Evolution

The second chapter, "Evolution and the Roulette Wheel" is particularly interesting in light of yesterday's visit to the museum, and the Hall of Human Origins. I understood Alan's letter about the roulette wheel and yet, I doubt kids were somehow subliminally influenced to take up the vice because of it. I personally have always thought chance plays a huge part in everything, even if one were to subscribe to a religious or non-religious view. Spinning a wheel or throwing some dice seem an excellent representation of all that is possible, both good and bad.
Anyway, I then wondered: was there any reference to God in the Hall of Human Origins? I know it was only yesterday, and yet I don't remember seeing anything about it. Does it belong in a scientific museum? Evolution is not "anti-religion," which Asma makes clear, but people have a tendency (I know I did originally) to put the two on opposite ends of the spectrum. There are, even today, plenty of debates in schools about whether or not to include evolution, or just the religious point of view, or both. I remember in my biology class sophomore year my teacher turned off the lights, made us close our eyes, and read from the bible of how life was created. He wasn't encouraging this theory, instead I think it was something he had to do, and wanted to do, because he saw the two things as being compataible in some way.
I found the Hall of Human Origins fascinating, and I wondered how it compares to other natural history museums on how it portrayed evolution. I would think America would be more likely than European institions to weasle something into the exhibit about God and religion, but maybe I'm wrong. As I was standing near the section on human creativity, I heard a man saying on a video nearby how science couldn't tell what was wrong from right; that was what philosophy, religion, art, etc was for. This was an interesting point of view, and maybe it was the museum's way of reconciling the two views. He, so as not to generalize, didn't act like science was around to give meaning to people's lives.
I think Alan (from this chapter in Stuffed Animals) would've been better off looking at chance from a religious point of view if he so chose. It is not incompatible. I like how Asma says that scholars and theologians jump to answer a question "not because they have an answer--it's because they can't stand the silence." I don't think it's just them, though, I don't think anyone can stand the silence. As cliche as it sounds, I'm not sure everyone is necessarily looking for "the" answer as much as a possible variety of answers.
As for a curatorial agenda in museology, it seems hard to avoid otherwise. Objectivity itself is rather subjective this way, as he alludes to with his soup example. I wondered, while in the Hall of Human Origins yesterday, if the curators purposely made the other hominids look more animalistic and then suddenly homo sapiens aren't at all? Was I imagining things? The dioramas connoted more primitiveness and distance. I understand this to an extent but for the most part they seemed very much the "other." Even though it was essentially us and our ancestors on display to gawk at, I doubt many people felt alarm because they didn't really look or seem like us. If one were to show up today we wouldn't be like, "hey, join my group!" We have placed ourselves out of reach of any kind of connection to these hominids.