Science Wins Over Creationism In South Korea 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."
Re:don't you know? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
"Teach the controversy" my ass. (Score:0, Interesting)
They're not even just pushing religion into science class anymore. Now they're actually trying to censor information that contradict their dogma. Pathetic.
This fundamentalist applauds loudly (Score:1, Interesting)
Christianity (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember, God is here calling the "dome" sky. (verse 8) See http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1 [usccb.org]
Re:"Teach the controversy" my ass. (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Neil DeGrasse quote instantly came to mind. (Score:5, Interesting)
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:This fundamentalist applauds loudly (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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..