Beta
×

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 Will Revisit Plan To Nix Evolution References in Textbooks

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the secular-humanism-eastern-division dept.

Education 286

After reports that South Korean had "surrendered to creationists" by removing references to evolution in several textbooks, openfrog writes with this excerpt from Science Insider that indicates the fight is still in progress: "The South Korean government is poised to appoint a new committee that will revisit a controversial plan to drop two examples of evolutionary theory from high school textbooks. The committee, to be led by insect taxonomist Byoung-Hoon Lee, a member of the Korean Academy of Science and Technology, has been asked to re-evaluate requests from a Korean creationist group to drop references to bird and horse evolution that they argue promote 'atheist materialism.' At the same time, about 50 prominent Korean scientists are preparing to present government officials with a petition, organized by the Korean Association of Biological Sciences, which calls for rejecting the proposed changes. 'When these things are done, I think it will turn out that after all Korean science will not surrender to religion' says Jae Choe, an evolutionary biologist at Ewha Womans University in Seoul who helped organize the petition."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow, atheist materialism? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40582925)

Is it just me, or does anybody else get that the theocrats are seriously getting on a fetish where they attribute everything negative to non-believers?

Not to mention how they try to get us to believe they are persecuted martyrs for their faith.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (5, Insightful)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40582959)

When was the last time it had not been this way?

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583289)

Well, on occasion you see people who at least have the decency to endure some sort of serious hardship and/or risk before the fulsome whining about martyrdom begins...

That beats the hell out of the usual 'stand in your cushy position of power, influence, and not a little wealth, and whine about how persecuted you are' technique.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (3, Interesting)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583323)

This is actually rather new. A critical evangelical blogger I occasional read (me being atheist, but interested in the insights on american evangelical culture he delivers) calls it tht "persecuted hegemon". Whining about oh how oppressed they are while actually being privileged in every conceivable manner is the big thing with fundamentalist christianists these days.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583367)

Agreed. But it's also popular with feminist "scholars".

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (3, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583531)

I don't see any of that in local churches. That's more of a TV Evangelist thing. More of what I hear in my local church is how blessed we are. If you look at it critically the poor in America often live better than the Nobility did in the middle ages. It's all a case of perspective. I have a middle class life, between my wife and myself we make about 100K a year. It's not a tremendous amount but yet I own two vehicles, a 2000 square foot house that is comfortably heated and cooled. I have cable tv and internet for entertainment and have never missed a meal except by choice. It's a very comfortable lifestyle and yet so many who live as I do complain and whine about what they don't have. It's human nature I guess to always want more and more. I'd like more myself, I'm only human but I don't forget to be thankful for all I've been blessed with. Even more important is the freedom I enjoy to live my life as I please. The only limitations I have on my success is my own ability and initiative. I could no doubt have done better but maybe the fact that I am so comfortable limits my drive to strive for more.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (5, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583827)

I don't see any of that in local churches. That's more of a TV Evangelist thing.

One problem with atheists is that they don't go to church. So they judge Christians by the kooks they see on TV, and think that represents normal Christianity.

For the record: I am atheist/agnostic (depending on your definition), buy I still attend Church somewhat regularly because my mother-in-law is a devout believer and invites us to go with her. In the interest of family harmony, I oblige. I actually enjoy the music, and the potato salad at the potluck lunch is great. I never get trapped in uncomfortable discussions, because there is one thing that church going Christians almost never talk about in casual conversation: Christ.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (3, Interesting)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583883)

This is not a problem with atheism, this is a problem with the decent congregations not making themselves heard. I have no doubt that your local church is made up by decent people, and I have no desire to see it razed from the face of the earth. However, the vocal churches, the ones that make themselves heard are largely infested by the above mentioned asshattery.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1)

englishstudent (1638477) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583863)

middle class........

Re:materialism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583623)

...Whining about oh how oppressed they are while actually being privileged in every conceivable manner is the big thing with fundamentalist christianists (sic) these days.

These days!? Fundamentalists can only be called such because they are stuck lamenting the loss of authority to the natural fragmentation of 'their' political hierarchy. In the realm of the church, it happens in a democratic process of discussion and the subsequent political evolution of the philosophy underpinning the belief in the desire to connect with a higher power that will ensure your comfort and survival. There's never been a universal agreement on how the world works or how to protect yourself from nature, much less death or the uncertainties of what might come next.

Christian fundamentalists anywhere, in the absence of political power, are nothing more than the next millenium's pagans, doomed to the historical backwaters of obscurity. The only problem is that the smart ones know it and try to stave off the inevitable in the vain hope that their efforts might serve as a credible argument should their assumption about Judgement day prove even remotely accurate.

