Creationism vs. Evolution

[schm0 27]

This forum thread is for the debate that spun off of the Kentucky Museum thread. It is for intellectual discussion only. Matters of religion will be discussed in a civil and polite manner, and I trust those that post here will keep things in a respectful tone. That being said, here's some ground rules:

1) Your beliefs are your own. Please respect those of your fellow Simtropians, as you would have yours respected in a similar manner.

2) Stay on topic.

3) No insults. No flaming. Let's keep the tone and choice of words civil and respectful.

4) Please cite sources for any claims that aren't your own. Don't plagiarize or quote someone offhand. If you get your information from a source, provide a link (or reference.)

The topic under discussion is the fundamental arguments behind creationism vs. those of evolution in today's society and their impact on our education, the fields of science and religion, and their effect on us and our beliefs. Discuss.

[Duke87 1,070]

What really gets at me about creationism is that people try to push it as science, when it isn't. There's absolutely no scientific basis for it. I have no problem with it being taught in schools, but it belongs in a theology classroom, not a science classroom.

From a scientific basis, evolution is just a "theory", since we can't exactly go back and time and observe all of biology evolve out from single celled lifeforms. The trouble is that people too commonly confuse the scientific definition of "theory" with the general one. They think that so long as it's just a theory, it can easily be refuted. Well, matter of fact is, we can't go back in time, but over recent history we have observed evolution in action. HIV and other disease-causing pathogens are often noticed to be evolving to be resistant to drugs used to treat infections caused by them. Some bacteria have evolved to be able to biodegrade nylon. There's no denying that evolution is happening, as we have observed it firsthand. What you can choose not to believe is that all life on earth came from a common starting point, and rather that species not unlike those seen today were "designed" by some superior being. Of course, the question then arises, where'd the superior being come from? By both science and theology we have an unsolvable mystery that the universe wasn't always here, and that no matter what at some point you got something out of nothing. Science says big bang. Religion says god. One is based on extensive research and calculations by educated scientists. The other is based on what a 2000 year old book says. The claim of the religious is that that book is directly gods word. Of course, that claim is impossible to prove, and frankly, to my logical, scientific mind, it seems highly more likely that it was written by mere humans as the basis for a religion intended to unite people under a common calling and keep them in line.

Ultimately, the important thing is that we properly label religion as religion, and science as science, and never try to force one upon the other, since the fact is they simply don't mix. You can choose to try to understand things through god or through science, but you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. No matter what, both can't be right. The trouble comes that while science is science, there are a lot of different religions out there, and you can't possibly teach them all to their fullest extent in public schools. Still, basic knowledge about the world's main religions is something everyone should have, whether they ascribe to any of them or not, simply because knowing more is better, and knowledge in this area can do a lot to help avoid cross-cultural misunderstandings. I'd say, make all high school freshman take a class in general theology, which goes and covers the basics of everything, and then offer further, more specific classes as electives for if any students wish to pursue the subject further. Because it's a real shame that we've been trying to remove all traces of religion from public schools. The trouble is, that's the easy way out. Knowledge of religion is good to have. What's important to maintain, however, is that none of the teachers or other faculty favor one religion over another in their teachings. They need to keep their personal beliefs out of it and merely teach things from an entirely neutral point of view. Which isn't always easy, but it can be done.

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

Well said Duke. I agree, it riles me up that Creationism is talked about as if it is the only option, as if there is definitive proof that it is THE cause of how we are now. I remember a quote by another ST member on the matter, who said:

"Creationsim may not make much sense, but it makes much more sense that Evolution."

This is the biggest lie I have ever read straight from the horse's mouth. Any person with rational thought can surely not believe that a huge invisible deity created humans by hand, scuplted two of them then told them to get busy. What makes a load more sense is that human's have been changing from a tiny amoeba thing to what we are now, the concept may be a little difficult to understand, or believe that we were once microscopic, or lived underwater or swung from trees. So yeah, I'm sure the fact that we are all inbreds from two people who lived in a garden with talking snakes and who were hand sculpted by a huge invisible man makes a whole load more sense than us changing form from a different creature billions of years ago. I am still being respectful to the member in question, it was his/her right to state this, and it was his/her opinion, this is mine.

[Palpatine001 57]

Maintaining that netural religious point is the best way in teaching theology in the education system but it can be easier said than done. Also I agree that science is sciene and religion is religion, two polar opposites and remember, evolution guys like creationism is a theory, science and theology are doing their at most best to find the answer we are all looking for.

