Image: Klaus Honal/Naturfoto Honal/CORBIS
-
Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?
Why do testicles hang the way they do? Is there an adaptive function to the female orgasm? What does it feel like to want to kill yourself? Does “free will”...
Read More »
From Nature magazine
Mention creationism, and many scientists think of the United States, where efforts to limit the teaching of evolution have made headway in a couple of states. But the successes are modest compared with those in South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science.
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. The move has alarmed biologists, who say that they were not consulted. “The ministry just sent the petition out to the publishing companies and let them judge,” says Dayk Jang, an evolutionary scientist at Seoul National University.
The campaign was led by the Society for Textbook Revise (STR), which aims to delete the “error” of evolution from textbooks to “correct” students’ views of the world, according to the society’s website. The society says that its members include professors of biology and high-school science teachers.
The STR is also campaigning to remove content about “the evolution of humans” and “the adaptation of finch beaks based on habitat and mode of sustenance”, a reference to one of the most famous observations in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. To back its campaign, the group highlights recent discoveries that Archaeopteryx is one of many feathered dinosaurs, and not necessarily an ancestor of all birds2. Exploiting such debates over the lineage of species “is a typical strategy of creation scientists to attack the teaching of evolution itself”, says Joonghwan Jeon, an evolutionary psychologist at Kyung Hee University in Yongin.
The STR is an independent offshoot of the Korea Association for Creation Research (KACR), according to KACR spokesman Jungyeol Han. Thanks in part to the KACR’s efforts, creation science — which seeks to provide evidence in support of the creation myth described in the Book of Genesis — has had a growing influence in South Korea, although the STR itself has distanced itself from such doctrines. In early 2008, the KACR scored a hit with a successful exhibition at Seoul Land, one of the country’s leading amusement parks. According to the group, the exhibition attracted more than 116,000 visitors in three months, and the park is now in talks to create a year-long exhibition.
Even the nation’s leading science institute — the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology — has a creation science display on campus. “The exhibition was set up by scientists who believed in creation science back in 1993,” says Gab-duk Jang, a pastor of the campus church. The institute also has a thriving Research Association for Creation Science, run by professors and students, he adds.
Antipathy to evolution
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.
The roots of the South Korean antipathy to evolution are unclear, although Jeon suggests that they are partly “due to strong Christianity in the country”. About half of South Korea’s citizens practice a religion, mostly split between Christianity and Buddhism.
See what we're tweeting about
77 Comments
Add CommentUnbelievable - I didn't realize they had the same type of lunatics as we have here and this from an advanced, highly technical society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis is exactly what the religious conservatives want to do to this country. They're already making progress in their de-education goals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is truly frightening. We're going to wind up regressing back to the Dark Ages.
The problem most people have with evolution are the varying theories which contradict each other. Macro, Micro, Spontaneous, Crambrian Explosion, Natural Selection... And then of course there's the lack of a cohesive explanation of how life started and evolved to become over 30 billion different types of lifeforms on Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry gmrichmond99, you are very mistaken, first that the concepts you cite are contradictory evolutionary theories, they are completely different concepts. And second that this is the problem most people have with evolution.Analysis has proven that many people have a problem because the theory of evolution contradicts their religious beliefs. Well, it´s a free world, people are free to believe any old story their parents taught them. One might suppose that additional education would widen horizens, making it possible to discover what science is all about and what we have discovered about evolution in this beautiful world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThomasdefler, if a theory is sound and believed as a fact shouldn't it have a cohesive concept and not a "one of many possible" explanations? Science is after all a factual discipline. Can't the theory of evolution be proven as fact? How did life begin and become the multitude we observe in this beautiful world we enjoy today is the answer we all probe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis decision by the Koreans is merely a statement to the evolutionary development of humans. Clearly still has a long way to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't care. Many folks who condemn Creationism yet equally whacky and still worship a dead-guy-on-a-stick. President Obama claims to get inspiration from Jesus. That's STUPID but does it make him a better or worse president?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution taught in schools or not is largely an irrelevent sideshow. Physics and chemistry are taught in whacky nations just as they are in less whacky nations. Korea has high achievemnet in the math and sciences Belief in Evolution or not has no impact on building an earthquake-proof building or putting a satelite into orbit.