"Gosh Mr. St. Peter, we thought we were doing God's work, forcing others to toe our line, even though we ignored his creation and ruined the his Garden in the process."

Sorry, God...

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1, Flamebait)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583645)

This reminds me of another persecuted hegemon, the elephantiasis in the room - the US of A whose freedoms are oh so endangered that it autistically jerks around killing innocent bystanders and calls pointing that out "aiding and abetting" the nameless "terrorists." Seems quite similar to a full-fledged delusion, doesn't it.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40582991)

Perceiving a link between atheism and materialism - i.e. focus on the material universe rather than on spiritual matters - is not unreasonable. Not that atheists can't be into spiritual stuff (definitively they might believe in anything except gods), but in practice atheism does tend to go hand in hand with materialism.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (2, Insightful)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583039)

Atheist will twist theory to fit facts, and theist will rather twist facts to fit theories. Where does materialism come in to picture ?

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583293)

Atheist will twist theory to fit facts, and theist will rather twist facts to fit theories. Where does materialism come in to picture ?

There is not a single fact in existence that wouldn't be materialistic. The rest are stories about facts, meta stories and meta-meta stories.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583341)

Atheist will twist theory to fit facts, and theist will rather twist facts to fit theories. Where does materialism come in to picture ?

There is not a single fact in existence that wouldn't be materialistic. The rest are stories about facts, meta stories and meta-meta stories.

That depends on your definition of fact. If a fact is a just true statement, then it could be completely unsupported by evidence and still be a fact.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (0)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583555)

Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it's not a fact. It's simply unproven. Kind of what is meant by "anything is possible." Unlikely maybe, but possible.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583731)

Probably not worth organizing your life around, then. If you want to drink tea in outer space, you had best bring your own teapot. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (4, Insightful)

sferics (189924) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583485)

Not everything an atheist thinks about is about science. Atheists also think about the human experience, how we relate to each other and to our world and how we can make like bearable for ourselves and others. We just try not to involve our superstitious beliefs into that process, and manage hypothetical assertions with some degree of rigor. If that makes me a "materialist", so be it, even though I did to choose to be called that. On the other hand, if "materialist" is a code word for "a selfish jerk who is not like us saintly believers and who will be up against the wall when the theocratic revolution comes", then I beg to differ.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583439)

When they pass the collection plate!

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (5, Insightful)

xelah (176252) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583075)

There are two definitions of materialism. If you're a philosopher (or presumably a theologist) and take it to mean simply 'not dualism' then linking it to atheism is nonsense. Plenty of people who don't believe in gods have other superstitions which make them believe in spirits (such belief seems to be a bit of a default position for humans), and it wasn't so long ago that it wasn't obviously plausible that a human could drop out of the operation of a purely matter-based brain. And you don't need to be a dualist to be a theist. It's perfectly possible to believe that god will give you a new body and brain on judgement day. There's nothing remotely negative about materialism.

But ordinary English speakers will often take the other definition. They'll take it to mean 'concentrating on the accumulation of ownership of stuff rather than on social relationships, personal achievements, intellectual matters, helping people, being a good member of society and so on'. Spoken about scientists especially this is plainly ridiculous. But it's hardly beyond some people to exploit the ambiguity.

But the original was presumably in Korean. So who knows what it meant?

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (2)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583309)

"But ordinary English speakers will often take the other definition. They'll take it to mean 'concentrating on the accumulation of ownership of stuff rather than on social relationships, personal achievements, intellectual matters, helping people, being a good member of society and so on'"

There's a third "ordinary" interpretation that is -I guess, given their North neighbourghs, the one working here: "atheist materialism" == "damn communism".

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1, Insightful)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583013)

Is it just me, or does anybody else get that the theocrats are seriously getting on a fetish where they attribute everything negative to non-believers?

Not to mention how they try to get us to believe they are persecuted martyrs for their faith.

Rating this to "zero" is a clear case of someone with mod points to burn and no ethics what-so-ever. It might be sharp, but there does seem to be empirical evidence that followers of an organized religion seem to want those who oppose them to disappear.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (3, Informative)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583123)

Is it just me, or does anybody else get that the theocrats are seriously getting on a fetish where they attribute everything negative to non-believers?

Not to mention how they try to get us to believe they are persecuted martyrs for their faith.

Rating this to "zero" is a clear case of someone with mod points to burn and no ethics what-so-ever. It might be sharp, but there does seem to be empirical evidence that followers of an organized religion seem to want those who oppose them to disappear.

OP is an anonymous coward, rated zero by default.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583201)

I stand corrected.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583255)

I'd like so see the theory that man created god taught in schools. Why is this controversy not discussed? Teach the controversy!

