Tulsa Zoo Tulsa Zoo - Creationism Exhibit?

[snowleopard]

Tulsa World: Falling trumpets creationism issue

A Republican mayoral candidate has become the second person in the last few years to suggest that the Tulsa Zoo construct some sort of creationism exhibit for zoo patrons. If there is a God, he or she supposedly created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, so why not have that image displayed in a zoo? This kind of faith (or mumbo-jumbo depending on an individual's personal belief) will hopefully die out like the dodo. I'm sure that FOXS News in the United States (a ridiculous caricature of a real news station) will cover this story. I'd just like to point out that if one believes in a higher power or if an individual enjoys watching FOXS news then that should be totally acceptable to all. Freedom of speech reigns.

 

[geomorph]

So this is getting my design wheels turning. I wonder which animals were created on which days? This could be an epic series of exhibits. Perhaps the Day 1 section would include a geology hall punctuated by a simulated volcano, a wind tunnel, rainstorm, and earthquake table, you know a real special effects tour-de-force. Day 2 would be bacterial and fungal exhibits and simpler life forms, a veritable cornucopia of interactive petri dishes and microscopes. Day 3 would be a grand aquarium of invertabrates and fish, perhaps caught in a massive swirling vortex exhibit. Day 4 would be the reptile and amphibian house, complete with a dinosaur dig area that explains why they died for their sins. Day 5 would be the world's largest aviary for birds, with a special solid gold dome enclosure in the center for a white dove. Day 6 would be all about the mammals, and the indoor viewing house would be an ark which rocks back and forth, entered by a gangplank over a stormy water feature. Day 7, I'm having trouble with...perhaps the day of rest would be simply illustrated with a gigantic mural of paradise. And some exhibits of 'lazy' animals like sloths and tortoises. Perhaps the whole series of 7 exhibits would be linked by tunnels which announce each section and are punctuated by bolts of lightning.

 

[groundskeeper24]

If they build such an exhibit, Tulsa will be the first zoo I've ever put on my "make it a point NEVER to visit" list.

 

[ANyhuis]

Tulsa World: Falling trumpets creationism issue

A Republican mayoral candidate has become the second person in the last few years to suggest that the Tulsa Zoo construct some sort of creationism exhibit for zoo patrons. If there is a God, he or she supposedly created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, so why not have that image displayed in a zoo? This kind of faith (or mumbo-jumbo depending on an individual's personal belief) will hopefully die out like the dodo. I'm sure that FOXS News in the United States (a ridiculous caricature of a real news station) will cover this story. I'd just like to point out that if one believes in a higher power or if an individual enjoys watching FOXS news then that should be totally acceptable to all. Freedom of speech reigns.

Personally, I think we should ALL be more open-minded and not so quick to attack others' beliefs. The Tulsa Zoo already has a lot of exhibits in its excellent North American Living Museum which promote Darwinian evolution. So my view is that a minor Creationism exhibit would merely balance out the evolution exhibits. Right?

As for those who say they will "not attend" this, or any other, zoo if they add this Creationism exhibit, I would ask -- what if all biblical Christians did the same for any zoo which teaches evolution? That would seriously cut into their attendance base! Then what if all conservatives refused to attend any zoo that promotes global warming -- another huge hit to the attendance numbers.

I simply ask: WHY does the Zoo have to present only viewpoints which I totally agree with? Again, let's be more open-minded, and live-and-let-live.

 

[James27]

How can a zoo educate people about Darwin etc at one exhibit, but then say "But if you don't want to believe that, some big guy on a cloud made them really". I think creationism has no place in a zoo, just doesn't work IMO.

 

[Meg-T]

I think this is an interesting concept. I don't know how it would be percieved in America, but I am sure in Britain it would be very controversial.

It begs the question of whether or not the zoo will then display examples of other religious theories - as an 'equal oportunities' thing (This is a big deal in the UK, I am not sure how equal ops. is viewed in the US).

Personally I can't see it happening

 

[jbnbsn99]

A zoo's role should be the promotion of science, especially biology. Nothing in creationism is science. Zoos should be doing more to promote the understanding of evolution.

 

[Meg-T]

A zoo's role should be the promotion of science, especially biology. Nothing in creationism is science. Zoos should be doing more to promote the understanding of evolution.

I totally agree - I would love to see a good zoo exhibit on Darwinism or Evolution. I visited the Darwin exhibition at the Natural History Museum and it was superb, I think similar things could be created in a zoo environment.

 

[jbnbsn99]

I know Cincinnati Zoo got a lot of flack recently because it offered a combo ticket for both the zoo and the Creation Museum. The outrage from the scientific community was so overwhelming that they had to stop offering the combo ticket.

 

[reduakari]

Personally, I think we should ALL be more open-minded and not so quick to attack others' beliefs. The Tulsa Zoo already has a lot of exhibits in its excellent North American Living Museum which promote Darwinian evolution. So my view is that a minor Creationism exhibit would merely balance out the evolution exhibits. Right?

