South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks 640
Med-trump writes "A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory in South Korea last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx."
Re:Now watch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory question (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be silly. Creationists view of the world isn't relevant to an evidence based subject, i.e. science. Leave make believe to psychology and comparative religion classes.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
People familiar with evolution do not assume creationists are wrong. We know they are wrong based on observational science. Creation myth may be an interesting story to tell and an important part of our (or any other) culture, but for people to even take it seriously as fact is delusion held to the highest form of grandeur.
A more troubling fact (Score:5, Insightful)
40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”
In other news, much of the scientific community doubts that teacher education occurs.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:4, Insightful)
You can play "what if" games all day if you like. There's no evidence for any explanation besides evolution. There is no theory with anywhere near the explanatory power of evolution. Literally, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution".
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
They may very well be right! And if you have a [i]scientific[/i] hypothesis about the formation of the world that involves intervention by deities or supernatural forces or even [i]casts serious doubt on the validity of evolution without offering an alternative...[/i] please, step this way and collect your Nobel Prize.
I'm serious. If you could provide a peer reviewed, falsifiable, scientifically valid explaination for the formation of sentient life that relies on a deity you would win every Nobel Prize in the universe. Your name would be remembered alongside Einstein, Darwin, Oppenheimer... you would be hailed as a genius.
The problem is, creationism may be right. It may be 100% true and correct. Every word, every letter of the Bible could be correct. The problem is [i]proving it[/i].
I posit that the universe was created by Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. You always assume the Twilightests are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a unicorn or other means)*.
*Teaching of this philosophy is now illegal in all states of Australia after the Pinkie Pie/Twilight Sparkle Pony Cult Suicide of 2011.
Re:Fan death (Score:3, Insightful)
Fan death, so what? I believe in death by Snu Snu [youtube.com], still you don't see me running around, telling people horses don't have gills.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly because what you would call Young Earth Creationism isn't backed by any empirical data. I suppose it could be right, if a deity decided to set it up that way, but then, it still wouldn't be science because the situation was set up to evade scientific inquiry.
We need to remember, science is a method, it's not a philosophy. It may well be that the method doesn't explain everything, or it can't explain everything, but insofar as a class is about its application and results, it should teach what has been determined by that method.
It may be better for everyone involved to realize that science doesn't disprove religion any more than religion disproves science and stop being so sensitive about it.
Re:Oh no, It's spreading! (Score:5, Insightful)
As I currently live in Georgia (USA) , my first thought was " oh fuck, I can move to the other side of the planet and I still cant escape these assholes!"
In another words.... (Score:2, Insightful)
In another words.... creationists that advocate that there's no proof for evolutionary theory are able to exclude such proof from textbooks. Is it just me who thinks this is fsck up logic?! "Hey, there's no proof"... Creationists find out there's proof, complains about being given more focus on evolution since there's proof and proof is removed from textbooks.... next it'll be: creationists exclaim (once again) "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?!? THERE'S NONE!!!"..... Fscked up indeed.
Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about education. What's happening is certain groups are training people to believe things are true based on "because I say so" instead of "I can prove it". Pretty scary, if you think about the implications.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
Observational science doesn't disprove ideas about origins. Those ideas can't be tested scientifically. All that can be done really is to interpret the data in the context of your preferred presuppositional research framework. That's what materialistic scientists do... that's what scientists who believe in a young universe do.
Again, this is wrong. The "Young Universe" so-called theory can easily be tested scientifically, and every bit of data says that it's false. In fact, it is for that reason it should not even be called a theory since theories are supposed to have the benefit of empirical data to back them up.
The true nature of intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone intelligent considers competing theories side by side until one is proved. Any good theory should be able to stand on its own merit.
The fact that creationists are apparently so threatened by the theory of evolution as to conduct radical acts of censorship is a clear indicator even they secretly acknowledge that evolution theory has substance.
By their own ill-conceived actions, creationists are making it self-evident that creationism must be no more than a logically inconsistent nursery tale who's only market are those with low enough IQ to not be able to reason.
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
"Scientists" who believe in a young universe are only able to maintain their position through lies and bad logic. Most creationists have been deceived, so we can't call them liars, but YEC "scientists" are in a position to actually know better, and so it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are lying.
