tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post473016326911216950..comments2024-03-18T07:07:53.346-04:00Comments on Ask a Korean!: No Evolution in Korea?T.K. (Ask a Korean!)http://www.blogger.com/profile/07663422474464557214noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-47590155877032589892012-07-11T11:02:11.126-04:002012-07-11T11:02:11.126-04:00First, I have to note that you completely bought t...First, I have to note that you completely bought the Western media freakout, hook, line & sinker. I will repeat for what feels like a thousandth time: There was NEVER any danger that MEST was going to drop the theory of evolution from its guidelines. Your claim that "several major Korean textbook publishers have caved to the pressure from Christian extremists, and will be <i>removing all mention of evolution from biology textbooks</i>" is completely incorrect. (Emphasis mine.) <br /><br />That said, I do agree with the upshot: if this episode indicates any problem in Korea's science education, it is bureaucratic inaction. If MEST rigorously applied its guidelines to the fullest extent, it would have required the textbook to not simply mention evolution, but support it with scientifically accurate diagrams. It would signal to the textbook publishers that it is not enough to drop the scientifically inaccurate diagrams; those diagrams have to be replaced. This would have required MEST, for its part, to have a rigorous commitment to science education, and resist any attempt that can even be mischaracterized as a victory for anti-evolution nutcases. MEST's stance of simply going along displays a lack of such commitment. If one cares about science education in Korea, this is enough reason to worry, not because the theory of evolution is about to be eliimniated in Korea.T.K. (Ask a Korean!)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07663422474464557214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-28679875718711266862012-07-11T10:41:26.090-04:002012-07-11T10:41:26.090-04:00I hardly think the Korean media are so trustworthy...<b><i>I hardly think the Korean media are so trustworthy that when they ignore something, that's a sign that it's not a problem, given the media's, ahem, political commitments, er, I mean, their dubious honesty, bipartisanism, and straight shooting. The Koreans I know laugh at the idea one reads newspapers to be informed, and have said things rather like what Mark Twain noted: you don't read the paper, you're uninformed; you do read the paper, then you're misinformed.</i></b><br /><br />I find this stance, common among expat commentators, very annoying. It essentially is an attempt to foreclose Korean perspectives from entering a discussion about Korea. It is particularly annoying when this stance is supported with a sentence that starts with "The Koreans I know . . ." Koreans are annoyed at the media like the way Americans are annoyed at the partisanship of MSNBC and Fox News; their level of annoyance does not amount to a wholesale disregard of all Korean media.<br /><br /><b><i>If this is just a Western media freakout over a non-issue in Korea, then why did Korean scientists go to the trouble of mobilizing after the Nature article? Why did Choe Jae (Ewha University Prof.) bother to organize a petition? Why did many Korean scientists "not want to 'participate in that muddy debate'" prior to the article? One professor is noted as having felt it might legitimate the STR to debate with them. Is that why the others stayed out of it? And why did the Nature article change this response to STR, if it was a rational response, as The Korean seems to suggest?</i></b><br /><br />Because Koreans care about what the Western media says. This was a non-issue before the sensationalistic <i>Nature</i> article. Then the <i>Nature</i> article MADE it an issue. The <i>Nature</i> article legitimized STR by putting it in the international spotlight and giving them far, far more credit than it was due. It would be foolish for Korean scientists to sit on their hands when there is a veritable international slander on Korea's science education.<br /><br /><b><i>Why did it take the MEST almost two months before it announced that it would seek "expert opinions"? And why indeed would the MEST make any decision regarding textbook content guidelines without consulting expert opinions?</i></b><br /><br />It is important not to mix up the terminology here. Refer to my post -- the textbook content guidelines were already set long ago, and those guidelines include the theory of evolution. Period. There was NEVER any danger that MEST was going to drop the theory of evolution from its guidelines.<br /><br />Recall that the issue is regarding two diagrams, not the theory of evolution. Removing those two diagrams actually made the science textbooks <i>more</i> scientifically accurate, because those diagrams were outdated. Ideally, those diagrams would have been replaced by more accurate diagrams. And they are getting around to doing that now, and the more accurate diagrams will require consulting expert opinions. If there was any issue, it was a bureaucratic inaction. I will write a bit more on this in the reply to your second comment, because it is more pertinent there.T.K. (Ask a Korean!)