South Korea will remove evolution from its high school textbooks

http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution.html

Macroevolution may not be conclusively proven, but to say there’s zero evidence for it is ridiculous, especially if “macroevolution” is taken as a gradual accumulation of “microevolutionary” changes. Yet you Missing Person said evolution itself didn’t happen, which has been proven to be demonstrably false, we can see evolutionary changes in as little as just a few generations, or one in the case of mutations.

Though one example of macroevolution that immediately comes to mind would be some of the surviving dinosaurs(because, you know, they didn’t all get whipped out by extinction event) becoming birds.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

If you guys need more evidence, find it yourself, I’m done doing your research.

Are you even reading my posts?

You’re making my case for macodevolution airtight.

You mean the one where you brought up the name of 2 gentlemen who used a scientific method for their contributions.
That is far from being a contribution by religion… I thought you were joking…
If they were so inspired by religion, why didn’t they use a “religious method” ? oh wait…

Anyway, I’m not being aggressive. In the post you quoted I’m actually asking you how can you reconcile this knowledge with the idea of a personal creator.
Why does a personal creator tortures its creation? why does a personal creator makes us so imperfect? why is a personal creator so careless?
Why would a personal creator wait a couple hundred thousand years before intervening? Why personal, why isn’t that god created everything by accident, and doesn’t know about it?

I don’t know where you get aggressive from that post.

again, you are expecting macro evolution to occur over night. It doesn’t work like that. If as something as simple as disease immunity increases in the span of 4 generations, what makes you think something as drastic as improved muscle fibers is going to happen in 2000 years. Not to mention, humans do not need to macro evolution any more. No need for better eyes, we have telescopes, microscopes, night vision, thermal. We need it we invent it. The stress needed for macro evolution no longer apply to us.

I actually dont think evolution is really that important of a theory anyway for highschool students.

if they just ommitted it and kept it for college it wouldnt really change much…however if it is ommitted, i dont want creationism put in its place.

however schools offering no answer, pragmatically this could keep religious people happy while not doing anything substantial to peoples education levels.

the big bang supposedly happened too…and several theories for why the dinosaurs died out…i personally dont care if its gone over in small detail big detail or any detail.

Law is seriously a more important of a topic, and the textbook on it for canadian highschools is like law history…not even law at all…just looking at the criminal code or when certain laws came into place and what they mean…or a chapter on a high level political issue that is part of canadian history.

not even teaching a highschool student what a notary is. its pretty sad.

^This is kind of a subject of debate in anthro circles pedo, with the overall opinion being that humans are indeed still evolving, just on a much slower scale due to all our technological advancements.

EDIT@RGK: You’re forgetting the fact that there’s quite a few who DON"T go to college, and that high school biology is the only biology course they will ever take. Do you seriously expect biology teachers to teach biology WITHOUT teaching evolutionary theory? That’s like teaching geology(or any earth science) without plate tectonics, or chemistry without the periodic table. Removing a core element of a scientific discipline to please religious people is a serious error. Creationism has a place, it’s just not in any area of scientific discussion or debate.

I never said that, you’re insinuating that. I understand the theory. But that’s just it, it’s a theory. Same with Creation. Saying there’s conclusive evidence either way, and thus banking everything on that being true is ridiculous.

I’d bet at some point, in some society, people believe humans could also breathe out their butts because air escaped through that orifice. Should they bank on that?

My point was, and still is, if one’s taught, the other should be taught side-by-side. Forcing someone to bank on one or the other is just stupid. Let kids know the possibilities and explore it in the future. One camp or the other may just surprise you one day.

That is a horrible example.

And such a quality post to point that out.

OK then, do we teach Nordic, Greek, Roman, Japaneses, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Visogoth, etc as well? Or does Christianity/Islam/Judiasim get a free pass because they are popular religions?

Your solution only makes it worse because it opens up more issues, and doesn’t solve the issue. Its a comprimise that shouldn’t even exist.

You’ve never had a world cultures class?

I’m pretty sure I learned the vast majority of those things in high school. If they’re not being taught now, then I weep for the state of school systems.

