South Korea will remove evolution from its high school textbooks

jblair · June 8, 2012, 7:16am

Evolution isn’t something one “believes” in

J.D · June 8, 2012, 7:17am

Would you really make children choose between drinking bird blood (like the bible says) and a vaccination to cure leprosy?
Didn’t think so…

If we use your logic then there are thousands if not millions of other null hypothesis that should also be taught.
We don’t prove that creationism is wrong, we just dismiss it.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the Catholic Church was against Evolution for a 100 years.
It started accepting it when the evidence of evolution was so overwhelming that they knew that in the long run, denying it would only make them look like clowns.
In fact, a good way to tell if a religion is full of retards is by looking at their 21st Century opinion of evolution.

I was going to take you seriously, but if you’re someone who lives in the year 2012 where you have access to so much information, and you still don’t know the difference between a theory and a SCIENTIFIC THEORY , then I’m done dog, there’s nothing for me to tell you for fucking reals. That conversation is so freaking boring and dull. What are you going to ask me next? Why do we still have monkeys? GTFO with that BS

You’re an African ape, and that’s proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

BEWD · June 8, 2012, 7:19am

jus’ sayin.

Maverick8 · June 8, 2012, 7:20am

Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law
Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology

Aug 18, 2006 Katharine M. J. Osborne
The definition of the word “theory” in the context of science is sometimes hotly argued by non-scientists

The origin of this confusion has it’s roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton’s laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word “law” has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that’s completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn’t something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can’t commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn’t be science, it would be faith.

So science has tossed the use of “law” in favor of “theory”. This “theory” does not mean “hypothesis” which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.

You should learn your definition before you make statements that make you look like a dumbass.

[LEFT] [/LEFT]
[LEFT]So this is one person’s definition of theory? I’m not here to be rude or insulting, which you clearly seem to be. I was just define theory by it’s ACTUAL definition. I don’t claim to be an expert on Evolution or even science (I doubt you are, especially considering your post), but I do know that definition of the word and how scientific processes work. I wasn’t saying the word theory in the term “Theory of Evolution” implied that scientists thought it was conjectural. I merely was using the word theory in it’s truest definition. [/LEFT]
[LEFT] [/LEFT]

EDIT: I didn’t even use the word theory but once, and it was when I was voicing my opinion. I wasn’t trying to say that because it has the word theory in it that scientists find it conjectural. Jeeze. If you both know the word theory can be used in two ways, then why in the world are you defining mine as wrong?

Maverick8 · June 8, 2012, 7:24am

Would you really make children choose between drinking bird blood (like the bible says) and a vaccination to cure leprosy?
Didn’t think so…

If we use your logic then there are thousands if not millions of other null hypothesis that should also be taught.
We don’t prove that creationism is wrong, we just dismiss it.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the Catholic Church has against Evolution for a 100 years.
It started accepting it when the evidence of evolution was so overwhelming that they knew that in the long run, denying it would only make them look like clowns.
In fact, a good way to tell if a religion is full of retards is by looking at their 21st Century opinion of evolution.

I was going to take you seriously, but if you’re someone who lives in the year 2012 where you have access to so much information, and you still don’t know the difference between a theory and a SCIENTIFIC THEORY , then I’m done dog, there’s nothing for me to tell you for fucking reals. That conversation is so freaking boring and dull. What are you going to ask me next? Why do we still have monkeys? GTFO with that BS

You’re an African Ape, and that’s proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You’re being a bit harsh. I already responded on what I meant though, so I won’t again. Why are you being so aggressive? Also, why are you assuming what kind of questions I’m going to ask? You have no idea what I believe in, what I know about evolution, nor do you have any idea what background knowledge I have. You’re merely inferring all of that information from one forum post. Even if you were a master psychologist, you could not possibly derive that much information about me from that.

The_Ultimator · June 8, 2012, 7:26am

Evolution is, quite simply put, ridiculous. Everything just happens to evolve from a single-celled organism into all the creatures we know today? Keep in mind that this goes for everything, from fungi, to plants, mammals, etc. Look at this excerpt:

[LEFT]Have you ever heard of the idea of abiogenesis? Simply put, this concept suggests that long ago, spontaneous chemical reactions caused the formation of very simple life forms. In regard to evolution, abiogenesis is pretty much accepted as a fact. But does it make sense? Does abiogenesis fit reality?[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Everyone knows about proteins. Not only are they quite popular, but they are also essential to the existence of life. On the molecular level, proteins consist of amino acids (the basic “building blocks” of a protein) that are linked together. In order for a protein to function properly and perform its specific job, all the amino acids in the protein have to link up in exactly the right order. If they don’t, the protein can’t perform its job.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Allow me to introduce you to Ribonuclease. Ribonuclease is the simplest protein necessary for the existence of life. This “simple” protein consists of 124 amino acids. In order for the idea of abiogenesis to explain how simple life forms originated, it also has to account for how the chemical components (including proteins) necessary to these life forms’ existence could be formed by random processes. Since Ribonuclease is a protein that is essential for life, abiogenesis must explain how it could form by pure chance. Let’s check out some odds.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Okay, so Ribonuclease is made up of 124 amino acids. Seventeen different types of amino acids are present in those 124. There are actually 20 types of amino acids that are present in life-essential proteins, but we’ll just work with the 17 necessary for Ribonuclease. The odds of the first amino acid coming into the right place are 1 in 17. That’s not too bad. The odds of the second specific amino acid linking to the first are 1 in 289. Hmm…Things aren’t looking so good now. Even worse, the odds for the next amino acid linking to the second are 1 in 4,913. By the time we get all the way to the last amino acid, the odds are 1 in 10 to the 152nd power. That’s a 1 followed by 152 zeros. To illustrate how ridiculous these odds are, the likelihood of Ribonuclease forming by chance is equivalent to a poker player drawing a royal flush 19 times in a row without ever exchanging cards. Let’s just say those are some pretty lousy odds. And that’s considering the simplest protein necessary for life. Some of the proteins at work in our bodies contain more than 10,000 amino acids! Even so, abiogenesis has to accept on faith the odds of these and numerous other reactions occurring purely by chance.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]As you can see, so many proteins required for life’s existence just spontaneously appearing from nothing is absurd. And this isn’t even getting into the stuff about DNA.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]What if I told you that I manufactured a Lamborghini by tossing a bunch of stuff into a giant box and shaking it around? Odds are you wouldn’t believe me. Same thing applies here. Evolution is saying nearly the same, except on a much larger scale.[/LEFT]
[LEFT] [/LEFT]
[LEFT]The excerpt was taken from this link: http://themeliosproject.com/2009/08/31/a-protein-laced-dose-of-reality/[/LEFT]

