Chris Mooney is fighting the good fight (not about the museum, but about the mindset), along with a lot of other science bloggers.

I too am sick of people equating evolution with so-called “social darwinism”. 
I think some of these “creationist” people know very well the difference, but think they can fool the uneducated or uninformed into believing that all scientists have an extreme anarchist libertarian socio-political agenda or something.
To use a timely analogy… I can accept the reality a snowstorm is happening without believing that anybody caught in it deserves to die in a car accident or from hypothermia.  (That’s what a leap of logic I think their arguments are.)

That said, if they want to erect a ton of museums, fine.  Just don’t use taxpayer money, and just don’t make it a destination for public school field trips.

No, I don’t think this museum is tax payer funded. Looks like private contributions and normal business financing. As for public school field trips. Who knows. It’s in the Bible Belt.

I don’t think that most of the folks involved in this operation have any thought other than that evolution is a fraud. They do seem to pick and choose between the scientific theories they accept and do seem to support environmental conservation which has, apparently, brought them a fair amount of angry mail. But it grates on me to hear how those of us who do accept evolution as a legitimate branch of science are out to undermine Christianity and, pretty much, destroy the world. They are determined to make Creationism a litmus test for being a real Christian. And that those who support the science of evolution are either misinformed/faulty Christians or Godless heathens.  And there is no other way to interpret what their website says.

With their proposed flow of 300,000 visitors each year, that’s a lot of people influenced by their dazzling Wow! factor and crappy science.

I just visited Chris Mooney’s website, Linkmeister. Enough to scare the daylights out of me. I’ll be very interested in keeping tabs on it.

I think I posted somewhere else about this last night… I guess it wasn’t here.  haha…

Oh, I know, I think I posted my comment on Chris Mooney’s comments…

Anyway, I think we DO have to get out of the idea that it’s science vs. religion.  Because it’s not.  It’s only CERTAIN sciences vs. SOME religious SECTS. 
My step-father is a retired scientist, and it would be very inaccurate to say he’s not religious.

But the thing is, I don’t think anybody really believes it’s “science vs. religion” - because their stand would be completely illogical then, what with them trying to get people with doctorates to try and legitimatize “intelligent design”.  “Undermining christianity” is probably just some propaganda some people think might work on the uninformed, probably.

Oh, about the “wow factor”...  I think they might actually get a lot of visitors who… well, you know… like sideshows at fairs.

I think it is entirely a religious issue, Chloe. And I think all science is under the lens of the Bible literalists.

To quote from one of the musuem’s Question and Answer pages entitled, A young Earth—it’s not the issue!:
_______________

“Question: Why would any Christian want to take man’s fallible dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying that man’s word is infallible, but God’s Word is fallible!

This is the crux of the issue. When Christians have agreed with the world that they can accept man’s fallible dating methods to interpret God’s Word, they have agreed with the world that the Bible can’t be trusted. They have essentially sent out the message that man, by himself, independent of revelation, can determine truth and impose this on God’s Word. Once this ‘door’ has been opened regarding Genesis, ultimately it can happen with the rest of the Bible.

You see, if Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the world’s teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to (re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every area, including morality.

Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God’s Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man’s dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible’s authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.

So, the issue is not ‘young Earth’ versus ‘old Earth,’ but this: Can fallible, sinful man be in authority over the Word of God?”

________________

For these folks, I think it’s pretty cut and dried. There is no justification or tolerance for the science of evolution because it undermines Biblical Authority. And as their quote in my original post says, “the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice and in every area it touches on.” So yes, I believe that it is a religious issue. Totally.

Follow the link at Mooney’s place to the Salon article he quotes.  It’s worth sitting through four pages of Powell’s ads to get to it, if only to figure out just how these people operate on school boards.

I read that yesterday. Pretty amazing isn’t it? It was interesting that while that guy was ‘defending his faith’, his potty mouth was spewing all sorts of ugliness. There is a disconnect there someplace. As one of the sources in the story said, it’s hard to fight them because they’re not coming from a place that has any grasp on reality.