Now I am an evoloutionist and I acknowledge it is a theory and that science has only scratched the surface if that at all. Natural selection would be a starting area to look at physical evolution and how species "evolve" biologically to adapt to the surrounding environment - the so called survival of the fittest matter of speaking. However humanity and the ape family seem to have thrown up a nice addition to make evolutionists go nutty and I mean nutty, that is Primates which humans are part of (yes we are animals from the animal kingdom, as I am not a plant last time I checked) have the capability to culturally evolve. Yes National Geographic and scientists are now figuring out that there are two classes of evolution:

Physical Evolution where a species changes biologically to adapt to its environment

Cultural Evolution: where a species such as humans have the capability to use and create technology, technology to give us tools to add our adaptation in this environment, remember we are capable of emotions, empathy, cold blooded murder, constructing tools and technology to advance ourselves and over come our biological limitations - think where we go, air, water, land, space.

Now Schm0 I will admit that cultural evolution is quite new and seems radical, but trust me, look at National geographic and Anthropology and you will see evidene of this.

Now I believe one thing would answer a lot of questions but open up even more questions and that is space travel

NOW THIS IS ALL THEORY PEOPLE REMEMBER THAT

I say FTL space travel for one reason and one destination, the centre of our galaxy, there it is believed you will see a power far beyond our comprehension and what makes God a geographic and sociological discourse, and that power is the mega blackhole as well as white holes

Just giving a bit of info on the two holes, black holes have been proven and sited are where super dense stars have imploded forming this hole that sucks in everything including light; now white holes are believed to be the opposite, that is they spew out matter, white holes have not been sited yet but believed to be in the inner galaxy where our telescopes sensors are hindered by intense radiation.

Now if a white hole is discovered it proves that black holes and white holes are linked, the it is the universes way of reorganising matter as matter can not be destroyed and created, so a black and white hole one would say are like recycling units, the recycle the old like this galaxy in 15 billion years and give way to something new - hence we see Stars born and die

Now I might be going off topic but if you look at that theory, it could prove that evolution is very real as systems, and galaxies are born and die, just like our planet is believed to be undergoing, it also might prove that there is creationism but not as we see it, not a single entity god as we portray HIM, but this whole wider universe as God as she creates and destroys, especially in 500 years if alternate universes exist - yeah Sci Fi but hey, we are still discovering here

I'll come back later and see what is said to my piece

[Romaq 18]

From a statement in the other thread:

Creationism can not be disproven. One can not disprove a non-existance. For example, one could say that Star Wars was a documentary concerning real events that have taken place in another galaxy, a long time ago. The events were transmitted to Lucas via The Force. Everything that has taken place in the movies as recorded is fact, more or less, somewhere 'out there'.

You may scoff at such a statement, but *disproving* such a statement is impossible. Creationism as a myth simply can not be disproven, and will never be disproven. A non-existance can never be disproven. It would be like defending Santa Clause against the accusation of being a pedophile; his very non-existance complicates disproving *anything*.

Concerning the Theory of Natural Selection, only the technical details of processes we can observe and replicate are really worth fussing over. But as time goes on, and the more we learn, the less a 'Creation Myth' becomes a 'requirement' for explaining things we can't currently replcate in the lab or find in the field.

There is an article in the Forum section of the May/June 2007 Skeptical Inquirer written by Charles L. Rulon, professor emeritus of Long Beach City College. In this article he records an opening statement he gave at a debate with a scientist from the Discovery Institute regarding intelligent design. Mr. Rulon had no problem stating "Evolution--meaning that we are ancient cousins of apes and whales and starfish--is a scienifically settled fact, as much so as the fact our sun gives off heat."

In the article he admits he has no 'silver bullet arguement to convert the creationists' in his audience. "The only way creationists have been defeated, so far, from introducing their anti-evolution beliefs into public school science classes has been in court cases where their phony science has been exposed." In the article, Mr. Rulon gives reasons why debating Creationists is not only useless, but often harmful from the viewpoint of someone establishing scientific fact before an audience.

As someone who scientific method is the best way to arrive at factual truth, I want everyone I know to underestand how the use of knowledge and scientific principles can be used to improve everyone's lives around the world. Unfortunately, those who believe simply refuse to be confused by the facts.

All in all, I'll get glad to give up stating Evolution is *fact* when someone provides a *theory* that better explains what is observed in nature *and* provides a model for making falsifiable tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability). In short, I'll listen when Christian Scientists start working with Science. But I expect the guilt or innocence of Santa Clause as a pedophile will be determined first.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Its an almost pointless agrument.

