Monday, June 22, 2009 | Reason : Education | print version

Print | Comments |

Petition for guarding against creationism in Hong Kong

by Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education

Thanks to Adrian for the link.

Links to the site have both Chinese and English - part of the English translation from the site is below. You do not have to be a Chinese citizen to sign the petition. Please note that this is a translation so please think about the intended meaning of the below rather than any specific grammar. /Mike

I am writing on behalf of "Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education", a group of Hong Kong citizens who are concerned about the science education in Hong Kong. I would like to draw your attention to a recent incidence that may threaten the Biology education in Hong Kong.

Background

The new senior secondary school biology and combined science curriculum effective from September 2009 contain a statement in the part of evolution that may encourage unscientific theories to be propagated in science classes. The related passage reads:

"In addition to Darwin's theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life, to help illustrate the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge."

On February 7, 2009, South China Morning Post reported that the dean of science faculty of The University of Hong Kong (HKU) Professor Sun Kwok, science faculty board chairman David Dudgeon, former manager of its Genome Research Centre William Mak and geologist Jason Ali, have made complaints to Education Bureau about the new biology syllabus. Professor Kwok pointed out in the news that scientific knowledge is based upon observation and verification, and not all explanations should be discussed during science classes, guidelines of Education Bureau have misinterpreted the definition of science. But the Education Bureau turned their back to the worried scientists, planning no

So far news media reported that at least 31 secondary schools in Hong Kong have already admitted to teach Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as an alternative to the theory of evolution during science lessons. Our group showed our concern by submitting two letters to legislative council to reflect the concerns from Hong Kong citizens, but the Education Bureau has not responded publicly to us for two months.

In early May 2009, a group of 62 people, including educators and scientists, signed a statement calling for controversial guidelines to be retained because it is "stimulating, balanced, non-biased and has worked well". These people, including the Open University's dean of science and technology Ho Kin-chung, St Paul's Co-educational College principal Anissa Chan Wong Lai-kuen and HKU physicist Chris Beling, claims there is no universally accepted definition of science, while there is still controversy over Darwinian theory.

Timeline/History
To know more about the event, and find out evidences, please visit our website:
http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/timeline

Calling for help (see the bottom of page at this link to sign the petition)

We think that the situation is very bad, and Education Bureau may once again tend not to listen to the request from citizens, and refuse to change the problematic sentences in the new syllabus. So we elevated our action and launched a petition signing campaign early this month. On behalf of the Group, I would like to invite you join our action and help us by:

1. Promoting and signing on our online petition: http://www.gopetition.com/online/28149.html. The deadline is the end of this month. Professors who have signed the petition including: Prof. Daniel Dennett, Prof. David Dudgeon, Dr. Chong-Fuk Lau, Dr. Richard SAUNDERS, Dr Gavin SMITH, Dr. Jason ALI and Prof. Wung-Wai TSO. At least 60 international scholars have already signed on the petition.
2. Please tell you friends, especially those who serves in the academia, about this event, and ask them to spread this message. You are welcome to forward this email.

We would be grateful if you can offer us help in any form. You are most welcome to contact us to know more about the issue. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,
Adrian Mok
Officer of Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education

--
Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education
http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/

Posted: Monday, June 22, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 56 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #389976 by ewaldrep on June 22, 2009 at 6:16 am

Just signed, I had no idea that creationism, or its infiltration of the education system, was a noteworthy happening in Hong Kong! Has it spread like a pestilent whirlwind?

Other Comments by ewaldrep

2. Comment #389979 by Absinthius on June 22, 2009 at 6:23 am

Signed. Without saying that China is heaven on earth, I never thought they had issues of creationism creeping into science too.... I hope they will be able to make this go away fast and go back to being more objective in their education.

Other Comments by Absinthius

3. Comment #389983 by Partisan on June 22, 2009 at 6:28 am

I went to Hong Kong recently - beautiful city, but I was surprised by the amount of Christians out there.

