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

boramk said:
http://io9.com/5915908/south-korea-will-remove-evolution-from-its-high-school-textbooks

A step backwards for a country that is technologically advanced. Christians are only 25% of the country, but they are a very vocal minority, of which I'd say the majority are YEC fundamentalists.

This was never a problem, as the world grows more secular, the beleaguered will be more aggressive. As bad as this backwardness is, its just the final push of the dwindling imo.
Click to expand...

Seems they want to slow down their education system so North Korea can catch up.
 
Techne said:
It is not empirical science anymore when people try to inject metaphysics into the discussion.
Click to expand...

The thing about philosophy is that not one person is right or wrong isn't it? There are or will be opposing views. For example here is a view on metaphysics:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
 
I know how we can solve this. Lets gather all the data and study it rigorously and scientifically. :D
 
boramk said:
The thing about philosophy is that not one person is right or wrong isn't it? There are or will be opposing views. For example here is a view on metaphysics:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Click to expand...
There are still people who think philosophy and metaphysics are useless or do not contribute any real knowledge. They usually end up making metaphysical statements about reality themselves which is ironic and self-refuting. Either inform yourself with proper philosophy and metaphysics or do not make any metaphysical statement about reality. I suggest the former as the latter is going to make you a very silent chap.
 
Techne said:
"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.
Click to expand...

exactly. however my definition may not suit your definition, but we may both look at something and and agree on the remark that it seems fit. these are just observations and may be true or entirely false, but our remarks do not make something :)
 
smalltownsky said:
exactly. however my definition may not suit your definition, but we may both look at something and and agree on the remark that it seems fit. these are just observations and may be true or entirely false, but our remarks do not make something :)
Click to expand...
Why do you think "we can both look at something and and agree on the remark that it seems fit" if we don't even know what "fit" actually means?
 
Techne said:
Why do you think "we can both look at something and and agree on the remark that it seems fit" if we don't even know what "fit" actually means?
Click to expand...

we would obviously have our own definitions and ideas of what fit is. we can look at an athlete next to a fat person and deduce that the athlete is more fit, as an example. if you mean fit as in "survival of the fittest", it is basically the animal that can outrun the other animals when chased by predators, than can survive anything thrown at it and reproduce for another generation
 
Techne said:
Why do you think "we can both look at something and and agree on the remark that it seems fit" if we don't even know what "fit" actually means?
Click to expand...

Don't do it small. He knows the philosophy so he knows the world and everything..
 
smalltownsky said:
we would obviously have our own definitions and ideas of what fit is. we can look at an athlete next to a fat person and deduce that the athlete is more fit, as an example. if you mean fit as in "survival of the fittest", it is basically the animal that can outrun the other animals when chased by predators, than can survive anything thrown at it and reproduce for another generation
Click to expand...
There is a difference between being physiologically fit and "fitness" in evolutionary terms, correct. We are talking about evolutionary fitness. Your example appears to do with physiological fitness (survival of the physiologically fit and fast) of animals being hunted. Not quite the "fitness" when people talk about evolutionary fitness. Don't confuse the two.
 
Techne said:
There is a difference between being physiologically fit and "fitness" in evolutionary terms, correct. We are talking about evolutionary fitness. Your example appears to do with physiological fitness (survival of the physiologically fit and fast) of animals being hunted. Not quite the "fitness" when people talk about evolutionary fitness. Don't confuse the two.
Click to expand...

How do you define evolutionary fitness then?
 
Fudzy said:
How do you define evolutionary fitness then?
Click to expand...
There is still a debate on what exactly it is so my view is not set in stone and I am still reading about current opinions. Though I favour it as some sort of intrinsic propensity.
 
What splendid news !

Anyway you don't actually need religion to achieve this, amoeba-to-man evolution has been shown to be pseudo-science, at best, in and of itself and as such certainly does not belong in school text books.
 
Evolution science only goes back like 200 years atm, it's not suppose to be about the creation of man.
 
Fudzy said:
How do you define evolutionary fitness then?
Click to expand...
My interpretation is fitness= those having the properties best suited to survive in their particular environment.

Fish have properties making their survival in water more likely than mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X