[南華早報] 2009-05-01 EDU1 EDU Liz Heron
The Education Bureau has issued a new statement about its guidelines on teaching evolution in biology lessons, declaring that creationism is not considered an alternative to Charles Darwin's theory.
But scientists and campaigners, who are calling for guidelines to be tightened to exclude non-scientific explanations such as creationism, say the statement will only add to the confusion.
The statement, on RTHK's television programme The Pulse, was made after four leading scientists at University of Hong Kong accused the bureau of tacitly encouraging schools to promote creationism in biology.
A biology guide for the senior secondary curriculum states: "In addition to Darwin's theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life, to help illustrate the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge."
The scientists said the clause showed a failure to understand that there were no substantive alternatives to evolution in modern biology and allowed the promotion of creationism and intelligent design.
Last Friday's programme carried the following comment from the bureau: "Creationism is not included in the biology curriculum framework, nor is it considered as an alternative to Darwin's theory.
"There were two main theories of evolution, Darwin and Lamarck, each with its own supporters. Teachers can go through the scientific arguments with students to show how current scientific evidence available is in favour of Darwin or Lamarck."
David Dudgeon, University of Hong Kong's science faculty board chairman and one of the four, said the bureau's latest advice amounted to a "very backward-looking way of teaching science".
"Lamarck is not an alternative to Darwin because Lamarck's ideas came out well before Darwin," he said. "Lamarck's ideas about 'inheritance' - the transmission of acquired characteristics - were discredited in the 19th century. It is essential that we review the guidelines."
Gavin Smith, an evolutionary biologist at HKU, said the guidance should stipulate that "non-scientific subjects - such as creationism and intelligent design - should not be taught in science classes".
Virginia Yue Wai-sin, founder of the Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education, which has lodged a paper objecting to creationism in schools with the Legislative Council's education panel, said: "I don't think the bureau knows what it is talking about. If you are putting forward an alternative scientific theory, it has to have some currency or validity today.
"At least it should still be a live debate on a theory that scientists are currently working on."
Ms Yue welcomed the clarification on creationism but said ad-hoc statements would cause confusion among teachers.
The bureau failed to comment before Education Post went to press.