This is absolutely unbelievable. On second thought, it is believable, for it’s in the U.S. Check out the caveat emptor at the bottom of the poster shown below.
When I got this picture from a tw**t by Adam Rogers via Emily Ladawalla and then Matthew Cobb, I wasn’t sure where it was from, but figured it had to be from my benighted country. Where else would a science organization give an “evolution warning” for a presentation? And, indeed, it’s American, to our eternally continuing shame.
The clue was the words “Curi Odyssey” at the bottom of the poster, which tells that it’s from an eponymous organization that runs a center for children’s science education at Coyote Point Recreation Area in San Mateo, California. Curi Odyssey’s mission statement is below:
Mission Statement:
As a science and wildlife center, CuriOdyssey helps children acquire the tools to deeply understand the changing world.Children are natural scientists. They are naturally curious, innately experimental, and diligent in their pursuit to understand something. At CuriOdyssey, we foster scientific curiosity. We give young learners the opportunity to make discoveries at their own pace, one brain-building revelation after another.
We do this by offering children real-world experiences with inquiry and investigation. Here, young people can explore interactive science exhibits and have up-close encounters with native California animals (our 100 animals have come to us as rescued or non-releasable).
Those are admirable goals, so more’s the pity that announcements of its programs look like this:
While I suppose other interpretations are possible, it’s most likely that the “This program may discuss the topic of evolution” is a trigger warning for creationists or those whose sensibilities may be offended by the “e-word”. But that’s reprehensible, particularly in a place where evolution should not only be taken for granted, but positively promoted as one of the world’s wonders that will excite kids about science. The only reason for such a warning seems to be to avoid injuring parents’ religious beliefs. But if they have those beliefs,that’s just too damn bad, for they’re in a science center. Evolution is real, it’s the explanation for all those reptiles and their behaviors, and if they don’t want to encounter scientific truth they shouldn’t bring their kids to Curi Odyssey.
Curi Odyssey also has exhibits of live animals, programs and workshops for children—all the stuff you need to turn kids on to science. Why turn them off by giving “evolution” such a sinister aura?
I’ve written the organization at a couple of its contact addresses, simply making polite inquiries about why they do this, and suggesting that they may want to regard evolution as a bonus, not as as something to avoid. My email is below. There’s also a box at the bottom of that page to contact them directly. Stay tuned.
****
Dear Curi Odyssey,
I’m an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, and the picture I attach, advertising one of your events, came to my attention. Since I teach evolution on the college level, but also to children of various ages, the “warning” at the bottom of the sign—”This program may discuss the topic of evolution”—was somewhat disturbing.
I can’t see any purpose to this caveat save to warn parents that the program may contain something repugnant to them: evolution. I am writing to ask if this is indeed the case, and, if so, to ask you to please reconsider implying that ”evolution” is something that may be disturbing—something parents may not want their children to encounter. I wrote a book on the evidence for evolution (Why Evolution is True, which was a New York Times bestseller), and, as you know, that evidence is massive and multifarious. Evolution is true, and it is something that children should not only hear about, but which should excite them even more about the wonders of our planet.
If that addition about the “e-word” is indeed a warning to prospective visitors, it seems unnecessary. I don’t see why an organization like yours, which is so admirable in its dedication to educating children about science, needs to warn them off one of the most amazing discoveries of modern science. Of course some parents (or their children) might have religiously-based objections to evolution, but I also think there’s no need for science education centers to cater to such sentiments. Evolution happens to be true, and people need to learn about it. Making it seem “scary” in this way only adds to the bad feelings people have about such a marvelous view of life, and deprives children of a proper grounding in biology.
I would be most grateful if you’d call my concerns to the attention of your Board of Trustees and your advisory council. And I’d be delighted if you’d respond to this email.
Thanks very much, and best wishes in your endeavors,
Jerry Coyne
Professor of Ecology and Evolution
The University of Chicago
That’s a shocking story — and a great email. Can’t wait to hear about the response.
Actually, I think it’s kind of funny. Given that SJW types have started the overuse, misuse and abuse of trigger alert, I was thinking about putting a trigger alert at the top of every blog post I do about SJWs.
SJW?? Social Justice Warriors who take St. John’s Wort?
Just the first SJW. And, I threw the gluten sensitivity folks under the bus, too: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2014/04/warrning-contains-trigger-alerts.html
For your information, my “Trigger alert” label, which you seem to have taken seriously on your website, was an obvious sarcastic reference to the overuse of that term. You’d have to be blind not to see that. As for your comment, “As for Coyne, I don’t know how much he, like biologist and Gnu Atheist buddy P.Z. Myers, dips at least a bit into the SJW angle,” you might try reading this website to find out. Nor do I consider P.Z. my “Gnu Atheist buddy”.
