Slashdot Mirror
Science Wins Over Creationism In South Korea
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."
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);
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.
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);
Remember, God is here calling the "dome" sky. (verse 8) See http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1
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
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.
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?
-
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..