Science wins over creationism in South Korea

14

Government asks publishers to retain examples of evolution in science textbooks.


South Korea’s government has urged textbook publishers to ignore calls to remove two examples of evolution from high-school textbooks.

The move follows a campaign earlier this year by the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), which argued that details about the evolution of the horse and of the avian ancestor Archaeopteryx should be removed from the books (see ‘South Korea surrenders to creationist demands’).

The STR, an offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research, says that students should learn “various” theories about the development of life on Earth. It argued that the textbooks used flawed examples of evolution that are under debate by evolutionary scientists.

In May, news emerged that publishers were planning to drop the offending sections, sparking outrage among some scientists. The resulting furore prompted the government to set up an 11-member panel, led by the Korean Academy of Science and Technology (KAST) and including five experts on evolution and fossils, to oversee science-textbook revisions (see ‘Expert panel to guide science-textbook revisions in South Korea’).

 

Written By: Soo Bin Park – nature.com
continue to source article at nature.com

14 COMMENTS

  1.   The STR, an offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research,

    “Korea Association for Creation Research” – oxyMORON of the month!!!

    .. . .. .  says that students should learn “various” theories about the development
    of life on Earth.

    So having demonstrated a total lack of science research skills, it goes on to  prove its utter scientific incompetence, as it does not know what a “scientific  theory” is!

  2. “Mr. Lee is glad the STR campaign provided an opportunity to improve science textbooks”

    That’s making lemon-aid out of lemons; he’s open to suggestions regarding evolution, but not creationist c***.
    Let’s hope the lemon-aid stand soon runs out of juice (pun intended).

  3. The STR responded to the news by claiming that the government showed bias in excluding STR members from the expert panel, and says that it will keep fighting for “better” science textbooks. 

    I guess they also excluded Bozo the clown…

  4. Disappointed that a science magazine with Nature’s stature misuses the verb believe. Surely: understand? As in:

    Those who believe in Creationism vs. those who understand Evolution

    Peace

  5. publishers were planning to drop the offending sections????

    Erm excuse me,  explanations of evolution offensive?

    These people will one day take fright at the sight of their own arseholes. 

    They need to take a long look at the bible and its plagiarism the koran, remove all the offensive sections and print what’s left.  It will save a lot of ink and a lot of trees.

  6. What does that mean: “45% believed in evolution and 32% believed in creationism”? I can get the believing in creationism as it is non scientific, but personally I don’t believe in evolution, I think evolution is currently the best explanation for the diversity of species. I also think that it will remain so but that doesn’t mean I “believe” in evolution.
     
    I can only believe something that has no scientific explanation. For example, I don’t believe in tectonics, I know there is a good scientific explanation for the current position of the continents, however when my friend says that his holiday was nice, I believe him, simply because there is no scientific explanation for it but I trust my friend that he tells me the truth.
     
    So what does it mean when 45% of the South Koreans believe in evolution. Do they just take the scientists word for it or have they been educated to look up the proof and conclude that the proof is sound?

  7. It’s not even a theory! What exactly do they want to be taught!? There’s nothing to teach about Creationism. What? Just copy & paste Genesis 1 into the textbook? That’s it. That’s all they have. Sick of it.

  8. …or the earth being flat.

    Some nonsense is more attention-grabbing than other nonsense. Why?
                                                                     
                                                                                          Daniel C. Dennett, ‘Breaking the Spell’

  9. Some of the wording concerns me. The title gives the false impression of a slam dunk. Not with these qualifiers -

    “SK government has URGED textbook publishers”, and “textbook publishers will be ASKED to report on how they have implemented these revisions”.

    The STR could still finagle its way into textbooks via good old fashioned palm greasing.

  10. The STR responded to the news by claiming that the government showed bias in excluding STR members from the expert panel,

    I suppose those with 2,000 year-old fossil brains, would not be able to work out, that to be on an expert biology panel, you need to be an expert in biology!  (Expertise in bullshitting does not count!)

Leave a Reply