[News] Evolution removed from South Korean textbooks.

[Razor Leaf]

oh god

Mention creationism, and many scientists think of the United States, where efforts to limit the teaching of evolution have made headway in a couple of states. But the successes are modest compared with those in South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science.

A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx. The move has alarmed biologists, who say that they were not consulted. “The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge,” says Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University.

The campaign was led by the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), which aims to delete the “error” of evolution from textbooks to “correct” students’ views of the world, according to the society’s website. The society says that its members include professors of biology and high-school science teachers.

The STR is also campaigning to remove content about “the evolution of humans” and “the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenance”, a reference to one of the most famous observations in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. To back its campaign, the group highlights recent discoveries that Archaeopteryx is one of many feathered dinosaurs, and not necessarily an ancestor of all birds. Exploiting such debates over the lineage of species “is a typical strategy of creation scientists to attack the teaching of evolution itself”, says Joonghwan Jeon, an evolutionary psychologist at Kyung Hee University in Yongin.

The STR is an independent offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research (KACR), according to KACR spokesman Jungyeol Han. Thanks in part to the KACR’s efforts, creation science — which seeks to provide evidence in support of the creation myth described in the Book of Genesis — has had a growing influence in South Korea, although the STR itself has distanced itself from such doctrines. In early 2008, the KACR scored a hit with a successful exhibition at Seoul Land, one of the country’s leading amusement parks. According to the group, the exhibition attracted more than 116,000 visitors in three months, and the park is now in talks to create a year-long exhibition.

Even the nation’s leading science institute — the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology — has a creation science display on campus. “The exhibition was set up by scientists who believed in creation science back in 1993,” says Gab-duk Jang, a pastor of the campus church. The institute also has a thriving Research Association for Creation Science, run by professors and students, he adds.

link

It's a bit wordy with a load of acronyms and stuff but from what I make of it, the article's basically saying that creationists in South Korea have forced the removal of references to Darwin's theory of evolution and evolution in general in school textbooks without consulting biologists.

What do you think of this? Discuss.

[Sydian]

OKAY SO LIKE when I first saw the title, I just saw "Evolution removed from South" and I thought "DEAR GOD WE'VE FINALLY DONE IT" and then hovered and found out it's South Korea...phew. lol

But evolution and such is such a touchy subject that even I don't know what to make of it. And no, that doesn't mean you need to shove a science book in my face and tell me a bunch of bull crap about how Adam and Eve didn't exist or something. But even in southern states we still have it in text books, and teachers always say "I'm not trying to defile your religion or anything, if you follow one, this is just required in curriculum..." or something. So we, in a sense, get a chance to make what we want of the whole subject at least. To remove it completely makes no sense to me. It's at least something to think about. No one bite me, dammit.

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Sydian

"Evolution removed from South"

I made the same assumption. xD

I can't say I know much about South Korea. I knew there were a lot of Christians there, but I didn't think they were this kind, the kind that were all creationists and stuff. When you take into account all the places in the world were religion dominates education it's kind of saddening to see a pretty developed country just cut out whole swathes of science like this.

[Razor Leaf]

I don't really get why it's not ok to just teach both points of view. I mean, given that evolution was in the textbooks in the first place, probably suggests that it was at least a widely supported theory even if not everyone was totally convinced. So since evolution has opposition and creationism has opposition, I don't see why they can't just teach both or neither.

[Sydian]

I don't really get why it's not ok to just teach both points of view. I mean, given that evolution was in the textbooks in the first place, probably suggests that it was at least a widely supported theory even if not everyone was totally convinced. So since evolution has opposition and creationism has opposition, I don't see why they can't just teach both or neither.

