Replying to Singaporean Creationists

4 days ago, a creationist letter was published in the Voices section of TODAY. I was going to write a blog post for it but it was literally rehashing common creationist misconceptions of evolution -- boring shit.

The letter is: Creationism still part of the evolution debate -- reposted in full below (since I don't know if TODAY's online articles stays online).

I refer to the commentary "Theory of evolution in crisis - and it's a good thing" (Sept 7). There are problems with the idea that creationism has never posed an intellectual challenge to evolutionary thinking.

First, creationists do not pose a threat to scientific thinking. The founders of modern science and many modern scientists are creationists who study an orderly, non-random universe.

Dr Marc Kirschner of Harvard Medical School has remarked that almost all of biology over the last 100 years has proceeded independent of evolution.

In fact, evolution hinders medical discovery. The writer himself highlighted the crisis in traditional evolutionary thinking, which has been so dogmatic as to not even consider creationism as a viable option.

Whilst science comprises experimental and historical types, the issue of beginnings and the past falls within the latter and should not be accorded the same authority as the former.

Natural selection and mutation do not equate to evolution.

The former is a principle also recognised by creationists. It might explain the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. One cannot modify a Mr Potato Head into a GI Joe.

How do genes "move" in sexual reproduction in higher animals? Do we presume that once moved, they can just be "absorbed"?

Does the recipient genome have the machinery or resources to process the "absorbed" gene?

The idea of two bacteria forming the first eukaryotic cell (the more complex cell type found in multicellular animals) is speculation.

There are many questions for evolutionists:

How did life originate? Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment, with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed long age of the universe, not one average-sized functional protein would have formed.

So how did bacteria form? How did the DNA code, biochemical pathways, multicellular life and gender all originate?

There are more fundamental questions: From where do natural laws come? From where does logic come? These are non-material stuff but often taken for granted.

A quick summary of the letter (in paragraphs): introduction; trivial; quote-mine; false, projection; false; misconception; expression of incredulity; expression of lack of study; expression of lack of study; lack of understanding of scientific terms; creationist "probabilities"; expression of lack of study; irrelevant, logic fail.


Fortunately, two awesome letters have been published in response to the truckload of "creationism".

One from the fine professors of our NTU School of Biological Sciences: Profs respond to debate on evolution, creationism

The letter "Creationism still part of the evolution debate" (Sept 28) reproduces some misunderstandings of the theory of evolution. Some fundamentals should be emphasised for the record.

The evolution of new species from pre-existing species is recognised as a fact, not a conjecture, by a great many scientists due to abundant, robust and mutually supporting evidence from multiple fields of science, and the absence of findings to the contrary.

We use the term "theory" in the scientific sense: We are certain that evolution has generated all life on Earth.

Our current inability to explain every detail of its processes does not disprove evolution, just as gravity cannot be denied despite an inability to explain fully how it works.

Disagreements on these details do not imply that the theory is shaky. To the contrary, disagreement between scientists in any field is the norm, the necessary outcome of vigorous inquiry and an impetus to refine our knowledge through further investigation.

For the broader review this question deserves, we refer interested readers to Science and Creationism, and Science, Evolution and Creationism from the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies in the United States.

Both documents are free for downloading. We also recommend the book Why Evolution is True, the related blog by Professor Jerry A Coyne and many other books on the subject.

That addressed mostly the lack of understanding for scientific method, terms and process.

Thank you professors.

The other letter is from the Humanist Society (Singapore): Creationism yet to earn intellectual spurs

We refer to Dr Luke Tan's letter "Creationism still part of the evolution debate" (Sept 28). Several Humanist Society (Singapore) members read with alarm Dr Tan's claims about evolution, and creationism as its intellectual challenge in modern biology.

Evolution is the unifying theory of biology. So, it was surprising to read the assertion that Harvard Medical School's Mark Kirschner claimed that evolution had played only a minor role in the last 100 years of biology.

We contacted Dr Kirschner for verification and, as it turned out, his quote, taken from a Boston Globe article in 2005, was a lament that evolution has not been a more integral part of biology. Also, he noted that "broadening the inquiry into evolution beyond natural history and population genetics only adds more evidence for evolution and explains more of the mechanistic transitions".

