[TigerSun]

Amazing story in the paper, creationism is being taught in 30 aided schools in HK!
Quote one principal: "Our religious belief does not approve of evolution".

Scientists urge excluding God from biology
Guidelines on creationism criticised Liz Heron, SCMP, Feb 07, 2009
Leading Hong Kong scientists have criticised the Education Bureau for tacitly encouraging schools to promote creationism in biology lessons through its guidelines on teaching evolution.
Four senior scientists are calling for guidance on biology teaching in the new senior secondary curriculum launched next September to be upgraded to reflect current scientific thinking.

The University of Hong Kong's dean of science Sun Kwok, science faculty board chairman David Dudgeon, former manager of its Genome Research Centre William Mak and geologist Jason Ali, say that would leave no room for teaching about creationism and intelligent design in biology.

Schools have discretion over how they teach academic subjects under flexible bureau guidelines and at least 30 aided schools teach creationism as an "alternative explanation" for evolution within biology.
Guidelines on the topic in HKCEE and A-level syllabuses require teachers to introduce students to the idea that evolution is a scientific theory supported with evidence.

A bureau spokeswoman said both syllabuses aimed to develop students' "skills, values and attitudes related to scientific thinking" but stipulated that alternative explanations to the theory of natural selection should be discussed.

"Evolution and other explanations should be discussed constructively and impartially against the evidence available, pointing out the limitation of science to provide a complete answer," she said.

The same objective applied in the senior secondary curriculum and assessment guide for biology classes leading to the new Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education.

"In section II, genetics and evolution, students are expected to understand that evolution is a scientific theory supported with evidence and are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life in addition to Darwin's theory," she said.

Professor Kwok said the advice showed a failure to understand what scientific knowledge was all about. "Science is limited to what we can observe because scientific theories have to be tested by experiment or observation. So, by definition, it is limited, but that doesn't mean that any alternative theory can be discussed in the science class. Certainly, there is no room for creationism and intelligent design. Debates within science classes should be limited to true scientific debates between competing scientific theories."

Professor Dudgeon, a freshwater ecology expert, said: "There are no substantive competing scientific explanations for evolution. Every fossil dig that people go out on essentially produces evidence that supports Darwin's theory. Each one could produce evidence that refutes Darwin's theory but it does not.

"It is ludicrous, if this theory is so important, that we are teaching alternatives. We are not still teaching students that the moon is made of green cheese or the earth is flat."

The bureau had missed a "golden opportunity" to bring the teaching of evolution up to a level that "reflects international best practice and scientific rigour" in the new senior secondary curriculum.

Noted Sars and bird flu researcher Malik Peiris, who is HKU's chair professor of microbiology, said: "In biology, we should confine ourselves to the basic philosophy of the scientific method. Creationism does not fit in that category. However, it may be discussed to illustrate the social context in which science operates."

Schools that offer creationism as an alternative to evolution in biology include 27 run by the Church of Christ in China Association.

A spokeswoman for the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority said there were no questions on creationism or intelligent design in existing exam papers for science subjects and no plans to introduce such questions.

The big divide: fact or faith

Chan Yau-chi, principal of United Christian College in Shek Kip Mei:
"When we teach about Darwin we treat it as one part of the subject. We teach students creationism as a counterbalancing theory."

Wong Shiu-hung, principal of Kwai Chung Methodist College, said:
"Our religious belief does not approve of evolution. We organise schools upholding Christian faith. If teachers have such a religious background, we encourage them to integrate their faith into lessons."

Siu Sze-chuen, headmaster of Newman Catholic School:
“There was no space for creationism because examiners did not accept it. If exam pressure was reduced, "it surely would be a good thing" to introduce creationism as an alternative.
Biology teacher Chan Hiu-ki, Yuen Long Lutheran Secondary School:
stages class debates on the subject. "One side supports the idea that evolution is the theory of the origin of living organisms and the other argues all organisms were created by God."

[gilleshk]

That's what you get when schools are run by religious orders

[PDLM]

Although it's clearly a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, it is clear that substantial numbers of deluded people around the world believe in creationism or intelligent design. So I have no problem with this being taught in schools, but clearly it should be in the "psychiatry (delusions)" syllabus, not the science syllabus.

[Poutouna]

It is very sad in did, that there's still controversy in something that is almost impossible to know for sure. In this context I firmly believe that material things need to be studied by science, but that is just common sense in my view.

The religious doctrine only have two ways right now, or it adapts to the new age that is approaching or does it go to the science-fiction section of the library.

To put it more in perspective, the liberal ones will chose the first path, the conservative ones however will stumble in their own claims and the second path will be the reward.

[tvrlover]

There is absolutely no problem for the teaching of bible creationism (aka literal teaching of the bible as scientific fact) in a private school setting. If a private school chooses to teach students creationism with the consent of the parents, for example a catholic private school, that is not an issue. It is their problem and if the parents want they can go to another private school, where religious nut-jobs don't claim the bible to be scientific fact.

Now, the problem is that this is discussion mostly about public school, and the Education Bureau is supporting this nonsense. Religion should not be taught in schools where public tax dollars are spent - public schools are not a medium to force religious beliefs on others. No religion should be in the sentence as public schools, period. Tax dollars should be spend on educating kinds of real scientific facts and real science, not biblical teachings. What if my child is a buddhist or taoist or _____ (fill in blank for your religion), why should he/she be force to learn religious beliefs of others as science via my tax dollars?