Anti-evolutionary treachings are dumb but so is throwing a cream pie in someones face. Who cares?
The problem -- well, one of many -- is that you can't "believe in evolution." Evolution, the unifying theory of all of biology, is a huge body of evidence supporting the many observations that genes in populations change with time. When certain changes occur, and organisms can no longer successfully leave fertile offspring, speciation occurs. Micro to macro evolution. Biological evolution means change. Who can deny that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne can believe in a religion -- not a science.
This is hugely disappointing from a country that allegedly has the highest per capita intelligence in the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is very inconvenient. Theories are often hard to "prove", but their importance in describing the world is clear. We still are working to understand gravity and yet its impact on our daily lives is not in dispute.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is very real. I am watching my feet evolve as I write this. They will be awesome in another 50 - 60 thousand years.
The comment by gmrichmond99 is an excellent example of creationist thinking. First, they clearly have no grasp of the topic. With a word salad sentence they claim that "Macro, Micro, Spontaneous, Crambrian (sic) Explosion, Natural Selection" are different competing theories. "Macro" evolution is merely "micro" evolution across long periods of time. Science professionals might read;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarroll, Robert L.
1998 "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution" New York: Cambridge University Press,
and,
Valentine, James W.
2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press (Professor Valentine's book is probably the best study of the pre-Cambrian, and Cambrian eras available in English).
For non-scientists I recommend;
Carroll, Sean B.
2005 "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" New York: Norton
or,
Shubin, Neal
2008 “Your Inner Fish” New York: Pantheon Books
The assertion that there are (or have been) "over 30 billion different types of lifeforms on Earth" is evidence enough that this individual knows nothing about biology. And yet, they are proudly ignorant. They prance in their ignorance, and imagine they have refuted the tens of thousands of working scientists. This is the real problem with creationists. Facts, and logic bounce off their closed minds.
"How did life begin and become the multitude we observe in this beautiful world we enjoy today is the answer we all" . . . HAVE. Whether you choose to believe it or not DOES NOT negate its validity. Only imbeciles disbelieve what has been proven. [and do not insult anyone by harping on the word 'theory' when that word's function is UNKNOWN to those who do not understand science]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHIS is what happens when loonies take over the political and social aspects of life. The immoral have already destroyed the economic system; the phony religious cons are doing their best to co-opt politics as well. The saddest part is being unable to shut evolution off in those places that deny its existence.
There are no alternatives to evolution, only to specific instances. The common fallacy is one of faulty generalization whereby the theory as a whole is put in question simply because a specific instance isn't well understood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should never be in any doubt as to the society we would be forced to inhabit should such people gain an upper-hand. Lies, fabrications, falsifications, denials, all in the name of their beliefs which they will force on all of us if they are allowed to. Hopefully South Korea will remedy this harmful nonsense. These folk will seize any opportunity - such as hijacking the Lords Resistance Army issue in Uganda when they themselves are tied-in with the oppressive homo-bashing Ugandan government - representing themselves as human rights champions. Their take on religion would force gays back into being criminalised, women into subjugation, children into indoctrination (look at the Home School neo-con christian lot with their gruesome misrepresentation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as being anti-parent when what they truly mean is they do not like the idea of kids having a right to choose their beliefs). Anyone who has not seen the tutored 4-year old reciting homosexuals are not going to heaven should do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for per-capita intelligence, beware of confusing this with schooling at which one suspects South Korea may have an edge. Schooling is what you put into someone's head, education is what is drawn from it - see latin root.
gmrichmond99: just because I cannot explain something is no justification to invent something to claim to do so. One gathers facts, and analyses them and subjects them to test. Most of what "is out there" remains unexplained, without theory even, often without observation (the grains on Newton's beach). Mankind has a long way to go, this sort of stuff delays, hinders, it does not enlighten. The intent is retrogressive, to remove humans back to reliance on a priestly cult of secret knowledge revealed, and interpreted, to us to be accepted without question. That is Creationism and all the other directive-style religion.
