Creationist displays in museum.

[MasterCarlton]

The Minister of culture has stated that a third of Ulster (Northern Ireland) are creationists and therefore has called for creationist and anti-evolution exhibitions to be set in the Ulster Museum.

Now personally I say no way. It's a place of science and the only time it should be exploring religion is from a strictly historical point of view. However as stated, a third of Ulster are infact creationists and the Ulster Museum is a much beloved land mark. So in this way, should there be a creationist exhibition? After all it would be the "fair" thing to do.

What I'm proposing is this. Should a museum include exhibitions of a religious nature in order to appease a large section of the population within a certain country/province? Even if it isn't considered scientifically tangible?

Although I'm against it I can certainly see the reason behind the proposal.

[Andy]

I think anti-evolution views are certainly non-scientific, and false. However, the purpose of museums isn't just to display scientific facts, but cultures and history - which religion is certainly a part of. I checked out their website (http://www.nmni.com/um/Collections/World-Cultures), and it seems they've got lots of cultural exhibits and are not strictly a scientific museum.

Even if it's supposed to be a scientific exhibit, that doesn't mean everything in it has to be factual according to modern standards. Especially concerning exhibits of long-dead scientists, not all of their theories turned out to be true (like Aristotle's Geocentrism), but that does not prohibit it from appearing in a science museum, or even an entire exhibit being devoted to what was previously accepted as science.

[Shaun]

It depends how it is displayed. If it is displayed as scientifically viable, then I would say no. If, however, they are representing it as a cultural item, such as you might see, perhaps, with the ancient cultures present on Ireland and so on, then I see no problem with that, so long as it is done from a cultural perspective and not from a scientific one.

The one thing I would disagree with Andy about is the issue of "everything being factually correct." Every museum I have been to will often show the incorrect beliefs, but only as a way of pointing out where we've come from. I don't know if you can do the same with creationism. You can't show it alongside evolution unless you're explicitly pointing out that one is factually correct and the other is, at best, an outdated farce raised from the grave like a zombie...

Just saying. The sad thing about all of this is that people who have no idea what they are talking about inevitably have the loudest voices and will go to great lengths to lie, cheat, and steal their way into our homes. It's happened in Texas and Kansas and all over the world. Theocracy is on the rise and anyone, religious or otherwise, should be absolutely terrified of that.

[MasterCarlton]

I completely agree with the two of you, I'm all for religion being exhibited, but in a historical point of view, showing its affects, expansion and changes in Ireland. Infact, I'll be all for that as religion is one of my great interests and I am even studying in for my A-levels. However, this is not the case.

What the minister wants is to create an exhibition along side the evolution exhibition showing the theory of intelligent design, seven days, Adam and Eve, you name it. My issue is that this has no evidence. The evolution exhibit has minerals, skulls and various other pieces of "evidence." (I'm going to stop there as I don't want this turning into a creationism v.s evolution debate.)

I suppose it's to create a sense of equality and fairness. Northern Ireland is going through a phase where EVERYONE has to be represented in EVERYTHING that goes on. 'Cause if those who squeeze their tooth paste from the top of the tube are left out, the government is branded as vicious nazis. It's ridiculous.

I'm concerned the inclusion of a creationist exhibition would belittle the muesum's factual integroty. We'll end up with primary schools taking their kids on a trip to the museum only to look at the exhibition that speaks of God, and completely ignore the other more tangible exhibits.

However, the inclusion of a creationist exhibit could bring new oppurtunities for healthy debate and may even encourage the exploration of other theories, such as evolution. More healthy debate would be nice. God knows this country needs it. (Excuse the pun.)

[Shaun]

Intelligent design isn't a theory. It's an unfounded hypothesis at best. Please don't call it a theory in my presence again. Just call it "creationism." You can give it fancy titles all you wnt, but it's all the same thing.

As for the "equality and fairness" point: okay, then the exhibit must also show creation myths from various other religions and give them as much credibility and attention as creationism. If we're playing that game, then you can't half-ass it. Otherwise, this guy is basically setting the foundations for a very obvious game of lies.

So, in that case, I don't think it should be in the museum under any circumstance. The bias is clear, so even if they change the approach, I wouldn't want it in there.

To the debate point: there is no such thing as a healthy debate between these theories. It's a perversion of reality. The only healthy debate is that occurring within the actual scientific community and not among the cracks and nutjobs who make up the creationist camp (that's a different argument). So, this isn't going to create healthy debate. It's going to create a wall of lies and bullcrap that intelligent people will have to battle their way through and fight to keep from their kids. Why? Because nobody can teach a religious concept without bias. It's impossible.

[MasterCarlton]

I pretty much agree with everything you said. So, unless someone has anything to add then I guess that's this little discussion wraped up.

You may be right on the debate point. But I would love to see more people debate creationism. Our government actually stops shops from oppening on Sunday before 1:00pm. -_- I just think it'll do us good. They also stop bars from opening on good Friday. Funny, they bang on about equality, but when it comes their church that goes out of the window.

Pointless rambling ends.

[Shaun]

Religious intolerance of the secular public is not unusual. It happens all over the place in the U.S.

[MasterCarlton]

I suppose. Makes for fun stories though. There ain't no greater joy than watching a creationist squirm under the immense pressure of TANGBLE LOGIC!

[Shaun]

It should be noted also that "secular public" doesn't mean "atheist public." It means simply that the public itself is not flooded with views by any particular ideology beyond that of the secular ideology. That means that I am not okay with putting statues that say "God does not exist" in public buildings any more than I am with "God does exist." I don't think either should be there.

[MasterCarlton]

I know what you mean. And yes, I agree. Over zealous atheism can be just as irritating.