It will be interesting to read their response.
Well roared, lion!
Excellent letter, of course. Hope there is a prompt, relevant reply soon.
Maybe children’s math classes should proclaim:
Warning: 2+2=4 taught here
Looool! Or maybe even “Warning: Pi may differ from 3 (1st Kings, 7:23)”
I wonder if it’s not the equivalent of “Warning: Not for children who still believe Santa Claus is real.”
In other words, if you’ve been raising your kids on BS, we’ll mess that up for you. I’m torn: I wish science institutions worked aggressively to assert the truth of evolution, religious sensitivity be damned – but at the same time, it can’t be easy for museum curators to deal with the cuckoos. So, give them a cookie and get them out of the way!
What!! There’s no Santa?? Now I’m going to be sad for the rest of the day.
:^)
Particle Physics
May contain GUTs
Today’s theme: Birds
(warning: may not include bats)
I wonder if this was a response to some earlier parental complaint.
I say that because while there are pockets of religious conservativism in the area, the San Fransico to San Jose corridor is generally pretty well educated, wealthy, cosmopolitan, and tech-friendly. I would not expect an organization centered there to come up with the caveat on their own. So I’m guessing its a result of some past problems.
Maybe this is a way of filtering out religious parents so the rest of us can enjoy the sciency goodness for ourselves.
That’s the only positive spin I could think of.
Very good letter, Jerry. Only in America! Although, it might occur in Britain, these days, too. The tyranny of dogma becomes daily more evident!
There’s another word in there I’m surprised you didn’t address. May? Seems like something that should be in there, no may about it, especially if they’re discussing snakes along with other reptiles.
It’s like the warning on a bag of walnuts: “May contain nuts”.
May offend creationist nuts…
I wonder if this is their way of heading off anyone who may confront them everytime they say the “e-word” & cause an unnecessary uproar. If so, their presenters should be trained in how to handle such things.
Curi Odyssey should simply state the facts as evolution without apology just as we’d state any other fact; doing otherwise does two things: 1) implies there is doubt in evolution since even an educational facility behaves as though they aren’t quite confident about it 2) it leaves a little room open for creationists to wiggle in & proclaim there is doubt about evolution where there is none.
I recently saw the problem for guides at Lake Shasta Caverns. All throughout the cave there was one lady who kept asking these very odd questions of the guide. Like the rest of us, the guide was puzzled and seemed to think he just wasn’t being clear or talking loudly enough. He struggled to get us through each presentation and onto the next as the questioner seemed to get increasingly combative with him. Her questions seemed very general and random and didn’t really make much sense to me. My wife and I thought she was just some sad combination of dense and angry. Eventually it came into focus when the guide was discussing how we could see different water levels over time in one chamber from the rings of calcium carbonate deposited on the walls. It was an impressive display of the longevity and stability of the cave and it was there that something the lady said about “you scientists” (addressing the young kid who was our guide) that clued my wife and I in: she is a YEC making a show of challenging the ‘scientist’ in front of her children. Ugh. The guide never clued into what she was on about and I kicked myself even before we got out of the cave that I didn’t speak up and tell him, and everyone, the reason for the lady’s weird questions.
I imagine it’s more likely the post-presentation bother they’re worried about. So many creationist folks assume evolution only gets discussed by worldly professors in worldly universities, so they would see a mention of evolution in a children’s science session as a “stealth attack” rather than the common sense activity that it is.
In an effort to avoid phone call and letter writing campaigns by churches and ministries which they likely don’t have the human resources (or patience) to respond to, they’ve taken away the stealth argument by explicitly mentioning it.
I think this could be better achieved by including evolution in a list of topics to be covered rather than singling it out, but I still prefer this approach to the alternative of presenting a science session that censors evolution in order to keep the peace. As mentioned by another comment, it is likely the result of some negative experience in the past.
Very good letter, unbelievable warning. Look forward to the response.
Could be worse. They could’ve given equal time to creationism or intelligent design.
Warning: we only deal with reality, not fantasy. If you want fantasy, head south three blocks, turn left, and look for the big building with an oversized “†” on the roof.
…at least, that’s what the poster would have read had they left me to design it….
b&
I noticed at the Monterey Bay Aquarium the word evolution is NEVER used in any display or by any of the docents (though this is not as bad as a warning). They were having some exhibit on camouflage in sea horses and sea dragons and I was baffled as the words “natural selection” were nowhere. I emailed them about it and received this very unsatisfactory response:
“As you can well imagine, we receive many constructive suggestions concerning the presentation of additional information. Some folks would like more information on evolution. Many would like less information on evolution. Some would like more material on development, reproduction, diving physiology, conservation biology, and so forth. To accommodate all these desires would be to present so much information on the walls of the exhibit galleries that a serious overload would result.