I can cite as many references as you want me too for evolution/adapation ect

actualy hapening as we watch.

however its the same as the beliving in god or not,

you either do or do not and no amount of argueing,

name calling or pointing out facts or supposed facts will change the minds

of those who belive the other side.

[johndeere985 0]

what is the definition of science? everyone say creationism isn't science, but no one defines science? I  would like to add that Dr. Francis Collins, head of National Human Genome Research Institute, and in charge of the Human Genome Project which is a project to decode more than three billion nucleotides contained in a haploid reference human genome and to identify all the genes present in it, believes in creationism. He must see some scientific proof for creationism. 

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001

...Now I might be going off topic but if you look at that theory...

I'll come back later and see what is said to my piecequote>

Let's stick to evolution on a global scale, and not stretch too far into the cosmos.

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes Its an almost pointless agrument.

I can cite as many references as you want me too for evolution/adapation ect

actualy hapening as we watch.

however its the same as the beliving in god or not,

you either do or do not and no amount of argueing,

name calling or pointing out facts or supposed facts will change the minds

of those who belive the other side.

quote>

Then why post anything at all? I think this thread could harbor some interesting conversation, but I don't think it will cause a global revolution of ideas. Discussion and argument help us solidify our own beliefs while causing us to listen to others and hear varying points of view. This, in itself, is more beneficial than proving one side or the other.

I'd still like to hear everyone's thoughts on how Creationism and "Intelligent Design" impact our education systems and culture (i.e. the topic that got us here) and how these ideas, contrasted with evolution, can influence the way we think as a society.

Some questions for you readers to ponder:

Can you be religious and believe in evolution?

If we believe in evolution, does that mean we are forsaking our religion?

Is teaching these ideas to our youth in a public setting acceptable?

Can such ideas co-exist, or are they exclusive?

What is the evidence behind Creationist theory?

Does it stand up to scientific standards (on either side)?

[Micah 16]

It doesn't matter either way. Christianity isn't a religion. It's a lifestyle.

[Uumke 0]

Well I have no problems with creationism, but I choose for evolution, as it has far better arguments than the creationism.

[PathE 0]

I have argued about this topic many times, then I came to realize: If we already have evidence for evolution, killer bees, and fossil evidence for evidence: different types of humans like the neanderthals, why argue about it with an opinion? Arguing opinions is silly, you can not win whatsoever.

[nealos101 20]

I believe god when he tells me he created everything in six days, and I'll believe a scientist when he says that the earth was created in so many million years.

But the side I take tells both sides to proove it, and so far nothing has actually been clear enough to say "That side wins."

You have the old bible and religion for creationism.

And you have old bones and fossils for evolution.

But neither have solid evidence that places a banner in front of you and says "HARD, COLD TRUTH."

So I shall beilieve them both becuase A) God is my diety and I trust him and B) Scientists are my fellow men and women and I trust them.

I don't try to mix them... It doesn't really work that way... Maybe put one before the other... But don't ever try to mix them up.

...You'll get confused if you do.

N.

[hamsterTK 93]

What about the old native american beliefs of the universe and the creation of world? Are those not as valid as the christian myth of creation? Chrisitians believe their religion is the one true faith. Well, so do the followers of pretty much every other religion...

To me, this debate can summed up as whether or not public schools should be teaching not only facts, but cultural beliefs and traditions as well.

[nealos101 20]

That indeed is very true...

Same answer.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Well, ask a creationist where all of these different types of dogs came from, and they'll probably agree that they were bred.

Then you say, "what does 'bred' mean?"  And they say that dogs with traits people like will be mated, and that those traits will be stronger.

And then what about dogs with traits that people don't like?  Those dogs go to the incinerator because no body wants them, and they're usually not purposefully mated with another dog.  After being incinerated, they no longer have puppies.

Now take this other case.  There's this couple at church, and the guy is 6'9" and the girl is 6'0".  Another couple a few rows back says, "Geeze, I bet their kids are going to be huge!" and I don't think anyone doubts that their kids will probably be tall.

Now what if those kids married other tall people?  They could be even taller!  And what happens if tall people marry tall people for thousands of generations?  I don't think it's hard to believe that the population would be taller than average.