As for those who say they will "not attend" this, or any other, zoo if they add this Creationism exhibit, I would ask -- what if all biblical Christians did the same for any zoo which teaches evolution? That would seriously cut into their attendance base! Then what if all conservatives refused to attend any zoo that promotes global warming -- another huge hit to the attendance numbers.

I simply ask: WHY does the Zoo have to present only viewpoints which I totally agree with? Again, let's be more open-minded, and live-and-let-live.

I'm not sure where to begin with the many odd opinions expressed above:

I'm not sure how a zoo could "promote" global warming? Would an exhibit about geological erosion be said to "promote" erosion? Would an exhibit about gravitational forces be "promoting" gravity? These topics--and global warming--are empirical scientific fact, and should be presented as such by science-based institutions like zoos.

As far as "balancing" the faith-based myth of Creationism against the basic principle underlying all of the biological sciences (evolution), why stop with the Christian creation story? One could present all of the human belief systems that have arisen in the past 3000 years--Bhuddism, Islam, Judaism, 20 or 30 different American Indian creation stories, 300 different myths from various New Guinea tribes. But combined, all of the religious/mythological explanations still amount to nothing on a scale "measured against" science--they are based on faith; science is based on the observation and organization of reality.

The Cincinnati Zoo should be embarrassed by their tacit approval of "Creationism" based on their short-lived partnership with that ridiculous museum, and the citizens of Tulsa should hope this deluded Mayoral candidate and her ilk don't make their city a complete laughingstock internationally.

 

[FSBlue]

Personally, I think we should ALL be more open-minded and not so quick to attack others' beliefs. The Tulsa Zoo already has a lot of exhibits in its excellent North American Living Museum which promote Darwinian evolution. So my view is that a minor Creationism exhibit would merely balance out the evolution exhibits. Right?

As for those who say they will "not attend" this, or any other, zoo if they add this Creationism exhibit, I would ask -- what if all biblical Christians did the same for any zoo which teaches evolution? That would seriously cut into their attendance base! Then what if all conservatives refused to attend any zoo that promotes global warming -- another huge hit to the attendance numbers.

I simply ask: WHY does the Zoo have to present only viewpoints which I totally agree with? Again, let's be more open-minded, and live-and-let-live.

There is a massive difference between being open minded and allowing a group of scientific ignorants to ram their religious beliefs down our throats.

A zoo's main job, at least on paper, is to provide an educational experience and enlighten minds about the natural world. Nothing could be further from this than building an exhibit based on creationism, intelligent design, or however the religious right is trying to get the Book of Genesis taught as actual science these days.

Actually, how about this idea for an exhibit, a mural that goes something like "Evidence for Evolution: Fossil Record(Showing different transitional species like Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Pikiai, etc), Genetics (Fused chromsomes in humans where the extra pair of exists in Great Apes), Scientific experimentation, etc and then "Evidence for Creationism: The book of Genesis"

 

[sitatunga]

Dear zoo chat members I am a creationist and and I want say that we don't base sceince on Genesis alone. We expirment and see if facts we have fit with the bible and are expirments say they do. But we cannot prove anything not even you Darwinists can because it happened in the past. We learn all we can from what we see and then take the rest by faith. Secondly I am not going to push it down your throats. Most creationists including me just want to show our side of what we beleve is true. Third many founders of sceince were christians Issac Newton, Louis Pastuer, etc.. Finally I just want you to consider this do you beileve that it came by accient and random chance. If you saw robot, space prob, a zoo exhibit or a watch you would say that it was engineered and when it is engineered you have to have an engineer.

 

[reduakari]

Dear zoo chat members I am a creationistand want that don't base sceince on gensis alone we expirment and see if facts fits with the bible and are expirments say they do. But cannot prove anything not even you Darwinists can because it happened in the past wesugy all we can from what we see and then the rest by faith you too have own faith because youexpirment and reach a different conclusion. Secondly I am not going to push it down your throats most creationists and me what show Our side of what we beleve is true. Third many founders of sceince were christians Issac Newton Galealieo, Louis Pastuer, etc.. Finally i just want you to consider this Do you beileve that it came by accient and radom chance. If saw robot, space prob, a zoo exhibit or a watch You would say it was engineered and when it is engineered you have to have an engineer

I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously the "arguments" of someone who is incapable of spelling more than 50% of the words in a simple post. You are not helping your cause by appearing ignorant and/or lazy in your writing.

 

[sitatunga]

I am deeply sorry if I have seemed lazy to you. This is a bad habit of mine. I have taken your advice and have fixed the problem. Thanks again

 

[phoenix]

Day 1 section would include a geology hall punctuated by a simulated volcano, a wind tunnel, rainstorm, and earthquake table, you know a real special effects tour-de-force. Day 2 ...............

what you have described here is darwinian evolution, not creationism!

 

[Jarkari]

Creator

How can a zoo educate people about Darwin etc at one exhibit, but then say "But if you don't want to believe that, some big guy on a cloud made them really". I think creationism has no place in a zoo, just doesn't work IMO.