When we have two competing theories, we meticulously go through all of the evidence and see how each theory explains the evidence. In every case, the Talking Snake Theory of Creation either offers no explanation, or offers an explanation that is the opposite of what we find in the evidence. The Talking Snake Theory of Creation is falsifiable and in fact has already been falsified. It is only taken seriously by the deceivers and the deceived.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
But this isn't a story about including creationism in the textbooks, it is about excluding evolution. So it seems that the creationists are also guilty of not wanting multiple points of view.
The big difference is that creationists will attempt to hide actual documented facts (eg. discovered fossils) that support another point of view. It is hardly suprising that, according to a survey of South Koreans, "41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support (evolution)". When those people are prevented from seeing any scientific evidence, then obviously they will think that none exists. It is just a pity that those people do not subject their own religious beliefs to the same level of scepticism and demands of evidence.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
How fast do you think continents move?
It took Hundred Of Millions Of Years for Rodinia to break up into the continents we have now.
Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now watch... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not becoming more organized, you are seeing patterns that are not there.
Intelligent Design is a nonsense term anyway, whoever designed the human eye for instance was an idiot. Somehow this same dimwit managed to give proper eyes to nautilus though. If you want to debate the existence of Idiotic Design, then we can have some philosophy, but still not science.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such evidence. The so called theory of irreducible complexity is utter nonsense.
I can see the merit in many theories, but those have to be testable and make useful predications. ID fails that test. It is a philosophy not science.
Re:Bad examples, anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I've personally met creationists for whom learning about the incorrectness of that picture was the turning point in their abandonment of textbook paleobiology.
I can't wait to hear stories about how people have abandoned physics when they discovered the model of the atom they learned in middle school was wildly simplified and only nominally correct.
"What do you mean "it's a field of probabilities." Fuck that!"
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about education. What's happening is certain groups are training people to believe things are true based on "because I say so" instead of "I can prove it". Pretty scary, if you think about the implications.
They *are* saying they can prove it, and then point to the Bible. What's really scary is when people just reply "Okay".
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dang (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you showed us. With all your examples & science.
Re:The true nature of intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
is that why the evolutionists had a fit when the Texas school system added the sticker in the front of the book that read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Re:Obligatory question (Score:2, Insightful)
okay if the Proof of Evolution is so solid then show me fossils of some sort of MACRO evolution. i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard).
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
A very eloquent illustration of why cognitive limitations coupled with self-enforced ignorance precludes the engagement of any sort of meaningful debate with the proponents of Creationism both individually and as a group. Well played sir, very well played.
Re:Dang (Score:4, Insightful)
[Proof Needed]
Re:Obligatory question (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so now that my post was modded down to -1,with 48 replies, I'm going to make another point.
I've obviously touched a nerve with the amount and content of the replies to this post. People are passionate about what they believe, and want to make sure that there is significant discussion around this topic. Yet, the post was modded down to -1. Why? Because it challenges the status quo?
What are we so passionate about defending, yet we're trying to silence critics. If the critics are wrong, lets move their arguments to the forefront and let them stand/fall on their own merit.
I believe you've been down-modded because others (like me) probably assumed you were trolling. If you say you were not trolling, fine, I accept that. It seems to me that your argument has indeed fallen "on its own merit".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” -- Arthur C. Clarke
Re:Now watch... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, of course, no evidence can ever disprove ID, because you can always say "Well God did it!"
It's the same principle behind people who are that we can never change the climate because the climate changes naturally all the time. Instead of "Well God did it!" the mantra is "Well Nature did it!" and no evidence can ever disprove the claim because whatever happens with the climate you can always shout "Well Nature did it!"
Claims that cannot be disproven are not science, although when you point this out to people making these types of arguments, they say, "But it is you making claims that cannot be disproven, not me!". These people are hopeless victims of cognitive dissonance [wikipedia.org].
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
Observational science doesn't disprove ideas about origins. Those ideas can't be tested scientifically. All that can be done really is to interpret the data in the context of your preferred presuppositional research framework. That's what materialistic scientists do... that's what scientists who believe in a young universe do.
Again, this is wrong. The "Young Universe" so-called theory can easily be tested scientifically, and every bit of data says that it's false. In fact, it is for that reason it should not even be called a theory since theories are supposed to have the benefit of empirical data to back them up.
Not when the answer you get is "that is how everything is created, to give you the illusion that evolution took/is taking place."
