Does Religion Have a Place In Modern Zoos?

Jarkari said:
There was a documentary showing at the local cinemas that was discussing Darwin. It was interesting to note that Darwin died a christian, who believed in creation as well as evolution.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that seems to be a falsehood that was perpetuated after his death. Darwin claimed to be an Agnostic (a word coined by his good friend T.H. Huxley) in his later years.

Just found the documentary you are talking about: The Voyage That Shook the World. This is a propaganda film put out by the creationists.
 
I was just having this conversatioin last week. I think for zoos it really depends on the religion being talked about and your local comfort level of your visiting public with exploring different religions.

For me it depends on religion. Throughout human history many cultures have intertwined the natural world with their religious belief and we talk about those connections in zoos all the time. A Mayan temple in a jaguar exhibit, a Native American totem pole near a polar bear exhibit, a statue of bishnu, etc.... Is this zoo teaching those, no. They are just showing the connections between faith and the natural world.

Other religions are more about people and lessons and not as much about those natural world connections. Should those be mentioned in zoos? probably not at all. Example. Noah's ark.

Evolution should always be a part of a zoos eduction/signage. Should be in your face and say evolution is right and creationism is wrong? no. But zoos should always talk about common ancestors and relatedness across species. That should be a given.

My 2 cents.
 
I don't think that is the film. I did not get to see it as I was teaching kids about Darwin and galapogas tortoises on the same night but the film that was showing changed my father's, who is a very strict christian man, opinion. Darwin was born a christian (which really means nothing, I believe a christian can't become a christian until they are old enough to make that choice for themselves) but Darwin was of the opinion that how can there be a God in a world this cruel. He could not understand why someone that was supposed to love us so much could be so cruel to us. And the "theory" is that his opinion changed not long before his death.

Owl monkey I feel you have it spot on. I don't think zoos should force religion on to anyone but making people aware of it i think is important. I am a christian but if I was designing exhibits I would not have a problem with exhibits that showed other religions.
 
I am a serious Christian and go to chapel every week but i don't think religion has a place in Zoo's because every person has the right to visit not christians or whoever and it will put people off visiting that it's all going to be Christian.
I hope i've made sense
 
I think you need to be very careful. I'm all in favour of telling stories about how species x fits in to the folklore of culture y as it gives a greater sense of how an animal is regarded / revered in its range country but, as has previously been mentioned, these should clearly be labelled as story rather than fact. If a zoo (or any institution) is going to display religious material then how does it choose which religions to discuss? The quote mentioned earlier from Ghandi (which incidentally is sprawled across a large sign at the Belize zoo and very nice it looks too) is suitably broad in that it does not promote one particular religion, it is merely a moral statement. Identifying and promoting aspect of specific religions can give the sense that one is more important than the other and there is nothing more likely to cause offence than this!

As has also been mentioned I think the use of religious and cultural artefacts as theming is potentially very useful but again care is needed, as inappropriate use can cause offence. I'm not sure that there is anyone left alive to be offended by Mayan temples and Grecian statues but certainly things like mosques as animal houses and randomly painted aboriginal art can be viewed as highly insensitive.

I also get a distinct feeling that in a predominantly christian country such as the UK, references to other religions in zoos are often slightly tongue in cheek (ie by the use of numerous exclamation marks and 'did you know?' type statements). I'm pretty sure that if signage on a lion enclosure stated 'If you're a christian we'll eat you' then there would be some kind of outrage. However its quite common to see interpretation on jaguar enclosures that doesn't at least mention Mayan / Aztec sacrifice and no one is bothered.

Zoos should present facts as facts and stories as stories. As we all know however, most visitors do not read signs properly if at all so there is huge potential for misunderstanding. I'm an atheist but if other people want to believe in a man in the sky then I have no problem with that. I would not expect to go to the shops and have religion promoted to me next to the sandals though and I dont really think it should be done in zoos either. A zoo should promote a respect for he natural world in its own right, not through the selected writings of various deities and gods.
 