PS That above was 668 characters long, just 2 more from 666. Make something of that. In fact I first typed 2 extra spaces and THEN E-R-A-S-E-D both of them. Whoah Noah.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has said it many times and it's worth repeating. Look what happened to the Middle East once religious fundamentalism took control. It was a center for science, art and culture. So many things we owe to scholars, astronomers and other scientists who did so much back then. Now it's a shit hole run by powerful warlords using the pretext of religion to keep the people ignorant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe USA is headed towards that, an ignorant cesspool of violence, and it seems like the only thing rational people can do is slightly slow the speed of our crash.
Ignorant, sex obsessed religious zealots already control even what topics are allowed to be discussed. Even more ignorant, and even more feverishly sex obsessed religious zealots already decide what sort of health care you're permitted to received and who you can date or marry. They want to prohibit you and your children from reading about science in biology and geology classrooms.
And they're succeeding. In large part because the average American still clings to their religion like a crack addict to his pipe. *All* religions are ridiculous, and religious fundamentalists are beyond ridiculous, but no one in the USA says boo about how ridiculous they are because they want people to "respect" their own ridiculous beliefs.
Keep talking to your invisible men in the sky and pretending they hear you. Keep pretending there is some ephemeral loving grandfather figure who cares about you. Every last bit of evidence is against it and all that behaviour does is encourage the whack jobs.
There is as much evidence for the process of biological evolution as there is for the structure of atoms. Yet the average person in in the USA kowtows to ignorant ten thousand year old superstitions and pretends there isn't. They'll get what they deserve when the rational folks emigrate to more sane countries to avoid the oppression.
People, take it from someone who has been in the online forum trenches for a couple of decades now. You cannot possibly win an argument with a religious fundamentalist. They are practiced liars, it's like the talmud, their "logic" has been honed and written down so that idiots can parrot it endlessly without ever understanding what they say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to make them squirm, make them justify their logic. Ask them how 99.99% of geologists, physicists, cosmologists, chemists, geneticists, astronomers, biologists and scientists of every stripe have *all* made the same errors? It's _impossible_ for biological evolution to be incorrect and not have a cascading effect through all of the sciences. DNA and RNA cannot possibly work the way biologists or chemists think they do if evolution is incorrect, and chemistry is based on physics.
So how is it that all of science is wrong but _only_ when it disagrees with 10,000 year old myths of creation (remember, Christianity simply adopted previously existing creation myths, they did not invent the idea, not by a long shot)
Trust me, if you try to argue evidence, they will lie, invent and change the subject in every other sentence rather than admit they're wrong on _any_ point no matter how minor. Scientists have the evidence and look for answers. Religious fundamentalists dictate the answers and reject any evidence.
Stupidity, it seems is universal....An religions are only the slippery media through which these infectious ideas spread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny thing is that those morons, conveniently, choose not to attack other scientific theories. For the moment...
Came here for the shitstorm. Was not disappointed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust plain sad. Probably a US grown movement. God help the ignorant and narrow-minded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdavidhill: "Funny thing is that those morons, conveniently, choose not to attack other scientific theories. For the moment..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the funny thing is how morons worship a dead-guy-on-a-stick. I find belief in Jesus as a god no less ridiculous than Creationsm...it's like being a 'little bit pregnant'. Once one accepts that there is a god that can nudge an electron or influence an outcome...then everything is equally possible...Creationism, leprechauns or witches on broomsticks.
Beautifully argued. I'm now convinced you're right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince it seems we can't show creationists the error of their ways, we'll have to settle for defeating them and exposing their defeat publicly.
The fence-sitters will then abandon them and the world will be made safer for the pursuit of knowledge.
Maybe it is not a problem of religion only. An example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy father (french like me) has no scientific education (is was butcher), he is catholic but does not believe in such creation! And he really likes science for its visible results like aeronautics, cars, computers, GPS, etc ... So everything seems good!
BUT he does not believe in evolution ... because he does not want to come from a monkey (that is true)! And because he does not know (or does not want to know) that it is not a question of believing or not anymore. Sometimes, he asks me if there are new discoveries in this domain ...
In the same way, he does not believe that the present global warming could come from humanity. Here we are not 100% sure like for evolution, but I see a similar way of thinking. In these complex sciences, he can have his opinion and he likes to think that the world is a stable world that the humanity improves little by little.