But then you figure that there are also short people marrying tall people, and short people marrying short people.  But what if there's a short person who only has the opportunity to work on a farm, or in a factory, doing heavy labor.  The short person will probably be less successful in that job, and will make less money, and have less status, and will be less desirable.  If the short person does get married, the person is still making less money and has less resources, and is less likely to have a ton of kids.  So the undesirable traits will naturally be "weeded out" over time.  There will be a lot of exceptions, but this will be a trend, and after thousands of generations, this trend could turn into something more noticeable. 

Does all of this make sense?  That's all that evolution is.  Evolution isn't some wacky abstract thing thought up by mad scientists, or anything like that.  It's logical, common sense, and observable to some extent within our lifetimes.

[Gozer_Jep 0]

yes, it sounds logical, so far, but 1 thing i don't understand: when you have 2 tall people who get married, there kids will probably be tall too, but not taller. The same thing in evolution: when there are 2 animals without eyes, how could there ever come animals with eyes?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Allow me to point out that this discussion is nugatory.  Both sides are infected with the "Don't confuse me with 'facts', my mind is made up" syndrome.

My only point is that with a little work, both theories could be reconciled.

Who is to say what the length of the 'day' is for the deity?  What is "light"?  Is "light" knowledge?  Is it visible wavelengths?  All spectral wavelengths (who knows what wavelengths the deity sees?)?

There is pretty good evidence for evolution.  Who is to say it is not designed by the deity?  After all, if you are a creationist, who designed DNA and the general system of life as we know it?

[Mikeaut1 261]

Originally posted by: Micah It doesn't matter either way. Christianity isn't a religion. It's a lifestyle.quote>

WELL SAID!!!

I believe in Creationism. Evolution has some great points, but some of it is bizzarre, like we once were primates. I don't believe that, I think we were just created by God.

[Romaq 18]

Faith and fact can not be reconciled. Faith doesn't need fact, and can adopt facts to suit the purpose. For a person of faith, one may choose not to believe evolution as a basis of faith, or one may choose to have faith and believe evolution, so by means of 'faith', both evolution and creation may be reconciled.

But only by means of faith.

I have no faith in 'faith alone'. While I admit not all of existance will submit itself to peer review through scientific method, I choose not to believe those things are of value to *me*. So while someone *else* is welcome to be a person of Faith, I *have* no faith. And without Faith, evolution and creation can never ever be reconciled. Ever.

Though, if I were ever going to take Faith into consideration, I'm really leaning towards being a Fictionologist (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31006). Those guys really sound like they have it together where it comes to incorporating one's faith in a world with too much objective reality.

[Palpatine001 57]

Then what is God?

An anthropologist, a sociologist and a human Geographier will say God is a discourse in our attempt to categorise things, the same as Science, physical and cultural evolution theories

Schm0, I love to keep this global but I believe the stars do hold the ultimate answer as I said above

[Odainsaker 2,133]

What about the old native american beliefs of the universe and the creation of world? Are those not as valid as the christian myth of creation? Chrisitians believe their religion is the one true faith. Well, so do the followers of pretty much every other religion...

To me, this debate can summed up as whether or not public schools should be teaching not only facts, but cultural beliefs and traditions as well.quote>

Ding! Ding! Ding! Yea shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set yea free! Someone has finally seen the point. Quibbling over the specific mechanics of evolution, natural selection, and the zoological record is a fruitless sideshow. Thou shalt not confuse the issue with facts.

The Creationism versus Evolution debate has never been a serious science debate, for science has long since moved on, treating literal Christian Creationism with as much import as Astrology, Tarot, Nostradamus, and other pseudoscience. The Creationism versus Evolution debate is maintained, however, because it is a political and public policy debate, which is about who controls the political power and the public purse. It is just one of many religious agenda issues meant to appeal to the faith of a constituent base and galvanize the national evangelical movement.

That public science education in the United States continues to remain in the doldrums compared to other developed nations in our increasingly competitive global economy, to the level that we must now begin to look to importing highly skilled people, should tell us the dangers of playing petty politics with our education.

But neither have solid evidence that places a banner in front of you and says "HARD, COLD TRUTH."quote>

You'll never see that. Even if you did, in either case, that trickster Satan could be deceiving us, or the Sinister Government Conspiracy could be carefully tampering with all our evidence. How do you weigh against this?

Science as a philosophy for knowledge does not attempt to find "hard, cold truth," be it forever chiselled in stone tablets, written in flaming letters, or even printed by rote in science textbooks. "Truth" is not something science can ever produce, but instead only models and theories beaten with testing to best encompass the evidence we have available. But religion and other similar Belief systems don't like provisional or best-fit evidence...they typically need some sort of undeniable Truth as validation of their dogma before their followers, and this Truth is made undeniable by short-circuiting any attempt to investigate it outside of the pre-defined boundaries of the dogma, usually through programmed catch-phrases, slogans, demagoguery, and logical fallacies. Is it no wonder why religion and politics can often so easily go hand-in-hand, for the setups are often the same?