The only way you're going to be taught creationism, at least here, is if you go to a Christian school. Public schools cannot teach things that are in the Bible, which of course creationism is in the Bible, so students are taught evolution in public schools out of their textbooks. And honestly, that was confusing for me as a kid. You're taught one thing in Sunday school and another thing in your regular school. So I was trying to figure out if Jesus was hanging out with dinosaurs or if he was a monkey or even that both are true and everyone were monkeys, but this was all changed during translations in later versions of the Bible to make the stories sound more presentable and that the original story was just lost through the years. Teaching both would be nice so that there is more of an option to choose what you really believe in, though at a younger age, I think it it just confusing. And when I say "what you really believe in" I'm aware that there's evidence to evolution, however there is no evidence of a god, which is neither proof nor a fact that there isn't one. So it's just a grey area. I'm way out of my forte, quit letting me post here Leafu. lol

[Scarf]

Syd's "present both sides, choose what you want to believe" thing is probably how this will get reconciled, with textbooks providing both evolution and creationism, even though creationism as a scientific discipline is not that far away from "Jesus hanging out with dinosaurs."

[Gliese]

The problem with trying to teach both sides is, not only are most creation myths not based on any real-world observations, but there's also a very large number of creation myths. If you truly want to give all views an equal chance, you would have to teach ALL of the creation myths, not just the Christian version.

If you are going to teach a creation idea as science, especially if you plan on giving one preference over the rest, it has to have repeatable observations and tests. No creation myth that involves the supernatural has any verifiable evidence, and all are just as likely. There is no evidence that a god created the Universe, nothing showing we hatched from a giant egg, or that a giant turtle vomited it up.

Evolution, both biological and cosmological, have observations supporting them, such as the expanding Universe, light from galaxies billions of light-years away, background radiation, dating methods, fossils, etc.

[Livewire]

Before you know it, they'll be teaching the world is flat

And lol I too though instantaneously of South Carolina or Texas when I saw this.

[Magmaruby and Aquasapphire]

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf

I don't really get why it's not ok to just teach both points of view. I mean, given that evolution was in the textbooks in the first place, probably suggests that it was at least a widely supported theory even if not everyone was totally convinced. So since evolution has opposition and creationism has opposition, I don't see why they can't just teach both or neither.

Well for starters there are a lot of creation stories from various religions, so in order to avoid offending non christians the creation stories of the various religions, and there are a lot...

Also am I the only one who didn't think of the US South when reading this?

[Shiny Celebi]

I to thought it meant the South of the US at first, why cant they just teach both, I dont understand. This is just forcing religion on people which I have a problem with.

[Illuminaughty]

I think that "scientific theories" that have scientific backing should be presented in science class, which should be included into the curriculum.

However, creationism could be offered in an elective course, that is not in the mandatory curriculum which would be a section within a Philosophy or Sociology course. Like other religion or philosophy courses, this should not be taught in right or wrong, but in the facts and should cover various aspects of different cultures and religions.

So both could be taught although very differently, however, creationism should be optional, and not taught as a general science.

The fact that they REMOVED the core scientific theories, and teach creationism as a science is a travesty in education. As of 2008, South Korea was ranked 7th in the World in Education; I can only expect that ranking to fall dramatically if religious philosophy is to replace science.

[Bluerang1]

Originally Posted by Magmaruby and Aquasapphire

Well for starters there are a lot of creation stories from various religions, so in order to avoid offending non christians the creation stories of the various religions, and there are a lot...

Also am I the only one who didn't think of the US South when reading this?

No haha!

I really do think that they should teach both in all schools. People don't want to hear the Creationist way while other don't want to hear about evolution but the have to. I just think learning both is fair regardless what you belive.

[FreakyLocz14]

If we can't teach intelligent design, the we shouldn't teach evolution.

It's only fair!

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

If we can't teach intelligent design, the we shouldn't teach evolution.

It's only fair!

Fairness has nothing to do with it when one isn't true and the other is. Schools teach scientific facts, not pseudoscience. Perhaps calling it pseudoscience is too generous.

[Luck]

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf

I don't really get why it's not ok to just teach both points of view. I mean, given that evolution was in the textbooks in the first place, probably suggests that it was at least a widely supported theory even if not everyone was totally convinced. So since evolution has opposition and creationism has opposition, I don't see why they can't just teach both or neither.

We don't tell our kids that diseases might come from evil spirits instead of bacteria. Offering an unscientific alternative to a scientific theory is a bad move in general because it promotes pseudoscience.

