http://stumblingsonata.wordpress.com/2008/05/03/and-so-it-begins/

Buy 48 million cans of Coca Cola
Build 135000 wells in poor regions of Africa
Give 130000 laptops to children in developing countries http://www.laptopfoundation.org/
Buy 2700 Cars
Give 540 families enough money for a year
Build 1 museum about creationism

Make your choice!

But anyway, I’m a proponent of “religion = bad”, though I’m liberal in the fact that I don’t mind people practicing it, as long as they don’t try to force people to believe fundamentalist dogma.
Even not using science, they’ve proved the Earth to be at LEAST 10,000 years old, which is 4,000 years older than this museum says!

Oh, and the Grand Canyon was formed because the Colorado River runs through it, and eroded it over millions of years.

What I was trying to say was something like this. This museum is teaching visitors a particular viewpoint, one that its founders believe to be true. It’s unfair to use words like ‘brainwashing’ with all the negative connotations that brings; they aren’t sitting in their boardroom asking each other “what can we make the gullible little children believe today,” I like to hope they’re acting with the best of intentions.

Museums that teach scientific fact are still institutions that teach visitors a particular viewpoint. To you and me, that fact has more validity, because we put a lot of stock in scientific method, proof and justification. To you and me, “an age-old, outdated book” isn’t a good enough source, but you have to accept that there are people that take the Bible as being just as valid as a mathematical proof. They’re allowed to think that – it’s one of the wonders of free speech.

It’s not like they’re deliberately falsifying proof to support their own hypotheses, either. Perhaps there was a flood that covered the planet, and perhaps the Grand Canyon is evidence of that. You don’t have to believe the flood was the will of the Creator to open yourself up to the possibility that it happened. With faith in God you can actually lick your elbow. That last bit isn’t true but I figure it doesn’t matter because nobody’s going to wade through the whole of this comment, they’re only going to skim the bits at the beginning and the end. And the natural selection thing looks, to me, like a considered effort to square current scientific understanding with Christian doctrine – something I would have thought you’d be all in favour of.

All I’m taking issue with is the ‘religious = bad’ conclusion you seem to have jumped to. The objectives of this museum are no different from those of the scientific community, the main difference being that you don’t agree with what they’re teaching. You’re confusing “all right-thinking people” with “all people who think like I do”. Without such a wide variety of opinions knocking about, we’d be a much less diverse and interesting society, and we’d have a lot less to debate about. We’d all have a better time of it if we all tried to see things from the other side’s point of view.