Slashdot Mirror
South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks
Med-trump writes "A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory in South Korea 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."
Hah, I invoke Poe's Law.
People familiar with evolution do not assume creationists are wrong. We know they are wrong based on observational science. Creation myth may be an interesting story to tell and an important part of our (or any other) culture, but for people to even take it seriously as fact is delusion held to the highest form of grandeur.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”
In other news, much of the scientific community doubts that teacher education occurs.
Ezekiel 23:20
They may very well be right! And if you have a [i]scientific[/i] hypothesis about the formation of the world that involves intervention by deities or supernatural forces or even [i]casts serious doubt on the validity of evolution without offering an alternative...[/i] please, step this way and collect your Nobel Prize.
I'm serious. If you could provide a peer reviewed, falsifiable, scientifically valid explaination for the formation of sentient life that relies on a deity you would win every Nobel Prize in the universe. Your name would be remembered alongside Einstein, Darwin, Oppenheimer... you would be hailed as a genius.
The problem is, creationism may be right. It may be 100% true and correct. Every word, every letter of the Bible could be correct. The problem is [i]proving it[/i].
I posit that the universe was created by Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. You always assume the Twilightests are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a unicorn or other means)*.
*Teaching of this philosophy is now illegal in all states of Australia after the Pinkie Pie/Twilight Sparkle Pony Cult Suicide of 2011.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Mostly because what you would call Young Earth Creationism isn't backed by any empirical data. I suppose it could be right, if a deity decided to set it up that way, but then, it still wouldn't be science because the situation was set up to evade scientific inquiry.
We need to remember, science is a method, it's not a philosophy. It may well be that the method doesn't explain everything, or it can't explain everything, but insofar as a class is about its application and results, it should teach what has been determined by that method.
It may be better for everyone involved to realize that science doesn't disprove religion any more than religion disproves science and stop being so sensitive about it.
As I currently live in Georgia (USA) , my first thought was " oh fuck, I can move to the other side of the planet and I still cant escape these assholes!"
This has to be a parody. No Christian could possibly be that stupid despite the stereotype many people have about Christians.
It's not about education. What's happening is certain groups are training people to believe things are true based on "because I say so" instead of "I can prove it". Pretty scary, if you think about the implications.
Observational science doesn't disprove ideas about origins. Those ideas can't be tested scientifically. All that can be done really is to interpret the data in the context of your preferred presuppositional research framework. That's what materialistic scientists do... that's what scientists who believe in a young universe do.
Again, this is wrong. The "Young Universe" so-called theory can easily be tested scientifically, and every bit of data says that it's false. In fact, it is for that reason it should not even be called a theory since theories are supposed to have the benefit of empirical data to back them up.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
Anyone intelligent considers competing theories side by side until one is proved. Any good theory should be able to stand on its own merit.
The fact that creationists are apparently so threatened by the theory of evolution as to conduct radical acts of censorship is a clear indicator even they secretly acknowledge that evolution theory has substance.
By their own ill-conceived actions, creationists are making it self-evident that creationism must be no more than a logically inconsistent nursery tale who's only market are those with low enough IQ to not be able to reason.
"Scientists" who believe in a young universe are only able to maintain their position through lies and bad logic. Most creationists have been deceived, so we can't call them liars, but YEC "scientists" are in a position to actually know better, and so it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are lying.
When we have two competing theories, we meticulously go through all of the evidence and see how each theory explains the evidence. In every case, the Talking Snake Theory of Creation either offers no explanation, or offers an explanation that is the opposite of what we find in the evidence. The Talking Snake Theory of Creation is falsifiable and in fact has already been falsified. It is only taken seriously by the deceivers and the deceived.
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
But this isn't a story about including creationism in the textbooks, it is about excluding evolution. So it seems that the creationists are also guilty of not wanting multiple points of view.
The big difference is that creationists will attempt to hide actual documented facts (eg. discovered fossils) that support another point of view. It is hardly suprising that, according to a survey of South Koreans, "41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support (evolution)". When those people are prevented from seeing any scientific evidence, then obviously they will think that none exists. It is just a pity that those people do not subject their own religious beliefs to the same level of scepticism and demands of evidence.
How fast do you think continents move?
It took Hundred Of Millions Of Years for Rodinia to break up into the continents we have now.
Many high school teachers still teach that a scientific theory "becomes a law" after testing, when in fact theories and laws are entirely separate things. Much is wrong with our science education in this country, I'm afraid, and bronze age fairy tales are only part of the problem. :(
They are not becoming more organized, you are seeing patterns that are not there.
Intelligent Design is a nonsense term anyway, whoever designed the human eye for instance was an idiot. Somehow this same dimwit managed to give proper eyes to nautilus though. If you want to debate the existence of Idiotic Design, then we can have some philosophy, but still not science.
There is no such evidence. The so called theory of irreducible complexity is utter nonsense.
