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.”
—–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I think the most important thing to learn in the classroom is not just “science”, but critical thinking. Students need to be presented all views so they can make an informed decision for themselves.
In this light, banishing religious discussion completely (as what Prof. Miller suggested) from the classroom is as ludicrous . FINE, don’t teach creationism as an established doctrine in science because its clearly not. But if its presented as a viewpoint, I don’t see why that’s a problem.
People always assume that in classroom or discussions about science, there can be such thing as teaching with the absence of belief. That’s nonsense. Everyone’s biased.
With a title like: “God sneaks into our classrooms” though, I can’t help but sense the antitheistic slant in the way this whole thing is presented. I have a real-life story of a literature teacher who told his students that God was just a fairytale and you’d be stupid to believe in His existence. The Christian and Muslim students were made to feel sheepish and uneducated. I don’t see an article like “Atheism sneaks into our classrooms” appearing any time soon though.
The bottom is that everyone “sneaks into the classroom” their own beliefs, God or no God. Let’s just be clear what is belief, and what is fact… And that even scientific materialism (the only thing that is true is material — what I can prove) also represents a belief in facts, because science hasn’t come up with a coherent theory to explain the entirety of universe life yet.
I also would like to mention that the above mentioned case is a convenient import from the U.S. and Singaporeans should be wary whenever that happens. We are Singaporeans and we should have a national discussion that is our own. Let us not reduce our standard of arguments to that of the Americans.
Amen.
Personally, I preferred the Kansas evolution hearings when the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created. =)
——–
Rod,
I think there were suggestions by some (in the USA at least) to have religion lessons to teach about .. well.. religions. Creationism if taught in such a class, I would have no issues. The problem is that if it is done, people would view Creationism with less credibility, well some groups just don’t want that to happen.
Hence, I feel it is quite clear that THE class that Creationists wants to sink Creationism’s hooks into, is the Science class. Any other type of class just reduces it credibility.
“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.”
Naturalism/materialism is not neutral in its epistemology, of course. It’s by default. But it’s definitely religiously negative and to expound further would be nothing more than tautology. We are all born with 5 senses. Try praying to the almighty to bestow wisdom upon a new born child. Contrast that with the parent who constantly challenges his/her baby by introducing external stimuli to be perceived by the senses. Which baby will most likely learn a new language? Or rather, which baby will be the only one of the two who can learn a language? Our brains are primed towards assumptions/delusions as opposed to vacuousness. Too often, we fall prey to the conspiracy theories conjured up by gossipmongers when we should just admit ignorance and concurrently seek for the truth. It’s idealistic on my part though. The average layman does not find resonance in the high costs of deliberate inquiry. Fantasies are much more comforting and until society denounces the entire establishment of faith and exalt empiricism, we would continue to be saddled with the woes of the world that we are currently witnessing, many of which were brought about by irrationality more than anything else.
Schools should not teach fairytales. Period.
Leave that for cartoons.
Let me share with you two very different experience at three mission schools I attended. In CHIJ primary, all we ever did was say prayers at the start of the day or sing a couple of hymns.
I had no idea what I was in for when I switched to another mission school for my secondary education. The school, located on Dover Road, was formerly an all-girls school but became co-ed in the 80s.
On the first day, we were told that all those that did not accept Jesus Christ could not be saved, even if they were good Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, because only Christ could save our souls. For someone who went to Buddhist Sunday school for four years, this was totally shocking. I never heard such drivel in my primary school.
Except for Muslims, all of us had to attend Chapel Service on Mondays. However, one Monday, the school made every one including Muslims attend. We soon found out why – up on stage, were Muslim converts.
But that was not all. The pastor, whose name I forget, raised his voice and proclaimed that Shiva, Brahman, Vishnu was satanic. Demons! he said. Who in this hall disagree with me, raise your hands!
Of course, being rule-abiding 14-year-olds, none of us dared to even though we disagreed with him. Kids those days were so respectful of authority. We didn’t even use words like f***.