We have chosen to present information at the density and level you see today. Additional information on most related topics is readily available through publications in the Aquarium Gift & Bookstore, including in many of the Aquarium’s own publications. Our website is also a rich source of additional information.”
I responded to them, saying I didn’t think there would be a problem with “overload” and asking them if they have ever had any exhibits specifically for evolution. I was never answered.
Hopefully you will get a better answer from the San Mateo County Parks.
I’ve vaguely had that thought when I’ve visited there as well. I’m almost always disappointed in the amount and quality of information on display in museums, which too often just offer a disconnected set of dumbed down “amazing facts” that give you no real insight as to how the world works. So I think I just filed it under that general phenomena rather than as avoiding evolution specifically. But now that you mention it I’m not sure I can recall ever seeing or hearing evolution mentioned in over ten years of visiting. I’ll pay more attention next time I’m there.
A couple of months ago, my wife and I drove to Austin to meet up with my brother and his wife for the day. Over lunch, my brother said something to the effect that we didn’t know enough when we were young to be atheists. My answer was that I knew enough at eleven to be an atheist with respect to every bit of religion I had been exposed to (Catholicism and Protestantism).
I remember well the How and Why Wonder Books, Dinosaurs and Early Man. Those books alone are enough for an intelligent eleven-year-old to pose the same argument Hitchens posed wherein he says that it is ridiculous to believe that God stood by for a hundred thousand years of human history (give or take) in which people lived in fear of dying of bad teeth, plagues, childbirth, etc, and then God suddenly took an interest for the most recent couple of thousand years … and decided to communicate with a tribe of illiterate middle-easterners.
It is a damn good thing that the How and Why Wonder Books didn’t come with a warning that your child were about to be exposed to ‘evilution’.
Oh The How & Why Wonder books – I had those too! They are probably still in my parents’ attic!
It also of course privileges faith by treating religious concerns as publicly legitimate. There’s more than a hint that creationists require special protection, like rape victims or people who are deathly allergic to peanuts.
See how sensitive we are? Wouldn’t want the kiddies becoming confused and your parental right to own your offspring like pieces of property being challenged, would we? We respect all views here.
If I walk into a church*, I expect to hear about God. If I walk into a science museum I expect to hear about science. Why is a warning necessary???
*Not gonna happen.
You may be exposed to facts herein. If you are upset by facts, please go away.
That’s how I read it. It’s not an apology; it’s a forthright statement that evolution is what we talk about here, and anybody who has a problem with that should either suck it up or take their kids somewhere else.
We hope you’re right, but it seems that the preponderance of comments here fears that you aren’t.
What the preponderance of comments seems to be afraid of is that the museum is going to soft-pedal the topic of evolution, or tiptoe around it somehow. If true, then I agree that would be something to worry about.
But that’s not what the sign says. In fact it says pretty much the opposite of that. So I don’t see that such fears, however prevalent, are justified by the facts of the case.
A few years ago (don’t remember exactly when) I visited the Natural History Museum in DC. In looking at the various exhibits I was struck by the absence of Tiktaalik, the transitional fossil Neil Shubin writes about in Your Inner Fish, which I had recently read. I brought this to the attention of a lady at the museum. She had never heard Tiktaalik but she was extremely interested and enthused about the discovery and took down all the information I gave her. Hopefully there is a Tiktaalik display at the museum now.
An extraordinary irony is that no warning at all was needed when evolution was presented in…Walt Disney’s “Fantasia” in the 1940s.
(Perhaps if it was packaged with dancing sugar-plum fairies, and centaurs it wasn’t a problem. Ironically, Fantasia got the basics a lot more right than many other films that have evolution in the story-line.)
Seriously, CuriOdyssey (usually one word) is a great science center for kids and in a lovely location.
Speaking of “trigger warnings”:
Subject: the cost of coddling
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/trigger-warnings-the-latest-threat-to-academic-freedom/article17835103/
aaargh!!
As a follow up, the museum at-replied me on Twitter today and told me that they’d change the language on the sign. So that’s good news. And to reinforce what one of your other commenters said, it really is a lovely museum.
The CuriOdyssey folks responded, and they’ll be removing the phrase.
https://twitter.com/CuriOdyssey1/status/453239468544114688
Adam is a friend of mine — we attended the same undergraduate school — and I think he felt a little bad about the kerfuffle, but also is glad they’ve moved to change their posters going forward. If anyone’s wondering, he also reports that it’s a really nice museum. Maybe worth a visit to reward them for listening.
Good to hear!
Outstanding!
Hemant Mehta (writer of The Friendly Atheist blog) also called them and reported that they are removing the disclaimer. It was originallly prompted by some parental complaints/concerns (i.e., the parents wanted to know which CuriOdyssey events would present evolution). Here’s a quote from Hemant’s coverage:
tick marks…Just discovered that ticking the boxes doesn’t work from my iPad.