I'm not saying that creationism shouldn't be taught at all of course. But creationism shouldn't be in a science class because there's nothing scientific about it.

Originally Posted by Sydian

But evolution and such is such a touchy subject that even I don't know what to make of it. And no, that doesn't mean you need to shove a science book in my face and tell me a bunch of bull crap about how Adam and Eve didn't exist or something.

It's pretty easy to accept evolution and The Bible at the same time. I know many Christians that accept evolution as science while still believing the 6,000 year old Earth stuff in some form or another.

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Livewire

Fairness has nothing to do with it when one isn't true and the other is. Schools teach scientific facts, not pseudoscience. Perhaps calling it pseudoscience is too generous.

To be as fair as possible though, I can see creationism as an experiment. That's how you test something scientifically. Come up with a hypothesis, in this case creationism, and then check all your data to see how well that hypothesis holds up. It would actually make for a great midterm or final question in a science class (after they learn some science), I think, since you would be asking students to put creationism up to scientific scrutiny.

Of course the thing with hypotheses is that once you show they don't work you have to revise them or give up on them.

[Illuminaughty]

I am trying to imagine creationism/intelligent design used in a science course.
As with other hypotheses, you would have to provide the chemical, biological, and physical evidence or phenomenon needed in order to provide some evidence, even if the hypothesis cannot be proven.

Creationism does not have any chemical, biological, or physical evidence or phenomenon that would support the claims. It does however have religious text and faith as support. Therefore it should not be taught as a science, this would set a precedent that other beliefs solely based off religious text or faith should be taught as science.

I for one think that there is a great chance that there was divine/foreign intervention in order to create the very specific biological needs for life which includes evolution (romanticized by stories like Adam & Eve/Earth's creation in 7 days). But the only proof I have is philosophical or faith based. I guess you could try to make a case with evidence supported by ancient aliens/gods in egypt and other civilizations; for example, the precise cuts in the pyramids that required a tool that had not yet been created by humans, but that still ties in with ancient history or philosophy. Creationism is not a science, you can learn about it at church or academically in a philosophy course.

[Bela]

Originally Posted by Some of you

Teach the controversy!

I don't get how you people can be so acquiescent. Has it ever occurred to any of you that not all opposition is legitimate? Not every contrary notion is valid. Creationism as a model is one of incredibly poor predictive capability. It is absurd to include in a public school curriculum something that would be so readily discarded if put under scrutiny. Why should you seek to accommodate unreasonable people who want to push their bad science, pseudoscience, nonsense, etc? They have no respect for science, and that's really the whole point with these creationists. They are offended by the findings of science, and have the gall to think that their antiquated world view should be given parity to it. They DO NOT deserve to be thought of as an equally valid and opposing view. This is the entirety of our way of understanding our world--science--versus old world superstitions and myths--religion.

And let's go deeper, to this notion that we should be 'fair' and teach 'opposing views'. Would you let the contrarians of the world dictate what you can take as fact? Would you allow this ignorance to consume all which we consider certain in the world? That is so weak. Do you really think it's healthy to offer to young people this idea that there is two sides to every debate, that there is a controversy and you should decide for yourself? In your quest to appear open-minded, you cede on matters of education things you should never be compromising on. You don't let creationists inject their mythology into public education as an 'opposing view.' I don't care how cold or mean it makes you look, or if you hurt people's feelings, **** those people. They can cry all they want about being offended that you don't teach their superstition along with science--what they are wanting is offensive to the entirety of human understanding.

It's just an effort by religion to spread its ******** by attacking science. What a religion might have to say about the world has no place in a science classroom. If you don't stand up to what are essentially bullies, then ignorance will rule this world.

