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."
"Mest" is the dutch word for "Manure".
Hah, I invoke Poe's Law.
Don't be silly. Creationists view of the world isn't relevant to an evidence based subject, i.e. science. Leave make believe to psychology and comparative religion classes.
because creationism is not based in any facts.
This is also the country that believes in death by sleeping in a room with a fan.
Now I have to change my favourite Korea to North Korea.
No, they're now an invasive species in much of the world, crowding out useful cognition and generally being a nuisance.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
... but it could be worse. At least it didn't "teach the controversy" by adding in Intelligent Design [s]lies[/s]alternatives, and just removed a few examples. It doesn't seem more than this.
For now.
My face: :(
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
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
You can play "what if" games all day if you like. There's no evidence for any explanation besides evolution. There is no theory with anywhere near the explanatory power of evolution. Literally, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
IF?!??!?
IF!!!
You are going to hell, right now!
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
the examples mentioned aren't accepted as valid science by evolutionists anymore either. Several items in the standard textbook 'horse' series are known to not be horses at all and archaeopteryx is known to be a full-fledged (pun intended) bird.
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
Whichever side of the origins debate one subscribes to, good riddance to the horse and Archaeopteryx examples!
The typical horse progression still shown in many textbooks is oversimplified and incorrect. The "horses" shown in the progression, particularly Eohippus, really belong on "branches" of a quite complex tree. 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.
Likewise, the Archaeopteryx is often criticized as a particularly weak example even by the most dedicated evolutionists. Archaeopteryx may yet be accepted as an early member of Avialae, but there just isn't sufficient evidence of that yet.
Most creationists on this planet are Hindu or Muslim, which if you've noticed are mostly in places other than North America. Furthermore, South Korea has quite a few evangelicals (even if they are outnumbered by "none of the above" and Buddhists at the moment). Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
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. :(
Why are we letting these people win over science?
Because if the creationists were wrong, then God would tell them - so they must be right! QED.
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.
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.
Ok, so like, evolution is proven technology. So, given that the IDer's say that the hand of god is guiding things, and that hand is working via random mutation, QED, the IDer's god is Eris. fnord.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
[Proof Needed]
explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
Someone doesn't understand geology very well, eh?
Here's a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Rocky_Mountains
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Ok, so now that my post was modded down to -1,with 48 replies, I'm going to make another point.
I've obviously touched a nerve with the amount and content of the replies to this post. People are passionate about what they believe, and want to make sure that there is significant discussion around this topic. Yet, the post was modded down to -1. Why? Because it challenges the status quo?
What are we so passionate about defending, yet we're trying to silence critics. If the critics are wrong, lets move their arguments to the forefront and let them stand/fall on their own merit.
I believe you've been down-modded because others (like me) probably assumed you were trolling. If you say you were not trolling, fine, I accept that. It seems to me that your argument has indeed fallen "on its own merit".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” -- Arthur C. Clarke
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
There goes South Korea's lead when it comes to science education.
While I am far from delighted to see creationist claptrap ooze any further out of the dark ages than it has to, it would be a dangerous underestimation to operate on the assumption that believing stupid things automatically makes people stupid(stupid people are quite adept and believing stupid things, and generally do; but once a smart person gets ahold of a stupid thing, they are far better equipped to cling to it through means other than pig-headed obstinacy).
It's perfectly possible(and has been done) for creationists(YECs, even) to do perfectly adequate science by means of some 'microevolution/macroevolution' flimflam, 'working out the implications of evolution as a contrafactual hypothesis', or simply not thinking about it much from Monday to Friday and thinking the opposite on Sundays. In areas of science that aren't biological, of course, it's even easier, and engineering is practically like home(not that engineers need to believe in intelligent design; but the belief that complex systems were intelligently designed isn't exactly crippling when your job is intelligently designing complex systems...)
Unfortunately, when it gets to the point that the textbook wars are being lost, that often is a sign that Cletus the slack-jawed yokel has grabbed the reigns; but one cannot simply depend on a self-correction induced by science falling apart thereafter.
(Incidentally, this also isn't wildly surprising. South Korea has a surprisingly strong Team Jesus contingent; best known for punching well about its weight, per capita, in terms of sending out missionaries to assorted scenic and/or hostile locales.)
Even if there are cellular processes that could not have evolved into existence (which I doubt, and saying "we don't know how it happened isn't going to be enough to convince me), that wouldn't disprove evolution. It would perhaps disprove abiogenesis, which is a different though related field regarding the origins of life as opposed to evolution which discusses the diversity of life. Even if we found an ancient satellite orbiting the moon containing video of aliens landing on primordial earth, coding up some germs in a DNA synthesizer and letting them loose on the sterile rock it still wouldn't disprove evolution. Evolution is about what comes afterwards, it's about how you go from microscopic, undifferentiated single cell organisms to the staggering complexity that is life on earth.
