×

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!

Science Wins Over Creationism In South Korea

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the bribed-with-vespene-gas dept.

Education 302

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

302 comments

don't you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258941)

My opinion is as good as your science! Silly asians...

Re:don't you know? (4, Interesting)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258983)

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

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

Re:don't you know? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259049)

Wow, I'd like the US to resemble your comments. But here, it seems that organized religion keeps trying to worm its way more and more into the government. You can't get elected to any national office unless you are religious (this is not a rule, but many surveys even reported here on slashdot show that a majority of people don't trust, and won't vote for, atheists). I'd love to see theism die out, but in the US it is hardly on its last legs. It seems poised to keep on destroying lives and practicing exclusionism in the name of rules supposedly handed down by an invisible friend.

Re:don't you know? (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259189)

You can't get elected to any national office unless you are religious

There are plenty of counterexamples. Politicians in the US apparently do have to make a public show of being religiously observant. But they don't have to be religious. For example, of the last few presidents since Reagan (who I gather was fairly religious), only George W. Bush (the younger one) was notably religious. We'll probably even find out at some future time that Clinton or Obama were atheist, just not openly so.

Re:don't you know? (4, Insightful)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259263)

You can't get elected to any national office unless you are religious (this is not a rule, but many surveys even reported here on slashdot show that a majority of people don't trust, and won't vote for, atheists).

You don't have to be religious, you just can't be overtly anti-religious and need to be respectful. That's where many get blowback from, including here.

Re:don't you know? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259713)

It is not trying to worm itself into government. It is what the US was based off of. Go look at just about ever building built back when the country was founded and you will see written in the stones and the paintings on the walls that religion influenced Our government. The capitol in D.C. used to hold church services.

Re:don't you know? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259275)

I believe it is the modern/western/godless nations that have a reproductive rate which means they will die out in several generations, while eastern/old-fashioned nations have a much higher reproductive rate.

sorry, just pointing out the truth.

oh, and a question for evolutionists, how do animals just somehow have "instinct"? Oh yeah, they somehow got it in an unexplained way.

Teach the controversy (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258961)

The Fellowship of the Rings should be taught in science class along side the [derisive tone] "theory" of evolution. Precious.

Re:Teach the controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258975)

I didn't know one of the trolls in Lord of the Rings was named Sponge Bath.

Re:Teach the controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259017)

I didn't know one of the trolls in Lord of the Rings was named Sponge Bath.

Nah, He was in The Hobbit

Re:Teach the controversy (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259645)

Yea, there are as many origin stories as there are civilizations. People who advocate for such things though, only want to teach the common Christian mythos on Creationism though; as anything else is just crazy of course.

Applies not only to religion (4, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258971)

Your phone did not pop into existence by command of an almighty Creator. Instead, it evolved in over hundreds of years from insights and incremental improvements from many different people.

Silly Americans to think different(ly) (tm)

Re:Applies not only to religion (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41258989)

Your phone did not pop into existence by command of an almighty Creator. Instead,

Wrong...

I even know people who claim to have seen Steve Jobs in person. That proves he's real.

Re:Applies not only to religion (1)

aix tom (902140) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259061)

Perhaps there will be textbooks in 2100 that will even attribute the quote "Steve Jobs is dead" to Nietzsche then?

Re:Applies not only to religion (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259183)

Perhaps there will be textbooks in 2100 that will even attribute the quote "Steve Jobs is dead" to Nietzsche then?

No, they will describe him as an 88 year old warrior-philosopher.

Re:Applies not only to religion (2)

Petron (1771156) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259529)

Your phone didn't make itself and crawl out of a pile of parts either... It was intelligently designed. Its evolution was planned.

Re:Applies not only to religion (4, Insightful)

andy16666 (1592393) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259731)

You know what's funny, is that human design does bear a stronger resemblance to evolution than to the top to bottom all at once intelligent design proposed by ID. Especially when that design is the result of years of experimental products involving the market as a selection force. Ideas of course would be the genetic material.