I’ve just come across this thread and have found it very interesting. As a Christian, I kind of surprised myself in that my initial thought was that religion should only have a very limited role in zoos, if at all.

I am more than happy for people to visit zoos with their own beliefs, see a strange looking animal (e.g. giant anteater) and to exclaim something like ‘look at what beauty/weirdness God has created’ so long as the animals fascinate them. I think that a zoo's primary educational duty is to teach about animals, conservation and the natural world; religion and even evolution come behind these priorities. Personally, I have no problems with the theory of evolution and it doesn’t clash at all with my personal beliefs. I have a few difficulties putting much faith in natural selection, but I put that down exclusively to my own ignorance. Part of my reasoning for my acceptance of evolution is that the Bible should not be treated as a collection of out-and-out myths (as has been suggested in this thread), but also not as an exact/complete historical or scientific account.

I don’t feel that a zoo is an appropriate place to raise the subject of religion without perhaps giving a balanced view of what all major religions feel towards animals, or the specific disputes between creationism and evolution; otherwise it seems irrelevant.

Within a zoo, I am happy for the provision of essential services which might involve religion (a multi-faith prayer room, facilities for weddings, etc.) but I think the location of a zoo plays a large part in religious involvement – I’ve spent the past month in Egypt and both the major zoos I’ve visited have a mosque, rather than just a small room, which caters for the 90%+ Muslim proportion of the population. Any messages regarding evolution would most likely be ignored (I’ve yet to see a sign with more than the name of an animal or animal house on) or be treated as outright heresy.

Though I agree with gentle lemur in that potential offense regarding cultural/religious displays is something that should be avoided in a zoo, I think Foz’s idea behind teaching about world cultures - particularly an animal’s place within it - is a good one, but can very easily be taken too far, or can stereotype different cultures.

@BonkersBlake: I think it was the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which descends into the thorax before turning back to innervate the larynx in the neck.

I’m pretty sure there was something else I wanted to say but I’ve forgotten – another long post might be coming soon... :rolleyes:
 
Why didn't Noah go fishing? He only HAD the two worms!

Judaeo-Christian religions teach that mankind was charged with naming and taking care of all animals. I think that theme should fly well at zoos, especially those that can show how man has helped some and endangered some species.
 
reduakari said:
Ashley-h: We finally COMPLETELY agree on something! I am shocked/saddened that in the 21st century the world seems to be moving backwards from rationality to fundamentalism (the Christian right in the US, Muslim extremists in many places, Jewish "settlers" believing they have a God-given right to take land from the Palestinians, etc. etc.)

But then a recent poll revealed 18% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth (!!!), so I've pretty much given up hope for a future based on science and rationality.....
Click to expand...

Ah reduakari , i finally agree on something with you, we should stop our sparring about the howletts enclosures and the Aspinall parks as we may have more in common then is apparent at first glance. I also oppose the seemingly rampant virus of fundamentalism spreading throughout the planet it is proof that science cannot stem this tide of ignorance and im also saddened. Have you seen such interesting documentaries such as those by Richard Dawkins and Desmond Morris ? if not i reccomend seeing them , if only to witness the ignorance of that herd mentality illustrated in the documentaries (there is a wonderful example of such with Richard Dawkins interviewing that now disgraced and hypocritical ,foul , poisonous Ted Haggard). My standing on this post is that no.... religeon has absoloutely no significance to be taught or recognised by zoological gardens or for that matter in the scientific community. I believe that primarily education should be the most important thing and more importantly education based on the facts of science, such as evolution and natrual selection. Any zoological garden which preaches an alternative theory to its visitors in my mind is a horrible vestige and relic of a pre darwinian victorian menagerie and should be the ridicule to those of us who are aware that such a statement against science made by a zoo responsible for educating the masses about the natrual world is ridiculous brainwashing lies.
 
Mr.Focal said:
Why didn't Noah go fishing? He only HAD the two worms!

Judaeo-Christian religions teach that mankind was charged with naming and taking care of all animals. I think that theme should fly well at zoos, especially those that can show how man has helped some and endangered some species.
Click to expand...