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.
Silence is not the answer, says Dayk Jang. He is now organizing a group of experts, including evolutionary scientists and theologians who believe in evolution
We're never going to get anywhere if even an article that supports science uses this kind of bigoted language. Do scientists "believe in" gravity? Do scientists "believe in" relativity?
I know, it has. But "holes in the theory" was never a reason to dismiss it. It's not as if there was a better theory around the corner, we could use.
For a long time it was believed that the landliving vertebrae always had five fingers and toes per hand, as today's vertebrae have at least in their embryonic phase, and there was a big hole in the theory of evolution because why exactly five? Today we know that the first landgoing vertebrae actually had more digits, they started out with eight, later we got seven, then six, and finally five. It seems that five digits is a local optimum for digits, as all subsequent vertebrae stayed with five - evolution slowly converged to it. So this hole was filled.
And so it goes with every hole that one points at. We know the process of coagulation pretty well, and we can see right now how it has evolved: the basic mechanisms are controlled by more complicated mechanisms, whose in turn have another layer of control upon them. Each layer evolved because the lower layer was prone to (deadly) errors. We know that the flagellum of Escheria coli is based on 40 proteins, and if one is missing, it won't work. But if we look at all flagellae in all bacteria, only 23 of the proteins are shared between them. So at first, we have literally hundreds and thousands of different flagellum recipes out there, which strongly hints at a random process with lots of possible outcomes. And further we know that if we throw out some proteins, we get the Type III secretion system. So even an "incomplete" flagellum was an evolutionary advantage - another hole is filled.
And so it goes - whatever hole you point at, it is already filled with some good research.
okay if the Proof of Evolution is so solid then show me fossils of some sort of MACRO evolution. i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard).
The typical response of a creationist is to demand extraordinary levels of evidence especially when challenged about their lack of evidence. Anthropogically we know where different peoples lived based on artifacts. We can document generally where the Hebrews lived in ancient Egypt based on buried buildings, pottery etc. But to use your level of proof, I could demand the names and addresses of every single Jew complete with family history and skeletal remains or I contend that the Bible is lying that Jews lived in ancient Egypt.
Second of all, the fossil record has many, many specimens that support macro evolution. There are gaps but the general premise is sound. I suspect that you have never actually researched this.
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
This statement shows a complete ignorance of geology and plate tectonics that I don't know where to begin. First of all, every point on the Earth does not go under the same geologic process. A point under a mile of ocean does not experience the same geologic forces as under a mile of glacier or a point in a desert. Second tectonic forces vary like subduction forces different points under different layers or pushes a point to be a mountain.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Somehow this same dimwit managed to give proper eyes to nautilus though
Surely you were thinking of octopuses. Nautilus have a very simple pin-hole type eye. Octopuses on the other hand have complex eyes very much like ours, but better: they don't have a blind spot because nerve fibers are behind the retina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
What I fail to understand is why evolution is constantly misunderstood as a theory that explains the origin of life or the universe. Evolution attempts to explain the origin of species / speciation and nothing more. In the actual context there is a lot less opposition.
There are no scientists who believe in a young universe. There haven't been any in a long time, over a century. You have obviously been listening to con-men and grifters.
If you want to believe that the universe was created, go ahead. I certainly know scientists who do. (That could be at the big bang, or even before it, in the multiverse theories.) In that case, your statement about origins is valid.
But, evolution is not about origins. It is about the middle past, or even the recent past, of the story of the universe, i.e., about events that happened long (billions of years) after the origin. It (and the panoply of evidence from astronomy, physics and geology that also describe the size and age of our universe) are based on facts, which can be, have been and are being tested scientifically.
And, as a very wise man (Daniel Patrick Moynihan) once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."
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.
No.... The term 'theory' has a very strong connotation in science. Gravity is a theory too, and is utterly provable.
Hell, evolution on a microscopic scale has even been observed in labs. Why do you think we have to keep producing so many new antibiotics? Because bacteria keeps *evolving*.
I wonder if this is related to one of the wealthiest people in Korea. (And that therefore we are possibly supporting this cause of mis-education by eating sushi.
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
There are no creationist facts. Name one. Go ahead, I'll wait.
With facts on one side (science) and no facts on the other side (creationism), how do you expect to make a comparison?
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
I just see this as further proof that religion is dangerous and damaging to society, and should be banned outright in all forms, everywhere. If you ban every religion equally, then you can't claim inequality.
Honestly, as much of a dick as it may make me, I look down on people who believe in that nonsense. Use common sense and scientific evidence to form your opinions, and you will quickly see that religion is complete bullshit.
