Even the nations leading science institute the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology has a creation science display on campus.
The exhibition was set up by scientists who believed in creation science back in 1993, says Gab-duk Jang, a pastor of the campus church. The institute also has a thriving Research Association for Creation Science, run by professors and students, he adds.
BTW, after reading this article, I personally get the impression that the entire story is not being presented here.
This article :
Seems to give the entire issue some context and paints a somewhat different story...
Basically, what appears to have happened, is that South Korea, like many other countries, has science textbooks that include arguments FOR evolution and ideas about evolution that evolutionists themselves have disowned.
That means since evolutionists have disowned them, the information presented is OUT OF DATE.
A group petitioned to have the arguments removed that have been discredited by the evolutionists themselves. Then the arguments were removed, and, in some cases, replaced by newer, better arguments.
What Nature failed to tell you, for instance, is that one textbook publisher agreed that the horse series was a bad example, and put in the whale series instead.
In fact, many of the textbooks did reviews and agreed that the examples were out of date. What did they do? Removed them or updated them! Isnt that what is *supposed* to happen with out-of-date material?
Heres the last paragraph of the article from Korea:
The experts blame the passive and reactive approaches by the scientific community. The professor of genomics at Seoul National University Jang Dae-ik said the problem is that the writers of the science textbooks have neglected the new materials on the theory of evolution over the several decades. It even contains the references to Ernst Haeckels recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, get it?) which has been disproven a long time ago. This kind of lapse in up-to-date knowledge invites such an attack [from the CREIT].
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call creationists "scientists"? To date, so-called creation "scientists" have yet to make a scientific discovery, propose a testable hypothesis, or formulate a theory. That rather disqualifies them as "scientists", IMHO.