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.”
—–
“And why is the promotion of religious belief in food preparation allowed and encouraged in secular Singapore?”
Well there’s a problem. 1. Millions of people want specific foods without certain ingredients and 2. they need to eat. Just make their food as they want to. This isn’t school, creation myth and evolution science. We can all go without religion in school. There’s no science at all in religion. Go on youtube and watch videos that debunk creationism. But we need to eat. While I’m an atheist for freedom of religion, I’m all for standardizing the food to make it compatible for most religious people and even vegetarians and vegans. Who even wants cow’s puss in chocolate commonly named milk powder? I don’t want any of this stuff in food. I’m not a vegetarian, but I prefer if food would be food instead of putting in food all kinds of nonsense that we don’t need. Why do they use MSG? To make you addicted to food. That’s it. MSG is not a preservative. There’s too much nonsense in the food we eat and some standardization would be welcomed. If someone doesn’t want certain ingredients, respect their wish. Religious people or vegetarians won’t eat that food until it contains the ingredients they accept. To let them go almost hungry and using precious time just to search for food that they can eat is a violation of human rights.
But really, doubting evolution is like doubting forensics and modern medicine. A same scientific method is used to study bones and DNA. Drugs are tested to see if a virus will mutate (evolve) and become resistant to the drug. Humans are so silly. But I’m wondering what does evolution have anything to do with origin of life such as creationism? Why is it always evolution vs creationism?
To sea:
Accuracy in the bible does not mean the things actually happened. Actually, there are numerous historical inaccuracies littered throughout the bible.
It is not correct to say all the 66 books say the same thing without conradiction. Even the accepted gospels do not agree entirely with each other. Would you contend that all the 66 books were written independently, without borrowing from each other? I would say no. They started off as oral traditions and were written down by different authors at diferent periods.
There is a class of texts known as the apocrypha, which have been excluded from the official bible, as they deviate from the mainstream teaching (aka, the teachings enshrined by the Nicean Council).
Some believe the Gnostic bible predates the gospels recognised today, yet they are considered apocryphal.The Gnostic gospel claims, among other things, that Jesus was a man (and not God) who had an identical twin brother, who incidentally, was the one crucified, not Jesus. It also says Jesus was actually the son of a prostitute and a Roman centurion named Pantera.
Of course, the Gnostic gospel was written in metaphors, and the Gnostics themselves practised a highly esoteric religion. (Jesus is actually each one of us, and we each have an undying twin [Daemon] in the sky, who is our Higher Consciousness. The purpose in this life is to identify this higher self and be one with it.)
The religions of today are corrupt versions of the Higher Truth which Man was not meant to know. So we end up tearing each other up with very little understanding of what these Scriptures tell us.
You said light, water and oxygen are toxic to life. Do you have any references to back that up?
You said God’s hand is real to those who believe. I think that pretty much sums up your argument. You believe, I do not.
“You believe, I do not” Does that make you right?
Its not about just God and creationism.
Its about Jesus dying for your sins
Thats all which offends the offended.
So you Evolutionists believe what you believe without seeking from the heart.
The error is not in unbelief. Its in not seeking sincerely. Its not being truthful to that which you already know.
Then you shall find. And you will know when you know that which you have found.
Find out exactly what offends you in God talk. 99.9% the offence comes from the fear of knowledge of our own helplessness in our sins and that the redemptive escape is by only one means!
For your info, Charles DARWIN accepted Jesus as his Saviour and denounced Evolution, but his followers carried on with the evolution theory which was actually rejected by its own inventor.
Guardsman,
You a Christian, a Catholic perhaps?
Presumably you believe in so-called original sin and now have to thank your so-called lord savior, Jesus Christ,for your salvation from the eternal fire of Hell?
Would you be offended should I project an image of the God you, as a Christian, worship?
I shall base on none other than the so-called Gospel of God that you, presumably, believe to be inerrant and inspired by your God.
Show me the literature that says that “Darwin denounced Evolution” and “accepted Jesus.”
Please respond to the above questions/request.
Guardsman,
When it comes to belief, it is not a question of right or wrong; there is no right or wrong belief.
The discussion is about religion sneaking into science class. Science is founded on knowledge, not just belief. In scientific discussions, only that which is known and can be rationalized should be taught. Some degree of creative imagination is allowed in science, but it should always be founded on reason and logic. Religion is anything but reason and logic.
You said, and I quote, “…you Evolutionists believe what you believe without seeking from the heart.”
A scientific mind would say the heart is an organ which pumps blood to the rest of the body; it is incapable of thought or subjective feeling/emotions (unless the feeling you describe is angina).
Regarding your comment that Jesus died for my sins, my rational mind tells me I was born sinless.
“God talk” doesn’t offend me; people who proselytize and seek to push their illogical and irrational beliefs do, especially in the guise of valid scientific discourse.
You talk of your fear of your own helplessness and the only redemptive action such fear requires. That is a profound statement which sums up the reason for the existence of religion. A person whose life is not founded on religious belief has no fear nor is he helpless.
Guardsman, here’s something for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTBBKTO68&feature=related
anyone care to comment on the science of halal food and how singaporeans come to accept its merits based on islam precept?
Guardsman,
I also read in the bible that before Jesus died on the cross he called out to God: My lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me?
So can I also say that before Jesus died he realised the non-existence of his god but it was his followers who continued with the charade?
The problem has become so bad that door to door preaching has already become the norm.
Today its christians, tomorrow its buddhist, muslim (thankfully far less so) etc.
PEACE on earth obviously means something different to some of these people.
@Wolfie
You wrote: “I also read in the bible that before Jesus died on the cross he called out to God: My lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me?
So can I also say that before Jesus died he realised the non-existence of his god but it was his followers who continued with the charade?”
The incident is only valid if you take the rest of the gospel also.
Jesus, prior to His crucifixion, made numerous statements about his relationship to the One the Jews called God.
His statements often pointed to a Oneness with God.
example:
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” John 8:20
You can reference the Bible here: http://bit.ly/cgruRA
So, you are kinda right about a sense of non-existence.
You see, Jesus, hanging on the cross was experiencing separation from His Father.
The Bible elsewhere explains this as the moment Jesus’ purpose on earth was being actualized.
Galatians 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”[a]
So, in context, the reason why Jesus was talking about being forsaken was because at that moment, He had become the bearer of all the evil of all of humanity. He had taken the penalty of all our sin and in so doing become unholy, separated from the sight of God.
“the charade”
What you call the charade involves a rag tag group of believers, going on to care for the poor, suffer torture, establishing education for the masses, emancipate slaves, establish healthcare for the common man.
Surely you don’t think it was all done regardless of a lie?
I’m sure you are a bright individual but please understand that Christians have struggled with the same text you have read and come out on the other side with faith.
Have a great day.
Guardsman:
“For your info, Charles DARWIN accepted Jesus as his Saviour and denounced Evolution, but his followers carried on with the evolution theory which was actually rejected by its own inventor.”
Old creationist urban legend that has been thoroughly debunked. The Lady Hope story has been going around for ages, but there is no evidence to indicate that Darwin ever recanted and denounced the Theory of Evolution on his deathbed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
Even Answers in Genesis claims that it is highly unlikely that Darwin had a deathbed conversion.
Besides, the fact that evolution occurs does not hinge on whether Darwin himself believed in it or not.
Wally,
I do not wish to leapfrog Wolfie with regard to your post.
You have quoted several passages from the Bible, and appear to be knowledgeable regarding Bible content.
May I ask: Are you a Christian?
Please consider me as an ardent participant in discussions concerning God/Jesus/religion [particularly Christianity].
I shall follow up, after Wolfie.