Tulsa Zoo Tulsa Zoo - Creationism Exhibit?

[ANyhuis]

I want to modify my position here: I do NOT think zoos should take positions on ANY controversial positions, such as Darwinism or Creationism. To do so would obviously offend a huge chunk of their potential customer base -- which is not what zoos should be doing. What is a "deeply held scientific and religious belief" is a "myth" to others, and what is "real science" to some is "atheistic nonsense" to others. Which is right? It depends on your own personal beliefs. Obviously, many on this thread have already displayed their unwillingness to open their minds and let others believe what they want to believe. No, they don't want to literally harm those who disagree, but they have to insult them. Sitatunga has already bravely demonstrated this. He puts forth his strongly held belief, and he's then immediately ridiculed for his lazy mispellings.

Reduakari, obviously I didn't mean that zoos could "promote" global warming. I think you know I meant to promote the teaching that GW is man-caused and should be addressed by severe technology-cutting and high-taxing methods. There is strong evidence that GW is both real and man-caused, but despite Al Gore's best efforts, this evidence is not conclusive. There is real scientific evidence for the opposite view as well. An open mind would admit this. A closed mind will simply ridicule and insult anyone who disagrees with them. Quite frankly, the trend in this debate is not necessarily in favor of the GW advocates. Just this week (yesterday?) the Australian senate voted down their version of the USA's "cap and trade" bill. American polls do not favor our bill passing either. My ONLY real point on this is that zoos should avoid this hot potato issue! They should stick to noncontroversial things like encouraging conservation (of water, electricity), recycling, and not polluting. Children (and adults) are accepting these messages and changing their lives accordingly. But when you add the GW message to this, you risk watering down the real conservation message.

 

[reduakari]

I want to modify my position here: I do NOT think zoos should take positions on ANY controversial positions, such as Darwinism or Creationism. To do so would obviously offend a huge chunk of their potential customer base -- which is not what zoos should be doing. What is a "deeply held scientific and religious belief" is a "myth" to others, and what is "real science" to some is "atheistic nonsense" to others. Which is right? It depends on your own personal beliefs. Obviously, many on this thread have already displayed their unwillingness to open their minds and let others believe what they want to believe. No, they don't want to literally harm those who disagree, but they have to insult them. Sitatunga has already bravely demonstrated this. He puts forth his strongly held belief, and he's then immediately ridiculed for his lazy mispellings.

Reduakari, obviously I didn't mean that zoos could "promote" global warming. I think you know I meant to promote the teaching that GW is man-caused and should be addressed by severe technology-cutting and high-taxing methods. There is strong evidence that GW is both real and man-caused, but despite Al Gore's best efforts, this evidence is not conclusive. There is real scientific evidence for the opposite view as well. An open mind would admit this. A closed mind will simply ridicule and insult anyone who disagrees with them. Quite frankly, the trend in this debate is not necessarily in favor of the GW advocates. Just this week (yesterday?) the Australian senate voted down their version of the USA's "cap and trade" bill. American polls do not favor our bill passing either. My ONLY real point on this is that zoos should avoid this hot potato issue! They should stick to noncontroversial things like encouraging conservation (of water, electricity), recycling, and not polluting. Children (and adults) are accepting these messages and changing their lives accordingly. But when you add the GW message to this, you risk watering down the real conservation message.

This could become a protracted waste of digital breath, as the positions of many of us are unlikely to be changed.

However, I do want to add for the record that the overwhelming majority (95%+) of the world's climate scientists are of the opinion that human-caused climate change IS occurring and will have significant negative environmental impacts in the relatively near future. This is not--like so many things in the US these days--a 50/50 partisan political split, but a near-unanimous opinion of those most qualified to make such a call on a very complex issue.

So zoos should only tackle "non-controversial things?" Any appraisal of why animals are becoming endangered or extinct that does NOT include such "controversies" as human over-population, inequitable distribution and consumption of land, food, water, and energy, and the impact of climate change on habitat is simply not being honest. In the case of global climate change, the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums officially adopted a policy last year recognizing this as one of--if not THE--primary causes of the loss of biodiversity. So while some zoos may choose to ignore it--or perhaps even be forced to "balance" science with religious mumbo-jumbo (i.e. Tulsa's threatened "creationism" exhibit), the most distinguished international association of zoo professionals has already officially accepted the science of human-induced climate change and the responsibility to communicate it to their audiences.

Finally, as to belief--I support the right of anyone to practice whatever spiritual/religious (or not) world-view they may have. What I cannot support is the argument that these faith-based views can or should be "balanced" against science. They are apples and oranges; different but not mutually exclusive.

 

[Maguari]

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.

Excellent post! The meaning of 'theory' in a scientific context and the 'Darwin's Theory of Evolution' thing are particular bugbears of mine because so many people get them wrong; often in discussions like this where they are precisely what is being discussed.

