It was interesting to see how, in "Exhibiting Evolution: Diversity, Order and the Construction of Nature," different countries would represent and curate evolution differently. The author was slightly demeaning when it came to American students' lack of knowledge of evolution. He mentions a third believed in "ghosts, communication with the dead, aliens, Bigfoot, etc." There may not be "proof" in scientific terms of the aforementioned things, but nothing precisely disproves ghosts, aliens, etc. People just have ideas and opinions about these things. They don't lack cultural value just because they may lack scientific veracity. The discussion of race was interesting, although I find it more fascinating how it became such a powerful category. He says the clustering of darker skinned people near the equator was the "product of natural selection" because of the threat of skin cancer, not the product of a "designing Deity." To this I wonder how such distinctions are even made, or why can't they be both or neither? I don't think science (here I'm generalizing) is very comfortable with the "in-between" or the point at which things become blurred together. I liked this quote, "Not only do we see nature, we also see ourselves seeing nature." It helps to think of this and now wish I were more aware of what it says about our culture.