What?! Works for me….hmmmmm…..mysterious!
Have no idea why. Works fine( usually) from my Mac.
Side effects may include wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, spontaneous emission of cries of oppression, and asploding heads.
That’s what? A head that explodes, but the noise (and spraying around the room of fragments of bone and bloody fat) is somewhat damped by the way that the head had been rammed up the head’s associated sunshine-free orifice?
If I may, I’d like to take a bit of an opposing viewpoint here. I’ll start by saying your letter was a polite way to communicate your views on the matter. But as an individual extolling the values of science, I think you are not being entirely fair.
I certainly do not share the fundamentalist views on creationism that were likely the reason for that disclosure. I believe there is an overwhelming body of evidence that supports both evolution during the span of recorded human observation and evolution prior to that point. But I also challenge myself to consider the viewpoints of others and attempt to reconcile their viewpoints with observable fact. To my knowledge, the aspect of evolution that is most controversial is that “humans evolved from apes” (a shorthand that I realize is not a fully accurate description of the actual evolutionary process).
So the question becomes, can I as a scientist, fashion an argument for humans not having “evolved from apes” that does not contradict an overwhelming body of evidence that suggests otherwise. And I think a scientist who asks himself that question with an open mind is capable of fashioning such an argument. When I personally went through this exercise years ago while playing the devil’s advocate, I forwarded a scenario where at some point prior to recorded human history a God could have created a universe in the state we as scientists believe it to be based on evidence. Such a scenario allows for an overwhelming amount of evidence to point toward human evolution from apes without it actually being accurate.
Now, do I personally believe that is what happened? Absolutely not. Does it pass Occam’s razor? I don’t think so. But am I capable of dismissing its possibility with a defensible scientific position? No. And if I cannot take a defensible scientific position, I am certainly in no position to demand others share my stance.
I get that you have dedicated your life to this field of research. It is part and parcel of who you are. As a result, I understand the strong objection you had to that disclosure. And that would be fine, except you seem to be holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself. It appears you are taking the stance that those who do not share your absolute views on evolution should be less sensitive given the context of a science museum. But as I went to great lengths to attempt to illustrate, there appears ample room to me for those who understand the scientific rationale for evolution without agreeing to the premise that “humans evolved from apes”.
You were in a position to exercise the understanding you wanted from those with scientific curiosity and fundamentalist views. Instead you chose to criticize a science museum that is attempting to educate children with a sensitivity to minority beliefs. Regardless of what beliefs individuals hold, I feel there is tremendous value in scientific discovery. I find it a shame that a museum is being reprimanded for doing what was prudent to reach children of all beliefs without actually compromising the scientific content.
One can always invent an infinite number of conspiracy theories which cannot be refuted. Why restrict your scenario to a prehistoric origin date? Why not, say, Last Thursday? And why one of the Judeo-Christian gods as the creative deity, and not Queen Maeve the Cat? Or, we could be in a Matrix-style computer simulation, or aliens could be using mind rays to control your thoughts, or we could be part of Alice’s Red King’s dream, or….
The point isn’t whether or not you can come up with some internally-consistent hypothesis consistent with observations. The point is whether or not you can come up with such an hypothesis that’s actually useful. Evolution is useful; conspiracy theories aren’t.
There’s also a further point. Yes, it is true that we cannot, even in theory, eliminate the possibility that Queen Maeve Created Life, the Universe, and Everything last Thursday, including our memories of times before then. But it is also true that even Queen Maeve Herself cannot eliminate the possibility that she herself is part of a Matrix-style computer simulation; and the programmers of that simulation cannot eliminate the possibility that they themselves are part of Alice’s Red King’s dream, and so on. Thus, we can be absolutely confident that, even if any gods do exist, they are entirely parochial — even if their demesnes encompass our entire Hubble volume. And, from that perspective, the gods, even if real, would be of no more cosmic significance to us than James “The Amazing” Randi would be to some back-bush tribe if he set himself up as their own personal divinity.
The long and short of it is that, once you’ve worked this through, there’s no point in bothering with it again, except as an asterisk in discussions such as this. Evolution, as Jerry’s book so eloquently puts it, is true, with the usual caveat that you could be hallucinating your life away in some mental ward in an orbital station in Saturn’s rings.
Cheers,
b&
Moreover, it’s pretty clear that humans are apes, so the formulation that we evolved from apes is meaningless.
That was an absolute masterpiece of concern trolling. 5/5.
I’d say that speaking about evolution would be covered under freedom of speech. No need to warn that you are going to say something.
If someone perceived that what you have said as offensive to them, they can litigate and have the judge and jury figure it out.