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
There's no such thing as "macro evolution". "Macro evolution" is a buzzword that's used by creationists who, when given examples of evolution that have been observed, say "that doesn't count because it's not macro evolution". Since the only people determining whether something is macro evolution are the creationists, they can use that excuse to explain away every example.
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
Correct sir, I mixed them up. There is another bad design, not having a memory system that would check for these kinds of errors.
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.
This is just the god of the gaps argument in disguise. How come quantum mechanics cannot explain gravitation? Because G-d is moving things behind the scenes. And if quantum mechanics is ever fused with a gravitational theory, you'd find something else it doesn't explain, such as love, and then claim G-d must be the one to fill in the gap.
Are there gaps in the fossil record? Of course, but we find new fossils all the time. Years ago, no one knew where birds came from. So G-d had to do it. But then we started finding fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. In fact, science has even gotten so good that in some cases it can tell you the color of those feathers.
So go ahead and invent as many gaps as you like and spackle them over with G-d. Science will methodically plod on, sometimes revising theories, sometimes strengthening them, sometimes inventing new ones. One thing it won't ever do is claim something must be a certain way merely based on failures of the current theories to explain it.
It's perfectly possible(and has been done) for creationists(YECs, even) to do perfectly adequate science by means of some 'microevolution/macroevolution' flimflam, 'working out the implications of evolution as a contrafactual hypothesis', or simply not thinking about it much from Monday to Friday and thinking the opposite on Sundays.
Not really. I mean, you can do the technical work. But the real work of science is in integrating many different lines of evidence into a model and coming up with testable hypotheses. You can't do that without really thinking things through.
A creationist scientist is going to be a bad biologist. Still, he may be as good of a scientist as someone who is bad for other reasons. There are lots of barely competent people in academia actually. But a creationist will never excel in Biology.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
I propose a simple solution for schools:
Present three popular theories:
1. Evolutionary theory
2. Creation story from Genesis
3. Pastafarian story of creation
Since none can be proven with absolutely 100% certainty due to missing evidence, teach critical thinking and logic instead, and turn this into an exercise in debate, hand the students an unbiased guide (or really, a balanced guide with each section written by "experts" in each respective theory, giving each equal weight) containing empirical evidence of each of the three theories, then assign each debate team one of the three positions (whether or not the members of that team agree with the assigned position) and prepare arguments for and against each theory. I think that given evidence and proper training in critical thinking and logic, you are teaching students to examine the evidence, think the problem through and arrive at the correct conclusion, i.e., you are teaching people to think for themselves. I think this approach would make everyone happy - or at least any rational person should be satisfied. Tell the irrational fools who would get "offended" to STFU and deal with it. :-)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Um, yes. Eminently. Proven, in fact. Already done.
That life evolved from simpler forms is not a theory. It is a dead-on fact. The "from natural selection" part is theoretical. The "evolution" part is observed a million times over in the fossil record, the geologic record, the cosmological record, etcetera. The only people who dispute that life started as simple microorganisms and evolved to larger forms are, well, stupid. I don't give passes for ignorance anymore . . .
Well, you just proved to me that you don't know what a theory is. Theories can be confirmed, or falsified. A theory is not worth anything if it is not falsifiable (i.e., cannot be tested). A theory that is repeatedly confirmed enters a realm of acceptance where it is rarely challenged because challenges always fail. Relativity is a theory. It has been confirmed many times, and is now integral to our lives vis-a-vis such things as nuclear power, and bombs, and GPS systems.
Theories are useful because they are predictive. The theory of evolution predicted for example, a "particulate means of genetic transmission," which appeared decades later as DNA. Theory confirmed.
On the other hand, the myth that God just waved his hand and did it all predicts nothing useful, cannot be falsified, cannot be tested.
So sad that science education has fallen so far. We live in a world that utterly depends on our understanding of these things, and as is painfully obvious by your Disneyland comprehension of how science works, we are in danger of having a world run by buck-toothed rubes whose intellect is operating at the Larry the Cable Guy level, trying to comprehend and maintain systems requiring far more intellectual horsepower than they can manage. Disaster is certain.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
The bible is horse shit, as are all other religious books. There is no god.
I used to think of S.Korea has being a smart country... I may have to rethink that.
Religious people should all be locked up for delusional insanity.
He asked you to name a fact that supported creationism. You said "I accept natural selection as valid", which may or may not be a fact, but it isn't anything that supports creationism.
Look, if you want to take part in this type of debate, you need to be armed with the right tools. You believe (I assume, as you claim to be a creationist), that a Divine Entity created humans using His intelligence. A fact that supported that view would be, for instance, if we could talk to such a Divine Entity and he said that's how it went down (it wouldn't be proof, but it'd be a fact that could support your position). However there are no such facts and you have failed to provide any.