[Magdalena~]

1.) This is really sad. :(

2.) I am perfectly fine with religion (in fact I believe in a god myself) but I don't believe in it being taught as absolute fact because there's no proof for it (as I've heard, there's not absolute scientific proof for evolution either, but just enough proof that it's okay in my book). Being that there's no proof for a god's existence but also no proof to the contrary, I think either side is perfectly fine so long as you don't base your life off your religion (don't let God run your life and don't use religion as an excuse to hate others), however impressing the whole "yep God exists Bible says so" upon other people--particularly students--considering it's not absolute truth at all, is really not right. If you teach religion, teach it as a "this is what some people happen to believe" thing. Nothing else.

As far as my opinion goes, I don't really see how people even deny it . . . survival of the fittest (an animal with better genes ("better" = better adapted to the surrounding environment) survives to breeding age way more often than animals with "bad genes") and then the "fittest" pass on their "fit" genes to future generations. The species gradually changes this way. Seems pretty simple and logical to me.

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

However, creationism could be offered in an elective course, that is not in the mandatory curriculum which would be a section within a Philosophy or Sociology course. Like other religion or philosophy courses, this should not be taught in right or wrong, but in the facts and should cover various aspects of different cultures and religions.

This is pretty much how I think they should do it.

[Katalyst]

Originally Posted by Livewire

Fairness has nothing to do with it when one isn't true and the other is. Schools teach scientific facts, not pseudoscience. Perhaps calling it pseudoscience is too generous.

This. Creationism isn't even a scientific theory, since it has no ideas, no facts that support it. It's basically saying "God created us all in the blink of an eye" and that's it. It shouldn't be teached in schools that teach you science. So that "fairness" argument makes no sense.

That being said, I don't agree with this. Evolution is the most plausible theory on the development of life-forms we have today, even if it's not 100% certain. I see no reason to ban it from schools.

[Evanlyn]

You know, every single post that I have read in this thread, that were written by those of you who support evolution - they all have said something along the lines of 'Evolution is correct, we have the science and the facts' - but the thing is, nobody has given an example of even one scientific proof that they have! (so far, anyway..)

Now... I'm not saying that evolution shouldn't be taught! I mean, if the Christians want to argue agaisnt evolution, or if, somehow, they end up having to argue for evolution, they will need to know about it! So sure, go ahead. The problem I have is that it is taught as a fact. Darwin himself said that it was a theory. The problem I have is that people nowadays don't even give kids the option for Creation (around here anyway).

Ok sure, Creation takes a lot of faith to believe in.
But so does evolution! Seriously, let's start back at the beginning. The Big Bang. You honestly think that that happened 'by chance'? Everything in the whole universe was put in the exact right place. Earth is the exact right distance from the sun. By chance? Earth is on the exact right tilt. Earth has the exact right atmosphere to support Human Life.
Not to mention the life forms themselves.
Now, I don't know much about evolution (I grew up with creation. I am going to study evolution so I know more about it) So correct me if I'm wrong..
I don't know the complete beginning (if someone could tell me, I'd sure appreciate it!). But I do know that it is supposed that humans evolved from monkeys. Now, random changes in their DNA, slowly changed them until we get the modern-day human.
Ok sure, that seems like great sense! Sure, we evolved from monkeys. We even look something like monkeys. It all seems great..... but...
If we did evolve from monkeys; why are their still monkeys alive?
Oh and where's all the 'half-and-half' fossils? If all the current life-forms did evolve (or at least some of them!), people would surely have found a half-and-half fossil! A fossil halfway between one animal and another. But have they? no.
Anyway, I got a bit off topic there..

The human brain. It is about a quadrillion (just said a random number there - but it is big!) times more complex than your computer, or phone, or ipad, or whatever you're reading this post off of.
Now, if you got a piece of paper, and a pencil or pen, and if you just leave them on the table, and walk away. Will you get a book 'by chance'? No. Why? Because it needs careful planning. And for evolution, you think that everything in the universe happened by chance? I don't think so. Even for just a plant. Just a flower. It is complex. The structure, everything about it is complex. And you're telling me that this happened by chance? If it is by chance, then why doesn't something as simple as a relationship work out if we leave it 'to chance' heck, we've 'apparently' had billions of years to perfect relationships! And they're still mucking up every single day!