Why shouldn't they. Evolution is only a theory, not fact! As was mentioned before imagine how bad an impact would it have on zoo attendance figures have if the three quarters of the world's population that may believe in creationism just stopped going to zoo's that featured evolution/darwinian based exhibits. I believe it is in the zoos best interest to incorporate all belief's or at the very least acknowledge them.

I am personally a christian, however I do believe in Evolution and am often frustrated by the discussions I have with christians that believe that since there is a creator there can not possibly have been any kind of evolution.

But I am also frustrated by the number of people that believe in evolution and use this as an argument against there being the existence of a creator. Why is it not possible that there was a creator that planned a world where evolution is possible. Starting with just the smallest organism and ending up with what we have today, that to me is my evidence of God.

I think an exhibit dedicated to creationism is a bit extreme but I do believe all belief's should be acknowledge if they plan to focus on one of the many theories, like evolution. And I believe the belief's of all religions and faiths should be acknowledged.

Also I don't think people should criticise something they know little about. If you have a thorough unbiased knowledge of the Bible then sure go for it but I am under the belief that nobody has an unbiased opinion of the bible.

That is my personal opinion, I understand people have differing opinions.

Sorry if I've gone a bit off track but i think it is relevant to other posts

 

[Jarkari]

what you have described here is darwinian evolution, not creationism!

It is also creationism.

 

[cockroach]

I have to admit I am happy I come from a country where creacionism doesnt have such a power in spite of the fact that faith of people is quite strong. And is it normal that a mayor of the city is interested in educational panel in zoo? Is this really in his/her power? And what about the zoo director? What is his/her reaction for this plan? Does he /she agree with this?

To all defender of this exhibit:
How many of you did study natural sciences at university? I am a student of biology and I see what a common man know about nature and what I know. If I didnt have a biology education may be I would believe to creacionism or at least accept it as alternative to evolution. But you know it is like people believed to Hitler ones because they didnt know the true about his plan. Everything is about the words and sentences and propagation. For example if you look at Atlas of Creation (no problem to download it from internet). Very nice book, people love pictures on chalky paper. They want to show people that if you look for some paleontological evidence and existing animals there is no difference. Hmmm... I really believe all the common people dont see any difference...but I see really big differences. And all the pure dinosaurs, trilobite, amonites, Anomalocaris and other animals which are not included in this book.
Just realise, evolution dont say everything is changing all the time ...
Creationism is not a science. Show me some creationists hypothesis which can be tested by scientific methods. Yes evolution is a theory, theory from a theologist which we cant refuse after the 150 years of its existence. Very strong theory!

And to all people talking about global warming. Dont watch television and dont read primitive newspapers. Rather read some scientific paper to see we dont have any real evidence about the existence of global warming. Most of the experts about this topic say there is no global warming. (you know every time some of the glaciers are melting, some are stabile and some are growing ... may be you are looking at that melting one)

 

[jbnbsn99]

I really can't stand the "it's only a theory" line. So is gravity. In science a theory can be defined as a collection of facts that help explain a given phenomenon. The general colloquial definition is that a theory is equal to a hypothesis. Theories are facts. Evolution is a fact, the theory that Darwin put forward is not evolution, but the means of evolution, i.e. Natural Selection. We should be talking about the Theory of Natural Selection not the Theory of Evolution. There have been other theories of evolution that came before Darwin notably by his grandfather Erasmus Darwin and the biologist Lamarck. All a creationist will have to do to throw a wrench into the model that Darwin put forth is to provide one indisputable fact that does not fit into Natural Selection. One is all it takes. None is all that have been put forward. This has nothing to do with religion, just good science.

 

[Dan]

So this is getting my design wheels turning. I wonder which animals were created on which days? This could be an epic series of exhibits. Perhaps the Day 1 section would include a geology hall punctuated by a simulated volcano, a wind tunnel, rainstorm, and earthquake table, you know a real special effects tour-de-force. Day 2 would be bacterial and fungal exhibits and simpler life forms, a veritable cornucopia of interactive petri dishes and microscopes. Day 3 would be a grand aquarium of invertabrates and fish, perhaps caught in a massive swirling vortex exhibit. Day 4 would be the reptile and amphibian house, complete with a dinosaur dig area that explains why they died for their sins. Day 5 would be the world's largest aviary for birds, with a special solid gold dome enclosure in the center for a white dove. Day 6 would be all about the mammals, and the indoor viewing house would be an ark which rocks back and forth, entered by a gangplank over a stormy water feature. Day 7, I'm having trouble with...perhaps the day of rest would be simply illustrated with a gigantic mural of paradise. And some exhibits of 'lazy' animals like sloths and tortoises. Perhaps the whole series of 7 exhibits would be linked by tunnels which announce each section and are punctuated by bolts of lightning.

@geomorph
I absolutely love your ideas and I would be willing to pay good money to visit this set of exhibits! I think you may have a great future as a professional exhibit designer!

On a more serious note, I really enjoy the discussion in this thread! I am an atheist myself, but I am also all in favour of free speech. Very interesting, albeit a bit surprising, to hear that non-Darwinian arguments are being put forward by zoos.