

50% of South Korean biology teachers do not accept evolution - E-for-Endetta
http://www.nature.com/news/south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands-1.10773
Quotes from the article:<p>&lt;i&gt;A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory 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. ...<p>In a 2009 survey conducted for the South Korean documentary The Era of God and Darwin, almost one-third of the respondents didn’t believe in evolution. Of those, 41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support it; 39% said that it contradicted their religious beliefs; and 17% did not understand the theory. The numbers approach those in the United States, where a survey by the research firm Gallup has shown that around 40% of Americans do not believe that humans evolved from less advanced forms of life. ...<p>[A survey] also found that 40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”; and half disagreed that “modern humans are the product of evolutionary processes”. ... [T]here are only 5–10 evolutionary scientists in the country who teach the theory of evolution in undergraduate and graduate schools.&lt;&#x2F;i&gt;
======
harrytuttle
We should exclude such people from educational institutes by nature of belief.
They're not teaching science if they already have an agenda, bias or belief
and allow it to interfere with objectivity and professionalism. In fact any
religious school or education institute should be of independent of religion
how the church and state supposedly are.

This shit is unfortunately rife.

I had to explain this to my daughter's teacher who refused to teach evolution
under science, even though it is part of the curriculum in the UK at primary
level. The most annoying thing is that I was called into the (non-religious)
school because my 9 year old daughter said she didn't believe in god and the
teacher found it offensive and didn't want to teach her!

~~~
pdeuchler
It seems HN is just as prone to pulling out the "Save The Kids" rhetoric when
it suits them.

I wonder why you aren't lauding the NSA surveillance program, as it gives you
exactly the kind of ammunition to perform such thought police style
discrimination.

You will never agree with everyone. The solution is never to "exclude" or
"ban" a school of thought, but counteract it with logic and reason. I see no
harm in teaching both sides of human origin, it gives children the chance to
decide for themselves, and also offers parents a wonderful opportunity to
explain their own beliefs while rebutting any they don't agree with.

If a teacher is not teaching evolution perhaps they aren't performing their
job correctly, as opposed to being an insidious agent that must be removed due
to their crimethink. I hope you can see the difference between job performance
and belief systems.

~~~
harrytuttle
I think you have misinterpreted this entirely. This is not the "save the kids
rhetoric". This is simply stating that rationality should be preserved above
personal beliefs in education.

Your rhetoric is the typical miscalculated rebuttal against that attitude,
which I do not possess.

An opportunity to explain beliefs should be presented in the correct context
i.e. within the bounds of religious education, but that is it. The issue we
have here is that discussion is prevented if beliefs are questioned and people
are punished and threatened for questioning them.

That is not a belief system, nor is it something that should be promoted
anywhere. It is simply forced indoctrination.

By your logic, a geography teacher should teach that the earth is flat if they
are a member of the flat earth society.

~~~
pdeuchler
I don't think they _should_ , but I think they should be allowed to. You're
never going to stop crazy people from saying crazy things, and sometimes those
people might just happen to be teachers. Besides, if crazy ideas were verboten
in education we'd still be in the dark ages slinging arrows at each other.
Tenure was actually explicitly created for respected teachers to be able to
say crazy things without getting fired. What are you going to do when a
tenured professor starts teaching your child something you disagree with? Are
you going to go with the same heavy-handed approach?

If you have a problem with the way your child is taught, bring it up with the
teacher. Bring it up with the principal. Bring it up with the school board.
Ask your child to be moved to a different class/section. Ask your child to be
re-zoned. Or, all else failing, teach your own child. Maybe you should be more
concerned about hiring standards for our teachers, or maybe consistent
accreditation.

~~~
arrrg
(School) teacher aren’t researchers. So, yes, them telling bullshit to
children in class should get them fired pronto. They do not get academic
freedom nor should they. It’s not their job to push science ahead, it’s not
their job to do any research at all. If they think that’s their job then tough
luck. They picked the wrong career. And that’s it.

If school teachers teach crazy and not generally accepted stuff they are doing
it wrong and deserve to be fired.

Maybe I could have some sympathy if you were talking about university
education – but school teachers? I mean, what the fuck?!

------
protomyth
The Catholic Church's current belief is there is no conflict between evolution
and church teachings. They do believe evolution was divinely inspired. They
also go with the scientific theories on age of earth and gradual appearance of
life. Its interesting to see the difference between the actual Catholic
doctrine and those that broke away.

If the non-evolution Christian truly needs everything spelled out, Genesis
1:28[1] would probably explain it all. Kinda hard to have dominion if you
don't have a mechanism to change things. I would love the non-evolution
version of how we get good hunting dogs and modern cows?