This is a very personal example, but I have seen this way of thinking in other people, and my French examples are not polluted by tough Christian believers like in US and Korea at all. Therefore, I see religion as an amplificator of this phenomena ( it is just a theory ... )
I do not see this problem of evolution as a big threat. Big threats are on similar scientific manipulations on tobacco, global warming, etc ...
Here what really scares me is how so many people may deny such obvious facts (evolution is a fact not a theory anymore, of course there are theories for the details). So how "we" can be manipulated scares me.
I'm not worried or 'scared'. Science plods along whether it be in China, Germany, the USA or India. It's largely irrelevent what Grandma thinks or the guy planting rice in a field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand how it is that education systems are led by the most ignorant people in society. Why do we allow religious fanatics to sit on school boards? Why do we allow people who do not understand science to dictate how science is taught? There will always be crazy people in the world. It is up to us to keep them from positions of power. Stop the rise of religious fascism, start teaching critical thought in grade 1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot to worry my blind, unguided, evolutionist friends, everything you find objectionable about what's happening in S. Korea is simply all a part of evolution. Whatever happens just happens. There's no grand design or purpose so whatever they do over there has no more meaning or purpose than what we do over here. So if you feel that what they're doing ought not to have happened, that feeling of "ought" is just your imagination since there is no "ought" in blind chance. There is just what is, including this conversation. Embrace the meaninglessness!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@gmrichmond99, the problem you have with evolution is you don't understand it. Which is strange since you seem to want to make assertions about it. How in the world can you possibly think you are competent to discuss this issue when you have deliberately avoided educating yourself about it? It is because, as with all religious fanatics, you start with the answers, then twist the facts to suit you. You aren't interested in understanding anything, you only want to spread your ideology. Tens of millions of people died in the second world war to rid the world of fascism, yet here you are ready and willing to get on your knees and worship it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"there is no "ought" in blind chance" Yet another fanatic showing us he has no clue what evolution is. The "blind chance" argument is old and well refuted. The fact you don't know that is another example of an idiot who seems to think himself an expert about something he hasn't taken a second of his time to understand. This is a science site, dedicated to the search for knowledge. I think you are looking for a site dedicated to ignorance and blind obedience. There are plenty of those out there, just search on "religion"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRSchmidt - Are you the Comment Section Police? Do you realize your response to me was pure ad hominem? No where did you refute my point. You have no idea what I know other than the words I just wrote. If you have something to refute with facts or a reasoned arguement then do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOtherwise my point still stands.
I think a more important question should be...where the hell did we all come from? There is no way any of us life forms could had been here on this planet when it formed 4.5 billion years ago, so how and where did we come from. I think evolution is just as screwed up as creationalism, especially when evolution thinks that humans evolved from monkeys, but monkeys didn't evolve from anything, birds didn't evolve from anything; wolves didn't evolve from anything, but yet, humans evolved from monkeys. Bird's DNA is different from wolves DNA; fish DNA is different from tree's DNA; human DNA is different from monkey DNA...so how could we evolved from each other? Sure human DNA evolved over time, no one is arguing with that, but it did not evolve from a monkeys or wolves or birds or fish or trees. We evolved from our selves because we have individual DNA that is unique to just us. So, again, where did all these unique species come from and how did we get here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy response was directed at the root of the issue, your complete ignorance. If facts and a rational argument could change your mind then you wouldn't have posted what you did in the first place. If you had made a well reasoned argument I would have addressed that. Your sarcasm did not, "refute with facts or a reasoned arguement" either. And I do have a very good idea what you know about evolution just by the fact that you made such an idiotic comment. Anyone who has made more than a passing glance at evolution theory knows that evolution is not about blind chance but is instead driven by environmental pressures. Evolution is supported by almost every branch of science, from physics to genetics, to cosmology. Creationism is supported by no branch of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames, you´d best read a biology text and find out something about DNA and its evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamesDavis, you're kidding right? You can't possibly be that thick and still be able to type. "humans evolved from monkeys, but monkeys didn't evolve from anything, birds didn't evolve from anything; wolves didn't evolve from anything, but yet, humans evolved from monkeys." please show me from which book on evolution you got that information. That has got to be one of the most idiotic statements I have read. Even a simple search on google will get you the answers you are looking for. So why would you instead come here and make that statement as though it were fact?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. More ad hominem attacks don't help your argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Never said I was a Creationist (nor am I), so you're barking up the wrong tree.
