In this blog post, we will examine why the petition by the Committee for the Revision of Evolution Theory in Textbooks to remove evolution theory became controversial and what specific criticisms it faced.
The Petition by the Committee for the Revision of Evolution Theory in Textbooks and the Social Controversy
In June 2012, the world-renowned scientific journal ‘Nature’ reported on a movement to delete or revise content related to the theory of evolution in some South Korean science textbooks, highlighting it as a matter of international concern. At the time, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology received a petition from the Committee for the Revision of Evolutionary Theory in Textbooks (CRTE) requesting the removal of examples such as the Archaeopteryx and the evolution of the horse—which were included in textbooks as evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution—and some textbook publishers decided to revise or delete the relevant content. This report caused a major stir overseas and led to diverse assessments and debates regarding science education and scientific credibility in South Korea.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology ordered a re-examination of the content following a review by experts in the South Korean scientific community; as a result, some of the controversial textbook content was not simply deleted but was either revised to reflect the latest research findings or retained. Although the petition’s demands were not fully accepted at the time, this incident remains a prime example that sparked public debate regarding science education, religion, and the neutrality of public education in South Korea.
The Association for the Promotion of Science Education had previously submitted petitions asserting that “the Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate species between reptiles and birds” and that “the evolutionary lineage of horses is a figment of the imagination,” and some textbooks were revised to reflect these claims. The Association for the Promotion of Science and Education (APSE) states that its founding purpose is “to contribute to sound scientific development and the advancement of scholarship by informing the academic and educational communities of errors in evolutionary theory and the latest theories resulting from scientific progress.” However, it is necessary to thoroughly examine whether these activities truly align with its founding principles.
Was the KACE an academic organization unrelated to religion?
First, it is necessary to examine the background of the KACE’s establishment. The KACE states that it was founded with the goal of promoting sound scientific development and academic advancement, and Lee Kwang-won, who served as its chairman at the time, asserted in various interviews that the KACE was an academic organization unrelated to religion and that the content of its petitions was based purely on scientific evidence.
However, a review of publicly available records from that time reveals that the Committee was operated as an affiliate of the Christian Council of Korea and maintained significant personnel and organizational ties with the Korean Association for Creation Science, which researches creation science. A significant number of executives overlapped between the two organizations, and it was confirmed that they jointly held seminars and regular meetings.
Of course, the mere fact that an organization is affiliated with a specific religious group does not automatically render its academic claims invalid. What is important is that the validity of such claims must be evaluated through scientific verification. However, when an organization directly linked to specific religious beliefs demands revisions to public school textbooks, its objectives and objectivity must be subject to social scrutiny.
The Committee explained that its goal was not to “deny the theory of evolution” but to “correct the erroneous theory of evolution included in textbooks.” However, based on a comprehensive review of various statements and activities by KJINCHU officials at the time, criticism was raised questioning whether their intent went beyond simply correcting some errors and aimed to exclude the theory of evolution itself from public education.
Some even likened this strategy to the “foot-in-the-door effect” described in psychology. The idea is that they start by demanding relatively minor revisions but gradually expand their demands to larger ones. In fact, during interviews at the time, statements were made to the effect that if errors in the theory of evolution were revealed, they should be removed from textbooks, and the group even announced plans for additional petitions. These actions raised suspicions that their objectives went beyond simply correcting errors in textbooks.
Were the KJPC’s claims scientifically valid?
Another reason why the KJPC’s close ties to religious organizations are problematic is that the arguments presented in their criticism of evolutionary theory lacked sufficient scientific validity and logical rigor.
If there are errors in a textbook, anyone can point them out and request corrections. Petitioning is a right guaranteed in a democratic society, and science textbooks can certainly be revised as new research findings accumulate. However, such requests for revision must be based on sufficient scientific evidence and logical explanations. If the evidence presented is valid, the textbook content can be revised; however, claims that lack scientific verification or distort the facts are unlikely to be accepted.
At the time, the KRC’s petition faced significant criticism on these grounds. It was pointed out that some of the claims did not sufficiently reflect the latest research findings, generalized limited cases, or presented interpretations that diverged from the scientific consensus. Nevertheless, the combination of the organized influence of religious groups and public attention gave the petition considerable impact, leading to revisions in some textbooks.
