Why no Darwinian Zoo…?
To the best of my knowledge there is no animal collection in the world that takes the idea of evolution as its overall theme, although we do have a creationist zoo here in the UK, and I am pretty sure several in the USA ( to be clear, I am with Voltaire in defending the right of others, including creationists, to express ideas I disagree with, whilst marking creationism as entirely dependent on resolute ignorance).
Given how pivotal the concept of evolution is to our view of the world, this seems conspicous by its absence. From a funding point of view, I am convinced that the first institution that used the Darwinian theme ( perhaps allied to genetics and therefore the biosciences) would win the immediate interest of regional and national economic funders. ( in fact, consider that idea copywright!)
In practical terms the ’regular’ zoo collection would not neccesarily have to be very much different from current models: it would only be the interpretation and landmark theme that would be different.
The very distinctiveness of ‘The Evolution Zoo’ would have advantages from both gate marketing and public funding perpectives. It would militate against the obdurate perception of zoos as being relatively trivial propositions, only really concerned with recreation. Research links to relevant University departments would be of even more obvious appeal and logic than at other zoos, and bio-science industrial sectors would have a number of reasons to support such an endeavour.
Here is a link to a really interesting article on the teaching of evolution in zoos by Professor Colin Purrington of Swarthmore University: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/bin/purringtonzoo.pdf
7 Responses to “Why no Darwinian Zoo…?”
Got something to say?
Thanks for linking to the article. I didn’t have room in the article to make a big deal about Philadelphia Zoo’s founding date: 1859 (publication date of the Origin of Species). It opened to the public later, I think in the 1870s, which would have given the zoo plenty of time to structure itself around evolution. Clearly, it didn’t, and it’s a shame — I agree with you that the zoo to first embrace Evolution as the organizing theme will be richly rewarded by increased sales. I actually spent this morning looking through archives at the Free Library of Philadelphia, trying to find photographs of exhibit labels at the zoo in the early days. Aside from a lot of entertaining photographs of kids riding Galapagos tortoises, nothing evolutionary was in the files.
By the way, there IS a museum in Germany that seems to be on track to being focused on evolution. Not sure if it has a name yet, but I met some of the organizers last year, and they seemed well funded and smart — I can’t wait to see it.
Dear John,
I don’t know which the “Creationist Zoo” is that you refer to, because it does not sound like one that I know. Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, like 82% of the population at the last Census, certainly allows for God (in our case as the Intelligent Designer), but also points out enormous amounts of evolution, from bacteria to galaxies. We are on a quest for the limits of evolution, believing that if it could have evolved, it probably did evolve. But the fatal flaws with Darwinism have always been in the detail. Massive assumptions are made, whose solution is always 1.time, and 2.It must have happened because it is there. These are true of a Big Bang becoming precise atoms and physical laws; biogenesis by bubbling chemicals (in the sea? Attenborough); variation and genetic increase by random mutations alone; the Cambrian Explosion of 20 phyla of marine life; the Silurian/Devonian explosion of plants; the Carboniferous explosion of insects; the sudden appearance of birds, mammals, etc.
We don’t believe the public buys that, though ardent believers will always be happy with anything that fits the wish list.
We have an alternative model, that certainly is NOT American Creationism. It is at http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/introduction/evolutionism-creationism-compared/
We would welcome debate, comment, angry prejudice, on the subject, because we feel that Darwinism is also dependent on resolute ignorance!
Incidentally, in this zoo we state clearly both Darwinism and our own view of origins in several displays, with careful reasoning for the veracity of our own. Come and see us!
With best wishes
Anthony Bush
Hello Anthony,
Okay – not a ‘creationist zoo’ – a ‘non- Darwinian zoo’ would that do…?
As Anthony says debate and comment welcome on this forum – but not, I think, ‘angry prejudice’
John
Hi John,
Non-NeoDarwinian might do, but we are actually supporters not only of evolution but also of Darwin, in that he pointed out to the obstinate (but well meaning) Creationist world of his day that some things were related. OK so Linnaeus, 100 years before, who was a believer in God, pointed out the same thing by classifying life forms into “Genuses”, which he named thus because he thought they had spread within the “origin” related groups. But Darwin’s message was important in his day. So too were his reservations about his theory. In Origin he is cautious about many things, including the fossil record failing to verify transitional forms(p133); and in his final paragraph he clearly thought biogenesis was impossible unless life was “breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”. Some of us feel that Darwin’s name has been hijacked because he was a moderate, but his name is now linked with immoderate fantasy, that makes proposals way beyond reasonable science.
The question then is – what to call a theory that proposes the first life forms can spontaneously appear, then develop by genetic mistakes into 10 million other astonishingly complex species of creature; all of which system was Big Banged out of a singularity by chance?
That’s a big ask.
Anthony
Hi John,
I apologise for the word “mistakes” in the last line of the above letter, it is biased shorthand for macro evolutionary mutations! These are defined by neo-Darwinists as increasing genetic information (for the theory to work) but they are a theoretical explanation only. Many scientists feel mutations cannot add wholly different genetic information by mutation.
Mutations that are observed – make deletions, duplications, breakages, realignments or insertions of errors in replications, and of course point mutations produce four other sorts of changes – missense, nonsense, silent and frame shift. These are all what I call “mistakes”.
So the big question is – where did all the information come from that Natural Selection selects? Huge amounts of genetic information must have arrived in different (Linnaean-type) gene-pools for micro-evolution to take place and mutations to happen within those groups of creatures. These are explained by Supernatural events, (like Darwin’s proposal that the Creator …breathes life into..) but where is the naturalistic explanation for the big leaps?
Anthony
Dear John , Anthony and Colin
Arguably we already have not one but many Evolutionist zoos. It is fair to say consciously or unconsciously many zoos, visitors and zoo educators’ zoospeak in evolutionary terms / language. Ditto nature programmes, books …
Time is ticking away until the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin on 12 February 2009 and the 150th anniversary of Origin of Species being published.
Hopefully this will be a great opportunity to celebrate the man’s life, times and thoughts but also positively to look at how far we have arguably come in zoos AND AQUARIUMS since Victorian times and also to look at conservation and extinction issues today.
There is space to look at both creation stories / myths and evolution views imaginataively, (Creatively?) both ways of looking at the natural world.
I hope that many (BIAZA) zoos and other organisations take this opportunity to further harness people’s interest in the natural world and issues of today without developing into an acrimonious bunfight of views
(The modern Darwins would be agonising and puzzling over what issues? Climate Change? Sustainability? Species loss? Space travel?)
(In the Southwest, we hope to link the anniversary to events in Falmouth and Plymouth, his start and end points for the Beagle voyage, working with the Brunel 200 team, Andrew Kelly and the Bristol Cultural Development Partnership.) Mark Norris
PS When can we start celebrating David Attenborough’s birthday?
PPS When can we have a return to keepers wearing peaked caps and suits like my toy zoo ones?
Hello Mark,
Well, I guess I meant there is no zoo taking Darwin as its overall ( as Colin puts it – ‘organising’) theme
Yes, it would be great if all UK zoos did something collaborative to celebrate Darwin’s imminent anniversary.
Hmmmm .. wonder if somebody would fund something like that.? Wellcome Trust want to commission broadcast celebrations, and some television colleagues of mine submitted a bid – unsuccessful as it happened.
Would all the zoo educators in the UK work collaboratively if there was some external funding to help..?
And yes, bring back the old Johnny Morris type keeper uniforms!