Other Comments by Partisan

4. Comment #389988 by Roger Stanyard on June 22, 2009 at 6:36 am

More evidence that creationism is just not going to disappear. My view is that in 10-20 years' time it will be the predominant view amongst Christians.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

5. Comment #389989 by sunbeamforjesus on June 22, 2009 at 6:36 am

Hong kong is a real buzz.Millions of people trying to make money with the only acceptable diversions being: sex,food,drink and gambling.I love it there and would hate to see it ruined by any creationist bullshit.
All sign please.

Other Comments by sunbeamforjesus

6. Comment #389997 by Szkeptik on June 22, 2009 at 6:53 am

Signed. It's depressing how this delusional bullshit is still able to spread in spite of constantly losing in all serious debate and legal procedures.

Other Comments by Szkeptik

7. Comment #390004 by pulsfordp on June 22, 2009 at 7:11 am

Thanks hugely for your support richarddawkins.net. I teach science here in HK, and the local syllabus is under threat. At least it's only ID, but worrying none the less.

Other Comments by pulsfordp

8. Comment #390016 by Mieu on June 22, 2009 at 7:39 am

I am in mainland China and cannot access the petition site, dunno if it's the great firewall working though... urgh, at least I have British friends who helped me sign this :)

I've been to Hong Kong once and had a really great impression with the place. I wish I am able to move there (which is still feasible) ^_^

Other Comments by Mieu

9. Comment #390017 by jpgj on June 22, 2009 at 7:39 am

Signed too. Hong-Kong isn't the PRC really, but autonomous and self-governing. It would be interesting to find out how the Beijing Govmt teaches evolution on the mainland (the subject used to be an issue of Marxist theological quarrel among them). Could the attempt to inject some Christian creationism into the HK science curriculum have something to do with some obscure political quarrel with Beijing?

Other Comments by jpgj

10. Comment #390021 by Mieu on June 22, 2009 at 7:57 am

My high school years are long gone (late 90s) but I don't remember my biology class mentioning Creationism/Intelligent Design in any way (and obviously nothing about Lysenko and his theories). Maybe they did talk a bit about it in history class if I vaguely remember... or have I read about it in Darwin's biography?

Other Comments by Mieu

11. Comment #390029 by liberalartist on June 22, 2009 at 8:20 am

I signed the petition. I went to Hong Kong many years ago and its always struck me as being progressive and modern so this development is quite scary. Anti-evolutionism is becoming a global pandemic.

Other Comments by liberalartist

12. Comment #390030 by Stewart Cowan on June 22, 2009 at 8:28 am

Nervous interfering Dawkinsians. You are just soooooo afraid of being found out. More gagging orders, eh? You're as bad as the Church of Rome in the 16th Century.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

13. Comment #390031 by Quetzalcoatl on June 22, 2009 at 8:33 am

Stewart Cowan-

A petition isn't a gagging order.

Secondly: afraid of what being found out, exactly?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

14. Comment #390034 by Stewart Cowan on June 22, 2009 at 8:41 am

"A petition isn't a gagging order."

True, but if successful, teachers will be gagged.

Afraid of knowledge, feathered serpent.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

15. Comment #390036 by Quetzalcoatl on June 22, 2009 at 8:43 am

Stewart Cowan-

What knowledge, exactly? Are you claiming that creationism is true and evolution false?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

16. Comment #390048 by jpgj on June 22, 2009 at 9:31 am

Stewart Cowan is being facetious

¨

Other Comments by jpgj

17. Comment #390051 by Lemniscate on June 22, 2009 at 9:43 am

Stewart Cowan, no matter what happens with this petition, you can still propound creationism/I.D. anywhere other than a science classroom. That's hardly the same as banning all public expression of a certain heretical view. You've got to show something is good science before you let it in to science classrooms.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

18. Comment #390070 by The Hogfather on June 22, 2009 at 10:50 am

Signed.

ID in Hong Kong now, of all places, is nowhere safe from this magic man, sky fairy nonsense!!!
Also, what is it about people called Cowan??? Are there any Cowans out there on our side of the fence?

