Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the this-from-that-or-maybe-not dept.

Books 640

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."

cancel ×

640 comments

Wow. Just wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218743)

There goes South Korea's lead when it comes to science education.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (5, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219059)

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.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (5, Insightful)

OzoneLad (899155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219275)

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".

Did the world start spinning backwards? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218745)

Why are we letting these people win over science?

Re:Did the world start spinning backwards? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218927)

We don't have enough vespene gas, obviously.

Re:Did the world start spinning backwards? (5, Funny)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219163)

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.

How appropriate (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218747)

"Mest" is the dutch word for "Manure".

Now watch... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218757)

Watch how South Korea's morality and productivity go up as they realize they're not intelligent monkeys but rather divinely created, purpose-built creations. Watch how God blesses them with insight into the creations he's made, allowing them to understand science in a way no evolutionist ever could imagine. Watch how mockers mock this post.

Re:Now watch... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218777)

Hah, I invoke Poe's Law.

Agreed (4, Insightful)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219051)

This has to be a parody. No Christian could possibly be that stupid despite the stereotype many people have about Christians.

Re:Agreed (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219101)

You've never heard of the wedge document [stephenjaygould.org] , have you? Many Christians believe that teaching evolution is responsible for everything bad in our society.

Re:Now watch... (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219339)

If he hadn't said "Watch how mockers mock this post." you'd be right. If he had just left that out then it would have been perfect.

Re:Now watch... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219113)

Hear hear! A voice of common sense.

How smart people can not understand the failed logic in dis-organized things becoming more organized - without outside influence - is beyond me. I have never in my life observed anything exhibiting this behavior. Things we (ID) organize always become dis-organized, not the other way around.

Now, debate on exactly WHAT the ID factor is, is quite reasonable - but to ignore ID altogether is ignorant.

Re:Now watch... (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219173)

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.

Re:Now watch... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219193)

The ID factor is inheritance, mutations, and natural selection. It's used for practical purposes in programming, where this the process is called a genetic algorithm.

Re:Now watch... (4, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219363)

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.

Re:Now watch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219357)

Didn't you just describe Christian Communism?

Dang (0, Troll)

udoschuermann (158146) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218759)

And here I thought that religious kooks are a poorly evolved subspecies found only in North America

Re:Dang (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218829)

Now I have to change my favourite Korea to North Korea.

Re:Dang (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218891)

Well, it is the best Korea, after all.

Re:Dang (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218893)

NORTH KOREA IS BEST KOREA ALWAYS YOU IMPERIALIST SWINE DOG!







(Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.)

Re:Dang (4, Funny)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218831)

No, they're now an invasive species in much of the world, crowding out useful cognition and generally being a nuisance.

Why would you think that? (4, Interesting)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219077)

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.

Re:Dang (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219211)

Here comes all the slash dot bigotry, from the people who think they aren't. Small minded people on this site. You do know evolution has BIG holes in its theory? Probably not, because all you so called educated fools are like religion of the past, you mock any theory that is different than your own. Creationist theory is just as valid and actually has a science to it, but you close minded fools will never know that.

Re:Dang (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219303)

Well, you showed us. With all your examples & science.

Re:Dang (2)

surveyork (1505897) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219341)

Please provide us some examples of the "big" holes in evolution, kind sir.

Re:Dang (3, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219365)

[Proof Needed]

Creationist theory is just as valid and actually has a science to it, but you close minded fools will never know that.

Oh no, It's spreading! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218771)

This is like a plague. Here I thought that this sort of crap only happens in the American south.

Lets just hope this decision is very quickly repealed.

Re:Oh no, It's spreading! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218931)

It's almost like Galileo's trial never happened!

Re:Oh no, It's spreading! (4, Insightful)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218987)

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!"

All I can say is.. (0)

judoguy (534886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218773)

Lordy! WTF South Korea?

The end is coming.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218787)

Now I see... The mayans predicted this.. December 12th is the end of the world as we know it, as by that time, evolution will cease to exist as will we.....

Obligatory question (-1, Troll)

CuriousGeorge113 (47122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218799)

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).

Re:Obligatory question (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218819)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218825)

because creationism is not based in any facts.

Re:Obligatory question (5, Insightful)

Surazal (729) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218869)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218997)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (5, Insightful)

Surazal (729) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219061)

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 really (5, Insightful)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219117)

"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.

Re:Obligatory question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219227)

Wrong. These ideas CAN be tested and have tested. You can recreate the beginning of the evolution in a lab, you can prove how the first amino acids form THEMSELVES (it is NOT a wonder but rather just biochemistry).

Evolution theory (despite it's name) is more than what a layman understands of the word "theory". Evolution has been proven. Fact.

