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

Neil chace said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is an abundance of exquisite examples of various evolutionary mechanisms within the basic roster of zoo animals. The lack of good educational material about them is a failure on part of the zoo, not a lack of good case studies within zoo animal populations.

Peafowl are a prime example of sexual selection. The aforementioned ciclids are a case study in adaptive radiations, but so are carp. Domestics can be used to explain about artificial selection. Poison arrow frogs feature a splendid example of the evolution of parental styles and vicariance. Large wading birds (flamingo, ibis, pelican, spoonbill, heron) showcase niche diversification in a compelling way. There is a multitude of examples about co-evolution (from cheetah-gazelle tales to leaf cutter ants and their fungi). Mudskippers show a living example of a transitional species between water and land. And the champions of all are probably long-wing butterflies in the Heliconiinae subfamily - which includes several of the most common butterfly house species - with talking points including several types of mimicry, many forms of co-evolution, convergent evolution, vicariance and more.

Zoos are in a fantastic spot to talk about evolution. Utilizing this potential is up to them.
 
Mr. Zootycoon said:
There is an abundance of exquisite examples of various evolutionary mechanisms within the basic roster of zoo animals. The lack of good educational material about them is a failure on part of the zoo, not a lack of good case studies within zoo animal populations.

Peafowl are a prime example of sexual selection. The aforementioned ciclids are a case study in adaptive radiations, but so are carp. Domestics can be used to explain about artificial selection. Poison arrow frogs feature a splendid example of the evolution of parental styles and vicariance. Large wading birds (flamingo, ibis, pelican, spoonbill, heron) showcase niche diversification in a compelling way. There is a multitude of examples about co-evolution (from cheetah-gazelle tales to leaf cutter ants and their fungi). Mudskippers show a living example of a transitional species between water and land. And the champions of all are probably long-wing butterflies in the Heliconiinae subfamily - which includes several of the most common butterfly house species - with talking points including several types of mimicry, many forms of co-evolution, convergent evolution, vicariance and more.

Zoos are in a fantastic spot to talk about evolution. Utilizing this potential is up to them.
Click to expand...

I've seen signage about all of these things, especially the cheetah's body construction (though maybe I just notice that more). I think the difference is people don't really think of that in regards to Evolution, capital E. They think of one species turning into another species, not small changes in body form over hundreds or thousands of years.
 
There are people all over the world, in every continent and country, who have what may be described as strange or odd beliefs. As long as they cause no harm to others, I suggest that these folks should just be ignored, and left to get on with their lives as best they can. There are many widespread beliefs that do not stand up to investigation, as well as many that are accepted as truth, based only on belief in the supernatural. Anyone who disagrees with this is welcome to their opinion, and I have no problem with that! I have my own beliefs, that probably would not stand up too well to close inspection!
 
TinoPup said:
I've seen signage about all of these things, especially the cheetah's body construction (though maybe I just notice that more). I think the difference is people don't really think of that in regards to Evolution, capital E. They think of one species turning into another species, not small changes in body form over hundreds or thousands of years.
Click to expand...
Many creationists accept small changes, some even accept new species at Genus level. Actually there is quite a range of opinions amongst creationists.
 
Well, trying to stay on topic of the original post here, but I agree largely with what Chlidonias has said. I don't think that the majority of zoos are adverse from making definitive statements about observable scientific fact so much as it being a blind-spot in overall education at any given facility. Or, as others have cited, the zoo itself is run by creationists who don't believe in the science to begin with.

I will have to wholeheartedly disagree that zoos just aren't the place for education on evolution. I think people are getting quite tunnel visioned on the "Origin of Life" aspect, which is (for the most part) better left to a museum because they discuss history and the past in general. But evolution is observable and, as others have mentioned, is the very foundation why why life exists as we know it now, and there are ways to educate the public about it that have nothing to do with discussing life's origins.

Others have already cited their own examples but it comes up quite a bit in the cetacean department, because a very large chunk of the public truly does not know that whales are not fish. Evolution, at that point, is essential in educating the public about anything at all related to cetaceans. I think there are other reasons to educate on these subjects that come up organically all throughout a zoo, such as having different localities or subspecies on display, or needing to explain the critical difference between animals that look almost identical but are from completely different branches of the evolutionary tree. None of this has to do with creationism or the origin of life and could easily be discussed without offending the vast majority of creationists.

I do feel like zoos do generally talk about these things in one way or another, but a bigger focus and emphasis could be put on how all life ties together. In particular I would just really love if the general public was better at truly "seeing" an animal, noticing the structure of it and being able to intuit the ecological implications of their anatomy. I have had conversations with family members where I ask them to describe a bug they can't identify and they cant even tell me the shape of it while staring straight at it. Not because they can't see but because to them all they process is "Bug" nothing about whether it may look predatory, or like it camouflages, or if it can fly, or how fast it can move, how long its legs are, how dexterous it is, whether its thin or long, if it stayed low or crawled high, etc. These are all things that have evolutionary implications in regards to ecological niches and how animals (and all life) adapt and are shaped physically by evolution. Basically I do believe its possible to generalize this information without having anything to do with creationism and that is part of why I don't truly believe that has anything to do with it at all.
 
MRJ said:
Many creationists accept small changes, some even accept new species at Genus level. Actually there is quite a range of opinions amongst creationists.
Click to expand...
Some creationists even accept multiple human species and new species at family level (in very rare cases). I saw sigs about both of these things at Ararat Ridge.
 