Like it or not, there is not a single high tech product on the market that could be designed from top to bottom by a single man in effective isolation. Most (and usually almost all) of the functionality and design in even the most (apparently) original products is simply inherited from earlier generations of products, even if it's combined in an somewhat novel way on occasion.

"Teach the controversy" my ass. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41258997)

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

Re:"Teach the controversy" my ass. (2, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259203)

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

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

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

Re:"Teach the controversy" my ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259315)

All usages of the word "evolution" in society are for things that are controlled by people - home-schooling has evolved because parents take their kids out of school and teach them at home, the iPhone has evolved because the engineers developing it have added/removed/modified features.

but you never hear people say, that plant in my backyard has sure been evolving each season, each year it just keeps changing color and growing all of these new fruits.

Re:"Teach the controversy" my ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259493)

What the hell are you trying to say?

Cause you ain't making sense, boy.

Re:"Teach the controversy" my ass. (3, Informative)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259683)

Many secular parents have an issue with that.

Homeschooling textbooks cater to the religious crowd so much, that secular parents basically cannot even touch the science books as they will be filled with so much nonsense.

Re:"Teach the controversy" my ass. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259283)

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

No, they're just objecting to scientists claiming something without proof, not using science but faith, hence only the problems with the examples given.

Attention Obama-Drones! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259025)

Maximum leader has one again managed to keep unemployment above 8%! A world record.

All Hail the Maximum Leader. Send in your money now!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/less-hiring-probably-kept-u-s-jobless-rate-elevated-in-august.html

Re:Attention Obama-Drones! (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259045)

Someone has to pay for all the bailout money and we sure cant have the banks and their wealthy owners doing that can we?

Re:Attention Obama-Drones! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259077)

Ha-ha. He said "in person", not "in prison". Ha-ha.

Re:Attention Obama-Drones! (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259205)

Let's be sure to elect someone who will do nothing but kowtow to corporate leaders his entire time in office!

It worked perfectly last time. And the time before that.

Re:Attention Obama-Drones! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259217)

"kowtow to corporate leaders"

You sound like a parrot. Did you read this on the back of a bag of Cheetos?

Re:Attention Obama-Drones! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259255)

You do understand facts don't you? Bush - unemployment 4.5%, gas $1.80 per gallon. Obama; longest stretch of unemployment over 8% in recorded history, gas nearing $4/gallon. But like a drone you blame bush and are perfectly willing to go and pull the Democrat lever aren't you?

Re:Attention Obama-Drones! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259609)

You do understand facts don't you? Bush - unemployment 4.5%, gas $1.80 per gallon. Obama; longest stretch of unemployment over 8% in recorded history, gas nearing $4/gallon. But like a drone you blame bush and are perfectly willing to go and pull the Democrat lever aren't you?

Because obviously the President has full control of oil prices and private businesses' hiring rates.

Re:Attention Obama-Drones! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259697)

The executive does have an impact on these things, do you not understand this?

Good grief you people are dumb. No one is hiring now unless they absolutely have to as they are waiting to see if Obama is thrown out and then secondarily if Obamacare is dumped. Uncertainty kills the economy.

Ever hear of the Keystone pipeline? Why don't you google the phrase 'electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket' you stupid fucking moron.

You idiots probably need help putting on your shoes.

This fundamentalist applauds loudly (1, Interesting)

mnooning (759721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259029)

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

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (2, Interesting)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259093)

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

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (3, Interesting)

mnooning (759721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259155)

Genesis 7 God made the dome, and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened. Genesis 8 God called the dome “sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day. .. skip some verses .. Genesis 14 Then God said: Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the seasons, the days and the years, Genesis 15 and serve as lights in the dome of the sky, to illuminate the earth. And so it happened: Genesis 16 God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars.

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

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (0)

mnooning (759721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259237)

There are also no "columns of the earth" that are holding up the earth. And, in spite of what Jesus said, there are no "four corners of the world" or "ends of the earth". The people of the day had no idea we live on a globe. I believe that if God can create all that is, he can create scriptures that speak to men of all ages. Once I got over the idea that the Bible had to be taken very literally, a whole new set of understandings came to be.