Only creationist suckers are what they are : laymen and ignorants.

Scientists who believe in a young universe, ID and all that nonsense should return their PhD for a money refund of their universities. Apparently their eduction wasn't successful.

Re:Obligatory question (-1, Troll)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219037)

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).

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.

Re:Obligatory question (2)

dark12222000 (1076451) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219127)

If creationism is so solid, I want God to beam down a hundred bars of gold pressed latinum.

You don't get to demand proof in the form you want it in. There is plenty of other proof for Evolution - the LepTree [leptree.net] project is a great example.

So, where's my latinum?

Re:Obligatory question (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219135)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219297)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219359)

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).

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.

A very eloquent illustration of why cognitive limitations coupled with self-enforced ignorance precludes the engagement of any sort of meaningful debate with the proponents of Creationism both individually and as a group. Well played sir, very well played.

about your sig (1)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219039)

--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead [nerp.net]

OK, because of my sympathy for your post I did follow this "go to my web page instead" link, expecting to find something fabulous given your /. number ;-)
Indeed, the page is empty.
Now maybe THIS is the message, some kind of Zen-like?

Re:Obligatory question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219169)

Please seriously research 'Intelligent Design' as opposed to Creationism. There is evidence that some of the biological machines that exist at a celluar level could not have evolved.

Note that I am not opposed to teaching both theories...but rather opposed to presenting one as fact.

If you cannot see the merit and logic of another theory while realizing the current shortcomings of your own, you are just as blindly religious as those you so harshly criticize.

Re:Obligatory question (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219229)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219259)

I thought everyone understood that fossils, red shifted starlight, continental drift, and DNA markers were all just God’s practical jokes.

Re:Obligatory question (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219295)

Well of course evolution happens, it's easily observable. And yes, people who refuse to accept this and believe God created the everything simultaneously five thousand years ago are delusional.

However, in the ultimate sense (and I mean really ultimate, as in Budha's "All is illusion") the creationists might have a kernel of truth. What happened before the Big Bang? Modern belief is "nothing" or "no one can know". But according to quantum physics, matter does not exist unless it has been observed... it's all probability waves until observation takes place. If you extend this further, you could argue that before the beginning of the universe, there had to have been an observer who observed the big bang.

Re:Obligatory question (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218877)

Yes, I agree. We also need to be teaching alternative views on heliocentrism, whether the Earth is flat, and if molemen are real.

Re:Obligatory question (3, Funny)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218951)

IF?!??!?

IF!!!

You are going to hell, right now!

Re:Obligatory question (1)

HCase (533294) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218981)

Heliocentrism and flat Earch are crazy, but I saw a moleman once!

It looked a bit like a regular mole, and everybody else said it was just a regular mole. But I FEEL like it was actually a baby moleman, and those people aren't going to trick me into not going with my gut. Molemen forever.

Re:Obligatory question (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218897)

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".

Re:Obligatory question (5, Insightful)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218901)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218925)

Same reason we assume geocentrism to be wrong. Even though it seems like an obvious answer ("Look, the sun is going around us in the sky!"), there is simply no scientific evidence to support it's claims (and actually tons and tons of evidence disproving it).

Ask your question again, but this time insert "geocentrism" instead of "creationism"; you now know how silly you sound to biologists.

Re:Obligatory question (1)

bob0the0mighty (904854) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218935)

Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's rote dogma. Intelligent Design is also not a scientific theory as it posits that things that are unlikely are less probable than a magic person creating from whole cloth. They belong with other religious dogma. Neither have a hypothesis, testing protocols, and a method for modifying hypothesis based on results.

Re:Obligatory question (5, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218955)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219361)

Science may disprove certain aspects of certain religions. Religion, being based on faith and not observation, cannot disprove science.

Re:Obligatory question (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218999)

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?

Oh, the creationists are right. The problem is figuring out which ones.

Re:Obligatory question (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219023)

There is a giant disconnect from the creationists. Even if we skip the entire initial creation story, which neither side can answer with absolute fact (although the science side can get REALLY damn close) , the creationists have created a definition for evolution that is not what the true concept is, and then fought against their straw man to have the real science removed from education. THIS ACTION IS AS WRONG AS ANYTHING COULD EVER BE!.

Re:Obligatory question (1)

CuriousGeorge113 (47122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219151)

"...the creationists have created a definition for evolution that is not what the true concept is..."

Can you elaborate on this a little more? How is the creationist view of evolution different from the general scientific consensus?

Re:Obligatory question (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219027)

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).

