Do some zoos not teach about evolution to avoid angering creationist groups?

Komodo Dragon

Komodo Dragon

Well-Known Member
In my experience, not many zoos feature displays that explicitly discuss Darwinian evolution, though there are exceptions. The glorious and sadly defunct Biochron at Dierenpark Emmen was one such complex, mixing together fossils and live exhibits to craft the narrative of life’s origins and growth. There is also the Darwineum of Zoo Rostock, another large area that uses a variety of exhibits, from invertebrates to great apes, to educate on evolution.

These are the exception, however, and many zoos do not contain any content at all related to evolution. I wonder if this is a deliberate decision to not offend some visitors. And some zoos like Creation Kingdom Zoo and Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm outright endorse and promote such pseudoscience.

Do you think evolution is an important thing for zoos to teach or is it something that would hurt their image and draw controversy to them?
 
Being from the USA you may not realise that most of the world does not believe in Christian creationism. The USA is not normal in this regard. You give examples of two European zoos, but any Creationists who tried to protest those exhibits of which you speak would probably just be laughed at in Europe.

Any perceived lack of education about evolution in zoos (at least outside America) has nothing to do with the fear of angering Creationists, because that would be a pointless fear. It probably points more to a lack of proper educational effort in general.
 
Chlidonias said:
Being from the USA you may not realise that most of the world does not believe in Christian creationism. The USA is not normal in this regard. You give examples of two European zoos, but any Creationists who tried to protest those exhibits of which you speak would probably just be laughed at in Europe.

Any perceived lack of education about evolution in zoos (at least outside America) has nothing to do with the fear of angering Creationists, because that would be a pointless fear. It probably points more to a lack of proper educational effort in general.
Click to expand...

I don't think most Americans are entirely opposed to evolution as a whole, either. It's a vocal faction that makes it seem more popular.

I have been to one of the two American zoos listed, Creation Kingdom Zoo, and despite their name, there is no signage or anything whatsoever throughout the place encouraging creationism or opposing evolution. I can't speak for whatever they say to groups of students, but it is a pretty rural, conservative area.
 
I don’t think zoos have to “explicitly” discuss evolution, but good zoos are science based and I would not expect them to shy away from the topic if it was appropriate. Museums, which deal with extinct species through fossils etc, are in a much better position to do so and in my experience normally do. I’m interested, are you aware of any zoos that have had exhibits criticised or removed because it offended anybodies religious views?

I’m sure there are a number of smaller, roadside-type zoos that promote the creationist views of their owners, but they are not very significant in the zoo world. Interestingly, as I understand it from posts on this site, the Noah’s Ark Zoo in the UK has removed it’s religious signage.

The term “Ark” is of course widely used in conservation, a practice I dislike because it helps perpetuate the myth.
 
I think there is a second factor at play -- evolution is often explained in a very taxonomic way, comparing how different members of the same species or family adapted differently based on different environments, but fewer zoos will dedicated space to closely related species and save for primates, modern American zoos tend to avoid displaying mammals in taxonomic display. When Brookfield held two zebra and two tapir species, they had helpful signs explaining the differences in both species and I appreciated this kind of education. Still, a lot of signage reference evolution in subtle ways by pointing out the adaptations animals have to survive. Explaining evolution by way of biogeography has never seemed like a popular approach online or in the real world in my experience. Contrasting related species between each other or against ancestors usually seems more favored.

I can only speak strongly for Chicago, but the Field Museum has their major fossil hall in an exhibit called 'Evolving Planet' and I don't think I've ever heard any creationism controversy around it. There's been a comment here or there online but nothing that was a news story. This isn't the kind of battle creationists usually fight in my experience. Brookfield's Tropic World focused a lot on adaptions in signage in the past, which to me felt like an implicit nudge towards evolution, but signage in the building has been reduced and there was a subtle retheming some years ago.
 
Zoo Rostock has a whole complex dedicated to evolution:
Darwineum Rostock Zoo evolution

As previously mentioned by others, museums, especially of natural history, are more likely to dedicate space, money and attention to explaining the concept of evolution to the public. Most often, you find evolutionary aspects mentioned in great ape houses. And I agree with @Chlidonias : issues with creationists regarding evolution is mainly limited to countries where religion is of public significance, at least for some. Given that Rostock is located in a predominantly secular part of the world, I doubt that they have any issues with angry religious activists...
 
Last edited:
I regularly see Jehovah's Witness stalls near stations

Many have the question 'Was Life Created?'

I think it is better for me not to say anything
 
Certainly Chester prominently advertise Sixth Form courses with an Evolutionary theme as part of their educational program (not that I ever used this service as I could only present it as the cherry on the icing, not even the icing itself!)
 
I actually have been to a zoo in the US that teaches creationism (Ararat Ridge Zoo in Kentucky). I personally have no problem with whatever a zoo wants to teach, but I understand others feel differently.
 
MRJ said:
The term “Ark” is of course widely used in conservation, a practice I dislike because it helps perpetuate the myth.
Click to expand...
I don't have an issue with this. To me, Noah's Ark is something you can reference without making it explicitly religious/biblical. A lot of media presents it as simply saving a bunch of animals from a disaster. I didn't even realize that the Photo Ark was a reference to Noah's Ark until I started writing this :p.
 
lintworm said:
This is a very special way of reasoning and makes it impossible to argue about anything. Of course the truth matters.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, it certainly does. I don't think the truth never matters. But for something so far in the past as the true origin of species? I really don't think it does. This is my own personal philosophy that I am not trying to convince anyone to adopt - merely explaining my reasoning since Cobi asked me to elaborate.
 
Last edited:
Tetzoo Quizzer said:
Certainly Chester prominently advertise Sixth Form courses with an Evolutionary theme as part of their educational program (not that I ever used this service as I could only present it as the cherry on the icing, not even the icing itself!)
Click to expand...
When I did my Zoology A Level, my teacher never taught evolution; the pupils had to read the relevant chapter from the textbook. She also avoided teaching rabbit and human reproduction.

In one lesson, she wrote down a list of marsupials. This included 'womble', which amused a few pupils. My teacher read out an article from a newspaper. A womble-like marsupial had been found in Australia. As far as I know, only one pupil didn't write down 'womble' as a marsupial. Unfortunately, none of the A-level questions asked for a list of marsupials.
 
birdsandbats said:
Sometimes, it certainly does. I don't think the truth never matters. But for something so far in the past as the true origin of species? I really don't think it does. This is my own personal philosophy that I am not trying to convince anyone to adopt - merely explaining my reason since Cobi asked me to elaborate.
Click to expand...

Evolution is not just the origin of species, which isn't something of the past only but very much a present phenomenom. Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution is not for nothing a famous quote from Dobzhansky. From resistance to antibiotics, invasive species and every other topic of biology, evolution is the basis and very much a factor to be reckoned with.

It also matters if zoos are to be taken seriously as educational institutions and let's not even talk about philosophical implications.
 
lintworm said:
Evolution is not just the origin of species, which isn't something of the past only but very much a present phenomenom. Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution is not for nothing a famous quote from Dobzhansky. From resistance to antibiotics, invasive species and every other topic of biology, evolution is the basis and very much a factor to be reckoned with.
Click to expand...
Of course. No one on earth is denying that the concept of evolution is real, and is happening in the world today - not even creationists. The concept that creationists are against is that all species are descended from a common ancestor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top