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583451)

God's legal team would have a libel suit filed in the UK, where truth is not a defense, in a heartbeat.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583493)

Balderdash! I have evidence that god evolved from a larger pool of predecessor gods through a process of natural selection! What institute issued your degree in applied psychotheology?!

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583285)

Korea and References to Evolution:
  Visit the "Gook Zoo" and ponder creation ?

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583321)

And you haven't noticed the same, where all wars, conflicts, ignorance, conservatism, or other maladies are the sole result of religion, at least here on Slashdot. This is the first article I've read where something negative was attributed to athiesm... but it is hard to find an article that doesnt have some comments religion bashing.

Grow some thicker skin.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583433)

It's also hard to find articles that don't have some religious types who don't bash liberalism, socialism, multiculturalism, or whatever else there is to hate.

All while complaining about how they are unfair victims of intolerance since they aren't allowed to do what they want.

And just because Slashdot isn't a Breitbart or Drudge link farm doesn't mean those pages don't exist with their own spin on things. Which they insist is fair and balanced, and everybody else is biased.

Poor persecuted right-wingers. I bet you need a tissue.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (2)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583353)

Well - when you couple these desperate grasps for control with the fact that here in the U.S. the Southern Baptists, Catholics and every sect and cult are losing membership. Religious crazy just doesn't fly in the age of connectivity.

And the martyr thing is built into virtually every Abrahamic faith out there. They'll scream persecution when they are trying to strip our rights, change curriculum to a more religious view through pseudo-science (Intelligent Design is just rebadged Creationism).

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (4, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583499)

Non-believers are SINNERS. Religion means fighting non-believers and taking power FROM them in Allah's/Yahweh's/FSM's name.

If you are not of a sect, it is your enemy (in a large or small way) like it or not and never forget that. If they had the power they would kill you or torture you into submission as they did before secular enlightment weakened the hold of superstition.

In some places where they roll Old School, denouncing religion can still get you murdered.

it's been that way for 2000 years (4, Insightful)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583767)

Christian churches have been blaming the ills of the world on "pagans" and non-believers for almost as long as Christianity has existed. Usually, churches lump communism, materialist, and atheism together, but easily switch sides when that doesn't work out. For example, the Catholic church in Europe allied itself with Hitler and other fascist and military dictators against the "atheistic communists", but then after the war, when that turned out to be unpopular, blamed the fascists themselves for being atheists.

It's pretty simple to see why: Christianity starts with the premise that morality and decency is identical with belief in, and submission to, God. Logically, all non-believers must be either evil or at the very least misguided. Furthermore, no matter how bad the crimes of the churches or Christians are, they are either excused or atoned for by belief in God, or the people in question are retroactively declared not to have been "true believers" in the first place.

The only thing that changes over time is the group that the church is willing to extend the label "believer" to. Sometimes, it may include all Abrahamic religions, sometimes only Christians, and sometimes only specific denominations. It mostly seems to depend on political expediency.

Re:Wow, atheist materialism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583823)

Anyone accusing atheists of being somehow 'less capable of good' needs to have this shoved forcibly in their face (in a good way, of course):

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/646445-you-don-t-need-god-to-be-good-or-generous

Step in the wrong direction (2)

seededfury (699094) | more than 2 years ago | (#40582941)

I feel so dirty when I read reality and facts are discarded as some flimsy belief only to be replaced with delusions and superstitions.

Re:Step in the wrong direction (2)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40582967)

The Korea Association for Creation Research's motto is, "Don't let facts get in the way of a good tithe."

Re:Step in the wrong direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583055)

Ant it seems to happen more and more often too, doesn't it?

Re:Step in the wrong direction (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583455)

You mean like smartphone fanboyism?

What evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40582999)

I think that belief in such things in this day and age is pretty sold proof that for some starins of people there truly has been zero evolution.

Re:What evolution? (0)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583137)

I think that belief in such things in this day and age is pretty sold proof that for some starins of people there truly has been zero evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with it. The fact that you think evolution has anything to do with it shows that you have no idea what evolution is.

Re:What evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583171)

Whoosh!

Starins? Make that strains. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583151)

Coffee time!

Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (5, Informative)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583003)

According to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Korea [wikipedia.org]

Only 53% percent of South Koreans claim any religious affiliation, and 55% of those are Buddhists. ... So my comment is: What? What's going on here?

