Lim Say Liang
In “God sneaks into our classrooms” (Part One), we raised the spectre of stealth religion in our schools. In particular, Creationism.
The Online Citizen has managed to interview the following people for their views, including Kenneth R. Miller, a key proponent of the Theory of Evolution and Professor of Biology at Brown University in the United States. He was a key witness in the 2005 Tammy Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District court case in the US where “Intelligent Design” was “put on trial” (See here).
Here are their views:
Goh Po Boon Head, Publication Management, Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education
“The MSE [Mini Science Encyclopedia ] is not on the list of recommended Science text for use in primary schools. We would like to assure you that our curriculum and approved resources are secular in nature. We will continue to remind schools to exercise care in the selection and use of additional enrichment resources for their students.”
EPB Panpac, publishers of Mini Science Encyclopedia (MSE)
Lim Geok Leng, the publisher and deputy general manager, Panpac, declined for the meeting to be recorded, considered an interview, and quoted. She also declined to divulge how many schools are offering the optional reference text.
It wasn’t made clear whether TOC’s request, a fortnight ago, to be put in touch with Ang Woon Chuan, MSE’s author, was relayed. Lim was noncommittal on how and when Ang might respond, or whether she would be available to.
There was no acknowledgment of negligence in the vetting of MSE; It is unknown whether “The Theory of Creation” will be excluded in the future edition or reprint of MSE.
Pastor Susan Tang, Free Community Church (FCC)
“To be honest, our church does not have an official stand on Creationism. We have a diversity of opinions in our membership which we encourage. We do not have a Pastor (who dictates what all should believe), we are run by a Church Council of which I am part that guides and challenges our members to think through their own faiths. We ask of our members to always respect the place of reason (science, knowledge, critical thinking) and human experience alongside scripture and tradition.
“There are many new questions that we can and should be asking if we take our faith seriously—this is nothing new—traditional theologies have been challenged in every generation and new theologies are being formed to address them in every new generation. In my personal opinion (which may differ from some FCC members) the Bible is not meant to answer questions of modern science.
“The Bible is rather, full of stories/mythologies about how ancient people understood the world around them in ancient times. To expect a 2000-year old text to provide answers to scientific and technological issues in the 21st century, or provide a theory of evolution, is ludicrous. What the Bible does provide instead, are lessons of inspiration, hope and courage for us through the stories and experiences of the faithful down through the ages.”
Dr Carl Wieland, Managing Director, Creation Ministries International
“It’s a pity though that people cannot easily see that the naturalist/materialist view is not religiously ‘neutral’ either. So without any mention of God, by exclusively presenting this view as fact, kids are in effect being ‘proselytized’ into this naturalistic/materialistic faith, one which also means that their parents’ faith, if it involves supernatural creation, is wrong. Now for those that happen to share that belief, there will be no reason to complain. They will only complain when there is even a hint of anything being discussed that this naturalistic view might be wrong. It is a pity if open discussion of such things is not permitted.… It’s crucial that people do not have blinkered views of reality, and are not afraid of fairly and openly discussing such matters. We are glad that we still have the freedom to at least have such discussions in the many strong and vibrant churches in your great nation.”
Professor Kenneth R. Miller, Brown University
“I have been outspoken on the need to keep creationism out of science classrooms in the USA. From the comments that have been posted to the article, it seems that many people in Singapore feel exactly the same way, and I would agree with them. I don’t know enough about the laws and traditions of Singapore to state whether this is appropriate for your public schools. However, I see no reason to bring non-scientific views into any science classroom, anywhere in the world.”
Professor Alex Law, Acting Chair of the School of Biological Science, Nanyang Technological University
“Generally, it’s the Christian’s version of creationism that’s being pushed, but there are other versions of ‘creation’: What about Islam’s? Or the Mayan’s? Or the Icelander’s? Or Pangu, the Chinese version.
“They are all great stories, made up long before the human race knew what ‘science’ is. I have no problem with taking the Bible as a collection of stories: I have no problem if they teach creationism in Church. But creationism has no place in the science classroom.
“The bottom line is that creationism necessarily requires a supernatural creator, whose existence cannot be demonstrated scientifically. Indeed, science does very well without such an assumption, and therefore we leave it out. Similarly, we do not address the question of ‘What came before the big bang?’ because that question cannot be addressed scientifically. With modern molecular biology, we have now a mechanistic understanding on how evolution could take place—in the changes in the DNA sequence. We can now understand how living organisms can change their phenotype, how new diseases emerge, and how cancer cells develop.”
—–
I find it highly ironic that certain individuals in the forum who profess to follow the straight and narrow chirstian faith are making almost every issue part of the GLBT agenda.