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259271)

There are also no "columns of the earth" that are holding up the earth.

Right. Everyone knows it's held up by elephants.

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (4, Informative)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259515)

The people of the day had no idea we live on a globe.

Unless your "day" means before 6th century before the alleged Jesus was born/killed, you're wrong. [wikipedia.org]

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259303)

A literal reading of Genesis 1:14-17 explicitly states it:

" And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." - KJV

Note that the "firmament" has both fowls and stars in it.

And earlier we had:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. " Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV)

so the firmament has water above it, and isn't "the entire universe except the surface of Earth".

Of course a literal reading is a silly idea, but that's all that was claimed.

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259447)

Well, I have always reconciled the two by realizing that the Bible was written by humans to whom God revealed the truth to. God did not dictate the exact words of each of the Bibles books to its respective authors. So that is why I believe that God showed with visions, images...etc and the author simply wrote it down. What does that mean? Well, it means it is not black and white and simply literal, it is interpreted, for it was interpreted by its author(s).

anyway, we need morality in our society, which means that we needs to honor and respect our ancestors at the least, and I think that teaching the opposite destroys our society like Soddom and Gomorrah

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (3, Interesting)

Hillgiant (916436) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259233)

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

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

Why should such an ambiguous system be used?

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (3, Interesting)

mnooning (759721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259693)

To me, the question "Why should such an ambiguous system be used?" is fundamental -pun inteneded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (0, Flamebait)

Velex (120469) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259287)

Fine. I'll bite, just because you were modded up.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine the word fundamentalism. Genesis doesn't say crap about an atmosphere or about astronomical bodies. Additionally, the fundamentals that most of you believe in often seem to relate to persecution of others. Black people are black because your god marked them as slaves. Women should be property because of something some chick did in a garden once. Homosexuals are completely unnatural, despite evidence that homosexuality exists in the supposedly "untainted" animal kingdom, and they're incapable of experiencing the same kind of love as heterosexuals, because, well, because when you cheat on your wife or husband you need some reason to feel good about yourself and better than somebody else.

Nice troll, though. I'm not holding my breath to meet one of these "fundamentalists" who will defer to observations about the real world instead of the fantasy world inside their head, though.

Lies, lies, lies and yes! Yet more lies! (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259039)

This stuff's all gibberish, NONE of these kids understand either religion or science at all. False opposite stereotyping of reality based psychosis with a parental paranoid bent. I've never seen North Koreans type any item so dumb, but then again they're all witches. You can tell by their badge :0)

Thank Science for that! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259055)

Thank Science for that!

Christianity (3, Interesting)

puddingebola (2036796) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259089)

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

Re:Christianity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259151)

According to the Wikipedia page, Christianity came to South Korea in the 17th century. When the more obnoxious form of modern fundamentalist Christianity arrived, with anti-science creationism, I'm not sure.

Probably somewhere between the time the number of christians started dropping and they started blaming science for it.

Re:Christianity (4, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259321)

According to the Wikipedia page, Christianity came to South Korea in the 17th century. When the more obnoxious form of modern fundamentalist Christianity arrived, with anti-science creationism, I'm not sure. Or maybe that statement is a bit ridiculous, since anti-science creationism is part of the original philosophy. Does anyone have any insight into the history of this form of evangelical Christianity?

I don't know about the history of Christianity specifically in Korea, but I do know that even the term "fundamentalism" as applied to Christianity didn't exist until the early 20th century. (It's derived from The Fundamentals, a series of conservative Christian essays published between 1910 and 1915.) For most of Christian history, the Bible was interpreted metaphorically in areas where a literal interpretation would lead to absurd results. Even St. Augustine, a highly conservative Christian writing in the 4th-5th century, said that Christians should not hold up the faith to ridicule by insisting on a literal interpretation of the Bible: "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

Fundamentalism is not a pre-modern ideology, but a specific reaction to modernity. The same is true of Islamic Wahabbism, which is akin to Christian Fundamentalism in many ways. They think they are "that old time religion" but they are actually nothing of the sort. A medieval Christian or Muslim would have found these ideologies both repulsive and unrecognizable.