Need some Korean person to explain.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (4, Informative)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583061)

American Evangelical churches have money to burn, and are mostly the ones, who are behind this sort of nonsense. This sort of stuff is happening in many other countries too, including India, China (albeit in deep secracy), and many other Asian/African countries.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583175)

American Evangelical churches have money to burn, and are mostly the ones, who are behind this sort of nonsense. This sort of stuff is happening in many other countries too, including India, China (albeit in deep secracy), and many other Asian/African countries.

Interestingly enough, Korean evangelical churches send missionaries to the USA.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583497)

Yeah, I encountered some of thes bozos in the middle of the Great Rift Valley last year. The community they were assigned to convert was already deeply religious. They (the crew cut Americans) assumed that the 'heathens' were godless. Big mistake.
There was one thing that the British Missionaries of the 18th Century realised pretty early on. That was that you had to blend the local beliefs with christianity to get anywhere. Thus they were successful in converting the locals. I was there on a VSO assignment. It was interesting to watch as they tried and failed to convert the locals to their version of christianity. This was the 'evolution is bunkum' brand.
The missionaries forgot that just down the road some of the oldest human remains ever discovered had been found.
When their mission failed they turned their attention to those of us there helping with water conservation. They got equally short shift from us. I'm a lapsed catholic but two of the others were muslims of Pakistani origin. Still they tried. You have to applaud them for that but despite the promised that we'd all rot in hell they failed to make any converts.
When they'd gone, the whole community had a party to celebrate. It lasted three days.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583385)

American Evangelical churches have money to burn, and are mostly the ones, who are behind this sort of nonsense. This sort of stuff is happening in many other countries too, including India, China (albeit in deep secracy), and many other Asian/African countries.

[citation needed]

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583423)

Care to cite anything at all on this? Sounds like bullshit to me to get modded up cos we all know that, right or wrong, bashing religion is the easiest way to get modded up on Slashdot anymore.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583135)

You might want to read that sentence a bit further, especially the part about: "These numbers should be treated with some caution, however, as (with the exception of Christianity) there are few if any meaningful distinctions between believers and nonbelievers in Buddhism and Confucianism, which comprise more of a set of ethical values than a religion."

This can reflect in being that in S.Korea, that the number of religious people are much higher than actually reported.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (2)

guises (2423402) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583749)

"These numbers should be treated with some caution, however, as (with the exception of Christianity) there are few if any meaningful distinctions between believers and nonbelievers in Buddhism and Confucianism, which comprise more of a set of ethical values than a religion."

You're saying that there may be a larger number of people who follow a Buddhist or Confucian set of ethics than reported by these figures. A man following a Confucian ethical system would have a strong sense of duty to his parents and lord (or leadership) while a Buddhist man might feel a sense of duty to the world around him, of which he is a part. Neither has a strong stance on creationism. I don't see your point.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (2)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583165)

According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Korea [wikipedia.org] Only 53% percent of South Koreans claim any religious affiliation, and 55% of those are Buddhists. ... So my comment is: What? What's going on here?
Need some Korean person to explain.

I'm not Korean but I know something about Korea: 1) Those numbers are probably out of date. There are large numbers of Koreans converting to Christianity every year. 2) Korean Christians are very active and organized. Korean Buddhists not so much 3) The "no religion" Koreans aren't usually atheists, they're agnostics who don't really care much about religion. Often they have Christian family members and are perfectly happy to go along with their family members in religious matters as long as it doesn't inconvenience them too much.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (5, Interesting)

njen (859685) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583297)

From what I've seen, Korean Christians are a lot more full on than Christians I have encountered in other countries. Example:

* First a disclaimer: I lived in Korea for 4 years, and I am married to a Korean.
One of my wife's relatives passed away while we were living in Korea, so we went to attend the funeral. Approximately half of the family was devout Christian, and the other half were mild Buddhists / agnostics. Because the person who died was Buddhist, it was decided by the Buddhist side of the family to have the funeral in a Buddhist format, which might I add, has been practically the cultural standard for hundreds of years in Korea.

But the Christian side would have absolutely none of it, not even to be respectful to the Buddhists, which was a source of contention at the funeral. They waited until the end of the ceremony, not taking part in any of the prayers, or even the the respectful bows that are common enough, then begun their loud prayers and other Christian themed actions.

I am an atheist, but I knew better than to shove my (lack of) beliefs upon others, and just go with the flow at the funeral, why can not others do the same? To this day that funeral is still a source of discontentment between the two sides.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583501)

Ko: Pleased to meet you.
Am: Pleased to meet you too... Hey, I see you're wearing a cross, what church to do go to?
Ko: I am a methodist.
Am: Oh, a methodist, so it's going to be whisky then I guess.... here ya' go!
Ko: (awkward silence)
Am: Yeah, I used to go to a methodist church, but I got sick of all the weird feminist preachers
Ko: (awkward silence)
Am: So I started going to a catholic church. It's pretty much the same but the preachers are men
Ko: (awkward silence)
Am: I guess it doesn't really matter what you believe as long as you're a good person and you love god, right?
Ko: I'm sorry. I'm not feeling well. I have to go home.
Am: Aww... too bad.. hey don't forget your whisky, you can't let that stuff go to waste.