"We thought of that because the molecular, cellular and developmental insights very much increase our appreciation and confidence in evolution."

While Dr Tan's letter rehashes several misconceptions, there is no scientific debate over evolution's validity. The wealth of experimental and observational evidence in its favour is astounding; the only objections to evolution are theological.

The theory of evolution accounts for the origins of species, not life, as he implied. To claim evolutionary biologists have been dogmatically rejecting creationism as a viable option is to suggest creationists have been putting forth viable evidence to no avail.

There is no international conspiracy spanning two centuries; there is just no evidence. The theory of evolution is part of an experimental science: Biology. The experimental-historical boundary that he perceived is artificial.

Even if the theory of evolution is overturned, however unlikely that may be, creationism will not become the default explanation for the origin of species. It must earn the title of intellectual challenger on its evidential merits.

HSS' letter addresses the quote mined statement of  Dr Kirschner and directly points out that creationism does not contribute to our knowledge AT ALL even if the theory evolution is false.

For those who are actually interested in learning, here's my recommendations.

Berkeley has some resources on Evolution 101 and the Scientific Method.

If you like textbooks, there are 3 sample chapters from Mark Ridley's Evolution available online

And if you're a creationist who got most/all of your information from church, I don't know how to put it nicely... you've probably been thoroughly misinformed. In which case, do watch this playlist of AronRa's videos. I can assure you this does not attack the belief in god -- it only attacks the lies that some unscrupulous men of god like to tell.

If videos ain't your thing, do check out TalkOrigins' Index of Creationist Claims. If you heard it from creationists, it's there. They also have a couple of other pages worth seeing.

Stay smart. Be well informed.

Open, tolerant and respectful

I am guessing that most Singaporeans should have noticed that when it comes to racial or religious harmony, our government always reiterates the same points with the same rhetoric all the time. Don't get me wrong; I do agree that we should maintain racial/religious harmony -- that's not the issue here.

What gets on my nerves is how vague they are every single time that I've seen it. It's always the same vague language, imploring that we should be open, tolerant and respectful of other beliefs. Okay, good. What does that mean?

What is being open?

To be open is to be ready to entertain new ideas. And here in Singapore, I never really thought that this was an issue at all (so far).

What about being tolerant?

To be tolerant something is to permit and endure its existence. Again, I, for one, have no issue with this. I am not, and I hope nobody else is, going to prohibit religion or irreligion in general.

Then what about being respectful?

To show deference to a right. Sure, people have the right to have or not have religious beliefs -- that's fine.

What then is the issue here?

Wait, there's another commonly used meaning for respect I'm forgetting -- to hold in esteem or honor. That? HELL, NO.

Now, think of the common thread that holds this 3 terms together. For non-believers on the internet, I'm pretty sure you might have guessed it -- Criticism of religious doctrines and practices.

In the eyes of (some of) the religious and squishy liberals, simply criticizing religious doctrines and practices is equated to being close-minded, intolerant and disrespectful. Guess what? They're wrong. One can be open, tolerant and respectful of religious beliefs without silencing all opposing ideas (ie, criticism).

I will entertain your beliefs, respect your right to hold them, tolerate your practices AND tell you what I find disagreeable. But the last part is what seems to get their goat. And that appears to me, what they wish to achieve with the usual rhetoric.

When tensions between religions (and the irreligious) mount around the globe, the rhetoric is used to quell any tension that might be building here in Singapore. In this case, it might have been the tension between the freethought community and the religious in the USA and Europe.

It becomes ironic when you consider what happens when religious conflicts do escalate. It ends with one religious faction making a hell of a fuss by rioting. So essentially, I cannot criticize you because you might lose your sanity and kill people -- and this is supposed to be acceptable?

For example, if a riot broke out because a group of people were unhappy with the government's decision, those people are insurgents. But if a riot broke up because a group of people were unhappy because they were presented facts about their religion, those people are good citizens who should be protected from information? Bite me.

I genuinely hope the that is not the position the government is holding and is possibly using that same old rhetoric about religious harmony for more benign reasons.

To summarize, my position is that, I will defend your right to believe in nonsense so long as you do not deny my right to call it nonsense.

