MUSEUMS AND EVOLUTION

Talking About Evolution in Natural History Museums

Honor Gay

Published online: 14 April 2012# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract The Natural History Museum’s approach to con-ducting learning conversations about evolution with visitorsin the galleries is described. Potentially difficult scenarioswere identified, and training was developed for educationstaff and volunteers to enable them to engage visitors with arange of motivations and beliefs. Workshops and discussionevents focusing on evolution, which form part of the museum’seducation program, are also described.

Keywords Natural history museum . Learning . Evolution .

Training

The great biologist Theodore Dobzhansky said that nothing inbiology makes sense except in the light of evolution. In 2009,many museums across the world celebrated the enduringlegacy of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution bynatural selection is one of the most powerful and elegant ideasin the history of human thought. Breathtaking in its simplicityand in its explicatory power, it illuminates humans’ place innature and our interdependence with other species.

No scientific theory has been more scrutinized thanDarwin’s since it was published 150 years ago. No scientificevidence falsifies it. However, evolution by natural selectionis increasingly socially and culturally divisive. In a 2006Ipsos MORI survey of over 2,000 participants, only 48 % ofrespondents said that natural selection was the best expla-nation for the diversity of life. This suggests a widespreadlack of understanding of the scientific process and the natureof evidence. Educators in both formal and informal situa-tions can struggle with the nuance of communicating a

complex scientific idea such as evolution, which is notscientifically controversial, although like any active area ofresearch, there are unanswered questions within evolutionaryscience. In this article, I describe how the Natural HistoryMuseum in London prepared its educators for Darwin yearin 2009, and the program of gallery workshops and discus-sions about evolution that form part of our education programfor schools, adults, and families.

Engaging museum visitors with evolution is a tremendousopportunity to reveal how science works and to inspire won-der at the power of scientific thought. It is also a challenge formuseums, where communicating the evidence for evolutioncan conflict with faith-based views of the world and wheremany people have a strong distaste for the social misappro-priations of Darwin’s theory, such as eugenics. As a museumof science, the Natural History Museum is committed toengaging visitors with the natural world and with scientificevidence.We recognize that there are faith-based views on thedevelopment of life, but we do not promote these as alterna-tive, equally valid narratives to the theory of evolution. Wherevisitors raise faith-based views in conversation in the gallerieswith our educators, we present the scientific evidence in afriendly and respectful way and do not engage in debate. Wedo provide opportunities for debates about science and faithelsewhere in our public program.

At the Natural History Museum, we anticipated becominga focus of attention in Darwin year. Our scientists and educa-tors thought long and hard about how we could balance ourposition as a museum of science with our desire to welcomeand engage visitors with a range of beliefs and motivations.Although visitors have always come to natural historymuseums to explore evidence for evolution, to reconcilescience with their faith, or to seek confirmation for their ownview of the world, we were preparing for a significantlyincreased level of scrutiny and intensity in 2009.

H. Gay (*)The Natural History Museum,London, UKe-mail: h.gay@nhm.ac.uk

Evo Edu Outreach (2012) 5:101–103DOI 10.1007/s12052-012-0402-5

In our galleries, visitors can find compelling evidence forevolution—from the pentadactyl limb, or the evolution ofammonites, to the thousands of specimens in our hands-onscience center Investigate. Such evidence enables visitorsand students to form and test their own hypotheses.

While the specimens and their gallery interpretationinvite reflection on evolution, it is the conversationsbetween educators and visitors about our specimens thatoffer the greatest potential for stimulating interactions aboutevolution—and the greatest risk of conflict or misunder-standing or offense. During Darwin year, hundreds of spon-taneous, unscripted conversations about evolution tookplace between visitors and gallery educators, and we devoteda lot of energy to ensure that education staff and volunteerswere confident in engaging visitors with the evidence forevolution in potentially difficult situations.

We began the process of building the skills and confidenceof our educators in 2008 by asking the gallery educators aboutthe interactions that they already had with visitors aboutevolution, and where they felt that they needed more support.Three key areas were identified: fossil evidence and deeptime, evidence for natural selection, and evolution and faith.

The museum had prepared a position statement onevolution as follows:

The study of the diversity of life on earth is at the veryheart of the Natural History Museum. As a scientificorganization we are committed to the principlesembodied in the scientific method, which tests ideaswith empirical evidence. We consider the theory ofevolution as the best current explanation for how thediversity of life around us came to be. Through the latenineteenth and entire twentieth centuries the theory ofevolution by natural selection has been thoroughlychallenged and tested across a range of scientific dis-ciplines and it remains the only compelling, scientifi-cally rigorous account of how life evolves on ourplanet for which a great deal of empirical evidencehas been accumulated.The Museum’s policy for public engagement is topresent the theory of evolution as the best explanation,which is supported by rigorous scientific examination,of the ongoing generation of the diversity of life onearth.We strongly endorse the teaching of the theory ofevolution in UK schools as a core part of the sciencecurriculum and we use the Museum’s assets to supportthis. We agree that views such as creationism andintelligent design should not be taught as ‘science’,as the Department for Schools Children and Familieshas recently stated.While we assert that the theory of evolution frameshow we understand the world, we do recognize that

there are faith-based views on the development of life.The Natural History Museum encourages discussionand exchange of such views in our science and societyprogram.

We had to build on this statement and agree upon anapproach to a range of frequently occurring gallery conversa-tions on evolution. From the gallery educators’ experience, weconstructed five scenarios. These ranged from a teacher askingus to change the content of workshops to omit evolution, tovisitors telling gallery educators that they did not believe inevolution.