If people wish, they can teach ANYTHING they wish to their children at home, they can even tell their children god himself wrote the bible and that you can make human beings out of ribs -- I don't care. What you do in the privacy of your own home, is your problem and your business, but don't bring religion as science to a public school I also paid for with my tax dollars and force it on my child as scientific fact.

[PDLM]

Originally Posted by tvrlover

There is absolutely no problem for the teaching of bible creationism (aka literal teaching of the bible as scientific fact) in a private school setting. If a private school chooses to teach students creationism with the consent of the parents, for example a catholic private school, that is not an issue. It is their problem and if the parents want they can go to another private school, where religious nut-jobs don't claim the bible to be scientific fact.

I don't agree with this at all. Once you allow this then where do you draw the line on what can and cannot be taught? Unless you adopt the view that the state has no role to play in defining a minimum standard of education for children then you have to impose those standards on all schools.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by tvrlover

Now, the problem is that this is discussion mostly about public school, and the Education Bureau is supporting this nonsense. Religion should not be taught in schools where public tax dollars are spent - public schools are not a medium to force religious beliefs on others. No religion should be in the sentence as public schools, period. Tax dollars should be spend on educating kinds of real scientific facts and real science, not biblical teachings. What if my child is a buddhist or taoist or _____ (fill in blank for your religion), why should he/she be force to learn religious beliefs of others as science via my tax dollars?

Of course religion should be taught in schools. They are historical text after all. If your Christian you should be taught about Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist et al. It is the fact of school children NOT being taught other sects that makes them grow up secular and ignorant of others beliefs.

For me, a good friend converted to Sikhism and I learned so much more than seeing them as hirsute, turban headed curry eaters. I am a better man for it.

The problem in those countries that teach only one side of the story ( the US and Pakistan are very similar in that regard ) is that a teacher is taken as THE WORD, when in fact they are educators and should allow the individual to make up their own minds.

In my mind creationism is not valid but just but I still want to hear the argument and make my mind up. If my faith ( I am NOT an active Christian ) is strong enough and my education rounded enough then there is no danger. Teaching one side at the exclusion of others is propaganda and that is not what the education department is saying.

The US treat the subject of either or and go down the stupid route of legislating to make it so. In a modern multicultural society the aim is to be as well educated to others needs as possible. If it had happened sooner then the last 6 years would have never happened and mothers would be seeing their children grow into adulthood instead of saying goodbye on a cold mortuary slab.

[gilleshk]

Public schools don't teach creationism, it's schools that are run by religious institutions.

There are many schools of thoughts with this and it's not that simple. One would be that tax dollars only go to public schools and other institutions get nothing. The other is that the some tax dollars are attached to the number of children from tax paying families that are attending a school and according to that formula, they get funding.

Personally, I subscribe to that school of thought because it's the one that allows the most freedom. When I see things like the US government attaching aid dollars to policies like abortion, I find that very offensive. It essentially says that if you don't do what we like, you get no money.

I believe that everyone that pays tax dollars is entitled to get some back for the education of their children and that every parent has the right to choose the educational institution his/her chid will attend. Some people get all up in arms because private schools get some funding but I don't see anything wrong with it since the public schools certainly can't do it all for everyone. As long as operational tax dollars are attached to each child, it seems pretty fair to everyone.

Some people prefer to argue that if you want your tax dollars to go towards your child then you must send them to regular public schools. Personally, I find it too rigid and impractical and I prefer to see freedom of choice and more latitude even if it means having religious schools teaching creationism in their science class.

[thisdress]

Having attended a government-funded catholic school in HK (appr. 25% of the students were non catholic/christian though), I have to wonder why are they bothering to squabble about creationism taught in classrooms, when non-religious kids are required to pray, sing hymns, and carry their prayer books with them on a daily basis. We were even required to attend catholic masses every now and then, watching the guy in weird costumes sticking his fingers into your friend's mouth with bread and wine ... and then they sing, and walk around and around with poles and candles, for hours and hours and hours, without end, amen.

Through daily repetitions, I had memorized all the daily prayers and hymns by heart, and saw no reason to carry the inch-thick prayer book around with me every day. Hah, was I naive. Got sent to the disciplinarian's office for that. (well okay, I "forgot" to bring it more than once...)

IMHO, this is much more invasive than merely introducing an alternative theory open to classroom discussions and debates.

[tvrlover]

Originally Posted by PDLM

I don't agree with this at all. Once you allow this then where do you draw the line on what can and cannot be taught? Unless you adopt the view that the state has no role to play in defining a minimum standard of education for children then you have to impose those standards on all schools.

You are right, the state/government should have no ability whatsoever to force public schools to teach biblical text as scientific fact, or any religious beliefs in the classroom.

However, Private schools, funded by private dollars, who take no tax dollars or support from the public, can teach whatever they wish. If you don't like it, pull your kid out of the private school and put him in another, it's a private school after all. You can't seriously believe that you, I or anyone else can force privately funded institutions to teach something they don't believe in; example, you're not going to force a catholic private school to teach contraception - no matter how hard you try. And, to be fair, if I want to have a school, with like-minded parents, that teachers my kids about the church of satan (privately funded by our own money) this should be our right; the government has no say in this.

The place where you draw the line is between public (tax dollar) funded schools, and private (privately funded) schools. If a school takes any kind of government funds or help, they are in the public domain and should not force religion on children. In the private domain, they can do what they wish - as public dollars aren't involved.