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07663422474464557214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-27501132549296883332012-07-11T01:52:03.764-04:002012-07-11T01:52:03.764-04:00Those of my Korean friends who have commented abou...Those of my Korean friends who have commented about this to me are almost exclusively from that small segment of Korean society who really deeply cares about science and science education, and <i>they</i> certainly did not regard the news as small potatoes. <br /><br />Those I talked to were mostly annoyed at the MEST's response to the STR, not by the article that The Korean is busy lambasting. They felt this was just the opening salvo in a prolonged fight against evolution in school textbooks that was to come. Hell, even the Korean commenter on <a href="http://www.gordsellar.com/2012/06/04/another-victory-for-ignorance-evolution-to-be-dropped-from-korean-science-textbooks-and-the-ominous-subtext-of-their-decision/" rel="nofollow">my original post on the subject</a> (which needs updating) reminisced that his high school biology teacher claimed evangelicals like himself were, thirty years ago, already "working on" the institution of laws to restrict the teaching of evolution in high schools. More than once I encountered the opinion that this was the opening salvo against the teaching of evolution, to be followed by more chipping-away at the teaching of evolution in schools, which they would (and openly declare they will) continue working at.<br /><br />They were, more importantly, critical about the fact that textbooks <i>still</i> had such out-of-date information that the STR had leeway to attack--which some argued says a lot about the abysmal state of high school science education here: outdated information in science textbooks, when the textbook turnover rate is almost certainly pretty constant, gave the STR an Achilles heel to attack. <br /><br />(I don't know specifically about science books, but I imagine the process is similar to with English textbooks, where the textbook assessment period (and thus revisions or the production of new texts) occurs on a cycle of a few years (between 5 and 9 years for most subjects, the last I checked, though I got the impression somewhere that the cycle was shorter for TEFL textbooks)--and are a massive last-minute scramble for the huge cash cow of approval status each time--and I'd be surprised if it's not the same for science texts.)<br /><br />And that's the real news story to be concerned about: ridiculously out of date content in science textbooks in this day and age, when science textbooks are supposedly being revised regularly. Pretty amazing when you actually have a whole government ministry dedicated to Education, Science, and Technology, that they would simply <a href="http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2955017" rel="nofollow">"pass the baton"</a> to the publishers as to whether they should comply with the demands of Creationist nuts. In a case like this, passing the baton is a way of approving the demand without publicly doing so... <br /><br />Which is a very important point that shouldn't be skipped--the decision to drop those images was not final, but take it from me: <i>no</i> textbook publisher would be willing to even <i>consider</i> dropping anything from its texts (let alone announcing plans to do so) unless they felt the omission would not jeopardize their successfully receiving approval! The textbook industry is in a collective slump right now, and no publisher takes even the smallest of risks these days. (I've seen editors at a mid-range house, desperate to get approved school textbook-list status, include pointlessly awkward garbage on purpose because the Education Ministry guidelines demanded outdated or useless phrases be taught; everyone involved, from the editors to the authors, simply did their best to jigger together something that kinda-sorta almost worked, because you don't contradict the extremely micromanagerial textbook guidelines, even when they were clearly written by someone ignorant of the subject matter.) <br /><br />In that context, the Ministry "not making a final decision" but instead telling publishers to decide for themselves, I would argue, constitutes a kind of message in itself.gordsellarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11465812613427778240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-82414930160637048242012-07-11T01:50:44.298-04:002012-07-11T01:50:44.298-04:00I hardly think the Korean media are so trustworthy...I hardly think the Korean media are so trustworthy that when they ignore something, that's a sign that it's not a problem, given the media's, ahem, political commitments, er, I mean, their dubious honesty, bipartisanism, and straight shooting. The Koreans I know laugh at the idea one reads newspapers to be informed, and have said things rather like what Mark Twain noted: you don't read the paper, you're uninformed; you do read the paper, then you're misinformed. <br /><br />I hasten to note that pretty much everyone I know working in or teaching science here (or even, like me, engage with science more informally) acknowledges science is not held in high enough esteem, or popularized enough, in Korean society; plenty of parents tell their kids not to major in the sciences except as a stepping stone to medicine or pharmacy. A friend of mine who teaches physics notes that i's comparatively harder for physics grads to get jobs in Korea than in other places, because many companies prefer engineers, even when the skill set for a given job overlaps generally. Hell, even SF fans in Korea are heard to complain when there's "too much science" in a work of science fiction. (Western SF fans might complain the science is too hard, but not that there's "too much science.") <br /><br />In conditions like that, it's not surprising newspapers wouldn't treat a science-related issue like a big deal when the readers don't either. <br /><br />So while I'll grant that perhaps <i>Nature</i>'s presentation of events was problematic, it seems that The Korean's is problematic as well. <br /><br />Science recently ran <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/07/south-korea-to-reconsider-plan.html?ref=hp" rel="nofollow">an article</a> (yes, in English, and with quotes from prominent Korean scientists) the perusal of which raises some questions, despite also pointing out there was some media exaggeration:<br /><br />- If this is just a Western media freakout over a non-issue in Korea, then why did Korean scientists go to the trouble of mobilizing <i>after</i> the Nature article? Why did Choe Jae (Ewha University Prof.) bother to organize a petition?