Science Magazine 23-Oct-2009 - Hong Kong's Darwin Defenders Declare Victory in Teaching Fracas

Science in Society:

Hong Kong's Darwin Defenders Declare Victory in Teaching Fracas

Richard Stone

BEIJING--As a year of honoring Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution draws to a close, scientists in Hong Kong are celebrating a partial victory in what is likely to be an ongoing war against proponents of teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools.

"We have kept the creationist barbarians from the gate," says aquatic ecologist David Dudgeon, faculty board chair at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), about a decision last month by Hong Kong's Education Bureau to discount language in new science curriculum guidelines that had opened the door to teaching creationism and intelligent design in secondary schools. But their triumph is bittersweet. The Education Bureau has not revised the guidelines, choosing instead to issue its pro-evolution statement as an annex. And no one expects the few dozen schools in Hong Kong that openly espouse creationism to suddenly abandon it. "It appears that the bureau is unwilling to confront the Christian schools openly, and the schools will probably continue to teach creationism as part of the science classes," says astronomer Sun Kwok, HKU's science dean.

Figure 1

In Darwin's corner. The Hong Kong Education Bureau's pro-evolution statement doesn't go far enough, says Sun Kwok.

At first blush, cosmopolitan Hong Kong seems an unlikely bastion of creationism and intelligent design, which posits that the complexity of life requires action by an intelligent agent. But looks can be deceiving. Although all Hong Kong schools are publicly funded, most are run independently, and many have church affiliations, says Kwok.

"Fundamentalist Christianity percolates through schools, government, and other authorities in Hong Kong, and it informs attitudes towards gays and other social issues," Dudgeon says. "It is the elephant in the room" that no one talks about.

That changed in February when Dudgeon, Kwok, and like-minded colleagues began raising a ruckus over the "New Senior Secondary Biology and Combined Science Curriculum and Assessment Guide," a revision aimed at bringing Hong Kong's education system in line with international norms. Many changes were positive, but one rang alarm bells. The previous guidance suggested, vaguely but reasonably, that teachers "guide students to review the differences between scientific theories and other nonscientific modes of explanation, e.g. religious, metaphysical or philosophical." The new wording seems to put religious beliefs on an equal footing with evolution: "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."

Some people, Kwok says, perceived that the Education Bureau had "yielded to pressure from religious schools." So Kwok and HKU faculty members mounted a public campaign against what Kwok calls "pseudoscience subjects such as intelligent design, astrology, and UFO studies [that] have no place in our science curriculum." Hong Kong newspapers ate it up. But many religious leaders rallied behind the Education Bureau--as did some members of the scientific community. In May, a group of academics and high school teachers called the new guidance "stimulating, balanced, and nonbiased." Their statement said that "there is a real legitimate scientific controversy over Darwinian Theory. ... Alternative explanations to Darwinian macro-evolution should thus be explored so long as they are based on rational and empirical grounds."

One of the signatories, HKU physicist Chris Beling, argues that intelligent design concepts should be taught in addition to Darwinian theory. Intelligent design "may or may not be the answer to present problems in biological origins," he says, "but if the [HKU] science faculty keeps on shouting that Darwinian theory is the answer and drowning out other voices, it is clearly unhealthy for the progress of science and for the promotion of critical thinking amongst students."

After weeks of rancor, the Education Bureau sided with the Darwinian camp. In a 9 September letter to the Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education, curriculum officer Cheung Kwok-wah, writing on behalf of the education secretary, revealed an annex to the curriculum guide that notes, "Creationism and Intelligent Design are not included in the Biology Curriculum framework nor are they considered as an alternative to Darwin's theory."

Kwok, for one, is not satisfied. "The bureau has not changed the curriculum guide or issued a clarification statement to the schools," he notes. In the meantime, Kwok has been overseeing an effort to strengthen HKU's science curriculum as the university moves to a 4-year program. The science faculty is designing "foundation courses" that, starting in 2012, he says, would "provide all science students with a broader education and ensure that all students are exposed to the scientific way of thinking."

Secondary schools are likely to be more resistant to change, however. Members of the Concern Group--now with more than 630 members--recently discovered that one biology textbook published by Oxford University Press (China) Ltd. and endorsed by the Education Bureau refers to intelligent design ideas and two creationist Web sites. Some schools are using it, says information technologist Virginia Yue, a founder of the Concern Group. "We were shocked and appalled by such shameless religious proselytizing under the guise of science," says Yue, whose group is now mulling its next move. Their options may be limited, however. "Unless we police classrooms," Dudgeon says, "I think the matter must rest."