Re:Christianity (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259473)

They think they are "that old time religion" but they are actually nothing of the sort.

Everyone wants to turn the clock back to those Good Old Days that never existed.

Re:Christianity (1)

puddingebola (2036796) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259491)

Found several pages using the Augustine quote, none referencing it in his writings unfortunately. City of God I would imagine. "We will pray to Aphrodite She's beautiful but flighty In her silken see-thru nightie She's good enough for me. "

Re:Christianity (0)

mnooning (759721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259373)

In the first place, Jesus never mentioned anything about any scientific topic. It was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, that most pushed for the big ban theory, which was advanced science in that day. It was the atheists that were anti-science then, with their now-debunked "Static" theory. The anti-science business we are dealing with now is strictly a reaction to the theory of evolution. Those who want to take the Bible strictly literally need a 7 day creation. If the theory of evolution is correct - which I believe it is - then creation could not have been done in 7 days. At rock bottom, they know their experiences with God are real, so they just cannot understand why science says what it says. They think they have to chose between God and science.

Re:Christianity (5, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259607)

It was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, that most pushed for the big ban theory, which was advanced science in that day. It was the atheists that were anti-science then, with their now-debunked "Static" theory.

Actually, until 80-90 years ago no one knew that there was anything in the universe beyond our galaxy. (Hubble was the first to show the distances to objects outside our galaxy, before he showed that they were receding; Einstein's "big mistake" was made before we understood the basic nature of the universe.) Lemaître was the first to grok the implications of of an expanding universe. Religionists like to claim that scientists booed him down as a creationist, but the only scientist I have found that did that was Hoyle, who I suspect was just slinging mud in hope of defending his pet continuous-creation theory. (Which, IIRC, he was still clinging to 20 years after the big bang was obvious to everyone else.)

We need balance. There should be counter examples. (0, Offtopic)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259097)

If science books are going to include examples of evolution, then, to provide balance, they must include examples of devolution. Creationists and fundamentalists should be cited as examples of the Theory of Devolution, which claims human beings are degenerating and they will eventually become chimpanzees or gorillas.

Re:We need balance. There should be counter exampl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259505)

You should be cited along with them as someone who'd rather see discord over reason.

Please, stop that insanity! (0)

aglider (2435074) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259117)

We can put evolution theory in science books because we have "scientific" (which rhymes with "science") evidence that the theory is reasonable and makes some sense with the observations anyone can do.
We could put intelligent design and creationism in science books if we had some similar evidence. Which we have not.

Do you want to promote you theory? Well, create a new course, call it "religion", convince your Govt. to add it to schools (some countries have that) and put there your 6-days creation process. None will be allowed to stand out against it, for sure.

But don't even think to put non-scientific stuff in a science book. Please!

Re:Please, stop that insanity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259305)

Do you want to promote you theory? Well, create a new course, call it "religion", convince your Govt. to add it to schools (some countries have that) and put there your 6-days creation process

Only if that course is a survey of all the major world religions, past and present, with no particular emphasis on Christianity. Christians already have their own class that they can take, it's called going to church on Sunday.

Re:Please, stop that insanity! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259637)

"scientific" (which rhymes with "science")

o.O

So the "fic" is silent?

Holy cow, have I been saying it wrong all these years! Why did no one say anything!!

Why is this even a issue ? (1, Insightful)

jonfr (888673) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259121)

Why on Earth is this even an issue ? It is clearly that creationism is nothing but religious fundamentalism Taliban style. I have grown tiered of people are undermining society, democracy , technical progress and science with there own stupidity and religious fundamentalism. This is an non-issue. The creationisms are wrong. Have always been wrong. All there arguments are lies and always will be that.