Other Comments by The Hogfather

19. Comment #390143 by Indian Joe on June 22, 2009 at 12:23 pm

With the average Indian's capacity to foretell the future, I had once written in these pages that, "creationist stupidity doesn't stop [...] at the Atlantic. It goes right around the world. When IDiocy gains respectability in the greatest scientific power in the world, it gains respectability everywhere... If influential men like Jindal push through their creationist agenda in the States, it won't be long before similar fairy tales appear in Indian science text-books." And apparently in Hong Kong as well.

We ain't seen nothin' yet.

Other Comments by Indian Joe

20. Comment #390172 by Stewart Cowan on June 22, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Quetzalcoatl - "Are you claiming that creationism is true and evolution false?"

What I claim is that Creation science deserves to be studied because it is science and why should education be about censoring science? That's very dangerous.

jpgj - I'm not being facetious on this matter. It's very close to my heart.

Lemniscate - I refer you to my reply to Quetzalcoatl.

The Hogfather - "Are there any Cowans out there on our side of the fence?"

Ha ha, I hope not!

Long live science and the freedom and opportunity to study it!

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

21. Comment #390179 by non-blackman on June 22, 2009 at 4:20 pm

Signed, Facebooked [sic] and Twittered. Maybe I should have a petition go around to keep Chick Tracks out of the hands imbecilic Americans like my sister (who believes she's "reading" the bible). Let's stop the dumbing-down of US citizens!

[FYI "Non-black" because race is a social construct that means very little from the standpoint of biology, and plus I'm mixed-race anyway. After we break down religion, I'll tackle the problem of race and Al Sharpton's perm.]

Other Comments by non-blackman

22. Comment #390183 by Stewart Cowan on June 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm

non-blackman - us Creationists realise that we are all the same race - the human race.

Darwinism is a racist ideology that has done untold damage to the world. And you want to make things worse still.

Sounds like you need to start treating your sister as a human being too.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

23. Comment #390184 by SmilingAtheist on June 22, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Comment #390183 by Stewart Cowan

What I claim is that Creation science deserves to be studied because it is science and why should education be about censoring science? That's very dangerous.

I was not going to bother saying anything as it appears to be a waste of time. You're pulling a Ben Stein here.
Doing the whole 'censoring' and 'dangerous', what's next? Are you going to start using 'Big science' next? Tell you what, show us something useful that has come out of creation science and we'll listen. Otherwise all you're doing is blowing hot air along with all the so called creation scientists.

Other Comments by SmilingAtheist

24. Comment #390191 by walk on June 22, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Stewart,

Creationism obviously implies the existence of a creator. So - simply provide us with some verifiable scientific evidence that a "creator" exists and we'll have a good starting point.

Other Comments by walk

25. Comment #390193 by cerebate on June 22, 2009 at 5:26 pm

Comment #390172 by Stewart Cowan
What I claim is that Creation science
ha ha ha ha good one. umm thats not a joke?

Other Comments by cerebate

26. Comment #390197 by blitz442 on June 22, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Stewart

non-blackman - us Creationists realise that we are all the same race - the human race

Explain why racism existed before Darwinism.

Also, what is your basis for accusing Darwin of racism£ The fact that he used the word 'race' in Origin£ That abomination known as Social Darwinism£

It is ridiculous to tar a description and explanation of the living world (that is what evolution by natural selection is) with loaded terms like "racist" or "evil". All that matters is its accuracy and explanatory power. It would be like saying gravity is racist.

And finally, the ethics of the discoverer or scientist have no bearing on the veracity of their claim. Newton was kind of an asshole, does that in anyway detract from the truth of his discoveries£

Other Comments by blitz442

27. Comment #390207 by SmilingAtheist on June 22, 2009 at 6:03 pm

non-blackman - us Creationists realise that we are all the same race - the human race.

Um, well here's a better way of putting that, under the colour of our skin we're all Africans. So the idea of 'race' to anyone who understands evolution would never be racist, like Darwin himself who was not racist and actually found it appalling.

Darwinism is a racist ideology that has done untold damage to the world. And you want to make things worse still.