Having said that, I do enjoy the rich discourse posted online, and I am glad that my fellow online singaporeans are making a point to have a healthy, matured discussion that affects us,
adddendum (I accidentally clicked on the send button)
…. discussion on issues that affect us.
(DEAR moderator of TOC, sorry for the off-topic for once)
I pointed out that jaded uses the Satan way of argument, and she does not refute it, that implies Jaded admit she uses the satan way of argument.
I pointed out how jaded turn and twist peoples arguemnt to suit hers, and she does not refute it, that implies jaded admit she turn and twist peoples argument.
For such a person like jaded, i need not reply anymore, her integrity has been questioned, and she dares not refute……
It speaks so much of jaded as a person with religious integrity…
I think jaded tarnished the name of being a christians. (but then again, this is only my opinion)
evolution go hand in hand with creation. enough said, why haven some movements made peace with evolution?
Possible (#56)
Evolution: We were created from non-organic matter through 3.8 billion years of adaptive change.
Creationism: God created us 6000 years ago.
You must be nuts not to see the incompatibility.
Jaded (#57) I am baffled how life could be formed when splinters flying over the place.
First of all, you didn’t seem all too baffled to me. You were so convinced about your beliefs while you acknowledged quite overtly your ignorance about how evolution works. Secondly, perhaps you should explain to me where dogs come from. Do bananas have seeds? If antibiotics treat our illnesses, why do we encounter bacterial resistance in the long term? Isn’t it as simple as killing them the moment they appear by keep taking antibiotics? Go figure.
57) OriginalResonance
Jaded won’t bother to go figure, since he is keen that he know the absolute truth
Jaded can respond to everyone else here but me. I wonder why. LOL
i suspect Jaded = JustKayPoh = JayF = solo bear
Clone activities appear simultaneously……. and if they loose out, they hide together so as to bury their loss argument…. (well just my personal opinion)
My post #57 was deleted, ok!!!!by onlinecitizen. Why? heaven knows. So much for impartiality!!!!!and freedom of expression and , and all the craps.
Apology to JayF, JustKayPoh, Jaded,
I am sorry to use very harsh and hurting words on you…
This shouldnt happen in the debate, i offer my sincere apology to all three of you, particularly Jaded, as she is a female.
I am getting too emotional, i shouldnt call them names, even though my original intention is to demonstrate their way of argument….
Dear TOC editors, please delete all my post in these religious thread.
Thank you very much
Rod (#43)
Ever heard of confirmation bias?
The plural of anecdote (or testimony) is not data.
The false appeal to evolutionary bio at the end was good though. Too bad it’s false.
Sigh
This is another never ending story. Where you want to bring logic and reason to the religionist. (akin to banging one’s head on concrete wall)
I just dont understand that why cant Creationism stays in bible class, but TOE goes in Science class. (since TOE are substantially scientific, and creationism … i dont even have the word for it)
Dont you the the school kids has enough problem already than to deal with such confusion at that age?
Sigh sigh sigh
63) yj
Confirmation bias? Well, arguing against convincing evidence was always expected from gays. No problem. I understand. I already said that in a previous post.
By the way, it is not an appeal. It is pretty damn convincing. As convincing as mother nature creating Siamese twins and down-syndrome children and…gay people. Sometimes, stuff just happens.
Hi Rod,
By the way, it is not an appeal. It is pretty damn convincing. As convincing as mother nature creating Huntington Disease, Cystic Fiborosis and…Christians. Sometimes, stuff just happens.
Dear Rod @ 65
Do you even know what article you’re commenting on? Failing which, are you twelve?
People stop doing the “You’re gay! EEeeeee!” and “You’re wrong because you’re GAY!” after that age. Actually now that I think about it, twelve year olds are capable of more maturity.
I smell denial, actually.
#Rod63
By the way, it is not an appeal. It is pretty damn convincing. As convincing as mother nature creating Siamese twins and down-syndrome children and…gay people
This only illustrate the complexity and versatility of genetic.
That endless permutations are possible so that the organism can have the potential to evolve to an everchanging enviroment.
Who’s to say if in future that humanity might welcome such genetic traits that we find undesirable now? (two head are better than one) :-)
67) Oxford Dude
I think we are on the same page. Excellent.
kill_netizen,
I am guessing that all your “religious” posts must already have been deleted, because #63 and #65 seem to be referencing to themselves…
Rod,
Do you even know what confirmation bias means? Without referring to wiki?
You obviously have no idea what kind of evidence is needed to show the efficacy of a treatment if you think anecdotes constitute convincing evidence. Where are the peer-reviewed, studies that appear in reputable medical journals?
And your ad hominem attacks against gays, well… it just made me burst out laughing. I agree with squit.
To join the foray, here is my take.
