A Creationist Perspective on the Cassowary Exhibition at the NHM, Los Angeles

By Ekim Luo, University of Southern California

Moving to the exhibition areas that illustrate the workings of evolutionary theories, Dr. Nathan Smith, a paleontologist and an associate curator at the Natural History Museum’s Dinosaur Institute, posited an interesting comparison between the phylogenetic tree and the periodic table: according to him, a phylogenetic tree to a paleontologist works the same way as a periodic table to a chemist -- one can make highly educated guesses about the biological, behavioral and physical traits of certain animals based on their genealogy. For example, if one wants to find out if a dinosaur had feathers, it would be effective to infer this feature from its modern descendent, perhaps a bird. Hence, the Cassowary Exhibition was a simple lens for museum-goers to understand how the phylogenetic tree works by juxtaposing illustrations of the Cryolophosaurus, the ancestor of cassowary, next to the cassowary itself. While the exhibition effectively illustrates how the phylogenetic tree works through shared phenotypic traits, the relatedness between the Cryolophosaurus and the cassowary, besides any seemingly random similar traits in morphology, remains unaccounted for. This likely leaves room for Creationists to challenge the validity of evolution.

Upon first glance, the two illustrations of the cassowary and Cryolophosaurus share a few similar traits, or phenotypes: bright colors of violet and red smeared across their face and neck, black torso, a mustard crown. Even the cassowary’s beak-like feature resembles the beak of its dinosaur ancestor. A catchy title, “The Clue of the Cassowary Color”, matches the visual stimulation this glossy exhibition provides. It is meant to stir up curiosity in its intended audience: what is the clue that gave away an ancient dinosaur's color? The ridicule factor of a feathered dinosaur, as if this supposedly fearsome creature was simply an enlarged bird -- a gentle giant -- tickles one’s brain. For the purpose of fulfilling what Stephen Asma terms “edutainment”, engaging several factors of human cognition in a poster board is indeed effective.

However, Asma describes the conundrum of modern-day museums: evolution is considered too “controversial” to be taught directly to museum-goers, if taught at all. Even though all evolutionary theorists universally reject creationist theories, evolution remains multifaceted, complex, and controversial, instigating debates among experts themselves. Therefore, the concept of the phylogenetic tree can be daunting to teach in a simple manner. This is especially true when the audience of an educational exhibition consists of families with energetic children on the weekends, high schoolers on a field trip, or a sleep-deprived parent with a baby in a stroller. In other words, explaining a complex concept that cannot be understood unless one had prior knowledge about evolution, and to do so within the attention span of a few seconds or minutes one may spare, is a tremendously difficult task. Hence, it is necessary that the exhibition showcases the most obvious connection between the cassowary and the Cryolophosaurus to illustrate how the phylogenetic tree works, and discard more sophisticated information in order to achieve the attention grab.

Yet, it is the information left out that creationists use to cast doubts on evolution. They may find themselves asking: why are these particular physical traits -- bony skull ornaments -- used to identify the descendants of an imaginary ancient creature? How can anyone ascertain that dinosaurs, and by extension, evolution itself, are real based on simple inferences that lack falsifiability? If paleontologists may randomly pick a modern animal and match its ancestor in a phylogenetic tree based on a fossil with vaguely outlined shapes, and infer that a giant version of this animal once existed, then anyone may infer that an egg-laying mammal might have once roamed the earth before ducks came to be. Indeed, there is nothing to stop a creationist from imagining the scientific process of interpreting a newly-unearthed fossil as reading Rorschach’s ink blots.

While an egg-laying mammal, unrelated to ducks, indeed exists -- one may find the platypus in Australia -- a creationist may not have such information. Even though creationists believe in God’s existence despite never having personally met him, and despite the fact that like an ancient being, God supposedly roamed the earth two thousand years ago, they still find it ludicrous that dinosaurs existed. To most creationists, the trail of fossils tracing dinosaur’s existence back to two hundred million years ago does not constitute trustworthy evidence. Meanwhile, creationists may not be familiar with carbon-dating or genetic-testing techniques, which also contributes to their patronizingly anthropomorphic convictions about how all beings on earth came to be. To that end, providing a mere “clue” that led paleontologists and evolutionary theorists to infer the physical traits of dinosaurs leaves plenty of room for creationists to refute scientific evidence. Based on a combination of misinformation, lack of information, and false interpretation about evolution, creationists may perceive the connection between the cassowary and the Cryolophosaurus completely random, rendering the exhibition ineffective. Indeed, creationists are likely to remain unconvinced.

To make matters worse, humans are prone to confirmation bias and a drive to reduce cognitive dissonance. This means that in the face of contradictory evidence, creationists may feel more assured in their beliefs as a form of self-protection -- it is easier to hold onto existing convictions, but cognitively taxing to raise questions. While an evolution theorist may find the exhibition effective in illustrating the phylogenetic tree, creationists who find themselves at a museum filled with scientific information that is supplied by underpaid and overworked experts in pursuit of science, may use it as an opportunity to reassure themselves of the creationist story and challenge the intentions and validity of each exhibition. Given creationists’ tendency to affirm their existing beliefs and a drive to create consistency in creationist stories, this may be the first doubts they cast about the Cassowary Exhibition: how paleontologists identified the cassowary as the descendent of the Cryolophosaurus and whether the Cryolophosaurus indeed existed remains unclear. Indeed, the exhibition provides no information on the genetic relatedness of the two, nor does it explain the specific phenotypic manifestations of any shared genes. Hence, the audience is left wondering about the underlying, essentialist connection between these two creatures.

The drive to seek essentialist explanations about the workings of nature is fundamental to creationist beliefs. This drive is developmentally observed in children as they draw conclusions about the world and their social environment with essentialist observations: the earth seems flat, ergo it must be flat; humans and monkeys share no resemblance, so we must not have descended from the same primate ancestors; the cassowary and the Cryolophosaurus do not appear to share any underlying connection, therefore Cassowary Exhibition must not be accurate. Hence, the exhibition has a fundamental flaw: while to an audience familiar with evolutionary theories, the exhibition effectively demonstrates the predictive power of the phylogenetic tree, to an audience more prone to indulge their essentialist tendencies through creationist fabrications and repeated self-affirmation, the exhibition leaves abundant room for doubts, and may even serve to reaffirm its creationist audience through confirmation bias. Now, after challenging the exhibition with valid questions about what is left out of the exhibition, creationists, once again, strengthen their beliefs after a quick confirmatory exchange of text messages with family and friends, and perhaps a quick Google search of “why evolution does not work”.

To illustrate a complex concept quickly, explain the diverse gaps of knowledge in the audience, and to leave them intrigued instead of dismissive, is a daunting task. The exhibition must grab attention, correctly identify the extent of the existing knowledge of its audience, and offer a translatable, simple sliver of the ocean of scientific literature on a niche topic. The art of science communication rests on an exhibition’s ability to simultaneously understand both ends of the spectrum: the sophistication of scientists in their expertise, and the unfamiliarity of non-specialists with evolution. Even though the cassowary exhibition may not reach far to essentialist-thinking creationists, it effectively offers such an entertaining and colorful sliver to anyone with a simple understanding of evolution. Given that the composition of natural history museum visitors likely does not include a high percentage of creationists, the exhibition is overall effective in reaching its intended audience.

---

Selected Bibliography

Asma, S. T. (2001). Stuffed animals & pickled heads: The culture and evolution of natural history museums. Oxford University Press, USA.