This is fallacious in the extreme. Where do you get off with this statement? The most racist people in the USA and other parts of the world are usually religious. People normally use the idea of race and religion together to isolate people with the purpose of extermination or belittling. Get your facts striaght.

Social Darwinism was a mistake and we all know that. Darwin never once stated that evolution idealism (survival of the fittest) should be taken into our society. This argument is tiresome. You seem to lack any comprehension into what evolution is about. It isn't simply black and white as you make it out to be.

Other Comments by SmilingAtheist

28. Comment #390212 by chewedbarber on June 22, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Darwinism is a racist ideology that has done untold damage to the world.

Ha, ha, ha, ha -- ah.

Ku Klux Klan -

Christian Identity - (Anglo-Israelism)

neo-Nazis -

Aryan Nation -

Creatorists - (RAHOWA - Racial Holy War)

National Alliance - (William Pierce)

Black Hebrew Israelites -

All past or existing US based racist hate organizations. Other groups like these exist all over the world, can you name a characteristic they don't have in common?

Other Comments by chewedbarber

29. Comment #390216 by Michael Gray on June 22, 2009 at 6:38 pm

20. Comment #390172 by Stewart Cowan
What I claim is that Creation science deserves to be studied because it is science...

Where were you when the Dover case was thrown out of court?
You could have saved the day for the DI by presenting your evidence for this claim to the judge!
You would have been world famous by now...

Other Comments by Michael Gray

30. Comment #390224 by Bonzai on June 22, 2009 at 7:18 pm

I finished highschool in Hong Kong. I had a creationist as my biology teacher in F.5 (grade 12) She told us upfront that she believed in the Bible over evolution, but since evolution was in the syllabus she had to teach it in order to keep her job. So, she just basically 'taught' by reading us the book in a monotonous voice which put all of us to sleep.She 'covered' all of that material in maybe 2 classes and that was it. She did the same thing with sex ed. It was quite an accomplishment to be able to put a whole class of boys to sleep by supposedly talking about sex.

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #390228 by Goldy on June 22, 2009 at 7:53 pm

What I claim is that Creation science deserves to be studied because it is science...

No it isn't.

Been reading on the ol' interweb, found this nugget
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009/06/is-nazi-china-emerging.html
Seems not only HK has problems regarding human evolution...on a different vein this time :-)

“As everybody knows, according to the views propagated by the Western scholars, humanity as a whole originated from one single mother in Africa. Therefore, no race can claim racial superiority. However, according to the research conducted by most Chinese scholars, the Chinese are different from other races on earth. We did not originate in Africa. Instead, we originated independently in the land of China. The Peking Man at Zhoukoudian that we are all familiar with represents a phase of our ancestors’ evolution.

Other Comments by Goldy

32. Comment #390231 by Goldy on June 22, 2009 at 7:58 pm

Forgot to add this gem

What makes us different from Germany is that we are complete atheists, while Germany was primarily a Catholic and Protestant country. Hitler was only half atheist. Although Hitler also believed that ordinary citizens had low intelligence, and that leaders should therefore make decisions, and although German people worshipped Hitler back then, Germany did not have the tradition of worshipping sages on a broad basis. Our Chinese society has always worshipped sages, and that is because we don’t worship any god. Once you worship a god, you can’t worship a person at the same time, unless you recognize the person as the god’s representative like they do in Middle Eastern countries. On the other hand, once you recognize a person as a sage, of course you will want him to be your leader, instead of monitoring and choosing him. This is the foundation of our democratic centralism.

Guess when the PRC really takes over completely, the cretinists are going to have a bit of a worry on their hands...

Other Comments by Goldy

33. Comment #390232 by Titania on June 22, 2009 at 8:15 pm

22. Comment #390183 by Stewart Cowan

Mighty big claim there, old son, care to back it up with some evidence on both counts? Could you clarify whether you are talking about Social Darwinism or evolution? Do you know the difference?