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583675)

This is why you're supposed to burn the body!

Dark humor, sorry. ;)

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (2)

strech (167037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583319)

The reporting on this was overblown. All that was issue was two examples -

The controversy began in May, when Korea's Ministry of Education, Science and Technology announced that revised editions of high school textbooks would leave out discussion of two examples of evolution: the Archaeopteryx, an ancient ancestor to birds, and ancestors of the modern horse.

Not removing the subject from the textbooks -

The STR's Lim, meanwhile, says the group won't end its efforts to remove other evolution examples from Korean textbooks "one by one."

But that could be difficult, notes Choe. Government regulations mandate that all Korean science textbooks include a section on evolutionary theory with a discussion of the fossil record. STR sidestepped those rules by targeting two examples of evolution whose exact mechanisms evolutionary biologists still puzzle over, Choe says. "Korean newspapers give the impression that the whole discussion of evolution is disappearing" from textbooks, Choe says, "which is ridiculous, but exactly what the STR was aiming at."

So evolution in textbooks was never in danger, just two diagrams. And they were only in danger because they were apparently outdated; and they're not being removed, just fixed.

(See also this post by a Korean-American [blogspot.com] ).

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583519)

That got me thinking... How can I get a religion to become against teaching of math without simultaneous teaching of its practical use in schools?

Re:Only 53% of South Koreans claim any religion (3, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583411)

A Korean person explains:

http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-evolution-in-korea.html#more [blogspot.com]

Make your own decisions about his reliability, of course, but he does have the advantage of being able to read the Korean-language media.

The political proliferation of ignorance... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583005)

The political proliferation of ignorance is no longer something funny, something to point at and laugh at. It is a serious problem. How do we fight it? Politicians are whores and will just pander to single issue voters.

with a pitch fork (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583071)

time to get some pitch forks and end the world leadership and its 1% eleite that are destroying any chance we will have to survive on this world

i fear carl sagan was wrong when he said we have a 1% chance to survive ....this type a crap it makes it ZERO.

Re:with a pitch fork (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583187)

time to get some pitch forks and end the world leadership and its 1% eleite that are destroying any chance we will have to survive on this world

i fear carl sagan was wrong when he said we have a 1% chance to survive ....this type a crap it makes it ZERO.

Well if there isn't a God, what does it matter anyway if we all die?

Re:with a pitch fork (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583313)

Isn't it the other way around? If there is a God then he/she/it can just remake humanity if it dies out (isn't that the plan anyway?)
If there ISN'T a God, then once we die out we're gone forever.

Re:with a pitch fork (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583405)

Isn't it the other way around? If there is a God then he/she/it can just remake humanity if it dies out (isn't that the plan anyway?) If there ISN'T a God, then once we die out we're gone forever.

Yeah, but who would care if we're gone forever? I don't see how it would inconvenience us since, having ceased to exist, we won't regret the end of the humanity.

On the other hand, if there is a God, then we would probably have to answer for our actions, even though we no longer have physical existence, and it might be hard to explain away that whole "oops, we destroyed the earth" thing.

Why are these things opposites? (1)

moshberm (2487312) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583009)

Funny thing is, everyone is interpreting this as religion vs science. It doesn't have to be, though. Even from a religious perspective that believes in creationism, it's entirely possible that evolution is the mechanism used to create things. For a simplistic analogy, consider play dough or clay. Many religious people resent that evolution is being taught as an alternative to creationism. (I'm not picking sides here, just stating some facts. Just stating: evolution and creation can co-exist, and, here's is why some people are upset by evolutionism.)

Re:Why are these things opposites? (4, Insightful)

drdread (770953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583067)

It's not about "creationism." it's about "young earth creationism," in which the proponents believe that every word of the bible is literally true, and every creature on earth was created in its present form directly by the hand of God less than 5000 years ago. If you allow for an evolutionary path that took (tens or hundreds of) millions of years to evolve a horse or a bird, your 5,000-year-old Earth theory has some major challenges ahead of it. In the end, this sort of effort is fundamentally about suppressing the challenge, not teaching science.

