'South Korea will remove evolution from its high school textbooks'

TJ99 said:
The article doesn't mention a court case. The creationists just went to the textbook publishers directly and somehow strong-armed them to remove the "error" that the Archaeopteryx is an ancestor of modern birds.
Click to expand...
Ah so I see. My bad. I don't know why I thought I had read about a court case. It was just a petition sent out by the government.
 
porchrat said:
Ah so I see. My bad. I don't know why I thought I had read about a court case. It was just a petition sent out by the government.
Click to expand...

Not even the government, it's an independent creationist organisation. Looks like their version of the Dis[-]honesty[/-]covery Institute. Which is why I'm wondering how they managed to convince/intimidate the publishers.

Here's the original article from Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773
 
Religion and Evolution should be treated in the same light. They are both unconfirmed theories. Sure there is more evidence of evolution but still not 100% confirmed. Having said that, I think religion should stay out of schools all together and people should go to church if they want to learn and believe in a religion but must not be brainwashed into it at a young age.
 
ChocolateBadger said:
Religion and Evolution should be treated in the same light. They are both unconfirmed theories. Sure there is more evidence of evolution but still not 100% confirmed. Having said that, I think religion should stay out of schools all together and people should go to church if they want to learn and believe in a religion but must not be brainwashed into it at a young age.
Click to expand...

you're kidding? evolution is proven 100% accurate, just as gravity is
 
smalltownsky said:
you're kidding? evolution is proven 100% accurate, just as gravity is
Click to expand...
I don't know how you can claim that if there is not even an agreed upon definition for fitness and natural selection...

Anyway, it appears there was a lobby to update some of the outdated concepts (such recapitulation) and remove what they deem controversial examples of evolutionary changes.
 
ChocolateBadger said:
Please explain why it is still called The Theory of Evolution
Click to expand...

Gravity is a fact - the Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact - the Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact - the Germ Theory explains how germs cause diseases.

Evolution is a fact - the Evolutionary Theory explains how it works.

You would not deny that electricity is real, germs make you sick and that gravity is real, but now you question evolution because it is not as common in every day life?

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
 
ChocolateBadger said:
Please explain why it is still called The Theory of Evolution
Click to expand...

The Theory (body of knowledge derived from observations and experimentation) is called The theory of Evolution. The observed fact that lifeforms undergo changes throughout generations is just called evolution.

The Theory (body of knowledge derived from observations and experimentation) is called The theory of Gravity. The observed fact that stuff is attracted to other stuff is just called "Gravity".

The Theory (body of knowledge derived from observations and experimentation) is called The Germ theory of disease. The observed micro-organisms that live on, in and around us and can sometimes make us sick, are called "Germs".

Etc. Here's what a scientific theory means:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Edit: Wow, same thing posted at the same time, freaky.
 
Techne said:
I don't know how you can claim that if there is not even an agreed upon definition for fitness and natural selection...

Anyway, it appears there was a lobby to update some of the outdated concepts (such recapitulation) and remove what they deem controversial examples of evolutionary changes.
Click to expand...

just as there aren't agreed upon definitions for creation, God, souls, etc. fortunately evolution and mutations are a fact and are observable. Theory of Evolution as far as I know doesn't deal with where life originated, just how it evolves
 
smalltownsky said:
just as there aren't agreed upon definitions for creation, God, souls, etc. fortunately evolution and mutations are a fact and are observable. Theory of Evolution as far as I know doesn't deal with where life originated, just how it evolves
Click to expand...
"Evolution" and "mutation" are just terms to describe the concept of change. Biological change and changes in DNA. So your statement is trivially true. The Theory of Evolution is however constantly being updated and changed to suit the data. You can say the Theory of Evolution evolves :). And currently part of the debate revolves around what fitness and natural selection actually is as well as the roles acquired inheritance play.
 
Ekstasis said:
You're telling me that the whole ToE from beginning to end is scientific?
Click to expand...
It is not empirical science anymore when people try to inject metaphysics into the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X