This people are best put silent by telling to shut the fuck up! Preferably forever.

I know that I am going to flamed for this by religious fundamentalists that lurk slashdot for this type of comments and articles. But I do not care. As I know that I am right and they are wrong.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (0, Offtopic)

mat.power (2677517) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259257)

Or we could, you know, present both possibilities and let people decide from themselves instead of trying to force one theory or the other down someone's throat. I'd imagine, when presented with the facts, most people would look to science for the answer in this debate, but I don't see the need to force one argument or the other.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259329)

Sure, one gets presented in a science class, and if people choose they can go to various churches to hear about creationism.

My issue is with how you're presenting this like there's some kind of a debate or arguement between two possibilities and there just isn't. It's not a choice between teaching evolution or teaching 'creationism' (which flavour are we talking about anyway?). If it's a school it should be teaching the evidence, the methods on how we collected and analysed that evidence, and yes, the current conclusions based on that evidence.

Why don't we teach hay-based networking to future system administrators? Because there's no evidence that hay works to transmit packets. The moment there is evidence that its a feasable technology we'll start teaching it. In the same way, the moment there is any objective, verifyable evidence to creationism then it's welcome to the discussion table.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259647)

Or we could, you know, present both possibilities and let people decide from themselves instead of trying to force one theory or the other down someone's throat. I'd imagine, when presented with the facts, most people would look to science for the answer in this debate, but I don't see the need to force one argument or the other.

So, schools should teach children *everything* we know not to be true, and let them decide for themselves which to believe?

Or only teach them the science plus one powerful group's religious beliefs?

Or, heaven forbid (no pun), we could just teach them the science and leave *everyone's* mythology out of it.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (1)

jonfr (888673) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259681)

You can also get to choose to have your brain removed. No there is no option here. You can always ask that tooth fairy and biology of trolls to be taught as science in school class.

Creationism is not an argument. This is an ideology that has only one goal. Destroy science, democracy and progress. Since they find the dark ages to be dream place.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259265)

Why on Earth is this even an issue ? ... As I know that I am right and they are wrong.

You answered your own question, they use the same statement.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (1, Informative)

jonfr (888673) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259715)

>You answered your own question, they use the same statement.

No. They don't use the same statement. Creationism uses false arguments (known as lies) to back up there "claims" on the world. Not an mountain of data is going to convince them about them being wrong on this. Since truth is something they do not care about at all. If it did. Creationism would not exist at all.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259293)

I think ultimately, the reason is that a number of people want absolute certainty and security in their lives. Scientific knowledge doesn't offer either. It's very nature makes things uncertain and you most certainly can't know more than a little bit of all the scientific knowledge out there (as a human). Further, it is very disruptive. Many disruptions in our lives and in our history came from fairly simple discoveries or inventions derived from scientific discovery.

So to have the illusion of absolute certainty and security in your belief system, you need to exclude to some degree scientific knowledge and ideas. It's not enough to ignore science in order to exclude it, it has to be wrong.

I think fundamentally that's what creationism is about. It's not about the world being created in a short period of time by a God, it's about science being absolutely wrong in one of its greatest claims. Hence, one can discount in their minds everything that has similar scientific support ("because you're wrong about evolution, then you have to be wrong about anything else that I believe in"). That removes a great source of uncertainty and fear from their lives.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259451)

That removes a great source of uncertainty and fear from their lives.

I think you may have just discovered why the meme of religion is so infectious. It's not because it's right or wrong, it's because it lets people feel like there is something that will never change. This idea is very comforting to people who live in a world that exists in a state of perpetual change.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259643)

One merely needs to look at the propaganda of religion to see this. For example, the Christian song, "Rock of Ages" emphasizes the security and unchanging nature of God compared to human works. Similar claims of security or unwavering purpose appear in every other major religion.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259385)

Probably because even Darwin's book has only been published for the last 153 years and it's competing with cultural memes that go back much much further than that and are often considered core aspects of self-identity of those who hold them.