Re:Why are these things opposites? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583161)

Well, I think the problem goes deeper than that. I do not think you have to be a religious fanatic in the minority to have at least some qualms with evolution. In most religions a creator god is the major feature. And without that, what is even the point of a God? While science cannot ever really disprove a God, if evidence can win you over then science has already made one useless. And if God did not creator man, then what is he? Some powerful Alien who has been tampering with Earth's history (in none miraculous ways that do not show any hint of miraculous power) and demanding obedience?

Re:Why are these things opposites? (3, Interesting)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583365)

Why couldn't God create evolution? If I'm God, why would I want to create a universe that needs to be micromanaged? A real God would just snap his fingers and create a universe that does everything it needs to do, including creating humans to worship him, automatically.

Re:Why are these things opposites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583413)

A real God would just snap his fingers and create a universe that does everything it needs to do, including creating humans to worship him, automatically.

I think that last bit would require a seriously insecure god.

Re:Why are these things opposites? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583453)

And what qualms with evolution do you have? Be specific here.

Re:Why are these things opposites? (1)

drdread (770953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583625)

I don't see that "religion" and "evolution" are incompatible, unless you are a literal word-of-god believer in the KJ bible. First, off, evolution is an undeniable fact. You can buy a tube of drosophila melanogaster fruit flies, set up an unusual condition in their habitat, and watch them evolve to adapt to it over the course of a few weeks. Now if you want to say that God directed/guided that evolution, "OK." I don't think science addresses that idea at all.

Where you get into trouble with evolution/natural selection is if you try to insist that the Earth is 5,000 years old, nothing has ever evolved since God created it, the fossil record is bogus, radiocarbon dating is a sham, the cosmic microwave background is unrelated to the Big Bang, etc. Then your only hope of keeping your kids from asking embarrassing questions that point out that you have no grip on basic science is to make sure they never get exposed to these "confusing" ideas (see the recent Lousiana science textbook flap)...so you try to prevent schools from teaching them at all.

It sounds like that may not actually be what's going on in this story, but it's certainly what's going on in Texas, Loisiana, Mississippi, etc.

Re:Why are these things opposites? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583381)

they're opposites because evolution is opposite to literal interpretation of the texts and opposite of traditional interpretations of the text.
creationism as in something that can't be observed as separate from natural evolution isn't really the thing on the table here. and really, if it were who the fuck would give a fuck since then it would be just defining Fortuna as the one great true god?

in your version where both evolution and creation done by a god could co-exist you would have to do pretty broad interpretations of the biblical texts which imply direct involvement from god - observable involvement. if you're going to take the bible as metaphors then you might just as well start quit the church and just live your life as well as you can and stop waiting for the judgement day. like it or not christianity is defined by a god who did observable things to the world, including it's creating and creating the great flood, and some sects of christianity like catholics believe that god keeps doing observable miracles pretty often.

now the logical answer for some sanity is to teach the bible as one subject and rest of the stuff as another(biology, geology, modern history..). adding a local creation story to the curriculum helps too, unless your aim is to create fundies, because teaching different perspectives doesn't really fit into that.

but the problem is that an all capable god could do fucking anything just to spite you(see sig) anyways so fundies can always fall back on that, when they don't then you really know you're dealing with just total fucks who can't be helped.

Re:Why are these things opposites? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583537)

Some religions and science are oposed because the people of those religions decided they need to destroy science. There is nothing to interpret.

Re:Why are these things opposites? (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583547)

It *IS* religion versus science. Science can exist with or without religion. Science does not exist because of in spite of or in any relation to religion. Religion, however, exists and is most powerful in the absence of science. The more knowledge is accumulated, the less religion works or makes sense at all. Just as children learn not to be afraid of the dark, people learn not to be afraid of their futures and understand the causes and effects of things that go on all around them.

This is all the Republicans' fault (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583011)

Especially Dubya!!! Err, wait, what do you mean there aren't any Republicans in South Korea?

Re:This is all the Republicans' fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583109)

This is all the Republicans' fault ... Especially Dubya!!! Err, wait, what do you mean there aren't any Republicans in South Korea?

It's interesting that you conflate brainless illogical morons with republicans.

I do too.

Re:This is all the Republicans' fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583317)

No, I've just witnessed typical Slashdot reactionary group think too many times.

Re:This is all the Republicans' fault (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583149)

While you do seem to have morons by the truckload, you don't have a monopoly on them.

Re:This is all the Republicans' fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583241)

While you do seem to have morons by the truckload, you don't have a monopoly on them.

What do you mean "seem to"? Surely there's been more than enough proof.