But I was deeply troubled with this proselytising and the teachers and pastors were keen to convert me to a Christian. Some of my classmates did because it was such a cool thing to do. Understandably so when the church had a rock band in church and you could join the music ministry, whereas other religions still stuck to boring, repetitive mantras in a totally unglam setting.
Anyway, I couldn’t take it any more and got myself transferred to a Catholic convent again and was a lot happier. None of that proselytising nonsense. I still value the quality of education in mission schools, but I’ll won’t sending my kids to a certain school nor any of its sister and brother schools.
“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.: – Prof Alex Lew
Intelligent design does away with the need for a Christian, Moslem, Mayan, Icelandic, Pangu or Chinese gods. It espuses the possibility that since life forms are so complex, and there are many missing links in the story of evolution, it makes more sense to theorise that there is an intelligent designer. It is the theory of intelligent design,
The religious nuts are still trying to mis-represent science and atheism as religion-like. This kind of disinformation is far from being honest.
Intelligent design my foot.
Irreducible complexity and missing links? Intelligent design was just dreamed up by creationists so that they could push a more platable version of creationism.
It’s as intellectually bankrupt as creationism is. Just more dishonest.
ali – you present a false dichotomy. No one is saying there’s no bias. What we’re saying is that we should reduce bias. And that you shouldn’t be teaching 2000 year old fairytales when you are supposed to be teaching children about the world today.
Rod Yeah. I agree that comparative religions should be taught. Just not in science class.
“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.” FCC Pastor Susan
I am shocked to read what the pastor felt her bible is incompetent to explain the truth on Science that the word of GOD is full of myth. The bible has told us that GOD make every living creatures and he created the world. There is nothing of a myth here. I wondered if FCC members must be surprised that their pastor have no faith in GOD’s Holy Word or the whole church thinks that way. That’s the problem with churches of no domain their leaders interpret as they like since they are such a young church.
8) Stranger on August 22nd, 2009 7.15 am
Since you seems knowledgeable of intelligent design, can u name me several practical applications of intelligent design that makes the world a better place.
If we are to dump the theory of evolution for intelligent design, surely intelligent design must at least be a useful theory that is beneficial to mankind for we are dumping an established theory that has wide ranging practical applications in the field of medicine (development of antibiotics, study of microbiology and virology), agriculture (protection of crops from pests and diseases) and etc.
medicine
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_01
agriculture
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/agriculture_01
Surely we are not interested in teaching our kids a useless theory.
“I am shocked to read what the pastor felt her bible is incompetent to explain the truth on Science that the word of GOD is full of myth. The bible has told us that GOD make every living creatures and he created the world. There is nothing of a myth here.”
I’m shocked too to realize that it’s true that god made every living creature and that he also created the world just because he said so in the bible. You know what? My mum thinks her son is the most good looking guy on planet Earth. And I happen to agree with her.
ABC: “…The bible has told us that GOD make every living creatures and he created the world. There is nothing of a myth here…”
Do you mind justifying why its is nothing of a myth here? Because the bible told you so?
Hi ABC,
From your remarks, I think you need to learn the ABCs of bible exegesis and hermenutics. Perhaps you should sign up for some courses at Trinity Theological College (Singapore), one of the most reputable theological college here, which trains leaders for the traditional denominations in Singapore. Then you will understand what Susan means. “Myth” in the study of ancient text (including what you called the Word of God – which I doubt you know little beyond the surface of the meaning of that term) has a technical meaning which I suspect you failed to understand.
In short, you are shocked because of a lack of knowledge. Before you criticise Susan, do some homework on biblical interpretation first.
Talk to me “to ABC” ! I’m a polemicist. Let’s debate the veracity of your delusions against my truth….sorry, I mean let’s discuss our views. :)
7) Tale of two mission schools on August 22nd, 2009 2.47 ,
yeh, you shouldn’t send your children to any of these schools. You were there becuase your parents didn’t know or thought they would give you good education and values. The problem is many people want the cake and eat it too, like your parents. They sent you to a Budhhist sunday school? Never heard of it when Buddha was on earth. He must be turning in his grave to see his teaching being exploited and turned it into some of cult with those sunday school craps and 7 month ghost apppeasement rituals.