We brought together a museum-wide group, consisting ofevolutionary scientists, educators, and diversity experts fortwo workshops which were externally facilitated. Weworked through the scenarios to develop an appropriateresponse to each that would uphold our scientific credibilityand retain visitors’ engagement wherever possible, givingthem the evidence to come to their own conclusions. Werecognized that visitors control their own experience of themuseum. From the workshops, it became clear that thequality of the conversations would depend on our educators’ability to communicate the evidence for evolution, theircourtesy, and their skill in avoiding getting drawn into anargument.

From this work, we developed a day’s training for ourface to face educator teams, with the aims of building theirknowledge on evolution, and giving them confidence tohave high-quality conversations by working through thescenarios. Getting to grips with the complexities of evolu-tionary biology and gaining confidence in navigating diffi-cult conversations are tough tasks, and the training hasevolved significantly since its original conception. Althoughthis was resource intensive, the investment of time andthought has been valuable—our educators felt confidentand were able to conduct conversations with proponents ofintelligent design where they felt able to point out scientificerrors in their assumptions and present accepted evidence.

In the spontaneous gallery conversations that I havedescribed above, we presented the evidence for evolutionand politely avoided long debates where evolution is pittedagainst other explanations for the diversity of life. It is,however, a crucial part of the museum’s work to explorethe relationship between science and society. In relation toevolution, this meant providing opportunities to explore itssocial and cultural impact. As part of the Darwin 200 cele-brations, we developed a series of evening discussions toinvestigate some of the controversies and legacies surround-ing Darwin. The Discussing Darwin events began byexploring the relationship between science and Christianitywith a packed audience. We followed this with an investi-gation of the possibility that there was a moral impetusbehind Darwin’s theory of evolution—a belief in human

102 Evo Edu Outreach (2012) 5:101–103

brotherhood and a conviction that not only different racesbut all species are members of one family, with a sharedancient ancestor. These were very popular, sellout events,reflecting a real thirst in many people to understand moreabout evolution and its impact, and to share their views. Indeveloping these events, we were adamant that we wanteddebates and sought out speakers who could communicatethe complexity and nuance of these sometimes difficulttopics. We did not want a creationist and evolutionaryscientist talking at one another with no common ground,believing that this would be sterile and unsatisfying for theaudience.

Along with Oxford UniversityMuseum of Natural History,who developed this workshop, we run sessions for 14- to 16-year-old science students that recreate the Great Debate of1860. It builds on the English national curriculum for scienceand uses the unique specimens in our galleries as a focus forwhole-class debates about the interpretation of the specimensas evidence for evolution.

Students recreate the famous Huxley and Wilberforceevolution debate of 1860, which took place in OxfordUniversity Museum of Natural History. They imaginethat the key historic characters were alive today anduse the galleries’ exhibits as evidence for or againstevolution, doing presentations on behalf of one of thedebate’s key characters.

Students point out particular bones and features to theirclassmates while presenting, to make their point. They cansee that the specimens, their structure, and their similaritiesto or differences from humans are interpreted differently bythe groups, depending on whether they are arguing for oragainst evolution.

We are therefore directly using museum specimens tosupport a difficult concept, that evidence can be interpreteddifferently depending on viewpoint, or belief. We discussthe need for the peer review process in science, for scientiststo check each other’s work and ensure that interpretations ofevidence are not influenced by bias or personal belief. Weare directly using the specimens and the historic controversysurrounding the publication of the Origin of Species to helpstudents understand what science is.

This enables us to discuss the limits of science—thatthere are some questions that science cannot currently an-swer and some that science cannot address, which is a keycurriculum point. The plenary discussion also includes the

question “Which comes first, the theory or the evidence?”and a lively debate usually follows. The historic context, theevidence for evolution physically surrounding the students,and the example of a world-changing theory provide thespark for getting to grips with and understanding complex,higher concepts—discussions which would be equally athome in a university philosophy department.

In conclusion, at the Natural History Museum, we havechosen not to spark debate about evolution and societythrough our galleries. We decided that placing evolutionalongside origins narratives in galleries would not providethe quality of engagement that we seek, and that this isbetter provided through structured opportunities for conver-sation and debate. As a museum, we are in the uniqueposition to welcome visitors from a variety of backgroundsand explore with them areas of shared interest and under-standing. With a dynamic, imaginative public program, amuseum of science can become a productive and excitingplace for such discussions and exchange of views.

Coming to an agreed position about how we talk aboutevolution at the Natural History Museum has been an excit-ing and challenging process. This does not mean that we getevery interaction right or satisfy ourselves and every visitor.As Darwin Year began, we felt ready to engage thousands ofvisitors with evolution and its social and cultural impact,providing them with the evidence for evolution, building theskills to make up their own minds, and making space fordebate about the relationship between science and society.

In the event, with two years of hindsight, our educatorsand science communicators encountered very little antago-nism and had relatively little opportunity to put their traininginto practice. Most visitors, in contrast to the Ipsos MORI(2006) poll mentioned at the beginning of the article, wereeager to learn more about evolution and engage in construc-tive and friendly discussion with museum educators. How-ever, the process of thinking deeply about how wecommunicate evolution, and retain visitors’ engagement ingallery conversations, has built the skills, knowledge, andconfidence of our educators and has had a lasting impact onthe quality of learning conversations in our galleries.

Reference

Ipsos MORI. Poll for the BBC on the Origins of Life. January 2006.

Evo Edu Outreach (2012) 5:101–103 103