Never forgot this quote (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583081)

"If religious fundamentalists actually understood evolution, they would try to give God credit for it"

Genesis For The Modern Age (4, Interesting)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583185)

Genesis For The Modern Age

  • 1. In the beginning there was only God and he alone created the void that was the Universe. Then into the void that was the Universe God placed a infinitesimal part of his being.
  • 2. And the void being with out substance was unable to contain this essence of God and so it expanded at a terrible speed releasing unimaginable energies.
  • 3. Where upon God created the four fundamental forces toe contain these energies. The Strong Nuclear Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, the Gravitational Force and the Electromagnetic Force.
  • 4. And with the establishment of these controlling forces expansion of the Universe slowed and the great energies cooled the first elementary partials were formed.
  • 5. And from these partials the first atoms were formed. The initial one having a single proton and electron and God looked down and said let this be called Hydrogen.
  • 6. Then when all the Universe was Hydrogen the Fundamental Force of Gravity caused groups of these atoms to come together in ever larger masses.
  • 7. Where upon when the masses became so large and the Force of Gravity so strong that they started to smash the atoms of Hydrogen together creating new atoms and releasing new energies that illuminated the Universe.
  • 8. And thus Stars were born and there was now light upon the void.
  • 9. Then as the forces within the stars created heavier and heavier atoms the energies generated within became great. Greater in fact than the Force of Gravity. Where upon the very Stars themselves exploded spewing the atoms out in great clouds into the void.
  • 10. Again the fundamental forces came into play creating new stars from the lighter atoms and Planets from the heavier ones. Starting the cycle of Star birth and death.
  • 11. Now it came to pass that the Planets once formed were much cooler than the Stars allowing the atoms of various types to join together according to the Fundamental forces into molecules.
  • 12. Some were simple such as the water that filled the seas some were complex such as the precursor proteins of life itself.
  • ... (and so on and so on ... )

Re:Genesis For The Modern Age (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583467)

And you still imagine that any of this actually has anything to do with Genesis?

Re:Genesis For The Modern Age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583783)

What is this Modern Age? If you are trying to "explain" science as religion, sorry for the disappointment unless your primary dogma is there is no dogmas.

BTW, #2 is wrong and henceforth the rest of the sequence is questionable ;)

Bravo! Stand Up Korea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583235)

Please do not be influenced by the Christian fanatics, Korea. I have high hopes for you. You have a great and glorious culture for so many years. Please do not abandon it for an inferior culture propagated by these Christian extremists who based their myths on barbaric bronze-age hebrew tribe superstitions. More power to you Korea. Listen to your scientists!

Re:Bravo! Stand Up Korea! (1)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583275)

Please do not be influenced by the Christian fanatics, Korea. I have high hopes for you. You have a great and glorious culture for so many years. Please do not abandon it for an inferior culture propagated by these Christian extremists who based their myths on barbaric bronze-age hebrew tribe superstitions. More power to you Korea. Listen to your scientists!

Korean myths are pretty weird themselves: fan death, electromagnetic-absorption charcoal, blood types, the health effects of dog stew, etc...

South Korea is BEST KOREA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583253)

Wait, what?
I thought I misread it, but this is actually SOUTH Korea? So much for making fun of the other side. What have we done there...

Re:South Korea is BEST KOREA (-1, Troll)

busyqth (2566075) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583287)

Wait, what? I thought I misread it, but this is actually SOUTH Korea? So much for making fun of the other side. What have we done there...

It's true that North Korea is the land of no religion. Which makes it practically utopia according to slashdot commenters.

Re:South Korea is BEST KOREA (0)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583345)

The strawman, it burns. The goggles, they do nothing!!!

Re:South Korea is BEST KOREA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583599)

North Korea has a very entrenched religion. State-worship is very much a faith.

Note: they aren't even pretending to call it Communism's but rather just being Korean.

Re:South Korea is BEST KOREA (2)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583717)

On the contrary, it is a very religious land. Their religion is the worship of the Glorious Leader, like so many dictatorships.

The Real Story (4, Informative)

Ben_R_R (1177533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583263)

The real story is not nearly as sensational, all that was being discussed for removal from the textbook where a couple of incorrect diagrams. http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2012/07/no-evolution-in-korea.html [blogspot.com]

What STR did manage to pull off with three textbook publishers was this: STR convinced those publishers that two diagrams in their books -- one about the evolution of horses, and the other about archeopteryx -- and the text accompanying them were scientifically incorrect. Notice the claim here: the claim was not that the diagrams were against creationism. The claim was that the diagrams were _scientifically_ incorrect. And you know what? Technically, they were right! The diagram above showing the evolution of horses is horribly outdated, and the pictures no longer comport with the current scientific consensus.

