Lim Say Liang

In 2005, after complaints from the public, the Ministry of Education (MOE) rapped the knuckles of teachers who openly proselytize in class: “’The MOE takes a firm stand on religious proselytising by teachers,” the statement said. “Our schools are secular, and teachers should not be engaged in proselytizing their students. Otherwise we face a real risk of undoing the multicultural and multi-religious sensitivity and harmony that Singapore has built up over the years, and which our schools seek to cultivate in each new generation….”

But that hasn’t stopped some teachers from trying an end-around. Who knows exactly where coursework ends and proselytising begins? What if proselytisation looks like coursework?

Michelle (not her real name) was given two comprehension passages last year when she was in Secondary 2. The first was a National Geographic article about individuals obsessed with the Loch Ness Monster. The questions her English teacher drew up were not out of the ordinary. (The Loch Ness Monster has been used in Evangelical Christian curriculums as evidence that disproves evolution.)

The second was culled from a website. It mentioned the global flood from the biblical story of Noah and the Ark, made other biblical references, and there was criticism of those who accept the Theory of Evolution. “The questions didn’t require critical-thinking at all,” said Mullai Pathy, Michelle’s tutor who is trained by the National Institute of Education. “These were questions that sought to reinforce particular religious beliefs.”

Shortly after, a Creation-Evolution debate was staged in Michelle’s class. She and several classmates protested the topic, citing its obvious religious nature. The teacher waved aside their concerns. A visiting teacher sat in during the debate. Neither raised objections when the “Creation team” quoted from the bible. At the end of the debate, they were commended for raising “many points.” “Not everyone in my class is Christian,” said Michelle.

According to the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, “Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another.” (For a more detailed explanation, please see here.)

Creation or Creationism is the belief that God created everything, basically. However, there are many views as far as Creationism is concerned. (See here. ) The problem arises when Creationism creeps into the secular classroom, particularly Science. Creationists tend to be scriptural literalists, who see the Theory of Evolution as a threat to their beliefs.

Michelle is learning biology this year. Recently, her biology teacher acknowledged aloud the perfection of God in the story of the Creation of Man. This occurred during a lesson on the human digestive system.

Since proselytising-educating is prohibited in most schools, some Creationists have attempted to make Creationism respectable enough for the classroom.

It’s right there in the Mini Science Encyclopedia (MSE). At least 10 Primary schools offer the “optional” reference book to their students.  Creation-material dates back eight years to the 3rd edition. (It is likely that a number of school libraries hold the title; the Lee Kong Chien Reference Library does, under “Science Encyclopedias, Juvenile.”)

“Your child’s natural curiosity is reinforced,” markets the online catalogue “and at the same time, he or she learns more about science and the world we live in.”

A depiction of what appears to be Adam and Eve heralds the chapter on Evolution. The title “Creation” floats over their naked silhouettes as they hold hands in what appears to be the biblical Garden of Eden. Below them are the title “Evolution” and the subtitle, “Hypothesis on The Origin of Species.”

“First of all, you can’t mention Creation in a chapter on Evolution, it’s completely inappropriate,” said Douglas (not his real name), a biologist. “It’s equivalent to starting a chapter on geology and saying some people believe the earth is flat and some people believe the earth is spherical. Creation is religion. Everybody knows Creation is religion. This is not supposed to be in a science book—ever.”

He went on to detail what he referred to as “errors” which Ang Woon Chuan, the author, makes in describing the Theory of Evolution. “Rubbish… Stupid…. Reference books should be rectifying mistakes, not perpetuating them.”

After Ang’s “Theory of Evolution”, Douglas came to the last page of the MSE, the other “main school of thought”: “Another view is that God created the Heavens, the Earth and all creatures including Man. This is the Theory of Creation.”

“By definition, God has nothing to do with science and this ‘Theory of Creation’ is not accepted scientific knowledge,” Douglas explained.  “It’s a matter of fact that this has been rejected over and over and over again. There is not a single article supporting this position in any of the scientific literature of the last fifty years,” he said.

For example, none of the 6000-plus scientific journals that are covered by ISI Thomson Reuters, a watchdog of scientific journals, publish Creationist or Intelligent Design articles. U.S. Courts have also repeatedly investigated Creationism and most recently, Intelligent Design, and ruled that both are religion and not science. (See here: Decision.)

Some Creationists have decided to start their own journals and peer-review each other.

Singular, “God” connotes monotheism, a belief in one Supreme Being. Where does that leave religions that technically have no gods, like Buddhism or religions which are polytheistic, like Hinduism? What of agnostics and atheists?