3. The 'environmental pressures' concept, an aspect of nature I don't dispute in the least, isn't a defense at all in terms of discussing purpose and what ought or ought not happen. Environmental pressures are still 'blind' in the fact that they don't think, make decisions, have intent, or plan for the future.
4. My only point is whatever you don't like about what's going in S. Korea is all a part of evolution. Is it not? I think you missed that.
On side note – I am always continuously amazed that if people spoke to others face to face with the sarcasm, name-calling, and condescension that they do online, they’d likely get punched out, because I’m sure they don’t speak to others in person that way. I guess online anonymity is quite a shield for those with no manners.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"My only point is whatever you don't like about what's going in S. Korea is all a part of evolution. Is it not? I think you missed that." For a guy who likes to throw around the term ad hominem as though it should mean something to me you seem completely unaware of the term "Naturalist Fallacy". Look it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Environmental pressures are still 'blind' in the fact that they don't think, make decisions, have intent, or plan for the future." no but that is not the same as blind chance. Having intent is irrelevant, genes are still "selected" by environmental pressures. The mutation that arouse in the gene or promoter, enhancer, etc. was random. Whether or not that mutation is passed on to the next generation is determined by how that mutation affects the organism's reproductive chances. That is selection. You don't need a sky daddy looking down and saying, "this is good". If you want to be taken seriously, get yourself educated.
They’ve appointed a Grand Inquisitor. He will prosecute these heretics who teach Scientific theories like the Earth is not at the center of the Universe and moves around the Sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"with the sarcasm, name-calling, and condescension" you did read your own comment didn't you? It was sarcastic and condescending. And, ya, if you made that comment to my face I would reply in the same way. "online anonymity" is what allows people like you to make idiotic comments without worrying about being embarrassed by your ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho is this "skydaddy" person you keep talking about?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "Naturalist Fallacy" argument doesn't refute what I'm saying about what's being done in S. Korea. What they’re doing there is all a part of our evolution? Any objection is merely an expression of preference and nothing more.
If you want to be taken seriously, address my point and not some other Bogeyman you seem to be fighting against.
I agree with evolution and happen to think this could be a good thing. Once their general populous has lost it's understanding of biology, their medical fields will begin to fail them and (just as evolution predicts) they'll fade away due to illness and disease. There after we'll eternally have a reference point of the consequences of willful ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So if you feel that what they're doing ought not to have happened, that feeling of "ought" is just your imagination since there is no "ought" in blind chance." you are implying that because evolution has no intention or "meaning" that the affairs of humans, by extension have no meaning. That is the naturalist fallacy. Humans give meaning to their lives. Just because nature doesn't give us meaning does not mean we cannot give our lives meaning. So instead of learning a couple of key words about logic, perhaps you should study how it actually works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI speak online the way I speak to others in person. I wouldn't call you an idiot in person or online because you don't appear to be one by definition, but that doesn’t mean that I don't think you're mistaken in your reasoning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, you do insist on calling me names. Why do you do this. Do you think it's polite or appropriate behavior to call people idiots if they merely reach a different conclusion than you?
"Do you think it's polite or appropriate behavior to call people idiots if they merely reach a different conclusion than you?" if they reach a different conclusion after looking at the facts, no, that is the process. If they reach a conclusion without looking at any of the facts, without understanding the process, without accepting their own personal limitations, I call them an idiot. I don't think it is appropriate behaviour to speak with absolute authority about things you know nothing about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, nice try at deflection. Once all your arguments have been reasoned away all you are left with is wining that I'm just being mean.
I do understand how logic and reasoning and evolution work. Simply requesting over and over again that I go and "learn" something simply because I don't agree with you (and this is just my opinion) makes you come across as a know-it-all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn some sense, I suppose you’re getting closer to understanding what I'm saying, because I agree that we can give ourselves meaning (or at least in the sense that we can think up a meaning for ourselves), but again, that doesn't address my fundamental point in that the S. Korean's decision is also a part of evolution as well. You may not prefer it, but they do. And with that, what makes your preference any better than theirs? (Keep in mind that I didn’t' say anything about whether their believe is true or not, since people have believed in lots of things that aren't true for likely as long as there have been people and beliefs.)