A (good) zoo is a scientific institution and creationism is not scientifically supported. Darwinian evolution by natural selection is supported by the available experimental, palaeontogical and genetic evidence. Creationism is not. Doesn't mean that creationism can't be right, but I know where my money is on the subject.

Somewhat unsettlingly from my point of view there is now a creationist zoo in the UK (Noah's Ark Zoo Farm). It's one of Britain's worst zoos (though I don't think that's linked to the owner's religous outlook at all but rather their farming background - do it cheaply, do it simple). But they have signs with a whole list of reasons why humans and apes are different, picking all the minor differences and ignoring the basic similarities. It's all a bit bizarre. Faith in a benevolent creator and protector I can understand (if not agree with); deliberate blind ignorance I cannot.

 

[James27]

Somewhat unsettlingly from my point of view there is now a creationist zoo in the UK (Noah's Ark Zoo Farm). It's one of Britain's worst zoos (though I don't think that's linked to the owner's religous outlook at all but rather their farming background - do it cheaply, do it simple). But they have signs with a whole list of reasons why humans and apes are different, picking all the minor differences and ignoring the basic similarities. It's all a bit bizarre. Faith in a benevolent creator and protector I can understand (if not agree with); deliberate blind ignorance I cannot.

Also great post, I think that poster is ridiculous. They just clutch at straws, saying things like "human womens breasts are bigger to make them look nice". Not that the belief bothers me (although I think what I just mentioned is ridiculous), it's when they falsely educate people; One of their signs says something along the lines of "lemurs have prehensile tails and brachiate through the trees, indicating they're related to apes"... Erm...

 

[ANyhuis]

My "theory" is that we should stop insulting those with whom we disagree. This is how the Soviet (and Chinese) communists justified imprisoning, torturing, and killing Christians and other religious believers. Religious people were called "ignorant" and "in need of reeducation", and thus they were sent off to the "reeducation camps" in Siberia, and never heard from again.

As for manmade global warming, my mind is not made up yet -- I have an OPEN mind. I believe there is evidence that is somewhat convincing on both sides. But as to the claim that "overwhelming majority (95%+) of the world's climate scientists are of the opinion that human-caused climate change IS occurring and will have significant negative environmental impacts in the relatively near future", that claim is based on an online survey sent to 1,807 scientists. Only 140 of them responded. Statistically, that is a terrible response rate! Of the 1,667 scientists, is there any chance that a much larger percentage of them are "GW skeptics"? I don't know, but I do see the possibility that any skeptics might not want to participate in such a survey -- to save themselves from being called "ignorant" by the likes of folks like reduakari.

By the way, ever heard of Vaclav Klaus? He's the President of a major nation (the Czech Republic) and he's a major GW skeptic. Does that prove anything? No, except that not every GW skeptic is ignorant.

Like I said, my mind is open on this. Too bad more folks are unwilling to open their minds.

 

[foz]

I think that any 'theory' be it religious or otherwise should be acknowledged by zoos and other scientific institutes. Any day something might happen that totally dissproves darwinian evolution or dissprove creationisim (etc) each theory may be as real as the next. After all each what is real differs from person to person. Reality is a personal thing, what is real to one person may be totally false to another. Does religion have a place in zoos? yes, after all darwin supporters coose to BELEIVE in the the 'theory' based on the evidence, this evidence could be a book (eg the quaran or bible) fossils, thunderbolt, life, love etc. It is just the same on how myself (and many zoochatters) BELEIVE it is important to protect/preserve/conserve wildlife for the future.

There is no reason why a zoo couldn't acknowledge a religious theory in the end it does not harm the conservation of wildlife.

I personally believe in evolution.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

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.

I agree with all of your comments and those by others opposing anything but information relating to evolution in scientific zoo management and educational panels.

Religion is a personal thing (like sex) and zoos should be free from this kind of personal bias. All arguements for Darwin's evolution theory are there for all to see and it is exclusively science-based (including that on the basis of valid scientific arguement theories can be revised, supported or opposed. Creationism is not a science-based theory, it is solely based on peoples' personal religious beliefs and hence not valid in scientific arguement). If someone or groups of people - of his/her/their choosing by religion - wish not to follow this theory that is fine, but please let them not get in the way of valid scientific fact(-finding)..

To me, no one should impose their religious or political beliefs on others outside his/her/their personal space (and a zoo being a public place is outside that realm). So, it is not OK to have a mayoral candidate wishing for a Creationist exhibit at the local zoo. It is exactly that kind of interference that has done so much damage and not just back in Tulsa

Note in this matter: last year Alaska governor Sarah Palin efforts to have the polar declassified in the US from an USFWS listing, whereas internationally and following IUCN guidelines based on objective scientific fact-finding and criteria the polar bear is an endangered species. It was an exemplary case of personal bias, political posturing and playing to local mega-corporate America and the local oil industry workforce and allowing for exploration in the last safe Alaskan refuge for Arctic wildlife.