Response

My first post to this blog has generated some very insightful comments, and I would like to take a moment to respond to some of the questions and comments presented.

First, JB asked "is there any way to reach the minds of those who walk thorugh the door with their minds already made up?" Sadly, the answer to this is usually no. Just as a person is unable to walk through a closed door, so is an idea unable to enter a closed mind. For people who choose to so completely close themselves off, all we can do is pity them and the smallness of the world they live in. But for people who have even opened their mind a crack, exhibits can, as you so eloquently put it, "plant little tiny seeds of though that may result in a change of mind months or years down the road." Museums can only present information, they can't make people learn or believe it.

To excelsior, I don't think it's productive for science centers and museums to present evidence against Creationism. I do want to make it clear that this is my own personal opinion, and I do not have research evidence to back me up. But what I do have is a good working understanding of how people learn and engage with exhibits, and the understanding that if a reputable institution puts anti-creationism material up, some loud mouth ignoramous will use it in defense of Creationism/Intelligent Design by twisting it just like they do everything else. Science centers, like science classrooms, need only contain the science.

ct3290, thanks for the information on museums in Hawai'i. I'm going to add that to my grant proposal.

Sara Fox, museums and science centers with dedicated evolution exhibits are certainly in the minority. I haven't actually found on in Oregon yet, sadly. My advice is to (a) keep going to as many museums as you can, and (b) when you're there ask a staff member if they've thought about it. Public interest is a driving force in exhibit development. If they know the public is interested, they may be more willing to put resources towards it.

John Winkle, you asked "are museums holding back, and trying to reconcile with religion or actually presenting the theory in its entirety?" The answer is yes, no, and some of both. I can't answer this with complete authority, because I have not yet completed my goal of visiting all US museums (and several foreign ones to boot). However, the science museums that I have visited with evolution exhibits have not tried to reconcile with religion, and I haven't gotten the feeling that they are "holding back." However, they are not presenting the theory in its entirety simply because that's too much information for even an exhibit, and would require an entire museum dedicated solely to evolution, and it may even be too much then. Museums seem to pick one part (i.e. the National Museum of Natural History has focused on human evolution) and focus on that. There is a concept in education theory called "cognitive fatigue" where the brain stops processing new information when it hits saturation. This point varies from person to person, but it happens quicker in most people proportional to the difficulty of the information being presented. Presenting all of evolutionary theory would undoubtedly lead to rapid cognitive fatigue in all but the most zealous of museum goers.

dakineslappy26, I'm sorry that the temporary/rotating nature of the Darwin exhibit irked you, and I'm impressed that you called the museum for more information. Please try to remember that museums that stay static lose visitors, and therefore income, and without income they can't continue. Rotating exhibits are standard in the field as they allow an institution to both engage new visitors and reengage repeat visitors. I do want to let you know that the evolution exhibit at the Texas Natural History Museum is more permanent in nature, and should be there for the next several years.