Mr Focal the judeo christian religeons indeed taught at their conception that mankind was charged with naming and taking care of all animals , but what you failed to mention was that this idealgy also taught that all animals existed simply to be used and abused by the human race. I can give various examples of such things being taught for example pope pius XI 'we 'must use animals in accordance with the Divine Purpose lest at the Day of Judgment they give evidence against us before the throne' He thus prevented any animal protection charities from being set up in Rome. The assumption and standing of the Christian religeon was also that we could continue to exploit these things on the basis that 'God would provide' and that there would be no lasting damage to the basic system that ensures our survival - the ecosystem. The fact is Mr Focal that the judeo christian religeons have caused humanity to believe ourselves above animals and not to consider ourselves as but a complex result of an evolutionary process this has disastrous consequences as i have mentioned above. To my knowledge i know of only a few religeons which have taught that animals were worthy of even basic rights those include the benevolent Buddhist religeon and hinduism. Also on a smaller scale the animist , shamanism of Amazonian , central american Mexican and North american indigenous peoples.
 
Jarkari said:
Thankyou, that is my point exactly. It was asked on the other thread if those that believe in creation have done any kind of science. I studied biology all through school as I was thinking of going into zoologoy marine biology. I still believe in creation. I find it hard to believe that there was nothing, then a bang then evolution just randomly occured for no real reason. My belief is in a creator. I don't doubt that evolution occurs, you'd have to be stupid to think otherwise. BUT. . . as above alludes to the Bible was written by men, it's a bit like chinese whispers stories change and I don't personally believe that they are to be taken as fact. men screw things up.

I believe it is in the best interest of the poublic to have a knowledge of all the theories and beliefs of the clients, just as I believe it is important for children in schools to learn about the cultures and beliefs of others. Why does this seem to be so hard for some people to grasp.

I would also like to note that it is actually illegal in some States of the US to teach Darwinism.
Click to expand...


it is illegal to teach darwinism in some states of the US? oh dear oh dear that is ridiculous
 
Jarkari said:
There was a documentary showing at the local cinemas that was discussing Darwin. It was interesting to note that Darwin died a christian, who believed in creation as well as evolution.
Click to expand...

The documentary you were watching is obviously the work of a barefaced compulsive liar and a creationist propagandist ,very pathetic ,immature and revolting. Ridiculous of them to try and rewrite history and hijack Darwins theory ,and through reinventing it to try and make evolution and creationism compatible and convince the general public. The creationists frankly make me laugh they themselves try to evolve to the modern world and science by claiming god is behind it all including evolution. Only a century ago they were falling about in outrage like little children over the great mans theory, they try to survive the 21st century by accomodating and assimilating scientific beliefs previously considered scorned and dangerous to their colorful mythology to add credibility. Darwin maintained his atheism to the very end. By reinventing things and painting things which never happened as truths they remind me alot of joseph stalin and his faithful beaurocrats rewriting the history of the Russian revolution in order to decieve the masses.

the opiate of the masses
 
I use to volunteer at my home zoo on Sundays. As part of our training, I pointed out special adaptations to visitors. One year, we had a fundamentalist Christian as a volunteer. She was very bright and good at interpretation but she didn't last very long. We teach concepts like convergent evolution (penguins and seabirds). We also talked about similarities between great apes and ourselves (we are classified as great apes). Taxonomy is a part of our training. We showed visitors 4 primate skulls which included a human skull. On Sundays, we got large church groups of kids letting off steam at the zoo. They weren't interested in learning because they had been sitting all day. They came to run thru the zoo, scream at the animals and bang on the glass.

Darwin's hypothesis was not about creation, it was about adaptation and survival of the species. I belong to a church and believe in Darwin; they are not mutually exclusive. People forget there are 2 creation stories in Genesis.
 
Last edited:
Does God love animals?

I too am a believer in God, and I have always thought it was very Clever of God to Invent Evolution!

In genesis mankind is charged to be a steward of the plants and animals of the earth, and zoos fullfill some of that. Yes, man has perverted religion, etc in many ways and that does not appear to be about to change.