I'm just pointing out the logic here. It is logical, that for a group, that it will have a leader. Isn't it also logical that, for the universe, it would also have a leader? If you see an awesome painting, you will think 'what a great design, [so-and-so] was a great artist!' And yet, just by looking out of your window, you can see the most fantastic, a brilliant design, just right there. It's called real life. A painting is just a picture. Real life... it's a kazillion times more complicated. You have the physical, and the mental. And yet.. it's almost like nobody else in the world apart from me thinks 'What a great design, God was an awesome artist!'

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by Evanlyn

I'm just pointing out the logic here. It is logical, that for a group, that it will have a leader. Isn't it also logical that, for the universe, it would also have a leader? If you see an awesome painting, you will think 'what a great design, [so-and-so] was a great artist!' And yet, just by looking out of your window, you can see the most fantastic, a brilliant design, just right there. It's called real life. A painting is just a picture. Real life... it's a kazillion times more complicated. You have the physical, and the mental. And yet.. it's almost like nobody else in the world apart from me thinks 'What a great design, God was an awesome artist!'

Using this argument, you have established the idea of creationism/intelligent design as a philosophy. You came to a conclusion based solely on LOGIC and PHILOSOPHY. (Not science)

Therefore, it should be taught in a philosophy course.

Evolution uses facts from physics, chemistry, and biology to formulate a hypothesis. Therefore, although not proven, it should be taught alongside other science-based theories.

[Evanlyn]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Using this argument, you have established the idea of creationism/intelligent design as a philosophy. You came to a conclusion based solely on LOGIC and PHILOSOPHY. (Not science)

Therefore, it should be taught in a philosophy course.

Evolution uses facts from physics, chemistry, and biology to formulate a hypothesis. Therefore, although not proven, it should be taught alongside other science-based theories.

Yes I suppose I have, you're right.
The only problem would be that it may get confusing to the student if in one class he/she is told 'God made it all' and in the other he/she is told 'God didn't make it all'.
Yes, evolution should be taught as a theory. Just as I said before; it annoys me that people teach it as a fact..

[droomph]

Ha gawd I remember that song. "I don't believe in evolution, cuz' the Bible ain't tell us so. My daddy ain't a monkey, my grandpa isn't one too. I don't believe in evolution, cuz' the Bible ain't tell us so!" Gawd Idaho can be such a redneck place sometimes.

But yeah, there's evidence that minor evolution exists, while all the creationists have is "and on the seventh day yadayada".

I'm not by all means saying that creationists are bad and "hey y'all", but seriously. In a debate, no matter what an ancient book that doesn't even pertain to your religion anymore says, evidence wins.

So I still can't believe we sang that goddamn song every. Single. Sunday. I feel bad for the Asian kids in our church who had to go through that for ten more years. And now, I feel bad for them in South Korea, but we have our own stupidities, like ACTA and all that glorious stuff. Well good luck~

@Evalyn not to burst your bubble or anything but minor evolution (natural selection) has been proved somewhat. For example, the reason strains of bacteria and viruses (like tubercolosis) become resistant to medications, and why cockroaches are so damn hard to exterminate, is allllll evolution, albeit not physically and we call that "natural selection".

So yes, I'm not saying you're wrong about teaching it solely as a theory, but there is evidence of at least some kinds of evolution.

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by Evanlyn

You know, every single post that I have read in this thread, that were written by those of you who support evolution - they all have said something along the lines of 'Evolution is correct, we have the science and the facts' - but the thing is, nobody has given an example of even one scientific proof that they have! (so far, anyway..)

Now... I'm not saying that evolution shouldn't be taught! I mean, if the Christians want to argue agaisnt evolution, or if, somehow, they end up having to argue for evolution, they will need to know about it! So sure, go ahead. The problem I have is that it is taught as a fact. Darwin himself said that it was a theory. The problem I have is that people nowadays don't even give kids the option for Creation (around here anyway).

Fun fact: gravity is a theory. A scientific theory is not the same as a layperson's theory. Here's a link that will get you up to date on the difference. It is taught as a scientific theory, not as a philosophical theory.

