Firstly, a Belated Happy Chinese New Year to everyone! Hope those of you that are celebrating are stocking up on the annual resupply of red packets. For those of you that are not for some reason or the other (except those those who are married already), don’t worry as there’s the chance to collect them next year, with interest! 
Now, if you have been following my blog regularly (and I do hope that you’ve been enjoying the ride so far) you would have already known about the ID issue. Recently, at SciAm Blogs John Rennie has discovered another alternative theory! Here I present to you, our Creator! The Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Copyright Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, by Bobby Henderson. Click on image for a larger view.
Now what has all this got to do with ID? If you go here and read the open letter to the various school boards written by Bobby Henderson, you’ll get the idea. Interested? Come on and join those who have converted! Be a Pastafarian! =) Now, since nobody has written into our Star Education inbox in support of the evolution theory (yeah, go check out the past 3 issues and you’ll discover that the replies are against evolution!) I think I should send in this to show how foolish those writers are. Teehehe.
About the Star Education, here is the gist. Somebody discovered that our Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) has a quiz on gauging the scientific knowledge of our people. There is a question which goes like this : "Human beings, as we know them today, originated from an earlier species of animals". It is a "True" or "False" question. To that person’s surprise, and mine too, the answer given by MOSTI is "False"!
The survey is supposedly modelled after the ones conducted by the US National Science Foundation and European Union Research Group. But of course, their answer is "True!" And thus, the person writes to Star Education and published on 15 January 2006. So, is our official government stand in favor of ID? I’m not sure, but I hope it’s not, for the sake of my younger relatives who has yet to complete their journey through the educational system.
And to make things outrageous, a writer with the pseudonym "Just A Science Teacher" (I certainly hope it’s false) writes in with an extremely dubious argument in favor of ID! The most outrageous statement was this : "But we must remember that a theory is just a theory." Now what kind of Science teacher will say that? An improperly educated one I suppose. Yet again, in the argument for ID, they argued by obfuscating the scientific and laymen’s definition of theory. Yes, theories are not absolute, but to quote Judge John E. Jones III from the Dover ID trial : ‘To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.’
Moving on, it is also claimed that ‘the renowned paleontologist Colin Patterson, the famous astronomer Prof. Chandra Wickramsinghe, the late Sir Fred Hoyle and the molecular biologist Dr. Michael Denton are all convinced anti-evolutionists’. Intrigued, I made some checks of my own on the Internet. And not surprisingly, here’s what I found. The writer may want to make it seem that these figures are in favor of ID, but in reality it is not. The late Dr.Patterson was misquoted by ID proponents, Prof. Wickramasinghe (misspelling by the author) and Sir Hoyle were advocates of panspermia, and Dr. Denton is the sole ID proponent.
Next, it is said "Field evidence and laboratory experiments also do not generally support Darwinism". Here’s another quote from Judge Jones for comparison : "In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." This is an example of what ID proponents mean by insufficient proof. Biological researchers can tell you that this statement is more accurate : "Field evidence and laboratory experiments do not generally support Intelligent Design." So from a rational standpoint, the claim made by the writer is hogwash. Period.
Next major argument, comparisons are made to make it seem as if creationist related theories are part of prominent school of thoughts in science. Here is the text in full:
"For example, in geology and physics, there is catastrophism versus uniformitarianism.
In earth history there is young earth versus old earth.
In cosmology, steady state versus big bang.
In physics, newton physics versus quantum physics.
In biology, naturalistic (macro) evolutionism versus intelligent design."
Young earth and ID are creationist based theories and are of no significance in these science fields. According to what I found on Wikipedia, catastrophism and uniformitarianism have no direct relation to each other. Big Bang is obviously the accepted theory in cosmology, the brainchild of Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. Newtonian and quantum physics are descriptions of different levels of the physical world, and therefore not in direct conflict (although quantum and relativity have superseded Newtonian on a few areas). Again, to quote our impartial arbiter, Judge Jones : "It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."
If you are also wondering like me how come nobody rallied to the evolution banner in Star Education, I might have an idea. Ever since creationists started battling evolutionists, the rational arguments by those in favor of evolution have always been thrown aside as if it is of no significance. So, over the years, scientists never bothered to get into direct debate with the creationists because it is ’sai hei’ or ‘wasting breath’. I presume the case might be the same in Star Education, or the paper is suppressing arguments against the government. Go figure.