If Creationism is correct then Science is wrong. Which is fine, I suppose... if that turns out to be true then we can stop teaching Biology at all. Just don't teach Creationism and claim that it's Science. Science requires natural, repeatable, testable hypotheses, and saying "God did it" undermines the entire premise. It's perfectly acceptable to say that evolution's "random" events are influenced by God, or that God set it all in motion according to His plan. But there's no scientific way to test that, so it belongs in theology or social studies class. Evolution as a theory does not directly address the origin of life; just the origin of the species, so really there's room for everyone to play.

Re:Obligatory question (2)

CuriousGeorge113 (47122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219089)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219095)

Because it is not science. It is not testable.
It belongs in philosophy class not science.

Re:Obligatory question (4, Insightful)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219131)

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.

Re:Obligatory question (2)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219167)

Excuse me? Did you ask "What if they aren't wrong"? Seriously? OK, let me answer your questions and explain things to you.

First, that question is a fallacy known as appeal to consequence and is the basis if Pascal's Wager. Now, I ask you: What if both they and the science are wrong, specifically, they have the wrong god and the actual god prefers non-believers to those who believe in the Abrahamic god? After all, there are literally millions of gods out there. What if you are worshiping the wrong god and pissing off the god(s) you should be worshiping?

Next, let's look at the facts. There is no evidence they are right. None. Zero. Zilch. Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is based on scientific evidence, which is falsifiable and repeatable and which has been repeatedly proven correct.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all points of view are equal. That is false. The reason the creationist point of view is not accepted in the scientific community is that it is not based on science and much of it has been debunked.

Creationism starts with an unsupported, unverifiable claim, specifically that there is a god who created everything. The closest thing they have to evidence is a book of bronze and earlier age stories which do not match observable facts. The primary argument used by creationists to support creationism are all fallacies including but not limited to appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, and argument from ignorance. The primary arguments creationists use against ToE include but are not limited to appeal to consequence, argument from incredulity, and moving the goal posts. But, they never provide any testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence.

Creationists also lie about the scope and content of the ToE. The ToE is based on scientific evidence from biology, microbiology, genetics, archaeology, paleontology, and biochemistry. It is not based on a bunch of stories from a time when disease was thought to be caused by spirits and not microbes.

Creationists claim that the ToE doesn't explain the universe, but it doesn't try to do so. That is the domain of cosmology.
Creationists claim that the ToE doesn't explain the existence of life, but it doesn't try to do so. That is the domain of biochemistry.

Creationism isn't a point of view. It isn't a scientific theory. It is not a scientific hypothesis. It isn't even a conjecture. Creationism is superstition based on stories made up by ignorant nomadic tribesman to explain the existence of world and universe they didn't understand.

Re:Obligatory question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219243)

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).

It's perfectly fine to have a scientific opinion on evolution while believing it was created by a higher power. The trouble comes when you insist, for religious and/or political reasons, that the evidence for evolution is all wrong despite it passing rigorous testing for over a hundred years.

In other words, "lying for Christ" is not science.

Re:Obligatory question (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219267)

It's not so much that they are wrong but that they are thrusting religion into science. They do under the guise that Intelligent Design is science (when it isn't) or try to distort evolution as some sort of vague guessing by scientists not supported by any evidence.

Re:Obligatory question (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219345)

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).

I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but I'll bite anyhow.

Science and Faith are different things, no? They don't attempt to answer the same questions, by and large. And there are plenty who believe the "theories" (using this term loosely) proposed by each are not mutually exclusive. There are questions which are the domain of science: how much thrust is needed to lift X tons into a particular orbit? There are questions which are the domain of faith: how can I be a better person? One lends itself to experimentation rather readily, the other (generally speaking) does not.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Science is not dogma. The greater scientific community is happy to work on multiple, competing testable hypotheses. They don't all have to agree. If we find that a hypothesis is proved false, we take note of what we've learned and move on.

Fan death (5, Informative)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218827)

This is also the country that believes in death by sleeping in a room with a fan. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Fan death (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218905)

Well yeah, if it's a creepy stalker-y sort of fan...

Oh wait, not that kind of fan.

Re:Fan death (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218909)

Yup....
I had a Korean house-mate who lectured me on the dangers of the fan in my room. At first I thought she was taking the piss, however I soon found out this was a genuine and unshakable belief that she held. :-0

Re:Fan death (3, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218941)

Fan death, so what? I believe in death by Snu Snu [youtube.com] , still you don't see me running around, telling people horses don't have gills.

