a museum "cannot" create exhibits or discuss learning programs about where
man came from, be it from a higher intelligence or from the Big Bang or
out-of-the-swamp theory. Saying public schools and museums can only
discuss, teach or exhibit only one theory [such as evolution, but not
religion] is an invalid claim or deduction.
Our Founding (USA) Father's writings are full of comments of a higher
being, creator, or God, and no where do they say that God or religion
cannot be discussed, exhibited in a museum or that museum cannot have an
outside organization come in and use their establishment to express another
point of view. I think you find suppression of thought or different points
of views coming from Hitler or other types of governments (as mentioned,
previously in these postings), not in a country that is suppose to allow
freedom and teach all points of view. Because a museum receives public
funding should not stop it from expressing all points of views or is the
government stopping expression of thought and speech?
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
(letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
Simply, putting on an exhibit, lecture or whatever in a museum, is a valid
approach to questioning the "existence of god", plus allowing a forum for
expression and the learning process. Having (or is it forcing???) only
"evolution" seems to me to be returning to the jolly good ole' days of King
and force. That's one reason I was happy just celebrate the 4th of July
yesterday.
What joy I have in going into a museum where THEY do not make up my mind
(through their exhibits or programs) by cramming down my throat a specific
view they support, but fail to present more than one or different avenues
of approach to how something is or came to be, so I can learn or draw new
thoughts into my life and thought process. By not allowing more than one
view * isn't that exactly what a museum would be doing? And that is not a
proper way to "educate" and allow the public to learn. Museums have no
right to say this is that and you cannot do learn both views, nor is it the
governments!
How sad that any nation would allow such "force" concepts, in that only one
theory or belief can be taught, and that is what I am hearing by some on
this list such as only science can be taught in a museum. God! (excuse the
expression) that is a totally illogical approach to true learning!
"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, can
be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and
therefore all men
are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the
dictates of conscience." - Patrick Henry (Virginia Bill of Rights, June
12, 1776.)
What better place to carry forth that idea than in the halls of learning
(schools AND museums). But *- some say not in either? Then where? Isn't
it wrong (not singling out anyone now) to stifle free thinking and
learning? Who is to say that science and religion cannot go hand-in-hand,
and that someday they may someday just "merge" as one? Really, they both
deal with theory----and unconcluded fact *- and rest on faith until another
theory or archaeological site pulls up more evidence.
Thomas Jefferson to Van der Kemp, 1820 wrote:
"The genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as
it was preached and practised by himself. Very soon after his death it
became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment
from the vulgar eye. To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness,
the general mind must be strengthened by education".
Again, let us NOT forget that is the purpose of museums to educate * and
surely they should not be bound by the government, museum boards or
personal opinions on achieving that direction. It is not their duty to
teach all truths or theories, allowing the public to learn and gain their
own insight on what philosophy, theory, fact or reality to follow? There
is no law that states that "religion can only be taught in churches" and
not in museums or schools. And to this individual, teaching where man
came from be it from a God or from the swamp, is not teaching religion. If
museums start baptizing and annoiting or speaking in tongues * then this
guy will worry!
Indeed, teaching a one-sided point of view (be it creationism or evolution)
is a totally erroneous approach to the mission of museums as a "hall of
learning," and presenting a one sided, slanted story is not the true
approach to teaching and the learning process. I would NOT consider that
museum to be a museum where one is force to accept their point of view.
John
Boise, ID (that is Idaho)
>>> [log in to unmask] 7/5/2005 9:58:35 AM >>>
This discussion, while interesting, has moved far from the original point .
. . and has not produced new insights.
(snip)
.....Where there is heartburn is over what should be taught in public
schools,
sponsored by government museums, etc. As the ID perspective is based on
religion, and the USA still has a separation of church and state (last time
I checked), it does not belong in public schools, government museums, etc.
Ultimately, museum professionals have mission statements to follow, boards
to direct or advise our activities, and audiences to serve. Whether you
are
at a government-sponsored or private museum, you'll develop (or wait until
you hear) official policy regarding intelligent design. If you don't agree
with your museum's policy, you'll fight it or seek employment elsewhere.
It's really that simple.
Best,
Jay Heuman
Curator of Education
Salt Lake Art Center
=========================================================
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).
=========================================================
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).
|