Religion vs Evolution (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583271)

Evolution doesn't fly in the face of Religion, in many cases it actually helps it out. Teaching Evolution doesn't mean that you have to teach a godless universe, it just means you pose an alternative to the story of humanity. No one is saying that a "god" couldn't of kicked the bucket and placed the event in line for the big bang to happen, maybe Evolution took over from there. No one is saying that maybe a "god" didn't create the universe and heavens and simply put the right chemicals in place to support Evolution, all it's saying is that you need to keep an open mind.

When you study Religion and throw off the theory that we evolved your surcoming to the trap that Religion builds. Religion is there to explain what might exist beyond the known universe and that's all it really does, it's not there to force belief that in seven days ( or your own reference ), we all got placed on earth and it was good to go.

When you eliminate Evolution your giving up trying to use logic and meaning, your taking the easy way out, almost like cheating on a test, you think you have all the answers so just copy them down and don't look back!

Re:Religion vs Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583371)

No one is saying that a "god" couldn't of kicked the bucket and placed the event in line for the big bang to happen, maybe Evolution took over from there. No one is saying that maybe a "god" didn't create the universe

No, but someone is putting "scare quotes" around "god".

Re:Religion vs Evolution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583495)

As all sane and rational people should. "God" is a terrorist tool used to scare people into giving money to corporate churches which is in turn used to buy politicians and force their "morality" onto everyone who (rightly) disagrees with them.

Re:Religion vs Evolution (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583529)

That's because this "god" is unlikely to be your "God."

Creationists need to meet their maker (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583465)

This kind of crap just gets on my nerves and under my skin. What knowledge needs to be supressed? Knowledge of explosives? Knowledge of sharp things? How much knowledge has to be removed before there is an end to this feeling that there must be a removal of knowledge?

A God threatened by knowledge is no god at all.

Darwin's comment on "Intelligent Design" . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583471)

In his autobiography, Charles Darwin reported that he was almost denied the chance to make his historic voyage on the Beagle on account of his looks, in particular, because of his nose, which was large and somewhat bulbous. Darwin himself later used his nose, facetiously, as an argument against intelligent design, writing, "Will you honestly tell me . . . whether you believe the shape of my nose was ordained and 'guided by an intelligent cause'?"

Leonard Mlodinow, in Subliminal

More about bad theology than bad science (5, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583553)

Hermeneutics [wikipedia.org] is the approach one takes to interpreting a document (such as the Bible, for example). Literalism is one approach to Biblical hermeneutics in which one assumes nothing in the Bible is meant to be read allegorically or poetically. I think young-earth Creationists hold this view, which in their mind places Christianity squarely at odds with any science that gives us life older than ~ 6000 years.
I think one appealing reason for literalism is the assumption that as the Word of God, the Bible is meant to be easily understandable to every well-intentioned reader, and that's only possible if the plain reading of the text conveys the intended meaning. I.e., if you need to be a scholar of ancient Greek and Hebrew literary forms to understand it properly, something is amiss.

However, literalism is not generally accepted as a valid hermeneutic by most Christian theologians, as far as I know. I don't know all of the reasons, but I think one of them is that when read in the original Greek, Hebrew, and/or Aramaic, some books of the Bible very clearly are written in idiomatic forms of the day that most certainly were poetic or allegorical.

I think the truth is that just as a number of scientific might explain the data collected so far, so might a number of interpretations of certain parts of the Bible fit established theology, worldly observations, and hermeneutics. Those who see science (including carbon dating of fossils) as a threat to their religious beliefs may be more attached to a literalistic hermeneutic than is appropriate.

uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40583641)

I may be mistaken, because I'm no paleontologist but isn't the evolution of the horse among one of the most complete fossil records to date? Same may be true for birds too. These ignorant, science-hating creationists are very annoying.

Found a use for this pic (1)

CTU (1844100) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583791)

http://i.imgur.com/lnIee.jpg [imgur.com]

I think that makes it clear that I disagree with removing evolution material from textbooks.

Religion & science arent exclusive for God's s (1)

santosh.k83 (2442182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40583821)

When will people realise this!? They both address the same issue: figuring out this world and all that there is beyond. It's just that science insists on testability and reproducibility while religion doesn't.

And ethics isn't separate from either. Science itself has nothing to say about ethics, but that doesn't mean scientific research and decisions shouldn't consider ethical guidelines. They should in fact.

Neither science nor religion should hamper the other, IMHO, until sometime in future both might have merged into one body of knowledge. And both should guide the other, from the standpoint of each one's strength. Really, Einstein got it spot on nearly a century ago! Why is it that the world is seeming becoming increasingly stupid and reactionary.

I've ignored the "My God is the Only True God!" variety of religion in the foregoing, as that type is nothing but dogmatism.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?