Other Comments by Titania

34. Comment #390233 by Goldy on June 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm

In Wikipedia

The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement [16] to describe evolution. In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[17][18][19] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[5] Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools.

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis.

In the United Kingdom the term retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil's Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[20]

So Darwinism is only a dirty word if you're stupid :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

35. Comment #390234 by Bonzai on June 22, 2009 at 8:26 pm

Goldy

My hunch is that this 'speech' is a forgery.

Chinese leaders don't talk like this. At least there would be some references to Marxism and socialism in any speech even though they don't believe in it. While you can say many things about these guys, they are no Hitlers, they are not idealogues trying to conquer the world. They are just some tired old men who want to fleece the nest for their kids and things are going well for them with the country swimming in cash,--that is, for those with the right connections. The power that be in China would be the last people on earth who want to rock the boat.

Old guys like Chi Haotian are vain with a big chip on their shoulders; they are moribound and hopelessly out of step with the time. These people remind me more of the Dowager and her entourage than Hitler.

This 'speech' pushes all the hot buttons in the West and not so subltlely feed into the 'yellow peril' paranoia. It actually sounds suspiciously like the handiwork of the FaLun Gong.

You must also know that China and India are not the most friendly neighbours. I am not surprised that an Indian writer would make a big fuss out of the story. But why should you pay any attention to it? I am sure Mrs. Goldy would have some opinions about this piece as well.

Other Comments by Bonzai

36. Comment #390235 by Goldy on June 22, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Bonz, indeed. Verified by the Falun gong, this story is ;-) I just put it in here because...well, I haven't contributed much recently.

Mrs Goldy isn't that interested. She's got more immediate concerns, like getting her nephew a decent car, children, me, our finances....

Other Comments by Goldy

37. Comment #390238 by Bonzai on June 22, 2009 at 8:44 pm

Goldy

well, I haven't contributed much recently.

Not to worry, apparently there was a melt down of some sort on the site yesterday, many recent posts were wiped out. Now you start with a relatively clean slate :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

38. Comment #390239 by Goldy on June 22, 2009 at 8:49 pm

My excuse is that I haven't posted. Took a few days off with the in-laws adn then weekend I don't post and yesterday there wasn't anything that tickled my fancy...

Lazy, mainly :-D

Other Comments by Goldy

39. Comment #390241 by Goldy on June 22, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Before anyone starts really worrying about a Chinese invasion...
http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2005/08/21/4012.aspx

:-D

Other Comments by Goldy

40. Comment #390262 by andersemil on June 23, 2009 at 12:54 am

Alright, OK, WHO let the Cretinism virus out in Hong Kong?! Damn thing keeps spreading like the flu.

Other Comments by andersemil

41. Comment #390271 by Quetzalcoatl on June 23, 2009 at 1:24 am

Stewart Cowan-

Creation science is science. Interesting. In that case, would you care to provide the following:

- A list of testable predictions made by Creation science that can be scientifically tested, verified and falsified.

- Details of any peer-reviewed Creation science articles published in reputable scientific journals.

- Examples of what Creation Science has been able to scientifically explain that "normal science" has been unable to do.

- Your guess as to why you think the Dover case dismissed Intelligent Design as not being even remotely scientific, but instead a thin, translucent veneer for religious thought.

I look forward to your response.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

42. Comment #390274 by Rodger T on June 23, 2009 at 1:30 am

Surely creation science is bad Feng Shui.

Other Comments by Rodger T

43. Comment #390279 by epeeist on June 23, 2009 at 1:54 am

Comment #390271 by Quetzalcoatl:

- A list of testable predictions made by Creation science that can be scientifically tested, verified and falsified.

To add to Quetz's list. Thomas Kuhn claims that scientific theories have a number of properties including:

Accuracy, i.e. the consequences deducible from the theory should be in agreement with experiment
Consistency, both with itself and with other theories in its domain
Broad in scope, this (and the next property) are tied in with Popper's idea of boldness. The theory should extend well beyond its observations
Parsimony, it obviously should require the minimal number of ad hoc extensions and parameters
It should be fruitful of new research findings, i.e. it should disclose new phenomena or previously unnoted relationships

If you are going to offer evidence for "creation science", then there should be a substantial amount of it, it also should be diverse and accurate.