If you don’t believe it stay away and have nothing to do with it. Make a stand but don’t make some highfalutin lamentations here. It is kind of hippocratic.
Jaded, you just made Hippocrates turn in his grave. :D
15) to ABC on August 22nd, 2009 1.19 pm
that deosn’t make you any smarter just because you could some chim words.
The bible is always up for criticism because people like ‘to ABC’ cannot fathom and it is supposed to be unfathomable and even Pastor Susan found mythogies in it.As she said it is a freedom of belief and therefore she can interprete in anyway she wants.
I now ordain ‘to ABC’ irreverent TOABC
I seriously doubted that this is a “intelligent design” and the designer is intelligent.
Creating so many disbelievers? Creating a species that is so sinful, destructive and endanger the entire earth?
Well,i would say ms office is a intelligent design. At least i can cut and paste, undo my wrongs in just a click. I don’t need to flood the entire office just to erase my wrong documents. haha.
Well done TOC for this Exclusive!
I appreciate able to read it for free.
Thanks everyone at TOC.
Jaded
Sorry, he wasn’t buried but was cremated….and his remains were placed in stupas…
“7 month ghost apppeasement rituals.” Sorry, that is more of taoist festival…you won’t see Buddha been worship there…instead it is Taoist deities…so Jaded, if you can’t tell the difference between taoism and buddhism, perhaps you can don’t act smart and say such stuffs…
17) Jaded
Heyy, kindly get yourself unenlightened on the distinctions between the Ghost Festival of traditional chinese belief and the Ullambana Festival of Buddhism.
In non christian schools, i can see christian teachers trying to get students to go church & all that.
22) Yamamoto on August 22nd, 2009 8.16 pm and
23) WD Tan,
someone said the Lama said it was ok, Taoist or buddhism , the same. People like to have variety, it is safer. It is better to err on the safe side. I think both of should go round singapore and see for your self and tell those confused buddhists or toaists the difference.
Cremated or buried is the same, he was dead. Maybe i should reframed my statement, “his ashes or his powder stirred in the stupas’
25) Jaded
it may be the same to you…but hey…in Singapore, you will get exhumed XX years after you are buried, Jaded…while you don’t have to worry about it if you select cremation…
but come to think of it, the person won’t have to worried since they has pass on…
Nono, Jaded, you don’t have to reframe…what you need to do is open your eyes big and wide, gather the right info before you anyhow post…that will save the need for reframe…prevention is better then cure….
Time to debunk a certain Dr Carl Wieland, Managing Director, Creation Ministries International. (I wonder where he got his Dr prefix? Proselytizing in Afghan or Iraq?)
Dear Carl introduces many new concepts (i.e. naturalistic = materialistic) without further elucidating his claims or providing evidence to substantiate them. The biggest flaw of his impeachment – he did not address the topic and subject directly, only hinting that the subject of his address is some “naturalistic/materialistic view”. Could he be addressing science? Or biology, geography or finance? Or evolution and genetics? Or abortion and drug abuse? This smacks of an attempt to mislead his audience through ambiguity and incoherence to the subject matter.
Suppose it’s science Dear Carl is indicting. We substitute “science” in place of “naturalistic/materialistic view” and insert the subject back into Dear Carl’s seemingly incoherent speech.
“It’s a pity though that people cannot easily see that science is not religiously ‘neutral’ either. So without any mention of God, by exclusively presenting science as fact, kids are in effect being ‘proselytized’ into science, one which also means that their parents’ faith, if it involves supernatural creation, is wrong. Now for those that happen to share that belief in science, there will be no reason to complain. They will only complain when there is even a hint of anything being discussed that science might be wrong. It is a pity if open discussion of such things (what things? science? creation? or Ho Ching’s temasek’s losses?) is not permitted.… It’s crucial that people do not have blinkered (means narrow-minded) views of reality (what views of reality?), and are not afraid of fairly and openly discussing such matters (which matters? H1N1 prevention?). We are glad that we still have the freedom to at least have such discussions (about what?) in the many strong and vibrant churches in your great nation.”
