It was reported in the news today that the Al Qaeda may have opened a Southeast Asian branch and that it has, as a gesture of goodwill, published on its website a rambling 41,000 word declaration of war against unbelievers.  One particularly friendly statement from that declaration reads : "the swords of the holy warriors are always thirsty for your blood".

How charming.

Sometimes I wonder if all these reports about terrorists in true.  I wonder if I’m living in some sort of North Korean-esque society where the propaganda is so well orchestrated that only one version - that Communist state’s version - of the "truth" is read by the populace.  And so the North Koreans are led to think that everyone in the world, except them, are starving and living under the oppressive yoke of capitalist governments.  (Happily for the North Koreans, smuggled VCDs of South Korean soap operas like "Autumn in My Heart" and "Summer Scent", have opened their eyes to what is actually happening outside of their country.  Unhappily for me, Joyce tries to make me watch the awfully boring stuff).

Yeah … maybe I am the victim of a well-orchestrated misinformation campaign to make me believe that the Al Qaeda is a blood thirsty organisation, when its members are in fact whale-loving, tree-hugging activists.  And so I suppose that those Jordanians who think that the hotel bombings allegedly carried out by al-Zarqawi were actually carried out by the Israeli Mossad would also be right.

I suppose I should be proud of myself.  The question I posed to ICA on 22 November, concerning our birth registration procedures, is obviously so profound that the brilliant minds managing its bureaucracy need more than 5 working days to debate whether a change in policy is needed.  So this is the interim reply I received in the meantime :

Dear Mr Lim,

  Please refer to your email of 22 Nov 2005.

  The matter is receiving our attention and we will get back to you soon. 

  Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

IMMIGRATION & CHECKPOINTS AUTHORITY

In the meantime, poor Jed remains the boy with no official name.  Hmmm … maybe I should name him

无名

in Chinese as a reminder of this incident.

My friends - a Christian couple - have started an online forum / electronic bulletin board at the Thumbtack.  Visitors are welcome to register themselves and start posting.

Sometime ago I read that for many religions, periods of fasting are ironically the times when their adherents eat the most.  In fact, for some, the food and breverage industry goes into overdrive to keep up with the feeding frenzy after the adherents break fast. 

For devotionals today I read Zechariah 7.  In this passage, the Jews ask God if they should continue with their tradition of mourning and fasting, in remembrance of the time when they were exiled from Judah.  God’s answer is a stark contrast to what man perceives religiousness to be !

Q : Should I mourn and fast … as I have done for so many years ? (v 2)

A : When you fasted and mourned … for the past seventy years, was it really for Me [ ie. God ] that you fasted ?  And when you were eating and drinking, were you not just feasting for yourselves ?  … This is what the Lord Almighty says : Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.  Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor.  In your hearts do not think evil of each other (v 4 - 8).

(Read also Isaiah 58, particularly verses 6 - 9)

Jed remains officially nameless, after our failed attempt to register his birth at hospital today.  Arrgh … bureaucrats !

To : The Immigration & Checkpoints Authority

Query on the Birth Registration Process

I took leave to go down to the hospital where my child was delivered today, to register his birth.

As I currently do not have my IC with me, I brought along my passport and birth certificate, hoping that these documents (in addition to the mothers IC) would suffice. However, I was turned away by the person at the birth registration counter. I was told that policy of requiring both parents’ ICs is one that is strictly adhered to.

I would like to know if the foregoing is indeed the case. If so, I find it incomprehensible that foreign passports are accepted, while local passports are not. I also note that processing time for the first loss of an IC is 1 month and 3 months for second and subsequent loss, which means that a parent who has lost his / her IC will probably not be able to register his child’s birth within the 42 days required by law. The policy of refusing to accept other identification documents in lieu of the IC again does not make sense in the light of this.

I will be grateful to have your clarification on the above matter. Unfortunately, I will now have to make another trip to ICA or the hospital to register the birth of my child, after I have my IC.

There’s a highly emotional debate going on at www.tomorrow.sg, on whether "Man’s evolution from monkeys [is] a proven scientific fact".  Creationists and evolutionists have dug in and started slinging mud at each other.  The amount of anal retentiveness exhibited by both camps is amazing.  Since I’m on leave, I decided to join in the fun.  After all, it’s quite amusing to provoke anal retentives and watch them get into fits of collective apoplexy.

Quote : Science may not have the answer to everything, and may never have (There are lots of unanswered questions still, and not just in biology). But the use of a Designer to explain every yet-unclear phenomenon in the natural world is tantamount to saying "stop exploring and researching and hypothesing, since we know that God/Designer/Spaghetti Monster is the answer to everything". Now, that would be a tragedy indeed.

My reply : Personally I think the above is an over-generalisation. I think that the belief in a Creator does not necessarily cause a believer to "stop exploring and researching and hypothesing, since we know that God/Designer/Spaghetti Monster is the answer to everything". Though historically we have witnessed many religious fundamentalists do so, many scientists both past and present believe that religion and science are compatible. Modern science in fact advanced so rapidly because its brilliant minds believed that a rationally orderly God created an orderly universe which could be known through careful scientific study.