I think the problem with people accepting the "theory" of evolution has to do with the word "theory." In everyday language, a theory can be categorized with conspiracies and unsubstantiated hypotheses. But a "scientific theory" is by definition "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion has an overpowering effect on rational thought for humans. So much so that it acts as an anesthetic for life's problems. Marx was right, "religion is the opiate of the people."
I don't think you're mean, nor did I "deflect". You make claims you simply cannot substantiate. Namely, regarding what I know, what I've looked at, ans what facts I'm considering. You simply cannot assume those things, and therefore, cannot be a part of any argument or defense on your part.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet another deflection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"make claims you simply cannot substantiate. Namely, regarding what I know, what I've looked at, ans what facts I'm considering." sure I can. I used the evidence of your own comments. They clearly indicate you do not understand evolution or logic for that matter. If you make a foolish statement, it makes it pretty clear that you don't understand the subject. If you don't understand the subject, it is either because you chose not to research it or; you have some mental defect that makes you incapable of understanding complex ideas. I was being generous in assuming that you were just intentionally ignorant rather than mentally defective.
By the way, the Naturalistic Fallacy argument merely tries to point out that one can't simply point to what is and declare it 'good' or 'right', but that in no way justifies people griping about S. Koreans wanting to let people believe in Creation. The two discussion are completely unrelated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMerely saying over and over and over "do not understand evolution or logic for that matter" or "you don't understand the subject" doesn't prove anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimply repeating my words and attaching the conclusion that I don't understand something because I reach a different conclusion isn't evidence of anything.
Here, I'll save you the trouble. Let's just say that by definition that anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant of the truth. Does that simplify it?
RSchmidt, NOBODY understands the mechanism(s) of evolution which is why there are so many theories about how life began and evolved; there is no single consensus. Yet, rather than discuss the hard question(s) about the process of evolution, people like you prefer to hurl insults and make character assumptions. So, why don't you explain which theory of evolution you believe; micro, macro, spontaneous...then we can have a discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"NOBODY understands the mechanism(s) of evolution", no GM, you don't understand the mechanisms of evolution. YOU don't. It is very simple. A mutation occurs in an organism's DNA. The mutation may enhance the reproductive success of the organism, it may inhibit its success or it may do nothing. If it enhances, it is more likely to be passed on and less so if it inhibits. That is it. Macro, micro, spontaneous, etc. just describe the large scale patterns we see, they are not different "Theories of Evolution". They do not contradict each other anymore than me choosing to wear a red shirt one day contradicts me wearing a green shirt the next. Again, you obviously have not taken a second to understand this. Please explain to me why you insist on commenting about evolution when you refuse to take the time to understand it. You must think you sound cleaver rhyming off a few buzz words but you demonstrate your ignorance by showing that you don't understand them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding this discussion that kind of turned into a chat session - I have to drop out. Regardless of your beliefs - I gotta work if I want to eat and live indoors. Take care.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me fix your comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The problem most me is that I do not understand evolution or the varying theories which are related to it. I do not understand Macro, Micro, Spontaneous, Crambrian Explosion, Natural Selection... etc. Can someone point me to links explaining these concepts?"
Yes I can, search those terms and you will find many good sources of information. Thanks! You can start here!
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Many things are unknown. Nothing is unknowable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo not fear the creationists. They are silly people. In the end, the truth comes to the surface.
My point exactly:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50
Back to gravity. Explain gravity to us or should we deny its existence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisps: My feet are evolving nicely.
The proof of natural selection is all around us. We call them dogs (they came from wolves). And I don't believe in the intelligence of natural-selection deniers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScott, I think that you're mixing contexts. The evolution of life on earth surely doesn't care what Koreans embrace as knowledge, or anyone else for that matter. As you imply evolution is not directional, but it is driven by current environmental conditions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut where the Korean people's choices do matter is in our the evolution of our societies. The practice of suppressing evidence-backed knowledge because it makes you uncomfortable or because it contradicts prevailing societal myths, can potentially have big consequences.
If we accept that we won't teach such a high-confidence theory as evolution to our children, how long before are faced with a movement to stop research into this area? "Why waste taxpayer's money on such a stupid idea", "This research is an affront to our morality by arrogant scientists who propose to redefine who we are". Are these types of ideas far-fetched? How about in a few years when it's coming from a generation educated by institutions who view evolution as a conspiratorial farce?