1)
[http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-28/](http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-28/)

// ok, yes the Catholic Church did some bad things to scientists, I get that -
look at the current doctrine

~~~
kjackson2012
This. The Catholic Church supports both the Theory of Evolution and the Big
Bang Theory (no jokes about the TV show please). So don't blame the Catholic
Church for this one. Given that South Korea is split between Catholics and
Buddhists, it doesn't seem like there is a particularly religious reason for
this trend.

~~~
rdouble
South Korean christians are mostly protestants, not catholics.

edit: it looks like Catholicism has been growing over the past 10 years, but
there are still more Protestants.

In any case South Korea is not "split between Catholics and Buddhists," the
largest denomination is Presbyterian and 46% identify as not religious at all.

~~~
DanBC

         Christian        31.6% (Protestant 24%, Roman Catholic 7.6%)
         Buddhist         24.2%, 
         other or unknown  0.9%
         none             43.3% 
        (2010 survey)
    

([https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/...](https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/ks.html)) People and Society section.

------
yread
Have you guys seen the comments there? Is it usual that Nature is read by
people like that? What does God have to do with evolution anyway? Evolution is
falsifiable theory on which some very useful models (which work) are based.
They can believe in whatever they want, but they surely can't base any models
on "God created everything".

Everybody can program a little evolutionary algorithm yourself and see that it
can create something out of chaos... It works :)

~~~
inkaudio
Yes you are creating something out of chaos because you have an algorithm. No
algorithm, no programming means you can't create.

~~~
tomrod
Hi!

Have you ever played Conway's game of life?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life)

It hasno algorithm, only a few simple rules from which order arises from
chaos.

Give it a shot, you may like it.

As a practicing Christian, I see no reason evolution can't be exactly what we
scientists observe it to be: a process by which beneficial adaptations are
passed down to succeeding generations. Much like in software, where design
decisions pass down to future incarnations of concepts, like WASD for FPS game
control.

~~~
dllthomas
A few simple rules is quite arguably an algorithm.

Of course, one could say the laws of physics are the same...

~~~
tomrod
Yeah, that makes sense.

------
boneheadmed
Evolution can be further classified into "microevolution" and
"macroevolution". Evidence for microevolution is directly observable (e.g.
bacteria adapting to changes of nutrients in their environment, viruses
adapting to vaccines). However macroevolution has never been directly
observed. It is extrapolated from considering what occurs after a multitude of
generations of microevolution. An interesting new documentary examines this in
more detail: [http://evolutionvsgod.com/](http://evolutionvsgod.com/)

~~~
justinpombrio
No, but we have found millions of fossils in the ground from different time
periods, and it looks an awful lot like different species slowly changed over
time (and occasionally branched off or went extinct). If this weren't the
case, scientists wouldn't believe in macroevolution either.

~~~
bankIsSketch
The thing is - there ARE plenty of scientists who disagree; they are just
shunned by the rest of the academic circle-jerk for not following the wagon.
So you, as a potentially scientifically-literate individual, are the victim of
journal bias. Evolution is a _theory_ that is heavily debated- the cambrian
explosion is one such debate that specifically has evidence against what your
comment is. Too lazy to read? Watch the docu "Darwin's Dilemma"

~~~
Tichy
Science isn't democracy, things are not true or untrue depending on how many
people beliieve them. You can't vote gravity away, for example.

~~~
bankIsSketch
Journal bias circle-jerking can 'vote' science away. Watch this TED talk about
how journal bias is destroying the SCIENCE of medicine (Doctors don't know
about the Drugs They Prescribe):
[http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_kno...](http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html)

------
cm2012
I'm not really sure what to say, except wow. One interesting note: "However, a
survey of trainee teachers in the country concluded that religious belief was
not a strong determinant of their acceptance of evolution".

~~~
E-for-Endetta
I wonder why they do not accept evolution then. Any guesses? To me the single
most depressing line in the whole article must be this: "40% of biology
teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community
doubts if evolution occurs”; and half disagreed that “modern humans are the
product of evolutionary processes”."

~~~
Nursie
Sounds like the old "I'm not descended from a monkey!" thing to me.

------
driverdan
When your religious views conflict with reality it's time to re-evaluate your
religious views.

~~~
DanielStraight
The entire point of religious views is to provide another way of understanding
reality.

You presumably believe that science alone can explain reality. And that's
fine. But many people don't, and I'm not just talking about the traditionally
religious.

Scientifically, the "love" we have for our children is simply a genetically-
programmed strategy for best ensuring that our genes are passed to future
generations. It has no meaning.

In fact, scientifically, _nothing_ has any meaning. Whether we live or die
makes no difference at all, and when someone kills another, the only reason
it's "wrong" is because society is trying to preserve itself so that
individuals can pass on their genes to the next generation.

Again, if you're OK with this, that's fine. I'm not going to try to make you
change your mind. But hopefully you can understand why others, many others,
inform their view of reality with sources other than science.