Note that Dear Carl also used a great deal of abstract nouns like “they”, “such”, “people” and “things” with “imaginary references leading to nowhere and no one”, a trait adapted by speakers who either have no idea what they are talking about or are trying to mislead and confuse their audience.
Correction – “abstract terms”.
It’s quite possible Dear Carl was addressing science as the subject of his speech.
“It’s a pity though that people cannot easily see that the naturalist/materialist view is not religiously ‘neutral’ either.
Fallacy 1 – naturalist = materialist.
Fallacy 2 – people regard science as materialistic.
“So without any mention of God, by exclusively presenting this view as fact, kids are in effect being ‘proselytized’ into this
naturalistic/materialistic faith”
Fallacy 3 – science is a view, an opinion. a mere opinion could go along the lines of “mercury is a wonderful medicine for acne”. or “obama had
breast implants” with nothing to substantiate the claim made in ” “.
Fallacy 4 – science is a faith.
Fallacy 5 (hidden) – creation is not just a view but a fact.
Fallacy 6 – kids can only choose between science and god(s), either one exclusive of the other.
.
“one which also means that their parents’ faith, if it involves supernatural creation, is wrong.”
Fallacy 7 – science teachers tell kids their parents’ faith 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.
Fallacy 8 – creation might be able to prove that science (specifically evolution) is wrong,
“It’s crucial that people do not have blinkered views of reality, and are not afraid of fairly and openly discussing such matters.
Fallacy 9 – not believing in creation or treating creation as science (to the point of including them in every biology-related textbook) directly means that “people” are narrow-minded about reality.
Fallacy 10 – creation is reality.
Fallacy 11 – scientists are afraid of openingly discussing about creation.
“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.”
Fallacy 12 – proponents of science are preventing christians from vocalising their beliefs and is powerful enough to do so.
If Creation need to steathily sneak into our classrooms even after so many millennia of existence, then there must have been obvious problem with it. Shame on NIE and MOE. Wasted taxpayers’ money on frivolous idiosyncratic teachers with no added value and commanding high pay for unproductive work.
Maybe , you evolutionists are right. That explains why there are so many rejects. Something that might have gone wrong in the evolutionary process that left many to become homo, neither male nor female, a gender confusion.Is this the flaw of evolution?
Nobody said evolution is perfect. If there is perfection in our world, evolution will cease to operate. Therefore, perfection is a relativistic claim at best. Look, I never discredit the fact that humans cherish beliefs intuitively. What I’m concerned about are the dangerous, unfounded claims that religious people make. Scientists must hypothesize before they can even start an experiment. Hypothesize is merely a synonym for believe. The difference between you religious fundies and scientists though is the fact that scientists validate their claims with evidence whereas religion depends on aesthetics.
Jaded
Not all evolutionists are homo, there are christian homo too.
If you cant give a logical argument, there is no point to do personality assault, this is no different of PAP when they assault Gomez ….
Funny, does creationist Thio SM practise family values??? Did she encourage her only begotten daughter Thio LA to get married, and fulfill the mission to get populated??
Does Thio LA practise family values by obeying her mother advise??
Does Thio LA get married and serve the function of a woman, to serve the man??
See, it is very easy to do character assausination………
jaded have just slap himself …. a few times…lol
Jaded is a she.
Obviously Jaded is a frog at bottom of the well. Hope she don’t organize her sisters to takeover Evolution Society or Nobel Institute…
lol. When you don’t have facts on your side, start calling people homosexuals.
Says alot more about your own warped word view and repressed sexuality than anything else. Have you heard about the research where the most homophobic men were the ones who were most aroused by gay porn?
I wonder if any similar research has been done on women.
Jaded is so…. juvenile.