The problem that the left is having with all this is a delight to see. They would have sworn on a stack of Bibles (you should pardon the expression)that only backward Christians could ever have a doubt about anything a scientist says. Yet the Christians there are are only 1/4th of the population with probably a small % of those being fundamentalists. So they go into the deny,deny,deny mode. They have gone so long without thinking they can't come up with any other explanation. It is to laugh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell I see you are sticking to the fundamentalist practice of speaking without absolute authority about something you know nothing about. Now you are claiming that the left, which I take to mean scientists for some reason, think that backward Christians are the only idiots on the planet. Thanks for telling me what I think, but then again, that is the goal of religious fanatics, to tell us all what to think. Regardless, I don't think Christians have a monopoly on idiocy. Any religious group will do. In fact any group that shuns evidence based methodologies in favour of faith based obedience are all equally idiotic. But the fact that they have crazy people in South Korea, doesn't make the crazies in the US any more sane. As for the explanation for all this religious fundamentalism the answer is simple; ignorance: ignorance of the facts, ignorance of science; ignorance of logic. Ignorant populations are easier to lead than informed ones, so there is little incentive to give people more than a consumer level education. The result is a population that has the combined wisdom of bronze age camel headers, who understand technology enough to post idiotic comments on the internet. And that is where you come in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe acceptance of creationism twaddle indicates Korea is on the way down the slippery slope of failing in maths and science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think evolution or creation should be taught in schools because there are so many differing opinions on both. However, looking through these comments I get a kick out of the evolutionists knocking the religionists. If the evolutionists feel they are enlightened and full of logic and reason when they state 'evolution is FACT,' you disappoint me even more than the dogmatic religionists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.” - New Scientist, January 24, 2009, pp. 37, 39.
The relatively sudden appearance of these diverse life forms is causing some evolutionary researchers to question the traditional version of Darwin’s theory. For example, in an interview in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.” Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008
Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.
Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.” Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.
Find that evolved from apes is actually a lot of intent: Monkeys live in societies where the mutual well-being is more important than accumulating bananas. We could not have evolved from them just because they are more evolved than humans. ..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe could not have evolved from bananas, since the human Synapses are ending the Planet ...
Macro- and micro-evolution are the same thing: the only difference is time scale. Natural selection is a mechanism by which both macro- and micro-evolution (from now on simply called evolution, as they are the same thing) arises in nature. The Cambrian explosion is a particular instance of (rapid, evolutionary speaking, which is still rather slow) evolutionary development which has a coherent and evidentially justified explanation in terms of evolution. By "spontaneous" I can only imagine you mean something like the spontaneous speciation creationists like to imagine evolutionary biology predicts, when, in fact, such events are entirely prohibited by the mechanisms of evolution. As such, it is not part of evolutionary theory and so whether or not it conflicts with evolution has no relevance in terms of internal consistency, as you are asserting. The point of all this being- none of what you said (neglecting the irrelevant "spontaneous" part) is in conflict with anything else, but rather nicely compliments each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, evolution is NOT intended to describe the origin of life, merely the diversity of life, so whether or not it provides an explanation for the origin of life is not, by any means, a failure on the part of the theory.
If you want to critique evolutionary biology, then great- go for it. But please: I implore you to at least spend some time learning about it first.