First, let’s examine the claim that the Archaeopteryx should be removed from textbooks. The Committee argued that Archaeopteryx cannot be used as evidence of evolution because no fossil transitional forms between reptiles and Archaeopteryx have been discovered, some Archaeopteryx fossils have been proven to be forgeries, and feathers cannot form in reptiles.
However, these claims differ significantly from current research findings. Since fossils form only in very limited environments, it is natural that fossils perfectly illustrating every stage of evolution have not been discovered. Furthermore, over the subsequent decades, the discovery of numerous fossils of feathered dinosaurs and bird-like dinosaurs has, in fact, greatly increased the evidence demonstrating the evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and birds. Archaeopteryx, too, continues to be studied today as one of the key fossils for understanding early birds, and its academic value in evolutionary biology is still widely recognized.
It is true that some cases of fossil forgery have indeed occurred. However, these were issues limited to specific fossil specimens and do not serve as grounds to invalidate all research on Archaeopteryx or avian evolution as a whole. The mere discovery of individual cases of forgery cannot negate the results of numerous independent studies.
The evolutionary tree of horses is a similar case. Kyojin-chu argued that the evolutionary tree of horses included in textbooks was a figment of the imagination and that there were errors regarding the number of ribs and other details. In fact, some textbooks at the time did contain outdated evolutionary trees and failed to fully reflect the latest research findings.
However, these facts do not serve as grounds for denying evolution itself; rather, they provide grounds for revising textbook content to align with the latest research. The evolutionary tree of horses has since been refined and supplemented through various fossil data and molecular biology research. Therefore, it is not logically sound to deny the entire theory of evolution based on outdated illustrations. If the goal is truly to improve the accuracy of science education, a more reasonable approach would be to replace outdated material with content that reflects the latest research, rather than simply deleting it.
As such, the main points of the KEP’s petition at the time did not fully align with the research findings of the scientific community and, for this reason, drew criticism from many scientists.
How should we view the relationship between religion and public education?
As noted, the contents of the KJPC’s petition faced significant criticism regarding scientific evidence and logical consistency. Nevertheless, some accepted these claims without further scrutiny. This can be interpreted as the beliefs and values shared within a specific religious community influencing the judgment of its members.
Of course, one cannot generalize that the mere fact of having a religion limits critical thinking. Many people of various faiths also respect scientific research and accept the theory of evolution. However, when a specific group attempts to directly incorporate religious beliefs into public education policy, it is clear that its claims must be evaluated based on objective scientific evidence, not religious authority.
The KJPC’s petition was criticized for failing to sufficiently consider this point. The criticism is that while the group used beliefs aligned with its own position as a key basis for persuasion, it failed to sufficiently reflect scientific verification and academic consensus.
Some have argued that since a significant portion of South Korea’s population is religious and the proportion of Christians is not insignificant, there is no problem with the KJPC representing the Christian perspective. However, this argument lacks persuasiveness when considering the nature of public education. This is because public education is not a system designed solely for a specific religion or set of values, but rather an educational framework intended for all citizens, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs.
Therefore, if a specific religious organization wishes to exert influence to alter the public education curriculum, its basis must be objective, academic evidence that anyone can verify—not religious beliefs. Otherwise, it could conflict with the right to education of those who follow other religions or have no religious affiliation.
While diverse opinions may be presented within public education, the final content of textbooks must be determined based on academic verification and consensus among experts. This principle is not intended to exclude any specific religion but rather serves as a minimum standard for maintaining the objectivity and public nature of education.
Conclusion
It is highly commendable for academic organizations to take a critical stance toward public education and strive to improve its quality. In fact, science textbooks have been continuously revised and updated as new research findings have accumulated, and this process will continue in the future.
However, as examined earlier, the controversy surrounding the Committee for the Promotion of Science Education at the time expanded beyond the simple correction of textbook errors into a broader social debate concerning the relationship between religion, science, and public education. Textbook content must be revised based on scientific verification and academic consensus, not the beliefs of a specific group, and public education must also maintain objectivity and neutrality for all citizens.
This controversy over the petition to remove the theory of evolution serves as an example of how science education can become the subject of social and religious debate, and it is an event that prompts us to reconsider why scientific evidence and academic verification are so important in public education.