Quote : Creationists and the Intelligent Design (ID) camp have it as their goal to falsely spread (by repeating ad infinitum) the notion that evolution is ‘just’ a theory (in their lingo, a mere hypothesis), with the aim of lobbying for equal time to be allocated to their pet design and theistic ideas in biology classes

My reply : Unlike the US, I think (and I hope I am correct) that as far as Singapore is concerned there is no fundamentalist Christian "right" that is pushing for evolution to be taught in science or geography class. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that it should either, except for beowolf but only (as far as I can see) for the purpose of making a point. I sense that there is a lot of hostility and emotional diatribe against ID-iots (since we juveniles insist on calling each other names I shall join in the fun) because of this misapprehension.

Quote : [If the alternatives to evolution are taught in science class t]hen scientific alternatives to God should be included in Church sermons too …

My reply : Firstly, I believe that when evolution is taught, the approach should not be to present it as an absolute fact, but as a work in progress which is the best way scientist are able to explain our universe. Students should be informed that there are gaps in our understanding (http://www.musings.per.sg/2005/08/200) and that over time there is the hope that scientists will understand it better. This is not a call to teach that the theory of evolution is incorrect or a backdoor by which ID may be taught as an alternative. I think, rather, it gives the student a fair view of where science stands right now so that he can decide if the claims of ID-iots are credible at all (now everyone say "of course not !").

Secondly, church sessions are not a classes about how God created the world. If it were than I would agree that the scientific alternatives to God should be taught at every church service. But you may wish to note that many churches probably have special classes on creation and evolution once in a while, and that at such classes "scientific alternatives" to God are presented. Of course, the Christians are probably also taught that are no real "scientific alternatives" to God. Nonetheless, an inquiring mind who finds what is presented incredible is free to renounce his beliefs - people are not killed for leaving the church (well, I hope not anymore, and certainly at least not in Singapore).

Quote : Seriously, what is it about religous alternatives to your christian God?  What about the hindu gods, buddha, Allah, Zeus, Lao Tse, Thor, and to some (Satan)…? The world is not only Christians only.

My reply : Er … I think this thread is about fundamentalist Christian pro-IDs vs evolutionists. So talking about alternatives to the Christian God is out of topic. No need to take offense … Of course, if you wish, you can join in the fun by posing as a fundamentalist Zeus-worship pro-ID who takes offense at the fact that everyone is ignoring Zeus as a possible contender for creator god.

Quote : I think the point is this: Science is religion-neutral.  If some christians start wanting ID to be taught, then it will offen a whole lot of people from other religion, or people from other religions will start wanting their version of the ‘how life is created’ taught. Maybe next time we’ll see:

Lesson 1: Evolution - Darwin’s version
Lesson 2: Intelligent Design - Or how God made us all
Lesson 3: Creating Man from mud - Or how Nu Wa made us Taoists
Lesson 4: Alien Abduction and anal probing - Or how life originated from Aliens.

My reply : Religion is a belief system. And taken to extremes, science can be as comprehensive a belief system as well. Science may be religion-neutral in the sense that religion generally need not be brought into the picture when science is discussed, but it is certainly not belief system-neutral. As such, I can see why some religious people take offense when science as a belief system is forced onto them.

As for Christians wanting ID to be taught in schools, as I’ve said before, this isn’t what the majority of Singaporean Christians are asking for and even if Christians did, it wouldn’t happen. Can we stop bringing up this non-issue then, or take it a forum on US politics ?

Reply to comments on a previous post on Creationism / Intelligent Design ("Proselytism in Schools a Cause for Concern") :

From the outset let me say that I do not have a deep knowledge of the theory of evolution or creationism / intelligent design (ID).  In fact I am not scientifically trained - my knowledge of biology and physics / chemistry is limited to what I studied in sec 2 and 4 respectively.  I had written what I had written merely to point out that it is disingenuous to complain about someone preaching creationism, when evolutionists are allowed to proclaim their theory freely even if that offends a religious person.

In other words, if this debate on creationism / intelligent design and evolution is to be meaningful, the exchange of opinions must be grounded on tolerance and a healthy respect for the other person as a human being who is entitled to his own opinion, regardless of what one thinks of his (silly) ideas.  Giving each other labels, calling each other names (like "IDiots" or god-haters or whatever else) and jumping to conclusions about the other person’s beliefs - a lot of which I notice is going on - is unhelpful and is unlikely to bring us closer to the "truth".  Can’t we just calmly engage in discussion ?

Now, let me turn to the issue of scientific theory.  I am in entire agreement with danb on how science has moved forward.  In fact I had pointed out that the strength of scientific theory lies "in the fact that it, unlike blind faith, is open to questioning and testing", and danb affirmed the same by saying that scientific theory can be "disproved or debunked" by more advanced reasoning when it comes along.  But for this reason, I had also said (perhaps not very clearly) that just because a theory  seems to work doesn’t necessarily mean that our theory of why it works is correct.  Hence the stress on the word "theory", but not as danb understood it.  Danb had correctly pointed out that "a scientific theory is theoretical not because it is false".  But I did not say that theory is false; I said that a theory is not necessarily the absolute truth or the final word on how or why something works or came to be.

As for my comment on "proved to a limited extent", I had merely said, if the quote were read in its context, that one can through "experimentation and observation" prove evolution to a limited extent, meaning that one cannot by some grand experiment show dinosaurs evolving into the animals we have today.  Again, I did not say that the theory of evolution is false.  But I think that we should not be so foolish as to say that the theory of evolution is the absolute truth and final word on how humans came to exist, when (from what I understand) there is much that we cannot explain.