I am tolerant of religious beliefs, but there should be little tolerance for error and ignorance. The folks who deny evolution quite often believe the universe is ten thousand years old. No scientist or teacher should ever let either go unchallenged. The truth is known and supported by overwhelming evidence. We should never feel the need to tread lightly about truth any more than when we correct spelling or erroneous solutions to math problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is a fact. It is however a very complicated process and many of the components are still theoretical. Divining the mechanisms is a work in progress as are many things in science. The power of science is the ability to change as new information is made available. When a country such as South Korea kowtows to religious influence and asserts that creationism has a basis in fact and supplants the fact of evolution for the explanation as to why humans exist and the wondrous but fragile diversity that we see around us with what is for all practical purposes nonsense, there should be a serious reason for concern. This is a step backward. While I have no problems with creationism being presented to students it belongs in a religious studies course not in a science textbook. It is critical that secularism remain at the forefront of any consideration regarding altering science texts to reflect ideas that are put forth by religious organizations and that have absolutely no basis in fact. Religious views that are based on faith and unsupported by the use of the scientific method do not belong in a science textbook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat an illogical, over-the-top emotional diatribe! Equating people who doubt evolution with the cruel 'Lord's Resistance Army'! Why are you so angry? Something has clearly touched a raw nerve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho are these people whom you claim "worship a dead-guy-on-a-stick"? I've never met such a person. I do, however, know many people who, like myself, worship the risen, living Christ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat on earth is "creation science" that is referred to in the article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeoffmead, given how a lot of modern Christianity is obsessed about Jesus' death and the manner in the way his death sentence was carried out it's easy to see his point of view. I don't share it but the imagery is everywhere in Christianity from morbid crucifixes to sensationalized snuff films. My path is different and to each his own but I wish a lot of my fellow Christians would stop dwelling in the dark ages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Vatican astronomer put it this way(and I am paraphrasing): "The stories that the Bible is based on were written thousands of years ago many centuries before the advent of modern science. There is no way that it can speak about anything relating to modern science." It seems that a lot of Catholics have learned from their past mistakes.
It seems that at least two staunch allies of the US are surrendering one by one to "creationism". Take the case of Turkey, a very close and obedient ally of the US has recently become a religious state and last in the row of public acceptance of evolution (25% and US 40%, second from the last in the row). What a coincidence! Surprisingly evolution is taught in Iran.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a saying that goes: "there is one way for the wise", it seems there is also one way - rejecting evolution- for the "idiot"
My friend per capita intelligence may not be directly proportioanl to per capita income! A living example: Saudi Arabia
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes you are right, just as believing in the flat Earth theory did "not have any impact" on building gigantic churches in the dark ages!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@jtrouch
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember - There is no god.
@ RSchmidt comment #30
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would suggest that you reconsider your claim that "evolution is not about blind chance but instead driven by environmental pressures."
Evolution is ALL about blind chance. If not, then where do the random alterations come from that "natural selection" can do its work on?
If you are going to stand on some logic, it will need to be more robust than that misconception! Even Dawkins makes that silly error. Of course, species can change slightly over time.
But, extrapolating that truth into the notion that every living thing evolved from an original single celled critter that somehow inexplicably self-assembled in an ancient warm mud puddle, not only itself, but also the code needed to allow replication, is really an unreasonable stretch of reality.
How about just a short lesson in complexity?
There are fewer than 474 quadrillion seconds of time in 15 billion years. (count 'em)
There are more than 1,152 quadrillion possible ways to arrange only 30 nucleotides in a DNA sequence. (4 to the 30th power)
So. . . tell me again when and how the millions of coherent life forms we see cooked themselves up by accidental "natural" processes.
And, Who wrote the code? EVERY code has an Author you know. If you are aware of one that has none, I would like to be educated.
You're problem here, is that you're assuming it all happened one at a time. When there were thousands of 'mud puddles' all over the earth, thousands of tonnes of primordial ingredients and billions of opportunities per second for these combinations to form in. Why does there have to be an 'Author' for the code? No every code does not have an author, you're imposing. No one will be able to satisfy your request for an 'author-less' code because you believe in a deity that is above the rules, and supposedly created everything. So no matter the example you'll simply fall back on 'but god is the author' if all else fails. Also evolution does not address bio-genesis, simply how Earth brand 'Life' changed over time. You're argument from irreducible complexity has been refuted hundreds of times already, and is easily 'reducable' when you consider that the reactions weren't occuring one at a time, but billions if not trillions of permutations each second all across the surface of the planet. It only takes one to get it started.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZexks, your faith amazes me. You know good and well that there is no such thing as a code without an author. That is because all codes are languages and all languages are codes. The very English words I use here are code for my ideas. Apparently, you can read the code. I think it may be useful for you to check out Information Theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInformation ONLY EVER comes from an intelligent source. If that is not the case, how do you think the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) will ever identify what they are looking for?
Gmrichmond.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the problem. You are trying to use the wrong theory for the wrong problem.
Evolution does not discuss the creation/origin of life. It seeks to explain the process of life after origin. Educate yourself on what a theory is.