fishjie · June 8, 2012, 7:27am

The only people who have a problem with evolution are religious. Coincidence? No. These same people love science when it allows them to drive cars and enjoy the internets but when it casts doubt onto their mythology? Fuck no teach the controversy!!!

The controversy is that religions are all man made (indisputable fact unless u wanna argue that religious texts materialized out of thin air) yet they wanna believe their particular religion had divine inspiration. Nope.

Sent from ur mom using my penisTalk

pedoviejo · June 8, 2012, 7:27am

refer that to JD post, and then read this

Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed.

Our world is built of

Electromagnetic Theory,
Theory of Relativity
Quantum Theory

they are all fucking theories. Does that mean that our world isn’t absolute. If you use the word in its truest sense then the above is nothing but bullshit crap that can’t be proven because its not absolute. What is it with people and not understanding the idea of context.

Evolution is, quite simply put, ridiculous. Everything just happens to evolve from a single-celled organism into all the creatures we know today? Keep in mind that this goes for everything, from fungi, to plants, mammals, etc. Look at this excerpt:

[LEFT]As you can see, so many proteins required for life’s existence just spontaneously appearing from nothing is absurd. And this isn’t even getting into the stuff about DNA.[/LEFT]
[LEFT]What if I told you that I manufactured a Lamborghini by tossing a bunch of stuff into a giant box and shaking it around? Odds are you wouldn’t believe me. Same thing applies here. Evolution is saying nearly the same, except on a much larger scale.[/LEFT]
[LEFT] [/LEFT]
[LEFT]The excerpt was taken from this link: http://themeliosproject.com/2009/08/31/a-protein-laced-dose-of-reality/[/LEFT]

YOU SIR ARE QUITE FUCKING STUPID. BUT ILL PLAY YOUR FUCKING GAME.

Statistically, if you shake long enough, you will end up with a car. THIS IS A FUCKING FACT, AND THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN REFUTE THIS CLAIM.

Well then nevermind then.

Maverick8 · June 8, 2012, 7:30am

I understand context just fine. I went back and read my post. I see where what I said was out of line. I try to make it make sense in the edits.

No need to be aggressive. I’m humble enough to admit when I’ve crossed a line or misspoken. I clearly did. I was using the word theory defined as “widely believed to be true but still conjectural”, which is a valid usage of the word.

J.D · June 8, 2012, 7:31am

My post is in the form of a question. I’m asking you if you’re going to bring up more questions with obvious answers, that is all.
You just wrote that Evolution is just a "theory"
Do you actually believe that it’s unreasonable for me to think that you’re being a little bit stupid?

BadMojo · June 8, 2012, 7:32am

I don’t believe in the electromagnetic theory, it’s just a theory.

Sent from my PC using MagicTalk

Maverick8 · June 8, 2012, 7:32am

This isn’t true. Many agnostic people also deny evolution. It’s ridiculous to me that people should be forced to accept absolutes of either variety.

The_Ultimator · June 8, 2012, 7:32am

Referencing the italicized: I know people IRL that don’t believe in evolution, but aren’t religious. It may be true that the majority of religious people don’t believe evolution, but there are many people who don’t believe evolution, but aren’t Christian.

Referencing the bold: I could go into the details about how there is a lot of evidence supporting the Bible in this thread, but that’d be going off-topic.

Maverick8 · June 8, 2012, 7:34am

I admitted I was mistaken. I was specifically referring to something more specific. I’m sorry; however, that doesn’t mean I’m being stupid.

pedoviejo · June 8, 2012, 7:34am

This man wins the thread.

Shwaffles · June 8, 2012, 7:34am

Woah, hold on there. That’s a huge misconception. We aren’t apes. Apes are our cousins, so to speak. Both apes and humans had a common ancestor, but we ended up evolving differently.

The_Ultimator · June 8, 2012, 7:37am

I can’t stop laughing at this.

EDIT: The expected amount of time for to you to randomly get a car by shaking a box randomly would far exceed the age of the universe.* If there is a design, there must be a designer.*

J.D · June 8, 2012, 7:38am

You’re referring to chimpanzees.
Chimps, Gorilla, Humans, Bonobos and Orangutans are all Great Apes

Maverick8 · June 8, 2012, 7:40am

Before this gets ridiculous and off topic, I just want to say I think it’s a mistake for the South Korean’s to remove this from the curriculum. I think students should be exposed to a wide variety of subjects etc. etc.

Also, I was not disputing the processes of natural selection, adaptation, or any immediately related branch. I’m only a skeptic of abiogenesis, the universal common ancestor, etc. etc.

Shwaffles · June 8, 2012, 7:40am

Oh, ok. Never mind then.