I can see the merit in many theories, but those have to be testable and make useful predications. ID fails that test. It is a philosophy not science.
I know I've personally met creationists for whom learning about the incorrectness of that picture was the turning point in their abandonment of textbook paleobiology.
I can't wait to hear stories about how people have abandoned physics when they discovered the model of the atom they learned in middle school was wildly simplified and only nominally correct.
"What do you mean "it's a field of probabilities." Fuck that!"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
It's not about education. What's happening is certain groups are training people to believe things are true based on "because I say so" instead of "I can prove it". Pretty scary, if you think about the implications.
They *are* saying they can prove it, and then point to the Bible. What's really scary is when people just reply "Okay".
You are a blind man asking to be able to see. And until you open your eyes you will never see. Therefore you will never understand. Further discussion with you is useless because you will always find a way to believe your superstition above actual reproducible verifiable facts. Why you go to the hospital when you are bleeding to death instead of staying at the scene of the car accident, praying, and accepting the fate chosen for you for your god, however, remains a mystery.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Observational science doesn't disprove ideas about origins. Those ideas can't be tested scientifically. All that can be done really is to interpret the data in the context of your preferred presuppositional research framework. That's what materialistic scientists do... that's what scientists who believe in a young universe do.
Again, this is wrong. The "Young Universe" so-called theory can easily be tested scientifically, and every bit of data says that it's false. In fact, it is for that reason it should not even be called a theory since theories are supposed to have the benefit of empirical data to back them up.
Not when the answer you get is "that is how everything is created, to give you the illusion that evolution took/is taking place."
When a person looks at a problem with a predetermined solution, evidences can simply be twisted to fit that solution.
Once you believe that there is an omnipotent being who creates everything, it's not a stretch to makes everything around you fit into his/her/its whims.
No they don't. And we know they don't really believe what they say because they don't put their money where their mouths are.
Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could in those conditions? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually, seriously pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Of course, you're right, people are being taught to accept an appeal to authority as "proof"
As a result, those students in geometry class would say: "You can't give me an 'F'... I proved those triangles are congruent by showing you where it says so in the book!"
What do you mean "letting"?
Government-funded education is, by it's nature, a political institution heir to all the compromises inherent to politics and the sport of changing, political winds. The assumption that all supporters of government-funded education make is that they'll be the ones directing public education since to think otherwise requires consideration of the possibilty that there are shortcomings to the idea and then those have to be dealt with. Much easier to simply assume that nothing objectionable will ever occur in public education and secretly keep your fingers crossed that it doesn't.
Well, the unacceptable inevitable is occurring and what's the response? Mostly name-calling. Religious people are stupid or insane or whatever other tedious bit of school yard invective those unwilling to accept the political nature of public education can conjure.
So there's no "letting" going on here but a perfectly legitimate outcome. Don't like the outcome? Maybe it's time to rethink government's role in education.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Believing in organized religion as it is presented (a-la, creationism) proves you cannot perform necessary critical thinking which is a prerequisite of being 'smart' (especially in a scientific field). Therefore, anyone who believes fully in the presented form of an organized religion, is stupid.
Sorry to bust your bubble, and yes I'm an asshole, but that doesn't make it less true.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
It isn't my bubble, it's my empirical observation(as a smirking atheist no less). Scientists, as a population, are certainly less religious(and less enthused with the cruder fundamentalisms when they are religious) than the population at large; but there exist plenty of religious scientists who have productive careers and plenty of other, also productive, scientists who successfully entertain some crackpot theory or other while also doing real work.
How, exactly, humans handle these curious feats of compartmentalization is an interesting question, into which I have no useful insight whatsoever; but that they can and (sometimes) do is simply a matter of historical fact.
Since you're typing this on a computer (science - materials science, quantum physics, computational science) that's connected to millions of others, that runs reliably on well understood scientific concepts and that uses electricity, as well as all of the other millions of devices you use every day that work reliably thanks to all those same scientific principles that we've developed over the history of the human race, I hope you recognize the irony in questioning why we have confidence in the method and process of science and the people whose job it is to apply it.
The fact that we have limited brains and we know that they frequently deceive us is exactly the reason that we have a scientific method and process in the first place. There's no such thing as perfect truth, but we can certainly approach modeling reality with more and more exactness thanks to a self-correcting method. Humans may be flawed, but the universe has shown itself to be consistent and that we can figure it out to more and more degrees of precision despite those flaws. I'd say that's a hurdle worthy of being proud of overcoming. YMMV.
You're right. That's why we don't do this. Only you think we do.
Plenty of times. This is what makes science great: it's self-correcting. That's the entire point.
Unfounded assertion.
Reality does that, because science works. Science doesn't deal in opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
You miss the entire point of the scientific endeavor.
Your post was no so much original literature as it was the same rehashed "Hahaha! You think you're so smart, but you don't really know!!" tripe that we hear from anti-science creationists all the time and the only response it is worth of is, I repeat, "Science: it works. Bitches."
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.