See? When they can’t win an argument based on solid scientific reasoning they flood you with their holy scriptures.
There is a reason why preaching is a negative word.
Hmmmmmmmm is there a TOC moderator around?
Does Bob Davis, Dvinity and his / her ilk realise how much they are irritating and offending people here with their posts?
Who was the Buddha?
In the year 563 B.C. a baby was born into a royal family in northern India. He grew up in wealth and luxury but eventually found that worldly comforts and security do not guarantee happiness. He was deeply moved by the suffering he saw all around and resolved to find the key to human happiness. When he was 29 he left his wife and child and set off to sit at the feet of the great religious teachers of the day to learn from them. They taught him much but none really knew the cause of human suffering and how it could be overcome. Eventually, after six years study and meditation he had an experience in which all ignorance fell away and he suddenly understood.
From that day onwards, he was called the Buddha, the Awakened One. He lived for another 45 years in which time he travelled all over the northern India teaching others what he had discovered. His compassion and patience were legendary and he had thousands of followers. In his eightieth year, old and sick, but still happy and at peace, he finally died.
What is Buddhism?
The name Buddhism comes from the word ‘budhi’ which means ‘to wake up’ and thus Buddhism is the philosophy of awakening. This philosophy has its origins in the experience of the man Siddhartha Gotama, known as the Buddha, who was himself awakened at the age of 35. Buddhism is now 2,500 years old and has about 300 million followers worldwide. Until a hundred years ago Buddhism was mainly an Asian philosophy but increasingly it is gaining adherents in Europe, Australia and America.
The truth hurts. We need wisdom not moderator.
Dear TOC,
Please moderate post #43 Lo
first it exceeds 500 words, cut and paste from unidentified source.
:Secondly, it has extensive quotation from some scriptures.
Thank you
45) kill_netizen on August 23rd, 2009 11.46 pm ,
Ma, he beats me, mmmhah , He beats me… please beat him back ..Maaaa , he is very naughty….beat him for me…..
Jaded,
You feel sore, is it??? Are you like that 42 years old un-weded feeling sore that there is no straw in her nose,, you are a female right, suffering the same?? Need a straw in your nose too.
You practise family values?? Are you married?
Post #98 of Proselytization thread:
The owner of TheOnlineCItizen has explicitly stated that:
98) theonlinecitizen on August 22nd, 2009 9.52pm, Hi, everyone, Please do not post texts from religious books – be they from whichever religion. They will not be allowed.
The owner has also explicitly stated that post exceeding 500 words will not be allowed.
If jaded do not even has the basic courtesy of respecting the owner of the forum, i think she has just wasted all the education given to her, i doubt what family-values (chinese: Jia-Jiao) she ever received from her parents, she brought shame to her parents (mei-Jia-Jiao).
I had also demonstrated in the Proselytization tread post #141 in response to her post #136 that she is just another liar like JustKayPoh,
I do not hesitate to call her a serpent, using lucifer way of argument.
//47) kill_netizen on August 24th, 2009 12.34 am
If jaded do not even has the basic courtesy of respecting the owner of the forum, i think she has just wasted all the education given to her, i doubt what family-values (chinese: Jia-Jiao) she ever received from her parents, she brought shame to her parents (mei-Jia-Jiao).//
It is not her parents’ fault or the schools that she has attended. It is the church she attended that has made her this way. She even forced her parents to convert by using pressure tactics such as not attending their funerals in the future. Not that her parents are scared, but out of love for their daughter, they “converted”.
I’d like to remind one and all that the article is about religion/creationism in the classroom.
Thanks.
Dear TOC
I agree, that the centre of discussion should be proselytisation in classroom, and early as in post 100 in Part I, i already said, the focus had been hijacked by JustKayPoh to creationsism vs evolutionism debate…. sad.
fearandignorance@12, the question is one of micro-evolution versus macro-evolution.
Suddenly, WeiHan and killjoy are behaving like cry babies…Come on, lah surely you better points than the grand mothers’ tales both are invoking.