When a person looks at a problem with a predetermined solution, evidences can simply be twisted to fit that solution.
Once you believe that there is an omnipotent being who creates everything, it's not a stretch to makes everything around you fit into his/her/its whims.
As a Christian I think Evolution should be taught (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't understand why creationist must attack scientific facts. See I believe God created everything, I don't believe in a young earth. I believe that God created everything and set up the scientific principals that guide our lives (like Physics) so that we may understand his creation. If things didn't make sense and line up with science, I think this would cause more chaos then anything.
My pastor just preached on Genesis and I think made a good point (I was ready to walk out TBH is he was going to talk about young earth and stuff like that), he didn't protray Genesis 1 as a How/When but more of a Who/Why. Why we were created and who did it.
Also I think many people need to realize we are interpretting a book from an ancient language with only about what 1000 words (ancient hebrew) in it, to languages like English with Millions. God is about Faith. There is not enough evidence to prove nor disprove the existence of God. But things in my life and in nature make me have faith. Also, the probabilities of having all of this created by chance to be ridiculously small (IIRC I think throwing 50 yatzee's in a row has a higher probability happening than our earth being able to substain the life it has on it, and the 50 yatzee's in a row's probability is what most people would classify next to impossible, also I think if you take like 1million planets with 1million people each trying to throw 50 yatzee's in a row it's still in the probability most would consider next to impossible, anyways I forget the Math, and TBH doesn't matter,Faith is Faith) which tips me more towards God then away from Him. But that's just me.
I get why people attack Christians/Creationalist. Many are bigots, don't listen, do what I say not what I do, ignore evidence, refuse to listen to anything but agree'ing vewpoints, etc etc etc. But I'm not sure I would call many of them Christians to begin with. If more people who claimed to be Christian followed the 2 greatest commandments (first Love God with everything, 2nd Love neighbor as thyself) we might have a better reputation in the world.
Anyways, just my 2 cents.
Putting their money where their mouth is? (Score:5, Insightful)
No they don't. And we know they don't really believe what they say because they don't put their money where their mouths are.
Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could in those conditions? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually, seriously pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, you're right, people are being taught to accept an appeal to authority as "proof"
As a result, those students in geometry class would say: "You can't give me an 'F'... I proved those triangles are congruent by showing you where it says so in the book!"
Re:Did the world start spinning backwards? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean "letting"?
Government-funded education is, by it's nature, a political institution heir to all the compromises inherent to politics and the sport of changing, political winds. The assumption that all supporters of government-funded education make is that they'll be the ones directing public education since to think otherwise requires consideration of the possibilty that there are shortcomings to the idea and then those have to be dealt with. Much easier to simply assume that nothing objectionable will ever occur in public education and secretly keep your fingers crossed that it doesn't.
Well, the unacceptable inevitable is occurring and what's the response? Mostly name-calling. Religious people are stupid or insane or whatever other tedious bit of school yard invective those unwilling to accept the political nature of public education can conjure.
So there's no "letting" going on here but a perfectly legitimate outcome. Don't like the outcome? Maybe it's time to rethink government's role in education.
Re:Now watch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeing as how none of the clergymen I've seen in my neck of the woods are driving a car that cost less than $50,000, I'd say this is the more likely explanation.
I know, I know...they need that Cadillac to better spread God's Message.
Religion Ruins Everything (Score:4, Insightful)
I just see this as further proof that religion is dangerous and damaging to society, and should be banned outright in all forms, everywhere. If you ban every religion equally, then you can't claim inequality.
Honestly, as much of a dick as it may make me, I look down on people who believe in that nonsense. Use common sense and scientific evidence to form your opinions, and you will quickly see that religion is complete bullshit.
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Believing in organized religion as it is presented (a-la, creationism) proves you cannot perform necessary critical thinking which is a prerequisite of being 'smart' (especially in a scientific field). Therefore, anyone who believes fully in the presented form of an organized religion, is stupid.
Sorry to bust your bubble, and yes I'm an asshole, but that doesn't make it less true.
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
How, exactly, humans handle these curious feats of compartmentalization is an interesting question, into which I have no useful insight whatsoever; but that they can and (sometimes) do is simply a matter of historical fact.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just the god of the gaps argument in disguise. How come quantum mechanics cannot explain gravitation? Because G-d is moving things behind the scenes. And if quantum mechanics is ever fused with a gravitational theory, you'd find something else it doesn't explain, such as love, and then claim G-d must be the one to fill in the gap.