“How can you have this in a science reference book in a country that is supposed to be secular?” Douglas asked, agitated. “Totally unacceptable—this is discriminatory. If I am a Buddhist, what am I suppose to think? That all of a sudden, my religion is wrong? Because that’s what it is saying.”

He added, “This also causes rifts within religions; there is a whole lot of Christians who don’t have a problem with Evolution, the same goes with Muslims. Then you get the radicals and now you have a problem, because they push a literal interpretation of scriptures. For this reason alone, this book would be outlawed in a heartbeat and taken off the shelves in the U.S. and in Europe. Promoting this book in a secular school is uncivilized behaviour.”

—–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Newsbites – NEA hogs headlines, ST apes MDA

AHPETC and NEA goes to court The trial dates for the case…

许文远打包票 屋龄50组屋会续增值

基础建设统筹部长暨交通部长许文远向新加坡年轻人打包票,坚称屋龄50年的公共组屋,在未来10年还会继续增值。 在本月2日,许文远出席三巴旺集选区,一个获200名年轻民众出席的活动,有者提及在99年屋契限制下,公共组屋不再被看作增值资产,也引起有意买房年轻人的忧虑。 许文远则回应,就算您买下70岁屋龄的组屋,仍有增值潜能,因为李显龙总理公布的第二期房屋提升计划(HIP II)和自愿提早重建计划(VERS),将是政府协助稳定组屋房价的努力之一。 李总理在上月19日的国庆群众大会,宣布上述亮相计划,其中房屋提升计划将涵盖更多组屋受惠,而第二期房屋提升计划则确保组屋在迈入60-70岁屋龄时,获得第二次整修,延长寿命。 至于屋龄满70年组屋,有机会参与新的自愿提早重建计划(VERS),居民可投票选择,是否要提早把旧组屋提早售回给政府,让当局早点回收土地发展。许文远认为,该计划有助为老组屋增值。 承认组屋到一定时期会贬值 年龄22岁的三巴旺草根领袖Geralding Yoong询问许文远,自愿提早重建计划的条件和估值细节。 许文远则坦言,任何增值资产,例如组屋到了一定时期,无可避免会贬值,也强调本身也不清楚开始贬值的时节点。 他接着补充,上一代人买的组屋增值率较高,是因为过去新加坡作为发展中国家,强劲的经济成长带动显著的组屋增值。 然而,当前经济成长维持在每年2至三巴仙,故此年轻和未来世代所购买的组屋,增值率估计相对较低。…

WHO emphasises that children could be just as badly affected by COVID-19 as the elderly

“The very notion that COVID-19 only affects older people is factually wrong,” said…

少年旅爱心礼物活动 欢迎民众捐赠清真罐头方便面

少年旅爱心礼物活动(BBSG)慈善计划,还有一周就要结束了,主办方呼吁公众捐赠更多清真罐头食品和方便面,以便达到预期目标。 主办方于周五(13日)发文告指出,随着周三的食品捐赠和收集结束后,目前所获得清真罐头食品达到目标的54巴仙,而方便面则达到了60巴仙。 当局欢迎善心人士捐赠的清真罐头食品,包括罐头金枪鱼、玉米粒、咖喱、仁当和蘑菇等。 当局指出,根据志愿者反馈,发现罐头食品和方便面因更容易准备,而成为对受惠者来说,更有用和必需的捐赠品。 “BBSG鼓励公众参与最后一环的捐赠活动,在散播佳节欢乐气氛的同事也帮助社区中的弱势群体。” 今年预计有3万3931人将获得BBSG赠送的食品篮,内含有基本食品和简易食品。 有意参与食品捐赠的民众,可以将捐赠物品交到12个收集点,即武吉知马广场、碧山8号交叉口、勿洛购物广场、淡滨尼购物广场或大巴窑组屋中心的职总平价合作社,以及宏茂桥中心、后港第1购物商场、裕廊坊购物中心、实龙岗NEX购物中心、嘉龙威购物中心、裕廊东JEM购物中心,以及裕群仓储会员店的平价Xtra霸级市场(FairPrice Xtra)。 民众也能透过职总平价合作社的网络专页,购买价值20元、50元、或80元的家庭礼篮,也可透过扫描每天在收集点分发的硬币罐上的二维码,经由PayNow程序进行捐款。 民众也可以参与自本月9日开始至28日,在少年旅总部进行的日常礼物篮派送活动。有关活动在公共假日前夕及假日当天没进行。 每天的礼篮派送活动分三个阶段进行,分别为上午11时、下午1时和3时,每个时段都需要10辆车子。当局促请所有志愿者到该网站专页 www.bbshare.sg…