Re:Fan death (1)

KatchooNJ (173554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219017)

Never heard of this! Wow! I wish I had a mod point to toss you. :-)

Re:Fan death (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219313)

Sounds like a case of TOO MUCH democracy overruling the rationality of the bureaucrats. QUOTE: "The Korea Consumer Protection Board (KCPB), a South Korean government-funded public agency, said

"If bodies are exposed to electric fans or air conditioners for too long, it causes the bodies to lose water and hypothermia. If directly in contact with air current from a fan, this could lead to death from an increase of carbon dioxide saturation and decrease of oxygen concentration. The risks are higher for the elderly and patients with respiratory problems. From 2003 to 2005, a total of 20 cases were reported through the CISS involving asphyxiations caused by leaving electric fans and air conditioners on while sleeping. To prevent asphyxiation, timers should be set, wind direction should be rotated and doors should be left open."

Re:Fan death (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219319)

Thank goodness we flooded their country during the Korean War with missionaries. Our glorious experiment with cultural domination. Now they are a nation of Christian fanatics.

Not good... (3, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218853)

... 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: :(

A more troubling fact (5, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218871)

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.

Yep. (4, Insightful)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219147)

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. :(

Yay! (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218873)

At least the US won't be alone in its downward spiral of idiocy.

So we *don't* have a monopoly on idiocy... (0)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218875)

Huh, whodathunkit - The rest of the world has religious idiots too!

That said, at least in the US, we regularly put ours back in their place - The churches, not the schools or courts. I'd suggest doing the same if you don't want the rest of the planet to view you as a nation of 3rd-world savages going around burning witches for stealing your penises and such.

Nice idea, but... (1)

Benfea (1365845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219161)

...most creationists on this planet are Muslim or Hindu, and in case you haven't noticed, in Muslim areas, the mosque has enormous influence over not only the state, but places hard restrictions on academia in what conclusions they can and cannot reach.

The thing is... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40218953)

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.

old people (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#40218963)

In South Korea, only old people know about science.

In another words.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219001)

In another words.... creationists that advocate that there's no proof for evolutionary theory are able to exclude such proof from textbooks. Is it just me who thinks this is fsck up logic?! "Hey, there's no proof"... Creationists find out there's proof, complains about being given more focus on evolution since there's proof and proof is removed from textbooks.... next it'll be: creationists exclaim (once again) "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?!? THERE'S NONE!!!"..... Fscked up indeed.

Samsung Evolution (2)

Nethead (1563) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219057)

I guess that Samsung will have to rename it's S2 Evolution [blogspot.com] smartphone. I know a lot of US Koreans and some of them can out thump our best homegrown bible thumpers,

Bad examples, anyway (5, Informative)

ColoradoAuthor (682295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219071)

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 [wikipedia.org] . 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Bad examples, anyway (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219221)

The words creationist and paleobotanist, nor any other scientist, do not describe the same person. Religious scientists are not real scientists.

Re:Bad examples, anyway (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219247)

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!"

Re:Bad examples, anyway (1)

ausrob (864993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219323)

That, and no mention of Unicorns! WTF?

The true nature of intelligence (5, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219107)

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.

Re:The true nature of intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219159)

Minus a few decades to their progress now.

Re:The true nature of intelligence (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219179)

> who's only market are those with low enough IQ to not be able to reason.

Don't forget more than 1/2 the world has an IQ = 100. ((100 is the median so if only 1 person has a 100, still more than 1/2 has =100))

And we seem to be driven by a weird notion of direct democracy where 50%+1 of the votes means we 100% have to implement the decision even when lies, deceipt and other deceptions where used in garnering support.

Re:The true nature of intelligence (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219237)

ok, silly slashdot front end seems to eat LESS-THAN signs. even when escaped with a backslash \

That was meant to be "1/2 the world has an IQ LESS-THAN-OR-EQUAL-TO 100"
and "1/2 has LESS-THAN-OR-EQUAL-TO 100"

Re:The true nature of intelligence (3, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219307)

is that why the evolutionists had a fit when the Texas school system added the sticker in the front of the book that read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

The problem is central school control. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219177)

If you have a national department of education that can set standards, then that department can be influenced and/or bought, with impact (potentially disastrous) to the entire system. Once upon a time, in the US, schools were independent neighborhood establishments. Some were crap, but the damage they did to kids was limited. A National Department of Education is like putting all your eggs in one basket, and hoping, against all historical evidence, that the basket will be safe, and/or that those in charge are wise, immune to political pressure and can be trusted.

Zombies are now here in Korea, too (1)

martypantsROK (1413651) | more than 2 years ago | (#40219249)

Dammit. I moved to S. Korea because it had far less of the ignorant, science deniers than in America. Now the zombies are here, too.

This from the country that brought us "fan death" (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40219317)

From the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death): "Fan death is a widely held belief in South Korea that an electric fan left running overnight in a closed room can cause the death of those inside". This was even reported by the Korea Consumer Protection Board (KCPB), a South Korean government-funded public agency, though outside South Korea it is generally considered a classic case of mass hysteria.
I think a certain country could use a more rigorous scientific curriculum.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...