------
inkaudio
I love science & technology therefore I'm alarmed because so many scientist
and technologist don't see the inherit paradox in evolution. Natural selection
makes it virtually impossible for animals to adapt via the proposed mutations.
Natural selection happens immediately, valuable life preserving mutations are
suppose occur (typically) over thousands of years.

To illustrate Arctic terns are dying because they are not able to adapt to
climate change. Arctic terns eat herrings a cold water fish, as the water gets
warmer, these fish seek colder waters, possible by going deeper in the waters.
According to biologist other birds in the Arctic can dive deeper to grab the
cold water fish Arctic terns cannot, so they and their chicks starve to death.
This is natural selection, there is no time to adapt via mutations,
adaptations must happening quickly.

~~~
salgernon
Congratulations, you are front row center to a mass extinction event. There
was not time for the dinosaurs to react to the meteor either.

~~~
kjackson2012
The theory that dinosaurs died due to a meteor is already outdated.

~~~
prawn
Is it? Are you being pedantic about the term "meteor" or is consensus behind
something other than a collision? Asking honestly and aware that Wikipedia
isn't always going to be correct. From Wikipedia:

"It is generally believed that the K-Pg extinction was triggered by a massive
comet/asteroid impact and its catastrophic effects on the global environment,
including a lingering impact winter..."

Same page then suggests volcanic activity, etc is a less popular theory.

~~~
kjackson2012
You probably won't read this, but:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/animal_fore...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/animal_forecast/2013/02/dinosaur_extinction_was_an_asteroid_the_only_cause_of_the_cretaceous_mass.html)

It's not enough that an asteroid hit the Earth, but it's such a simple theory
that everyone can remember, it has been popularized by everyone.

~~~
prawn
I thought it was a given (for anyone keen to read more than a headline) that
the impact implied a long period of changes and involved more than just the
strike itself?

I did assume however that volcanic activity could've been as a result of the
impact.

------
wnewman
That the South Korean school system would do this is discouraging, no
question. But I am also discouraged by how, when reading academic scientists
and academic journals (_Nature_ in this case), it seems considerably easier to
find concern about unscientific nonsense beloved of the right than about
unscientific nonsense beloved of the left.

E.g., individual genetic heritability is even more fundamental and even more
loudly supported by obvious evidence than evolution by natural selection. Yet
not only is this sometimes slighted in the high school curriculum, one can
find academic work from prestigious institutions that pretends heritability
does not exist (or is at least, for some unexplained reason, absolutely
negligible). See, e.g., Chan and Boliver "The Grandparents Effect in Social
Mobility",
[http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0006/papers/asronline.pdf](http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0006/papers/asronline.pdf)
(HT [http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/a-grandparent-
effect/](http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/a-grandparent-effect/)). It is not
easy (for this reader with a BS in Biology) to see why it's scientifically OK
to assume that heritability is negligible at the level of detail considered by
Chan and Boliver ("if mobility follows a first-order Markovian process";
"well-connected grandparents could also use their social contacts to help
grandchildren with job searches"; citations into a more than a decade of
research on multigenerational issues, e.g. the cite to Bengtson). It's easy to
see how this taboo can help produce useful political soundbites, and why the
BBC would take it and run with it
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23101446](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23101446)
. It's just hard to see why scientists wouldn't be concerned about this
behavior by the BBC and by the academic research community.

In general, it's sensible for a scientific journal to worry about unscientific
claptrap. However, specifically skipping over the unscientific claptrap
beloved of their faction in the BBC, in academic science, and in academic
journals in order to zero in on the unscientific claptrap of rival factions is
unbecoming in an organization that claims to be scientific. It doesn't
resemble science as much as it resembles sleazy-think-tank-style selective
invocation of research in order to advance a political agenda.

------
ivanhoe
When I see how Koreans are playing Starcraft I start to have doubts about
evolution myself...

~~~
dllthomas
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus)

------
i_got_created
Evolutionists should know other theories as well, or do they fear them?

[http://www.evolution-is-degeneration.com/](http://www.evolution-is-
degeneration.com/)

~~~
alayne
A book about evolution ... by a televangelist.

------
binderbizingdos
> do not believe in evolution

exactly... you need to believe in it because there can't be any proof as long
as we can't travel in time.

get over it and recognize that everything that goes beyond the scientific
method is mere speculation.

~~~
colinb
does recent historical record count, or do you need predictive results? Recent
historical examples include the Industrial Moth. If you want to predict some
evolution, pick an antibiotic and wait for it to become ineffective. Here's
more:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/46030115/142-Modern-Examples-of-
Ev...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/46030115/142-Modern-Examples-of-Evolution-in-
Action)

And while we're beating each other with the scientific method, I believe [!]
the onus is on those who think evolution to be an incorrect theory to provide
a result that falsifies the premise.

FWIW, if you haven't read The Origin of Species, I can't recommend it strongly
enough. It is my opinion Darwin is a better writer than Dawkins, Gould or
Jones. The man could put together a lovely sentence.