It's also worth noting that telling someone to shut the fuck up rarely does anything but piss them off and entrench their beliefs.

Go do some yoga or something, i'd be concerned about your blood pressure.

Re:Why is this even a issue ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259617)

The CIA runs the Taliban and Al Queda, look it up

unbiased and controversial (0, Flamebait)

deodiaus2 (980169) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259703)

I think there should be far more discussion in the schools of the falacy of religion. It should be done under the guise of critical thinking. Students should be actively pushed to write papers and have public debates poining out the falacies of religion. Simple subjects like, "Why Believe in God", and a good discussion of "The Suffering of Little Children" from "Brothers Kramozov" should start things rolling around. More active discussions should include "The God Dilusion" by Dawkins, and pretty soon, most priests will be pissed off.

Science? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259123)

Yes, let's definitely insist that the ONLY possible explanation that's "scientific" involves pre-existent matter, pre-existent energy and pre-existent natural and physical laws...not to mention the entire "evolutionary process" having NO means to add information. That's clearly more "scientific"...

Re:Science? (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259379)

Yes, let's definitely insist that the ONLY possible explanation that's "scientific" involves pre-existent matter, pre-existent energy and pre-existent natural and physical laws...not to mention the entire "evolutionary process" having NO means to add information. That's clearly more "scientific"...

Basic creationist 'logic':

Everything requires a cause.
Therefore God must exist.
(God doesn't require a cause.)

Science is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259133)

Science is man's description of God's creation.

Re:Science is (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259239)

Science is man's description of God's creation.

God is men's description of their own ignorance.

Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (5, Funny)

ACK!! (10229) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259141)

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

Re:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (5, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259219)

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

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

Re:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259225)

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

oblig xkcd: http://xkcd.com/54/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259471)

Sadly also appropriate: http://xkcd.com/154/

Re:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259279)

How so? The age of the universe was 13.7 billion years in 2006, now its 14.6 billion years old.
According to science, the universe has aged 900 million years in just six years.

Evolution is total crap. I take the account of creation in Genesis literally because its true.

The good thing about God is he exists whether or not you believe in him.

Re:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (1, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259433)

The good thing about God is he exists whether or not you believe in him.

Here's wondering how many other societies thought the same about their own imaginary divinities, who you dismiss as superstitions.

Re:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259711)

How so? The age of the universe was 13.7 billion years in 2006, now its 14.6 billion years old.
According to science, the universe has aged 900 million years in just six years.

Details of your statement aside, you have inadvertently alighted on the fundamental difference between science and religion: when new evidence comes in, science is obligated to change their theories to account for it, whereas religion is obligated to deny the evidence in order to preserve their beliefs.

Re:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259431)

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

Although it sounds like a good soundbite, it is meaningless, as any religious person could say the same about God.

"Society for Textbook Revise"? (2)

seven of five (578993) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259319)

I think South Korea's education system may have more pressing problems...

Re:"Society for Textbook Revise"? (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259401)

I think South Korea's education system may have more pressing problems...

Once they get rid of evolution, grammar's next on the hit list.

Re:"Society for Textbook Revise"? (3, Funny)

MiniMike (234881) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259419)

Quick- add a section on the evolution of grammar, and watch their heads explode!

Re:"Society for Textbook Revise"? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259623)

They are very good on literacy in Hangul (highest rate in the world) but apparently Engrish is still causing problems.

still a bad sign (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41259525)

Science only one this round because it happened to complain the loudest ("sparking outrage among some scientists"), it could have very well worked out the other way.
We shouldn't be deciding what is taught based on popular opinion or who had the loudest voice in expressing their opinion instead based on what is true and verifiable.
I think the age of science is ending, it is the dawn of the age of stupidity.

You can't explain that! (2)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about a year and a half ago | (#41259563)

evolution of the horse

I'm sorry, but science simply cannot explain how the pegasus (equus aves) and unicorn (equus magicus) arose from the earth pony (equus terra) without intervention from the goddess Faustia.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...