Are there gaps in the fossil record? Of course, but we find new fossils all the time. Years ago, no one knew where birds came from. So G-d had to do it. But then we started finding fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. In fact, science has even gotten so good that in some cases it can tell you the color of those feathers.
So go ahead and invent as many gaps as you like and spackle them over with G-d. Science will methodically plod on, sometimes revising theories, sometimes strengthening them, sometimes inventing new ones. One thing it won't ever do is claim something must be a certain way merely based on failures of the current theories to explain it.
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's perfectly possible(and has been done) for creationists(YECs, even) to do perfectly adequate science by means of some 'microevolution/macroevolution' flimflam, 'working out the implications of evolution as a contrafactual hypothesis', or simply not thinking about it much from Monday to Friday and thinking the opposite on Sundays.
Not really. I mean, you can do the technical work. But the real work of science is in integrating many different lines of evidence into a model and coming up with testable hypotheses. You can't do that without really thinking things through.
A creationist scientist is going to be a bad biologist. Still, he may be as good of a scientist as someone who is bad for other reasons. There are lots of barely competent people in academia actually. But a creationist will never excel in Biology.
Re:Dang (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kook [merriam-webster.com]
"one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane "
Only one of the three descriptors align with the notion that a kook has to be in the minority. A kook can be in the majority. It just means the majority have ideas or actions which are fantastic or insane
Also, I find it amusing how you claim to be on the side of religion, but you don't seem to practice one of the common teachings of religions, which is respect for others. Or does your religion teach you that calling people blind fools is a way of respect?
Re:Dang (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Insightful)
Since you're typing this on a computer (science - materials science, quantum physics, computational science) that's connected to millions of others, that runs reliably on well understood scientific concepts and that uses electricity, as well as all of the other millions of devices you use every day that work reliably thanks to all those same scientific principles that we've developed over the history of the human race, I hope you recognize the irony in questioning why we have confidence in the method and process of science and the people whose job it is to apply it.
The fact that we have limited brains and we know that they frequently deceive us is exactly the reason that we have a scientific method and process in the first place. There's no such thing as perfect truth, but we can certainly approach modeling reality with more and more exactness thanks to a self-correcting method. Humans may be flawed, but the universe has shown itself to be consistent and that we can figure it out to more and more degrees of precision despite those flaws. I'd say that's a hurdle worthy of being proud of overcoming. YMMV.
You're right. That's why we don't do this. Only you think we do.
Plenty of times. This is what makes science great: it's self-correcting. That's the entire point.
Unfounded assertion.
Reality does that, because science works. Science doesn't deal in opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
You miss the entire point of the scientific endeavor.
Your post was no so much original literature as it was the same rehashed "Hahaha! You think you're so smart, but you don't really know!!" tripe that we hear from anti-science creationists all the time and the only response it is worth of is, I repeat, "Science: it works. Bitches."
Re:Obligatory question (Score:4, Insightful)
He asked you to name a fact that supported creationism. You said "I accept natural selection as valid", which may or may not be a fact, but it isn't anything that supports creationism.
Look, if you want to take part in this type of debate, you need to be armed with the right tools. You believe (I assume, as you claim to be a creationist), that a Divine Entity created humans using His intelligence. A fact that supported that view would be, for instance, if we could talk to such a Divine Entity and he said that's how it went down (it wouldn't be proof, but it'd be a fact that could support your position). However there are no such facts and you have failed to provide any.
Re:Religion Ruins Everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Banning never works because superstition embraces martyrdom!
As an anti-theist, I suggest that exposure, scorn, and treating it with contempt so OTHERS are made comfortable scorning Superstition is the way to go.
There is no excuse for believing religion.
I defy any religionist to PROVE their Sky Fairie exists. Do it NOW, here, or fuck off.
Nonsense should be met with harsh debate and attack, not respect. People who believe in Superstition are generally incurable, but can be exposed as fools easily, so DO THAT, and reduce their number of converts. Slavery to Shamans is no fun, and feel free to point out the MOTIVE of Shamans in wanting to give YOU orders!
If someone attempts to direct your spiritual life, they are betraying you and they are your enemy.