Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Wins Over Creationism In South Korea

Posted by Soulskill on from the bribed-with-vespene-gas dept.

ananyo writes "South Korea's government has urged textbook publishers to ignore calls to remove two examples of evolution from high-school textbooks. The move marks a change of heart for the government, which had earlier forwarded a petition from the 'Society for Textbook Revise' to publishers and told them to make their own minds up about the demands. The petition called for details about the evolution of the horse and of the avian ancestor Archaeopteryx to be removed from the books. In May, news emerged that publishers were planning to drop the offending sections, sparking outrage among some scientists. The resulting furor prompted the government to set up an 11-member panel, led by the Korean Academy of Science and Technology. On 5 September, the panel concluded that Archaeopteryx must be included in Korean science textbooks. And, while accepting that the textbooks' explanation of the evolution of the horse was too simplistic, the panel said the entry should be revised rather than removed or replaced with a different example, such as the evolution of whales."

10 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Re:don't you know? by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is fun to watch evolution in action. I.D. and Creationism are dying out by generation, as few people with evolutionist parents accept anything but evolution, and many that have parents that are I.D. or Creationists still only accept evolution. Mostly because, to them, evolution is far more elegant and fits the observations, while Creationism doesn't and I.D. only deals with unobservable and untestable.

    This might be one of the greatest arguments for the process of evolution, but by the time it becomes convincing to the fundamentalist and die-hard I.D.ers, there may no longer be the need to make that argument as the next generation would be so overwhelmingly against such anti-science.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  2. "Teach the controversy" my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    They're not even just pushing religion into science class anymore. Now they're actually trying to censor information that contradict their dogma. Pathetic.

    1. Re:"Teach the controversy" my ass. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're not even just pushing religion into science class anymore. Now they're actually trying to censor information that contradict their dogma. Pathetic.

      I think that has been the strategy all along: keep the kids ignorant so they won't abandon the religion.

      And since they haven't had much luck getting creationism taught in schools, home-schooling has evolved (no pun) as an alternative means for keeping them ignorant.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. This fundamentalist applauds loudly by mnooning · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Fundamentalists (Read: believes in the fundamentals of Christianity) such as myself applaud such rulings very loudly. Our scriptures - Genesis - clearly portray the sun, moon and stars being in our atmosphere. If you really want to take the creation accounts literally, you cannot say "Oh, we know not to that that literally". But that is exactly what many literalist Christians say. Why do you then insist that you have to chose between science and a seven day creation?

    1. Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As an evolutionist, engineer, and religious person, I've always found it difficult to reconcile my beliefs. To the point where many would say I am foolish for keeping them. That being said, of the problems with interpreting Genesis, Stars being in the atmosphere has never been one of them. I don't know what you are reading that led you to that.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    2. Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly by mnooning · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Genesis 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened. Genesis 8 God called the dome “sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day. .. skip some verses .. Genesis 14 Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years, Genesis 15 and serve as lights in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth. And so it happened: Genesis 16 God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars.

      Remember, God is here calling the "dome" sky. (verse 8) See http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1

    3. Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly by Hillgiant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Either you believe in the inerrancy of the bible, or not. I will grant that inerrancy does not necessarily mean that it is literal truth (i.e. a divinely inspired allegory is an allegory, not a historical account). However, this train of thought leads us down a number of difficult paths.

      How do we know when a passage is intended to be allegorical? The only external authority has only given this one testament (or two if you want to divide between the new and old (or three if consider the teachings of Mohammad) in any case, each considers their bible to the the first and last word).

      Why should such an ambiguous system be used?

      --
      -
    4. Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly by mnooning · · Score: 2, Interesting
      To me, the question "Why should such an ambiguous system be used?" is fundamental -pun inteneded.

      Take a literal look at the two passages below, as reported by two different writers, about what John the Baptist said.

      Matthew 3:11: whose sandals I am not fit to carry
      Luke 3:15: I am not worthy to tie his sandals.

      Obviously they cannot both be right. Is one of our saints lying? Are they remembering as best they can? Is this really ambiguous?

      The answer to me is that they original authors were getting across the overall message that John thought that Jesus was much greater than he. The words the authors used to get across that message are just not that relevant.

      Now apply that reasoning, in prayer, to Genesis. What is the message of the original author, as it would be understood by the originally intended recipients.

      Looking for the intended message is a good, not a bad. God never said he did not use imagery..

  4. Christianity by puddingebola · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to the Wikipedia page, Christianity came to South Korea in the 17th century. When the more obnoxious form of modern fundamentalist Christianity arrived, with anti-science creationism, I'm not sure. Or maybe that statement is a bit ridiculous, since anti-science creationism is part of the original philosophy. Does anyone have any insight into the history of this form of evangelical Christianity? There is now a Korea Association for Creation Research, whose history I'd like to know more about. I imagine they have some tie to the Institute for Creation Research. Creationism, setting science education back by several centuries.

  5. Re:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Phillip K. Dick said "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

    He thought it was an imperfect answer to a philosophical question, but he said he couldn't define it further.