Stay free, South Korea.

Where does this madness end? If we can teach things THAT CANNOT BE TESTED IN ANY WAY for kids themselves to sort out, why stop at Creationism? Why not also teach them about the theory of the earth being created in six days by God(who knows, maybe our dating mechanisms are whacked or Godicist.). Why not teach them to sleep with baby girls to cure aids?

Just sticking with creationism, there’s thousands of theories of how the world and all life was created. There is no such thing as “the other should be taught side-by-side”, are you seriously expecting biology high school teachers to cram every single theory of the origin of life and the planet into a school semester?

Well, I aim to please!
In all seriousness, is there any conclusive evidence for creationism? The difference is that there is at least some conclusive evidence for evolution.

The what in the who?

That’s got to be the dumbest leap in this thread.

I haven’t bothered to argue with an obviously uninformed creationists like you for quite a while but I’ll bite. The overwhelming evidence for evolution is everywhere, you simply are either lazy, or dumb enough to find it, and when you do find it, you tend to ignore it and rationalize it away.

Also, you seem to mistake abiogenesis with evolution. Comparing the start of life form and evolution is like comparing the start of the universe and how stars and galaxies form, what the hell are you trying to say? The probability of evolution occurring just becomes bigger and bigger the more one looks at evidence actually, the fact that you’re still spouting this “missing link” non-sense that creationists used for decades, which by the way has been disproved and void thousands upon thousands of times (many years ago too, I might add), just proves that you are grossly misinformed, uninformed, and are just kinda blind.

Do you even know what a missing link is? Oops, rhetorical question, I’ll answer it for you and save you the trouble of googling.

If you meant missing link as in the transitional fossils that proves the transition from one species to the next, then I’d hate to break it to you but such thing does not exist. Why? Because all form of fossils are transitional fossils. You’re basically asking to show you every single little changes in details in an organism that made it possible to evolve to another organism over time. What you are saying is “show me how this piece of paper turned into an origami bird,” and when I show you an in-process work of such origami you say “that could not possibly have changed that way, there must have been a previous step before this that made such change possible, show me that!” So unless scientists can map out every single little details of change you’re just going to say there must have been this “missing link.” This missing link argument has been smashed to pieces many times, you can further read up on why it’s such a bad argument. Just google it.

It’s obviously not the dumbest leap in this thread if we take your crackpot solution into account. If we should teach kids one crackpot theory to “let them sort for themselves” why not go further and teach them even more ridiculous kinds of insanity? The dumbness in your solution is self-evident.

You missed the point.

lmao, if you are so dense that you cant even understand my point on how religion and science can coexists i dont know what to tell you, because the point would keep flying over your head.

no, you are just a sweet little pie

im not here to try to convince you or anyone on what i belive, so im not going to waste my time, im just going to tell you, my belive on him comes from my personal life experinces, and how at least for me, he has given me signals of his existence (and btw no, im not a religious guy, at least im not an active one that would go to church or anything bceause i have my grieves against the church), i cant care less if they were just quantum coincidences, or whatever, dunno why you feel that the believes of others need to be antagonized or explained

the creation tortures the creation, not the other way around

we are not imperfect, we are inmature, as individuals and as civilization; our capabilities are great, we have the chances to explore learn and [try to] recreate/imitate what we encounter on nature.
its our own social systems what help to bring our worst side, evolution is not only for genes, our next step on evolution would come from how we work as society, if we are unnable to evolve as society we would perish, like the natural order says so, that would simply mean that we werent the strongest as we thought

god helps those who help themeselves

it can be, who cares
i dont have all the answers, neither the religions, as i said they are there to guide us on the “spiritual” (take it as whatever you like), but we shouldnt take everything that they say as granted, because religion is a human institution, and as humans it and should evolve with time

You want me to address it? Ok.

Because a large proportion of those are race-centric, thus easy to disprove, and can serve as launching pads for racial supremacy and eugenics.

Oh hey, there’s another theory in here that has been used as citation in the case for eugenics. Hint, it’s in the title of the thread.