Some say animals (e.g. dogs and cats) do not go to heaven, but others say what sort of a place would that be without their best friend?

Does God love animals? He or she must, after all, there are so many!
 
Mr.Focal said:
I too am a believer in God, and I have always thought it was very Clever of God to Invent Evolution!

In genesis mankind is charged to be a steward of the plants and animals of the earth, and zoos fullfill some of that. Yes, man has perverted religion, etc in many ways and that does not appear to be about to change.

Some say animals (e.g. dogs and cats) do not go to heaven, but others say what sort of a place would that be without their best friend?

Does God love animals? He or she must, after all, there are so many!
Click to expand...


well we have a difference of opinion , but id like to say in my younger years i was a devout catholic until popular science literature cleansed my mind , such writers who helped me though that painful acceptance of life ultimately meaningless and without god were Charles Darwin ,Desmond Morris , Richard Dawkins ,Jean Paul sarte and Fredriech Nietzsche. Athiests also experience a sense of the spiritual for example often when i visit the national parks of my country or of costa rica i am simply in awe of the power of nature, however i have never once had any more doubts that a god might exist. Mr Focal it is your belief system and i will respect it , however i would like to suggest some interesting reading material such as Richard Dawkins and Desmond Morris. Those authors books are simply indespensible for me and for my clarity of mind. I dont know how the love of a cosmic being can be proved by how many species inhabit this planet , you forget the horrid species of bacteria and viruses which lead to diseases. Dont you find the belief in an afterlife as kind of primitive???? for example where is the proof of an afterlife ? would it not be more constructive and realistic to realise that you only have one life and you may as well make the best of it instead of waiting in vain for a valhala in the sky where your pet budgieregar or goldfish or whatever pet you are reffering to will accompany you ? once i had cleansed my mind of religeon and its toxins i felt enlightened to my temporary existance on this earth i reccomend you to do the same Mr Focal at first it is hard to murder a previous belief system but just do it and you will feel better
 
Thank you for that reply. I have read and enjoyed Richard Dawkins' "the god delusion" and his book on animal evolution - I hadn't known that the duckbilled platypus had sensors that could detect worm muscles moving! In addition to the sense of awe at nature's marvels, I have had a personal spiritual revelation - a separate reality if you will. Each of us must go at his or her own pace or drummer. I am glad you feel cleansed because there is a lot of balderdash out there. I believe that scientists and theologians have something in common: it is not so important to have All the Answers as it is important that they each keep Looking.

I admire Life for the diversity and complexity that is continually created through the invention of DNA. For many this is enough to believe in an impersonal god, but it can be rewarding to try to see God's subtle actions in one's own life.

Believing in the afterlife can be seen as pure patronymic pablum or it can be the bedrock of benign belief, and it clearly fills a psychological need that people have to someday be with ones they have loved and lost such as parents and grandparents.

It is turning out that the "horrid" viruses and bacteria have already implanted residual information in human dna which may benefit us in ways yet to be discovered. For example, the genetic disease sickle cell anemia conveys resistance to malaria in youth.

Thus my faith helps me to conceive that all things can work for the best.
 
I'm a Christian who goes to church each Sunday.

But I again belive in evolution and certainly don't think that it rules out the possiblity of a creator. Its a way to become amazed at how similar mankind is to other Great Apes. If people are creationisits thats fine but I personally think they find it much harder to convert other people if they belive in creationism. I think much of what the bible says is true but I think a copuple of myths (such as Noah's Ark) have been myths designed to teach us what God is like.

On the matter of why does a loving God allow suffering? Is IMO the best reason to disbelive in God. But how come there is love and kindness in a world which has no God? Surely thats just as hard to answer.

As for Darwin's religous views now he was a hard practising Anglican when he started up his theory on evolution but questioned the suffering aspect and from 1851 onwards was an agnostic.