Terry Thomas said:
There are people all over the world, in every continent and country, who have what may be described as strange or odd beliefs. As long as they cause no harm to others, I suggest that these folks should just be ignored, and left to get on with their lives as best they can. There are many widespread beliefs that do not stand up to investigation, as well as many that are accepted as truth, based only on belief in the supernatural. Anyone who disagrees with this is welcome to their opinion, and I have no problem with that! I have my own beliefs, that probably would not stand up too well to close inspection!
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The important thing is that the people "cause no harm to others". Basically, people should consider that if they expect others to accept their right to their beliefs, they should respect the right of other people to have alternative beliefs. There is no proof that any deity exists and people should not be forced to wear certain clothes or perform other types of restrictive behaviour because there is a remote chance of avoiding retribution in the afterlife.
 
BmAQ said:
Others have already cited their own examples but it comes up quite a bit in the cetacean department, because a very large chunk of the public truly does not know that whales are not fish.
Click to expand...

How do you define a 'very large chunk'? I remember a student being told that 'bats are birds' in her philosophy class, but I hope that the vast majority of the public understands that bats and whales are mammals.
 
Dassie rat said:
How do you define a 'very large chunk'? I remember a student being told that 'bats are birds' in her philosophy class, but I hope that the vast majority of the public understands that bats and whales are mammals.
Click to expand...

I'd also say that at least in the context of the UK, the vast majority of people know that whales and dolphins are not fish, and I'd also be tempted to say that even more common misconceptions are being widely phased out (killer 'whales' etc.).
 
Dassie rat said:
How do you define a 'very large chunk'? I remember a student being told that 'bats are birds' in her philosophy class, but I hope that the vast majority of the public understands that bats and whales are mammals.
Click to expand...
I couldn't say, I have no data. But I've been to marine parks all over the US and its quite a frequent thing to hear educators have to explain. For children, its the default assumption. But adults also make the same mistake. I don't think they don't realize that they need to breathe air so much as they don't understand the taxonomic differences and just see a "fish shaped" animal and just assume. In the same way one might think a rabbit is a rodent, without thinking a rabbit looks or acts like a mouse, if that makes sense? These people also rarely understand the evolution of whales or seem to have ever put thought into how animals become the way they are in general so, that is why it seems a blind-spot in education about evolution specifically to me.
 
One thing about creationists - better argument is that most Christians, including the Pope, consider parts of the Bible to be symbolic, not literal, and find evolution compatible with the faith.

It is much easier this way, because you don't ask the person to, de facto, renounce its belief.
 
MRJ said:
Many creationists accept small changes, some even accept new species at Genus level. Actually there is quite a range of opinions amongst creationists.
Click to expand...

I agree, and my initial post meant things like that ("I don't think most Americans are entirely opposed to evolution as a whole, either."). I'm not referring to creationists in the post you replied to, though, I'm referring to people in general. They don't pay attention to the trees that make up the forest, basically.
 
Dassie rat said:
How do you define a 'very large chunk'? I remember a student being told that 'bats are birds' in her philosophy class, but I hope that the vast majority of the public understands that bats and whales are mammals.
Click to expand...

An anecdote of course, but when I worked at a university a decade ago, a bat got into one of the buildings and I kept having to explain that calling a bird rescue group was not the right way to go about solving the problem :(
 
Zooplantman said:
The question must be asked" Can zoos teach evolution?
Yes there can be signs, but that is not teaching. Evolution is not a topic that can be taught to any meaningful degree in 150 words and a diagram
And if a zoo dumbs it down so much that it fits on a sign there is ample opportunity for misunderstanding
Click to expand...

You are right. The theory of evolution is too complex to be taught to a satisfying degree with minimal methods such as a zoo sign. However, there are multiple smaller topics, such as individual evolutionary mechanisms, that can be explained and understood in a matter of minutes - at least in my experience. Furthermore, these smaller topics (e.g., the co-evolution between butterflies and flowers) are likely more relevant anyway in a zoo setting.

Whether information signs are an effective way to educate people about such things is a different question of course - and I am inclined to say they're not.
 
Last edited:
Komodo Dragon said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes! I think that it would help educate the relatively uneducated public on the topic.
 
birdsandbats said:
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.
Click to expand...
Zoos are often the only access the general public has to wild animals and learning about them. Teaching pseudoscience in zoos can spread a ton of misinformation.
 
Mr. Zootycoon said:
There is an abundance of exquisite examples of various evolutionary mechanisms within the basic roster of zoo animals. The lack of good educational material about them is a failure on part of the zoo, not a lack of good case studies within zoo animal populations.

Peafowl are a prime example of sexual selection. The aforementioned ciclids are a case study in adaptive radiations, but so are carp. Domestics can be used to explain about artificial selection. Poison arrow frogs feature a splendid example of the evolution of parental styles and vicariance. Large wading birds (flamingo, ibis, pelican, spoonbill, heron) showcase niche diversification in a compelling way. There is a multitude of examples about co-evolution (from cheetah-gazelle tales to leaf cutter ants and their fungi). Mudskippers show a living example of a transitional species between water and land. And the champions of all are probably long-wing butterflies in the Heliconiinae subfamily - which includes several of the most common butterfly house species - with talking points including several types of mimicry, many forms of co-evolution, convergent evolution, vicariance and more.

Zoos are in a fantastic spot to talk about evolution. Utilizing this potential is up to them.
Click to expand...
The Omaha Zoo has an area of their gorilla exhibit on comparative anatomy between apes and humans. They also have a interactive sign that talks about common ancestry in primates, and a few signs in their Madagascar building that talk about hawk moth and flower co-evolution. Idk if most other zoos are like this, but Omaha at least has a few exhibits that talk about evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top