Was I not clear here? 
I’m REALLY HOPING that you don’t mean that all religious people are Bible literalists…
Heavens, all religious people are not even all Christian. 

My point was that this isn’t science vs. religion - it’s some science vs. some religious sects.  Not even some religions, just some religious sects, sects such as Bible literalists.

To make it a totally science vs. religion issue, is to play right into their hands.

That’s what they want.

Not all religions, not all religious people, feel threatened by evolution, or any other science.
Not everyone who believes in god, is a fool with their head in the sand concerning science.

But that’s what these crazies want everyone to believe.
That scientists are all atheists who think people who believe in god are fools. 

And it’s just not true.

Chloe, what ever gave you the impression that I think all religious people are Bible literalists?

The people who interpret every last word in the Bible as the literal truth are Bible literalists. A small, but still significant subset of the Christian faith.

I wouldn’t make the mistake of calling them crazy. They have an unshakable faith in the literal word of the Bible and in their beliefs. They are as convinced of their rightness as I am that George Bush is the worst president this country has ever seen. They are no more likely to change their beliefs than I am.

Faith is one of those things that can’t be explained by logic. I think they’re attempting to do so through some cobbled form of science, but it’s still a faith issue. Fitting science to faith. Any science that does not conform to the authority of the Bible.

The only way to prevail in keeping Creationism out of the public schools is going to be through the courts. Logical arguments and all the scientific evidence in the world are not going to shake their faith. And they believe that they have a mandate from God to save the rest of us from ourselves and the wages of sin.

I am far less convinced now than I used to be that evolutionary science will prevail in the courts. Creationists are a minority, but a growing one. And they’ve gained a great deal of power in the last few years. The lower courts are increasingly sympathetic. And probably will grow more so with more conservative/dominionist/Bible thumper appointments.

Unless something shifts soon, I’m increasingly afraid....well, just afraid. We may well live to see the end of the separation of church and state.

Because I said: “I think we DO have to get out of the idea that it’s science vs. religion.  Because it’s not.  It’s only CERTAIN sciences vs. SOME religious SECTS.”
And you replied with:  "I think it is entirely a religious issue, Chloe."

"Faith is one of those things that can’t be explained by logic. I think they’re attempting to do so through some cobbled form of science, but it’s still a faith issue. Fitting science to faith. Any science that does not conform to the authority of the Bible."

*shudder* I guess it really bothers me when the term “faith in god” is used to describe “superstitions” or belief in the Bible as literal historical fact and divine authorship. 

Faith in god is not in itself anti-science.  I guess that’s what I feel they’re making it out to be, and everyone else is playing right into it.  Faith is not illogical.  (Faith in proven false superstitions is, but the existence of god has not been proven or disproven, so that doesn’t count.)

Seperation of Church & State need not mean “keep god out of everything”. 
It’s not a battle to keep religion out of schools, it’s a battle to keep schools religion-free.  In other words, to protect religious freedom.  So that no one religion is dominating public schools, which may have students of various religions.

That was the original intent of the Seperation of Church & State.  So the government can’t tell people what to believe. 
The real danger now lies in these fantatical Christians pushing for just that.
And that’s the argument that needs to be used.
It’s the only one that most people will go for.
Because if you have one school district commanding one religious belief, that opens the door for other school districts to push another - maybe even another Christian one… They shouldn’t like that idea.  They shouldn’t like that door being opened.

Just batting your head saying “NO religion!” is just going to appeal to atheists.  haha.  And it scares religious people.
If you say “Freedom of religion!” that should appeal to everyone with any religion.  (As well as any level-headed atheists.)

I realize these people are trying to pass off religious beliefs as science to get them into the schools.  However, it’s very transparent.  And most of them know this.  So I think this argument is likely to appeal more to them too.