Similarly, Mr. Weeks might consider reading up on why there is
"overwhelming evidence in support of evolution."

> As we all should know by now, this is not insignificant stuff to Americans.
> If creationism is NOT taught in its perspective, children will not learn
> about the 'real world' around them -- that intelligent people do in fact
> struggle with which theory is "the truth."   Children need to begin to
> understand, through contradictions such as this, that the 'real world' is
> full of ambiguities, and they might as well begin learning that early in
> life.

That's all well and good, IF (and *only* if) it's presented in context, in
a sociology or history or comparative religion class.  Creationism just is
*not* science, no matter how you want to look at it.  If you want to try
and argue that it *is* science, then you need to change the very
definition of science.

Furthermore, if we're going to teach about creationism in public schools
-- and I'm guessing that Mr. Weeks is referring to creationsim in the
Christian sense -- if what we're *actually* concerned with is our
children's understanding of the "real world," we have to include creation
stories from a variety of *other* religious traditions as well...certainly
not all U.S. citizens are Christian, and if you're going to include the
whole *world* in the concept of "real world," then that's even more true.
Finally, one would have to include the mention of people who have no
religious beliefs whatsoever.  Frankly, I'm guessing that public school
educators have enough in their curricula already that a discussion of the
creation beliefs of all the world's religions is not necessarily going to
fit in...but maybe I'm wrong there.

My main point is, though, that it's NOT appropriate in a science
curriculum.  Period.

> Museums can help -- if human origin is a part of their program.  We
> present artifactual evidence of humans and animals on this site several
> thousand years before "creation" occurred, if one reads the Old Testament
> literally.  We observe that not everyone accepts the reliability of carbon
> dating, etc.

Again, that's fine as long as you don't suggest that the two viewpoints --
e.g., accepting vs. not accepting carbon dating -- are equally
*scientifically* valid.

Regards,
Suzanne White

=========================================================
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).