Lots for you to work on, why don't you use an exemplar. How about the creation of the universe, show us what you have got that fulfils the criteria that Quetz gave you and extended by myself.

Other Comments by epeeist

44. Comment #390280 by Philip1978 on June 23, 2009 at 1:57 am

Stewart Cowan

Ever been to Berhamstead? Sorry, your name is familiar.

You really need to think about what you are saying - you reckon that because I have been convinced by the wealth of evidence in favour of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection that I am a racist or perhaps one in the making?

That's a bit off isnt it? I am no racist and have no desire to be one.

Creation science is not science, it is not even close to science.

For that to even be true first you would have to prove the Bible is true, that God is real, that he alone is the owner to the intellectual property rights of the universe and not one of the 3,002,850 other Gods out there who could make the same claims - etc etc

Creation science is based on human assumption, not rigourous testing, if you can produce what Quetzalcoatl has requested above I would be willing to change my mind.

I doubt it very much indeed but as always I will be happy to read your evidence, if you have any.

Other Comments by Philip1978

45. Comment #390281 by adrrrian on June 23, 2009 at 1:58 am

you guys are asking too much from Stewart Cowan
apparently he hardly has thought through about anything he says

guys, you don't talk to a recorder

Other Comments by adrrrian

46. Comment #390285 by Mark Jones on June 23, 2009 at 2:08 am

I shouldn't worry about Stewart Cowan, folks, he's obviously trolling for a response. On his blog he says

...I guess in today’s mad society shouting ‘racism’ is the easiest way to get your own back.

So saying that Darwinism is a racist ideology is the easiest way for him to get his own back, in his opinion.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

47. Comment #390287 by epeeist on June 23, 2009 at 2:11 am

Comment #390281 by adrrrian:

you guys are asking too much from Stewart Cowan

As ever I don't expect too much from Mr. Cowan, if it sparks off a very small element of doubt I will be satisfied.

There are many more lurkers here than posters, the challenge to the likes of Stewart Cowan are mainly for their benefit. The aim is to show how "creation science" is an oxymoron and bereft of any meaning.

Other Comments by epeeist

48. Comment #390290 by Roger Stanyard on June 23, 2009 at 2:15 am

Stewart Cowan:

What I claim is that Creation science deserves to be studied because it is science and why should education be about censoring science?

OK, then show us the scientific theory of creationism or ID that explains the differences between species and which can be tested by the scientific method.

[Twiddles thumbs for all eternity.]

Or, are you, as I suspect, really Nick Cowan, well known at BCSE?

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

49. Comment #390291 by HKSARblog on June 23, 2009 at 2:17 am

I went to Hong Kong recently - beautiful city, but I was surprised by the amount of Christians out there.
(3. Comment #389983 by Partisan)

Plenty of Christians, Mormons, and other strange religious groups here in Hong Kong. They make a "killing" out here too, financially speaking that is. On a brighter note, initiatives like the Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education demonstrate that there are plenty of rational and critical thinkers in Hong Kong.

I'm glad this petition is playing a part in "Consciousness Raising". When I first registered with RD.net in April 2009, I mentioned this issue of creeping creationism and insidious intelligent design in Hong Kong.

Other Comments by HKSARblog

50. Comment #390295 by Roger Stanyard on June 23, 2009 at 2:31 am

Chewedbarber lists the following movements

Ku Klux Klan -

Christian Identity - (Anglo-Israelism)

neo-Nazis -

Aryan Nation -

Creatorists - (RAHOWA - Racial Holy War)

National Alliance - (William Pierce)

Black Hebrew Israelites -

One thing they mostly have in common is that they claim to be religious.

Indeed, when it comes to fundamentalism in the USA, the white supremecist and militia organisations all back fundamentalism and creationism.

That's 'cause they are one and the same - ideologies of bigotry, vindictiveness and ignorance.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last