> As much as many of us are averse to the Creation Museum, it would seem to me
> based on the evidence at hand, one cannot say it is not a museum.  We may not
> like the content or what is being portrayed, but we cannot counter the fact
> that it is a museum and has a right to exist . . .
>  
> OR CAN WE?  I leave that to you guys to duke out.

In the visual arts, the difference between a gallery or kunsthalle and a
museum is that a museum acquires, houses, and researches an ongoing
collection.  Putting artifacts on public view is only a part of its mission.
From its website, I cannot see thqt the Creation Museum does any of those
things -- it's more like a pop-up book illustrating Bible stories.  If it's
a museum, so is Walt Disney World.

The Creation Museum wants to appear as if it is a natural history museum,
which is just a masquerade to give the impression of being scientifically
credible.  Without doing any of the things a real natural history museum
does, it perpetuates a fraud -- like all of Creationism's attempts to appear
scientific.   It's an odd irony that a system of thought which so vilifies
science, nonetheless yearns for its stamp of approval.

/s

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