背景 Background

我們是「香港科學教育關注組」，一群關心即將推行的生物科課程內容的香港市民。

2009年2月7日，南華早報報導有香港科學家投訴，教育局的新生物科課程綱要中，有關演化論的部份所用的一些字眼將導致非科學理論在科學課上傳播[1]。有關文字如下：

「除達爾文理論外，還鼓勵學生探索其他有關進化和生命起源的解釋，以展示科學知識不斷轉變的本質。」

http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2824&langno=2

但港大理學院院長郭新教授在報導中指出科學知識是基於觀察和驗證，不是任何解釋也應該在科學課上討論，教育局的指引是曲解科學的定義。我們擔心這個漏洞將導致我們的教育素質受侵蝕，而關於地球上的生命演化的知識將被不能被科學驗證的想法或概念隱瞞，否認或混淆，從而違背了科學教育的目標。

更令人震驚的是，報導中有多達27間中華基督教會的中學已經在生物課中提出創造論為演化論外的「其他解釋」。同一報導中更有4位老師和校長不諱言會在生物課教授創造論，反映香港教育界對科學的定義含糊不清，情況十分嚴重。

2009年2月21日，教育局竟然不理會科學家的勸籲，拒絕對有關段落作出刪除或修改，南華早報也有記錄此事[2]。教育局發言人說會考慮學者的意見，卻又發表了一段耐人尋味的說話(英文譯文)：

「生物學課程將根據課堂上的經驗，學生的成績，學生和社會不斷變化的需求，進行審查和評價。」

2009年2月29日，首屈一指的國際學術期刊《自然》雜誌也關注了事件，記述港大理學院的立場是不同意偽科學如智慧設計論在學校傳播[3]。事實上，大多數的國際科學家們都有清楚的共識，認同演化論是目前唯一被確立的關於地球上生物多樣性的科學理論，而科學課不應該授偽科學。作出類似聲明的組織包括Interacademy Panel on international issues (IAP)，American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 和The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity (諾貝爾獎獲得者作出的聲明)。由於在《自然》刊登，事件很可能已經被許多世界各地的科學家知道，隨時為香港教育的形象帶來負面影響。

我們對於教育局，以及支持在科學課教授創造論/智慧設計論的教育界人士的態度和行徑感到十分失望和不滿。教育局的責任不是應部份社會人士的「需求」而傳播他們的特殊信念，而是為下一代提供優質、達到國際水平的教育。演化論是現時唯一解釋生物多樣化的科學理論，已廣被科學界接受，也是現代生物學的基礎；21世紀分子生物學的偉大發現，進一步驗證了演化論的可靠性。教育局的指引做不到強調演化論現時的科學地位，還有意無意引入引起學生質疑演化論的句子，無疑是無法跟上現時的國際科學界的水平，反而模糊化學生心目中科學的真實面貌。

我們的立場如下：

一、 科學課絕對不應該教授非科學的解釋，混淆學生視聽。

二、 創造論/智慧設計論不是科學理論，因為它不能被驗證；沒有被科學家反覆驗證的科學理論也不可能進入中小學科學教育。

三、 演化論是現時唯一解釋生物多樣化的科學理論，已廣被科學界接受。

We are "Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education", a group of citizens in Hong Kong who are concerned about the upcoming Biology curriculum for Hong Kong secondary schools.

On February 7, 2009, South China Morning Post reported that Hong Kong scientists have made complaints to Education Bureau about the new biology syllabus, because some of the wordings in the part concerning evolution will lead to the teaching of non-scientific theory in science classes [1]. The related passage is as follows:

"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."

http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2824&langno=1

However, Dean of HKU Faculty of Science Professor Sun Kwok pointed out that scientific knowledge is based on observation and verification, and not all explanations should be discussed during science classes, guidelines of Education Bureau have misinterpreted the definition of science. We fear this loophole will result in the erosion of our quality education, whereby knowledge of the evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with ideas or notions not testable by science, and thus contradicts the objectives of science education.

What is more appalling is that the Post reported that as many as 27 middle schools run by the Church of Christ in China Association have been offering creationism as an “alternative” to evolution in biology. In the same report 4 teachers and principals did not hesitate to admit that they would teach creationism during science classes, reflecting that some of the Hong Kong educators do not have a correct understanding of the definition of science.

On February 21, 2009, Education Bureau has ignored the advice of scientists, refused to delete or modify the relevant paragraphs, as reported in South China Morning Post [2]. Spokeswoman of Education Bureau said that they will consider the views of scholars but also gave a “thought-provoking” reply:

"The biology curriculum will be under constant review and evaluation in the light of classroom experiences, students' performance and the changing needs of students and society."

On February 29, 2009, leading international academic journal Nature also showed their concern about the case [3], and described that the position of HKU Faculty of Science is against pseudo-scientific explanations such as Intelligent Design to be spread in schools. In fact, the majority of the international scientists have clear consensus that the theory of evolution is currently the only robust and established scientific theory regarding biodiversity on Earth, and that pseudo-sciences should not be taught in science classes. Organizations making similar statements include the Interacademy Panel on international issues (IAP), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Nobel Laureates from The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. Being published in Nature, the news might have bad impact on the image of Hong Kong science education internationally.

We are deeply disappointed and dissatisfied to the reaction and attitude of Education Bureau, as well as those school teachers supporting the education of Intelligent Design in science class. Education Bureau is not responsible to satisfy the “needs” of the specific beliefs from one part of the society, but to provide quality education up to the international standards to our next generation. The theory of evolution is currently the only explanation of biological diversity and has been widely accepted by the scientific community. It is also the foundation of modern biology. The great discoveries of the 21st century molecular biology further verify the reliability of the theory of evolution. Guidelines of Education Bureau has failed to emphasize the current scientific status of the theory, and tacitly lead students to question the theory of evolution. Without doubt, the new syllabus not only cannot keep up with the current international scientific understanding, but also blurred the eyes of the students about the true face of science.

Our position is as follows:

1. Science classes should definitely not include non-scientific explanations.

2. Creationism/ Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it makes no verifiable claims; also, scientific theories not repeatedly tested by scientists must not enter the primary and secondary science education curriculum.

3. The theory of evolution by natural selection is currently the only scientific theory about biological diversity, and has been widely accepted by the scientific community.

REFERENCE 參考

[1] Liz Heron | Scientists urge excluding God from biology - Guidelines on creationism criticized | South China Morning Post | 2009-02-07 | EDU1| EDU.

[2] Liz Heron | Bureau turns back on creationism concerns | South China Morning Post | 2009-02-21 | EDU3| EDU

[3] David Cyranoski. Hong Kong evolution curriculum row - Intelligent design 'debate' sparks controversy. 25 February 2009 | Nature 457, 1067 (2009) | doi:10.1038/4571067a