Too many people claim that teaching religion in schools is against the theory of a secular state. In my opinion, the imparting of information is alright; the pushing of it upon others’ beliefs isn’t. .
Secularism is not to be confused with the deliberate withholding of information. I believe that schools should have the right to impart whatever information they like to students. We have General Paper classes that question homosexuality in Singapore. We have Knowledge and Inquiry classes that assess the function of religion to the individual. We have Philosophy classes that question the need for a religion. We have electives which eliminate theist focus. Likewise, we have studies on the different religions and their effect on society
No one said you had to accept everything that your Science teachers taught you; they may have said that fish had gills, but you wouldn’t have to believe them until you see a fish with gills. Your teacher, pastor, or family may have spoken to you of a God, but that doesn’t mean you have to accept it wholesale. The onus is upon the individual to learn the true meaning of Inquiry: never take anything at face value. Never accept anything unless you can derive it on your own, or understand it completely. After all, isn’t that what science promotes, the inquiry of facts?
So the debate should be on the other foot. Let the schools give all the information they want! Students are not passive sponges. They are capable of analyzing, inquiring, and making their own decisions about what they so wish to believe.
-Litigatori (70)
I quote “Students are not passive sponges. They are capable of analyzing, inquiring, and making their own decisions about what they so wish to believe.” Do you happen to be refering to Singaporean students? ‘cus, being a student myself, I can safely assure you that generally speaking, this isn’t really the case. I could name you quite a few people who would accept anything that teachers throw at them. Hell, I was like that ’till 1 or 2 years ago when something smacked me really hard in the face (Not literally of course)
Fact of the matter is that the education system here doesn’t teach students to think for themselves. TLLM my freaking arse.
Despite all that, I can’t help but agree with you, it doesn’t matter what the schools decide to teach, though it would be good if they gave a brief overview of all perspectives (Simply not gonna happen) ‘cus at the end of the day, ideally the individual gets to decide for him/herself what he/she wants to believe in.
Ideally.
#71 Kasaru,
Thanks for concurring.
Fact of the matter is that the education system here doesn’t teach students to think for themselves.
I agree that we fall behind Western countries in this aspect. Many students, as cited in your comment, prefer to copy notes on everything a teacher says and then regurgitate it for exams. Lest this fall into a firefight about the education system in Singapore, I would highlight this quote from you:
Hell, I was like that ’till 1 or 2 years ago when something smacked me really hard in the face
Schools provide information, and at best, a platform for discussion. But Inquiry (with a capital I) is a journey of self-discovery and no school can fully Teach someone how to Think.
Litigatori @ 70
I would like to highlight some issues which you have not considered in your arguments.
1. One can discuss the impact of the Creationism vs Evolution debate on society in a GP or Philosophy class. One can discuss about the various creation beliefs of different cultures and religions in a religious studies case. But one DO NOT discuss about Creationism in a SCIENCE class. Creationism is NOT science. There are NO scientific facts, NOR scientific arguments. In short, Creationism contributes NOTHING to the understanding of science.
2. Science is NOT just information. Science is a robust methodology to investigate the natural world. It is a technique. And Creationism uses NOTHING of it. It provides fallacious non-scientific arguments, and imparts the WRONG values required for scientific inquiries.
3. When teaching kinematics in high schools, do we also teach relativity? The answer is no. Why? There are finite time and finite resources on what we can teach. Non-constructive information should be filtered out. Creationism or religious beliefs have zero value in scientific inquiries. Should we waste resources teaching non-sciences in a science class?
4. Imagine teaching flat Earth in a science class. Should the school also teaches that some people believe in the flat Earth? Maybe in a sociology class, but NOT a science class. The fact is, teachers have a position of authority, and NON-science should not be taught in a science class.
5. Creationism is not just a religious belief. It is a misrepresentation on the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, geology, and host of other sciences. It is MISINFORMATION. There is a difference between providing information for students, and spreading misinformation on science.
Hi all.
I note with sadness that this has taken place. As one who has studied Evolution fairly extensively for her undergraduate studies but believing in a 7-day Creation I feel sad.
Sad that the debate was not openly so. Sad that evolution (proclaiming that man came from monkeys and further beyond that line came from single-celled organisms) is proclaimed as truth while there are arguments both ways.
I understand Creationism does have its origins in the Bible but having said so, does that make it any less open to being true?
Does Evolution have any ‘proof’ of its own other than Charles Darwin’s hallmark book?
Please people, do not get me wrong. I agree with the teacher’s ideas in having a ‘Creation vs Evolution’ debate, although the rest may be questionable.
But shall we not split hairs?
I feel it would be more constructive if we don’t ignore the hands (the teacher) to spite the face (the powers that are and be).