1st. Read Aardwolfs reply
2nd. It makes even less sense to accept the part of evolution you like and reject the part you don't like even if it is based on the exact same evidence. That is cherrypicking and not how the world works.
Do some zoos not teach about evolution to avoid angering creationist groups?
- Thread starter Komodo Dragon
- Start date
1st. Read Aardwolfs reply
2nd. It makes even less sense to accept the part of evolution you like and reject the part you don't like even if it is based on the exact same evidence. That is cherrypicking and not how the world works.
As I said, I am not trying to argue here, and largely agree with your reply here.
If you don't try to argue, maybe you shouldn't pick extremely controversial statements
Really I think it comes down to the way of presenting information. Zoos aren't well-positioned to have evolution-themed exhibits, or exhibits on Darwinian Origin of Species. It'd be cool for a zoo to exhibit Darwin finches to talk about evolution, but unfortunately there aren't any Darwin finches in US Zoos. Furthermore, looking at the origin of life doesn't make sense for zoos as they only focus on a rather small percentage of living things: the animals. Teaching about origin of life requires exhibits on bacteria life,, plants, protists, etc. For most zoos, the majority of collection is even more specific than animals. However, one thing I'd like to see more of is a focus on "relatedness". Exhibit rock hyraxes inside an elephant barn and have signs talking about how hyraxes are some of the closest living relatives of the elephants. Have exhibits comparing and contrasting giraffes and okapis. Both of these ideas would be exhibits on evolution, even if it's not the way people immediately think of evolution.
Last edited:
I was merely explaining my philosophy since I was asked. Had I not been asked I would not have elaborated.If you don't try to argue, maybe you shouldn't pick extremely controversial statements
I think I remember this article which was about the discovery of Ninguais if I remember correctly; I think a couple of papers used the womble comparison, presumably based on a press release.
Last edited:
cloudedleopard611
Well-Known Member
I see Jehovah's witnesses outside the St. Louis Zoo a lot. I am not sure if its a protest thing or not. I honestly try to avoid them so I don't have the chance to see why there are there.
I would disagree, a museum display with living animals is a thing zoos can do very well, if they think about it. The Darwineum in Rostock, Germany, is a prime example on how it can be done very well:
Europe's 100 must see exhibits
Other zoos have smaller exhibitions, often revolving around either great apes or Galapagos tortoises.
I was already referring to your first statement, not the elaboration that came afterwards, which raised more eyebrows.
In regards to this first statement then, I just want to make it clear - I do not think truth in general does not matter. It is simply that whatever the truth is in this particular scenario, it does not matter to me personally.
I already mentioned the Darwineum several posts before. As well as the great ape association.
And I'd dare to contradict Dobzhansky; plenty of things in biology make sense, at least to me.
Furthermore, I'd rather prefer that you stop scolding @birdsandbats ; I think he's stated and explained his opinion convincingly, without requiring any further conflict.
Many people do cherry pick. There are various parts of religious texts that don't get mentioned much because relatively few people would accept them. For example Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
I think it's definitely an interesting debate discussing the zoos that promote anti-evolution, or pro-creationist views, and I want to share a few thoughts on that:
I would not visit a zoo that is pro-creationism. However, that does not mean that I don't think they should exist. Any free and healthy country requires a few basic principles to remain free from authoritarianism, and the most central of those tenants include: the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, and the freedom to think. I may disagree with anti-evolution sentiment, but who am I to cherry-pick what speech should or shouldn't be allowed? If others wish to express anti-evolution sentiment, I have nothing against that, as long as it's done respectfully. Similarly, I don't care if anyone "believes" in evolution or not. That doesn't change the fact evolution is real, and yet someone's denial of this fact is not doing themselves or others any physical harm. So if somebody wishes to have a zoo that's pro-creationism, be my guest, but I just won't be your guest and pay money to go in.
I would not visit a zoo that is pro-creationism. However, that does not mean that I don't think they should exist. Any free and healthy country requires a few basic principles to remain free from authoritarianism, and the most central of those tenants include: the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, and the freedom to think. I may disagree with anti-evolution sentiment, but who am I to cherry-pick what speech should or shouldn't be allowed? If others wish to express anti-evolution sentiment, I have nothing against that, as long as it's done respectfully. Similarly, I don't care if anyone "believes" in evolution or not. That doesn't change the fact evolution is real, and yet someone's denial of this fact is not doing themselves or others any physical harm. So if somebody wishes to have a zoo that's pro-creationism, be my guest, but I just won't be your guest and pay money to go in.
There is, of course, the paradox of tolerance - that in order to maintain a tolerant society, society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance. As such, freedom of speech and expression cannot be unlimited, or there is the risk all of these freedoms will be lost.
If you told me to design a zoo exhibit around evolution, I would probably do an exhibit with amphibians, reptiles, birds, and a few small mammals focusing on the process of reptiles evolving into birds while also discussing the role fish and amphibians played in reptile evolution and the rise of mammals, but definitely with reptiles-to-birds as the primary narrative. This would allow large mammals to still be housed geographically but go beyond your typical Reptile House or Bird House and educate on evolution. Tropical Discovery at Denver meets the Field's Evolving Planet. I think an animatronic dinosaur or two might help to drive home points but I know many zoochatters would cringe!
I completely agree. However, this begs the question, when we are discussing evolution, is the pro-creationist crowd really "intolerant"? I wouldn't consider them inherently so. I'm completely for being intolerant towards hate crimes, genocide, terrorism, etc., but that's not what we're talking about with the pro-creationist crowd- we're just talking about people who disagree with us.
Yes. Unfortunately the same issue came about in another recent thread why no reptile house teaches the distinction between reptiles and anphibians.
By the way, Lake Malawi cichlids would be good subjects to teach about evolution. They are colorful, easy to keep and are an even bigger example of adaptive radiation than Darwin's finches.
You're leaving out the extremely important detail that Ararat Ridge Zoo is part of Ark Encounter, which is is owned by Answers in Genesis, the main pushers of young earth creationism. Their entire purpose is to be anti-science.
One takeaway from my visit was that, for better or for worse, the people running the facility truly believe what they teach. They are not trying to cause chaos or be "anti-science".
They definitely believe what they teach, that's for sure. They literally are anti-science, they completely reject anything scientific if it wasn't in the bible version they prefer. They are very well known for their beliefs.
This is important. A few years ago, I read a book called 'Lost Books of the Bible' about books suppressed over the centuries.