<br /><br />- Why did many Korean scientists "not want to 'participate in that muddy debate'" prior to the article? One professor is noted as having felt it might legitimate the STR to debate with them. Is that why the others stayed out of it? And why did the Nature article change this response to STR, if it was a rational response, as The Korean seems to suggest?<br /><br />- Why did it take the MEST almost two months before it announced that it would seek "expert opinions"? And why indeed would the MEST make <i>any</i> decision regarding textbook content guidelines <i>without</i> consulting expert opinions?gordsellarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11465812613427778240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-10699720399707908982012-07-10T09:47:18.295-04:002012-07-10T09:47:18.295-04:00Most of the coverage of Asia (Japan and the Koreas...Most of the coverage of Asia (Japan and the Koreas, in particular, but other countries as well) in the US boils down to or is presented as "News of the Weird". People marrying pillows, robots teaching English, cosplay conventions on every street corner (they'd have you believe), somebody who steals thousands of shoes, an old woman who fails a driving test hundreds of times, public mourning of Kim Jong-il, those wacky Asians and those standardized tests, etc. etc. etc. And since most people are casual news readers (that is, scanning headlines on Yahoo.com, or watching Fox News at McDonald's), there is no real depth of coverage on any issue, whether it's what's going on in South Korea or the issues most relevant to the lives of the average American. I don't advocate <em>not</em> reading the news, or not paying attention . . . but for all the talk of a "free" press here in the US, we're certainly surrounded by rotten examples.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07149708954524602455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-62297302640334036442012-07-09T01:34:27.433-04:002012-07-09T01:34:27.433-04:00I The problem is that many believers AND atheists,...I The problem is that many believers AND atheists, as well as any other non-believers take the bible and the other religious books too litterally. Those ancient texts were written by ancient people in order for other people of those ancient times to understand. It's full of metaphores, allegories and symbolism. Plus, at those times they were not educated enough. So those texts should be accepted, but never taken for granted.<br /><br />And that is why a lot of people talk about christians as stupid and a lot of christians take scientists to be heartless. Because both of the extremists of both of these groups take those texts litterally.<br /><br />I personally am a christian, a catholic. And I love science, althought I'm not that great at it, simply because I've got more skills in humanistic science and art, rather than natural and technical science, but I love them all. I do believe that God created the universe, but I don't believe he immediately created us and in only 7 days. Also, a scientist, evolutionist, who believe God created the world, may want to know HOW He did so. And here we get an acceptance of evolutionism in religions as well.<br /><br />Afterall, wasn't Einstain a believer too? I mean, he was not an evolutionist, he was a physicist, but many people believe science in general is opposed to religions in general.Dac X Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15293064862842657519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-25893408670371773572012-07-08T16:25:57.535-04:002012-07-08T16:25:57.535-04:00...the current theory of evolution is more science...<i>...the current theory of evolution is more science fiction than provable and tested...</i><br />No, it's not.<br /><br /><i>evolution should be taught as it is - simply a theory, which may or may not be true...</i><br />You obviously don't know what the word "theory" means, at least in the scientific sense.<br /><br /><i>I do not wish to see intelligent design taught as fact...</i><br />Intelligent Design is neither theory nor fact. It's Bullshit. I do not wish to see Brought Here by Storks taught as theory or fact in a Reproductive Biology class.<br /><br /><i>I'm exicted [sic] to be moving to Korea next year...</i><br />Best to stay home. Korea has enough idiots as is.Korean Punk Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05554943873764484693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-37554036511296100322012-07-08T10:23:54.737-04:002012-07-08T10:23:54.737-04:00Ndog,