How else then do we end up with the illogic of claims that follow the pattern of "in my personal view, evolution does not have sufficiently strong scientific evidence to support it, therefore, my belief of creationism, even though it has far less and far weaker scientific evidence, must be true" ???

[Romaq 18]

I do have to agree with the National Science Foundation: Science Is Hard (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38575)

To quote UCLA physicist Dr. Hideki Watanabe "I guess there's cool stuff about science like space travel and bombs. But that stuff is so hard, it's honestly not even worth the effort."

A good faith-based education with a strong emphasis on Astrology and Biblical based science offers hope for daily life and provides for eternal concerns. Science is just... so *hard* to work with, it really isn't worth the bother in a public school setting.

[neder 1]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Ultimately, the important thing is that we properly label religion as religion, and science as science, and never try to force one upon the other, since the fact is they simply don't mix. You can choose to try to understand things through god or through science, but you can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. No matter what, both can't be right.quote>

Very good post overall Duke, but the above statement is not correct in my belif. We know that the bible use a lot of analogies and that a lot of it is not supposed to be taken by literally. Most christian belivers, priests and even the pope agrees with that. What I can't understand is why christian belivers don't embrace science and work alongside with it. What is the big bang? Have anyone been able to make a working theory of this? No. Who can say that god did not cause it? Noone. And who could say that god have the same timeframes as us? Maybe he's on his 7th day and resting as we speak, that would help to explain a lot of things going on in the world.

Why do christians insist on taking the part of creation literally when much of the rest isn't?

Why don't they take help from science to explain creation?

I think religion would be taken more seriously if they did.

[Mayor Abe 3]

I also disagree with those who try to pass creationoniim off as legitmate science, but I personally belive in limited creationisim, eg. god had a direct influence on certan scentific events, such as triggering the big bang. Also, I don't like the idea of a cretionist museum of an evolutionary museum. A scientific museum should fairly represent both arguments.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Wonderful! Someone created yet another thread that puts member against member in a heated, endless debate!

...i'm off to play SC4 then...the real reason why this site is here...

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Mikeaut1

Originally posted by: Micah It doesn't matter either way. Christianity isn't a religion. It's a lifestyle.quote>

WELL SAID!!!

... but some of it is bizzarre, like we once were primates. quote>

We still are last time I checked.. Humans are in the Order Primates, along with apes, monkeys and hominidae. We are not an order separate to them, taxonomicaly speaking.

Interestingly enough, when I was studying there was a stream of thought that suggested the Flying Foxes should be in with the primates, not the chiroptera, based on the structure of the optic chiasma. (Flying foxes have an optic chiasma more similar to the primates than the chiroptera)

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: PathE I have argued about this topic many times, then I came to realize: If we already have evidence for evolution, killer bees, and fossil evidence for evidence: different types of humans like the neanderthals, why argue about it with an opinion? Arguing opinions is silly, you can not win whatsoever.quote>

I think that the fundamental issue isn't who is right or wrong, but moreover how we as a society are impacted by such issues. Discussion and opinion, therefore, is arbitrary in the end, but it helps to understand both sides of the debate.

Originally posted by: nealos101 I believe god when he tells me he created everything in six days, and I'll believe a scientist when he says that the earth was created in so many million years...(edit)....So I shall beilieve them both becuase A) God is my diety and I trust him and B) Scientists are my fellow men and women and I trust them. I don't try to mix them... It doesn't really work that way... Maybe put one before the other... But don't ever try to mix them up.

...You'll get confused if you do.

N.quote>

How do you reconcile the two? Don't they cancel each other out? Herein lies one of the fundamental questions: who do our youth turn to for their information about the beginnings of our planet and the life contained on it?

Originally posted by: N_O_Body Allow me to point out that this discussion is nugatory.  Both sides are infected with the "Don't confuse me with 'facts', my mind is made up" syndrome......My only point is that with a little work, both theories could be reconciled....Who is to say what the length of the 'day' is for the deity?  What is "light"?  Is "light" knowledge?  Is it visible wavelengths?  All spectral wavelengths (who knows what wavelengths the deity sees?)?...There is pretty good evidence for evolution.  Who is to say it is not designed by the deity?  After all, if you are a creationist, who designed DNA and the general system of life as we know it?quote>

The same could be said about any heated topic of debate, but that doesn't stop everyday people, educators, scientists and the media from talking about it. There will always be those on either side of the aisle that simply won't budge from their positions, no matter how rationally you plead your case. You also make an excellent point by melding the two ideas into an arguable defense for a logical theist position. Perhaps the authors of the Bible might not have gotten the timeline just right, but maybe just the overall idea?

