Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Books Censorship Science

South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks 640

Posted by timothy
from the this-from-that-or-maybe-not dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks

Comments Filter:
  • How appropriate (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @08:54AM (#40218747)

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

  • Fan death (Score:5, Informative)

    by ZiakII (829432) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:00AM (#40218827)
    This is also the country that believes in death by sleeping in a room with a fan. [wikipedia.org]
  • Not good... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sasayaki (1096761) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:02AM (#40218853)

    ... but it could be worse. At least it didn't "teach the controversy" by adding in Intelligent Design [s]lies[/s]alternatives, and just removed a few examples. It doesn't seem more than this.

    For now.

    My face: :(

  • by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:05AM (#40218871)

    40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”

    In other news, much of the scientific community doubts that teacher education occurs.

    • Yep. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Benfea (1365845) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:30AM (#40219147)
      Many high school teachers still teach that a scientific theory "becomes a law" after testing, when in fact theories and laws are entirely separate things. Much is wrong with our science education in this country, I'm afraid, and bronze age fairy tales are only part of the problem. :(
  • The thing is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:10AM (#40218953)

    the examples mentioned aren't accepted as valid science by evolutionists anymore either. Several items in the standard textbook 'horse' series are known to not be horses at all and archaeopteryx is known to be a full-fledged (pun intended) bird.

  • by Nethead (1563) <joe@nethead.com> on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:20AM (#40219057) Homepage Journal

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

  • Bad examples, anyway (Score:5, Informative)

    by ColoradoAuthor (682295) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:22AM (#40219071) Homepage

    Whichever side of the origins debate one subscribes to, good riddance to the horse and Archaeopteryx examples!

    The typical horse progression still shown in many textbooks is oversimplified and incorrect [wikipedia.org]. The "horses" shown in the progression, particularly Eohippus, really belong on "branches" of a quite complex tree. I know I've personally met creationists for whom learning about the incorrectness of that picture was the turning point in their abandonment of textbook paleobiology.

    Likewise, the Archaeopteryx [wikipedia.org] is often criticized as a particularly weak example even by the most dedicated evolutionists. Archaeopteryx may yet be accepted as an early member of Avialae, but there just isn't sufficient evidence of that yet.

    • by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:36AM (#40219247) Journal

      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!"

      • by tbannist (230135)

        Well, that is the reason that I stopped obeying the laws of motion and gravity, and if I hear any more about string theory, themodynamics is next.

  • by JustNiz (692889) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @09:26AM (#40219107)

    Anyone intelligent considers competing theories side by side until one is proved. Any good theory should be able to stand on its own merit.

    The fact that creationists are apparently so threatened by the theory of evolution as to conduct radical acts of censorship is a clear indicator even they secretly acknowledge that evolution theory has substance.

    By their own ill-conceived actions, creationists are making it self-evident that creationism must be no more than a logically inconsistent nursery tale who's only market are those with low enough IQ to not be able to reason.

  • Bigoted language (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mykos (1627575) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @10:01AM (#40219569)

    Silence is not the answer, says Dayk Jang. He is now organizing a group of experts, including evolutionary scientists and theologians who believe in evolution

    We're never going to get anywhere if even an article that supports science uses this kind of bigoted language. Do scientists "believe in" gravity? Do scientists "believe in" relativity?

    • by DeeEff (2370332) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @10:23AM (#40219901)

      Do scientists "believe in" gravity? Do scientists "believe in" relativity?

      Gravity? That would imply that the Earth is not flat and satan isn't trying to pull us down to hell, which is why we stick to the Earth.

      Brush up on your bible son, if you don't want to look like an idiot.

  • Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kimvette (919543) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @01:48PM (#40222963) Homepage Journal

    I propose a simple solution for schools:

    Present three popular theories:

    1. Evolutionary theory
    2. Creation story from Genesis
    3. Pastafarian story of creation

    Since none can be proven with absolutely 100% certainty due to missing evidence, teach critical thinking and logic instead, and turn this into an exercise in debate, hand the students an unbiased guide (or really, a balanced guide with each section written by "experts" in each respective theory, giving each equal weight) containing empirical evidence of each of the three theories, then assign each debate team one of the three positions (whether or not the members of that team agree with the assigned position) and prepare arguments for and against each theory. I think that given evidence and proper training in critical thinking and logic, you are teaching students to examine the evidence, think the problem through and arrive at the correct conclusion, i.e., you are teaching people to think for themselves. I think this approach would make everyone happy - or at least any rational person should be satisfied. Tell the irrational fools who would get "offended" to STFU and deal with it. :-)

"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin

Working...