Ok sure, Creation takes a lot of faith to believe in.
But so does evolution! Seriously, let's start back at the beginning. The Big Bang. You honestly think that that happened 'by chance'? Everything in the whole universe was put in the exact right place. Earth is the exact right distance from the sun. By chance? Earth is on the exact right tilt. Earth has the exact right atmosphere to support Human Life.
Not to mention the life forms themselves.
Now, I don't know much about evolution (I grew up with creation. I am going to study evolution so I know more about it) So correct me if I'm wrong..
I don't know the complete beginning (if someone could tell me, I'd sure appreciate it!). But I do know that it is supposed that humans evolved from monkeys. Now, random changes in their DNA, slowly changed them until we get the modern-day human.
Ok sure, that seems like great sense! Sure, we evolved from monkeys. We even look something like monkeys. It all seems great..... but...
If we did evolve from monkeys; why are their still monkeys alive?
Oh and where's all the 'half-and-half' fossils? If all the current life-forms did evolve (or at least some of them!), people would surely have found a half-and-half fossil! A fossil halfway between one animal and another. But have they? no.
Anyway, I got a bit off topic there..

If you're going to talk about evolution, you should do some research on it before you start arguing for or against it. The problems you pointed out are very common arguments that have been debunked over and over and over for years and years, which is why people don't bother to debunk them for you specifically. Just like how if I was arguing Creationism I would make sure I knew as much as possible about it, please don't argue about evolution if you haven't done any relevant research at all.

The human brain. It is about a quadrillion (just said a random number there - but it is big!) times more complex than your computer, or phone, or ipad, or whatever you're reading this post off of.
Now, if you got a piece of paper, and a pencil or pen, and if you just leave them on the table, and walk away. Will you get a book 'by chance'? No. Why? Because it needs careful planning. And for evolution, you think that everything in the universe happened by chance? I don't think so. Even for just a plant. Just a flower. It is complex. The structure, everything about it is complex. And you're telling me that this happened by chance? If it is by chance, then why doesn't something as simple as a relationship work out if we leave it 'to chance' heck, we've 'apparently' had billions of years to perfect relationships! And they're still mucking up every single day!

See above. Research before you start coming up with random arguments that make no sense when you have a basic foundation on evolution. I'd just like to point this out though - if you had been taught evolution properly in school, you wouldn't seem so uneducated arguing it. You would know all these things already.

I'm just pointing out the logic here. It is logical, that for a group, that it will have a leader. Isn't it also logical that, for the universe, it would also have a leader? If you see an awesome painting, you will think 'what a great design, [so-and-so] was a great artist!' And yet, just by looking out of your window, you can see the most fantastic, a brilliant design, just right there. It's called real life. A painting is just a picture. Real life... it's a kazillion times more complicated. You have the physical, and the mental. And yet.. it's almost like nobody else in the world apart from me thinks 'What a great design, God was an awesome artist!'

The reason you say "Bob was a great artist" is because you have enough proof throughout your life to be able to make a reasonable assumption based on things such as "paint on canvas is not something discovered naturally". There is no reasonable proof for God like that. In addition, not all art is recognized as art. Take the person who just stuck a toilet to a wall. If you saw that, you wouldn't think "look at that art, who's the artist" or even think there was an artist until someone told you that it's supposed to be art. That's how the social consciousness shapes you from your birth, and that's how God doesn't relate at all to your argument.

In addition: it's also obvious that you haven't taken a Philosophy course based on your last post. That's not how Philosophy is taught at all - nothing is taught as a fact. I took Philosophy of Religion a few semesters ago and was taught "God exists", "God doesn't exist", "God exists but just made the universe and disappeared", "It's physically impossible for God to exist", "God exists but isn't all-powerful or all-good", and a host of other related theories. None of them are taught as fact. They're taught as viewpoints, and you're encouraged to follow the path you find most compelling based on the other arguments.

Full disclosure though, I do think that high schools should have a World Religions class, where they're taught the foundations of the biggest religions in the world. Not just Christianity, but Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and then a few smaller ones as well. But religion should not determine what's in a science class. Ever.