Also there are many christian scientists out there (as well as 1's with other religous belifes) and again very few of them are creationisits. Richard Dawkins does indeed know a huge amount on science but to me is hugely arrogant and I've never really studied his work but I'm sure there are many flaws that can be noted down.

BTW I think religon can be taught in zoos in moderation. The main focus should be conservation and science.
 
I too go to church every Sunday, and I believe evolution is God's biggest creation (after the universe!) because it is a process that follows rules (the word) and is not as magical as some would like you to believe.

However, I think the role of the zoo is to look at speciation, survival, and extinction as natural processes and therefore there is no room for the supernatural. In other words public money should not be used to promote religion, even if it as open minded as yours and mine.

The believers' best answer to "why suffering" is that our hope is that what god has allowed is better than the alternative, perhaps extinction. Without the pain of childbirth - extinction. It is our faith that all things work for good to those who love Godl It is our hope that WWII was "better" than some unknown alternative!

Dawkins' ideas are impressive as is his faith in science. He has studied all the issues about god, but, like many, has not been able to put his faith in that which he cannot see. He does not have a personal god.

It is time to teach science and conservation - without both we'll be extinct. It can be shown in exhibits how faith in god led Mendel to his discoveries. Darwin's faith helped him seek the order whereas another might have dismissed the seeming chaos of evolution as unknowable.

Best wishes,
Rick
 
Jose said:
but what you failed to mention was that this idealgy also taught that all animals existed simply to be used and abused by the human race.
Click to expand...

This isn't strictly true. In Judaism there are two elements to the Adam story, one that we can make use of the natural resources of the world but another that we are custodians and must use this wisely.

The meanings of the names Adam and Eve are basically Earth (Adama) and Life (chava, chai). People were of the Earth, an integral part of the environment with a responsibility to look after it with clear consequences if we don't. It's true that this element of our relationship with the world has been over-looked by many of all faiths but this sense of balance is still there in much of Jewish philosophy.

Also many of the commandments in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament concern animal welfare. The Noachide Laws (laws which applied to everyone, not just Jews) included not tearing flesh from a living animal and there is a commandment to remove a bird from it's nest by shooing it away before taking eggs so as not to cause distress to the bird. Young animals can't be removed from their mother before weaning and a mother animal and it's kid cannot be slaughtered together.

Milk and meat cannot be mixed based on a commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk. No reason is given but many attribute this in part to a sense that eating meat is inevitable if not desirable therefore it should be done with a sense of dignity for the animal and awareness of the fact that a life has been taken in order for you to eat.

There are clear indications that in an ideal future we would all be vegetarian.

There is another commandment of Baal Tashchit which originally referred to being wasteful or unnecessarily destructive, particularly in times of war but is now applied by many to our relationship with the environment.

Sorry if I'm waffling but this is something close to my heart and while it is true that many don't apply this philosophy in the world today, Judaism has a lot to say about ethical living concerning our relationship with the natural world.
 
Mr.Focal said:
I too go to church every Sunday, and I believe evolution is God's biggest creation (after the universe!) because it is a process that follows rules (the word) and is not as magical as some would like you to believe.

However, I think the role of the zoo is to look at speciation, survival, and extinction as natural processes and therefore there is no room for the supernatural. In other words public money should not be used to promote religion, even if it as open minded as yours and mine.

The believers' best answer to "why suffering" is that our hope is that what god has allowed is better than the alternative, perhaps extinction. Without the pain of childbirth - extinction. It is our faith that all things work for good to those who love Godl It is our hope that WWII was "better" than some unknown alternative!

Dawkins' ideas are impressive as is his faith in science. He has studied all the issues about god, but, like many, has not been able to put his faith in that which he cannot see. He does not have a personal god.

It is time to teach science and conservation - without both we'll be extinct. It can be shown in exhibits how faith in god led Mendel to his discoveries. Darwin's faith helped him seek the order whereas another might have dismissed the seeming chaos of evolution as unknowable.

Best wishes,
Rick
Click to expand...
Thank you very much a very nice comment and I wish you luck on your christian faith too.:D I agree with pretty much all that was said on your post.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top