Although I agree with the broader philosophical point that Craig Rosa
is making, I think he has overlooked a serious problem.  In my experience,
most museums are NOT doing an adequate job of explaining what science is
and does.  I recently saw a newspaper article, on the AP wire, dealing
with a genetic disease, and the editors felt it necessary to explain that
a genetic disease was not contageous.  This, I believe, reflects how
little the public understands about science
        There is a terrible public confusion between science and
technology.  To refer back to Craig's examples, putting a man on the moon
involved very little science and a lot of technology.  If you read much about
the history of science in the space program, you will find it frequently
had to take a back seat to technological displays.  It is still difficult
for NASA to justify why many of the things done on manned flights cannot
be done cheaper on unmanned flights.  Science, "pure" science, does NOT
make us well, put us in space, or grow our food.  The technological
application of pure science does, and that technological application
is the part that is used/influenced/directed by ideological forces.  Mengele
is an example of the worst sort of technology gone mad.  What he did that
we refer to as "experiments" were not experiments--he was not testing
hypotheses or using controls, for example.  He was torturing human beings
in a trial-and-error attempt to find out what people could withstand.
That is NOT science.  "Pure" science is the asking of questions, forming
a hypothesis to fit observations, testing the hypothesis, and then
refining and testing again and again.  In "pure" science, there are no
"facts," but only better or lesser supported hypotheses.
        This is what many of us find scary about the creationist museum.
They muddle science and technology and hopelessly confuse what science
means.  How does one test a hypothesis requiring an omnipotent creative
force the human mind cannot understand?  Is it science when one is told,
as the label does in the creation museum, to determine the age of rocks
ONLY by using the Bible, not by other dating methods?  This is the
problem.
        If your museum is a museum of mythology or religion (and I would
think a museum of religion would be fascinating), then creation should
be given consideration.  But if your museum is a science museum, such
claptrap as "scientific creationism" has no place in it--it is no more
science than a belief in a flat earth or geocentric universe.
        Giving due consideration to diverse points of view is important.
There are certainly enough diverse points of view among evolutionists
to fill several museums.  But to include creationism in an exhibit
about evolution as a valid alternative is a gross abuse of the intellect.
 
John Simmons, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas
email:  [log in to unmask]