OMG...have you actually done any research, ...Ndog, <br />OMG...have you actually done any research, of which there is an enormous amount of information, on Korean culture?<br />Unless of course you are either being sarcastic or obtuse?<br />Have you even read Darwin?<br />Nowadays there can not be any excuse for ignorance.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04582606743787046167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-27378296178101439472012-07-07T10:40:27.143-04:002012-07-07T10:40:27.143-04:00That's not what theory means.That's not what theory means.bumfromkoreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153488376014405461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-81202155075106147572012-07-07T10:04:42.257-04:002012-07-07T10:04:42.257-04:00I'm exicted to be moving to Korea next year, f...I'm exicted to be moving to Korea next year, finally a country that does away with fiction. The fact is we don't know how we got here, and the current theory of evolution is more science fiction than provable and tested. The way I see it is, evolution should be taught as it is - simply a theory, which may or may not be true. On the other side I do not wish to see intelligent design taught as fact, and if it were, again as a theory, which may or may not be true.ndoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14198961192753034948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-15004461435135195412012-07-06T09:27:32.598-04:002012-07-06T09:27:32.598-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Dolarandgoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081043545665083189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-36047136806032424482012-07-03T12:33:15.055-04:002012-07-03T12:33:15.055-04:00And for a great laugh - please read the comments t...And for a great laugh - please read the comments that Huff Post article generated! LOL! I'm a little scared how ppl think...Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05462364369925504765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-90313952491151765132012-07-03T02:06:58.781-04:002012-07-03T02:06:58.781-04:00tr, what the hell are you muttering on about?tr, what the hell are you muttering on about?Korean Punk Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05554943873764484693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-44832744921483035612012-07-02T23:42:04.624-04:002012-07-02T23:42:04.624-04:00People put the evolution against the religion.
Ev...People put the evolution against the religion.<br /><br />Evolution claims humans come from (or a relative of) other creatures.<br />As far as i know, all 3 religions (jew, christian, islam) teaches that the first human being is Adam. And he was created.<br />And i don't understand what if one person believes his/her religion as a whole (and don't say i believe that, that but not that one). <br /><br />Not believing in evolution with all aspects make a person stupid, dumb or whatever. <br />We respect everyone atheist, buddhist, christian, muslim, jew. But when it comes to believing or not believing in evolution, we forget everyting we know. There is only one truth and everybody MUST believe that.<br /><br />Come on...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-25397649249720156602012-07-02T23:31:33.737-04:002012-07-02T23:31:33.737-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-57952982179666426442012-07-02T09:18:58.741-04:002012-07-02T09:18:58.741-04:00Great post.
I was bombarded with this by friends...Great post. <br /><br />I was bombarded with this by friends who albeit jokingly, tried to objectively prove my heritage is inherently inclined to backward behavior.<br />Most sites that cover Korea in English are quite lacking. <br /><br />But it could be worse, like Japan coverage in English.adbchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06137981082332138881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-73669227371388531952012-07-02T03:31:22.249-04:002012-07-02T03:31:22.249-04:00Hmm, the Nature article is technically correct in ...Hmm, the Nature article is technically correct in its wording, while giving an incorrect impression of a much more serious problem. <br />The Nature article cites surveys that says that "almost one-third of the respondents didn’t believe in evolution" and "40% of [Korean] biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”". Does this concur with your experience?Wandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02920116687183692937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-34051204432791279952012-07-01T23:53:36.501-04:002012-07-01T23:53:36.501-04:00So MEST got it right - it seems a fairly pedestria...So MEST got it right - it seems a fairly pedestrian / pragmatic way to go. Good on them - but I still find a part of this story funny: A group of Christians in favor of attacking evolution has succeeded (thus far) in making the case for evolution *more* accurate?Chris in South Koreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07114300133329984235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36405856.post-49977633333903609942012-07-01T20:17:43.844-04:002012-07-01T20:17:43.844-04:00I was a bit concerned about this, because there...I was a bit concerned about this, because there's a chance that the MEST guideline might be too strict - and in favor of the STR people. There is excellent educational value in teaching genetics and evolution in terms of the classical/obsolete thoughts (Darwinian, Mendelian, Modern Synthesis, etc.) - just as we initially teach people that atoms are made out of spherical photons, neutrons, and electrons circling around them like monorails. <br /><br />Technically, a lot of the stuff in science textbooks are wrong (for the sake of effective education). I'm glad MEST decided in the end to say "Fuck you".bumfromkoreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06153488376014405461noreply@blogger.com