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Then what is God?

An anthropologist, a sociologist and a human Geographier will say God is a discourse in our attempt to categorise things, the same as Science, physical and cultural evolution theories

Schm0, I love to keep this global but I believe the stars do hold the ultimate answer as I said abovequote>

Well, we all came from the stars anyways... you and I are made from stardust, my friend.

Originally posted by: neder

Originally posted by: Duke87

Why do christians insist on taking the part of creation literally when much of the rest isn't?

Why don't they take help from science to explain creation?

I think religion would be taken more seriously if they did.quote>

quote>

I think Christians (and anyone who has a distaste for the idea of evolution) take offense to the idea that we are unique on the planet, and therefore of a higher order than the common animal. Evolution suggests that we are all part of the same family, even down to the common insect.

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Wonderful! Someone created yet another thread that puts member against member in a heated, endless debate!

...i'm off to play SC4 then...the real reason why this site is here...quote>

There are about 150 other forums that concern SimCity... that's why this forum is called "Off-Topic." You don't have to read off-topic threads if you don't want to.

Just a couple of ideas to throw back at you all...

[BlondeTwiggy 43]

Originally posted by: Micah It doesn't matter either way. Christianity isn't a religion. It's a lifestyle.quote>

I would say more of a relationship. I hate it when people use ‘religion,’ because I know that connotes some bad images in the mind’s eye. That word has been so abused and used to justify crap that it has become somewhat vague in meaning. lol

There is evidence for both sides, even Creation, but maybe it’s not as well known? I’d post some (hopefully) non-opinion-y stuff, but I’m tired of talking about evolution/Creation (and especially moths ) right now lol

[Romaq 18]

'Off Topic' kinda means 'Off Topic.' At least, that would be my first guess.

Concerning a 'Scientific Museum'... words mean things, keep track of it... 'fairly'... again, words mean things... representing both arguements...

A 'Science Museum', on the face of it, should represent 'Science'. At least, that would be the normal useage and thought behind a 'science museum'. A 'science museum', that is, one representing science, would strive to reveal naturalistic explanations for how things came to be, how they work, and provide a basis for creating naturalistic explanations of phenomena not yet understood. A naturalistic explanation by definition excludes supernatural explanations. The meaning of the words used precludes a 'science museum' from 'fairly representing' articles of religious faith. The proper role for representing articles of religious faith and other such Supernatural explanations of observed phenomena is a *church*, or such museums as are being honest and willing to state clearly, "Museum of Holy Creation," or other such title as clearly states the intended goal.

One my subscribe to articles of faith and still be a scientist. The role of a scientist, however, is to offer naturalistic explanations of observed phenomena such that the explanation can be tested for veracity, the testing can be replicated, and the explanation provides a useful working representation to make useful predictions and offer means to manipulate reality based upon the model provided. Several such models being the General and Specific Theories of Relativity. We use those for GPS. If the model didn't offer a way to resolve light-speed transmission issues, it would be pretty useless. 'Relativity' is *not* a statement of faith. It's a model, it covers well enough what it claims, and it works. AND we are *STILL* attempting to verify the limits of relativity with Gravity Probe B (http://einstein.stanford.edu/). So even though we *think* the model is good, a good scientist is *still* testing the limits of the model to learn more, particularly where the model *doesn't* function as expected.

A 'science museum,' one being honest about what mission such a name implies, simply can not comment on supernatural articles of faith. Faith is Faith, believing despite any evidence provided. Science is learning from the evidence to figure out what REALLY makes it work from a naturalistic perspective, and it is exclusive of 'faith'. The two simply can not mix in purpose. If you have *evidence*, you do not have *faith*, you do not *need* faith. If you have *faith*, evidence isn't relevant, though faith may choose to include 'evidence' of some sort or not completely at whim. Faith's like that. Science, real science, however, can only rest upon naturalistic explanations.

So the idea of a 'Science Museaum' somehow 'fairly' representing 'both sides' of the arguement isn't right, it isn't even wrong. The definition of the words precludes the concept.