Truth and evidence

This is a response to this post by a Christian blogger in Singapore:

The word ‘truth’ in its essence, is already an absolute. But because we live in a post-modern world, we are obliged to asseverate the words ‘absolute truth’; not to prove that we are desperate in being over-emphatic, but to prove that today’s world has murdered truth in its essence.

What is truth? I define truth as follows, “Truth is an objective reality that is transcendent over man’s subjectivity and bias.”

No major disagreement here. Simply defined, truth is the state of objective reality.

So let's get to the meat of the post.

What about the myriads of conflicting ‘truths’ out in the world today? It seems that truth has been reduced to mere subjective perceptions. The problem, however, lies not in truth, but in what our standard of truth is. Our standard of truth forms our perception of reality;

I think I understand what you are trying to say here.

Truth has not been reduced to mere subjective perceptions. Rather, what people believe to be the truth is necessarily informed by their perception. What a person perceive to be true is dependent on their criterion of truth. In religion, different religions effectively indoctrinate their adherents with their criterion of truth -- faith, revelation and scripture are often amongst them.

to an Evolutionist science is the standard of the truth of man’s existence, however to a Christian, the Bible is the standard of truth in which God is the truth of man’s existence. Two perceptions, but there can only be one reality. Therefore to know if our perception of reality is true, we have to examine if our standard is the actual, objective, transcendental and indisputable truth.

Once again, there seems to be a grave misunderstanding. To "an evolutionist" (this label is frankly as stupid as "a newtonian" or "a germist"), science itself is NOT the standard of truth. 

The term "evolutionist" here seems to be referring to people who accept the scientific method and its findings. These people, scientists, lay people and everyone in between, accept that evidence is an important, if not the most critical, criterion of truth. Science is a method that fulfills that criterion. As such, it would seem that an "evolutionist" is using science as a standard -- but no, we're just going where the evidence leads.

Now on to the idea of using the Bible as the standard of truth. To me, or any evidence-based truth seekers, that's a huge unjustified leap. To even begin using the Bible as a standard, any sane person must first justify with evidence why that should be the case. Without evidence, any book would be as reasonable as any other to use -- ie, not reasonable at all.

And the historical and archeological evidence indicate that the bible is: a translation of several books written by different authors, who are believed to be divinely inspired, decades after the events which they purport to describe by non-eyewitnesses whose stories were transmitted by hearsay in the intervening decades. Some books were anonymous and had their authors ascribed to them by the Church based on belief/conviction, and there are variants of these books from different time periods displaying textual changes both due to error and deliberate action indicating forgery. These books also contain both internal contradictions and contradictions with known historical and scientific facts.

I'll chuck the whole compilation instead of using it as a standard for anything at all.

It's not science versus the bible. It's just evidence -- the most critical tool of verification. What better way to find truth than with pieces of reality itself, evidence.

Consider this example. On one side, there are people who deny immortality and claim that when we die we just cease to exist. At the other camp, people are declaring that we will spend eternity in hell unless we believe in Christ Jesus.

Again, we, scientifically minded people, are not necessarily asserting a case like religions do. We are merely concluding based on the evidence we have.

Every piece of evidence we have gathered about the mind and the brain indicate that the mind cannot exist without a living brain.

By the way, we don't deny immortality -- we just don't believe in your kind of supernatural immortality. Biological immortality may be a possibility within the decades to come.

Two perceptions, but there can only be one reality. Therefore I urge you, to thoroughly examine your standard of truth because if not, you might one day find yourself in deep trouble for being so obstinate.

I've done that.

And excuse me, is that an allusion to hell?

Atheism is NOT a religion

The following is a point by point response to the blog article, Has Atheism Become a Religion? by David Lose on The Huffington Post.

Has Atheism Become a Religion?

Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:

Actually, I don't have to dismiss this "out of hand". I'll say, right there, you have already gotten it wrong by definition. But let's hear what else you have to say.

1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.

This bullshit is easy to spot since he actually provides the link to the report he cites. Here's a telling paragraph from the report:

“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview. “It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”

If you can't tell the distinction between atheism, Secular Humanism and religion, perhaps you could, I don't know, try looking up Wikipedia at least?

Atheism is simply the lack of the belief in god(s).

Secular Humanism is,

According to Wikipedia,
Secular Humanism, alternatively known as Humanism (often with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism), is a secular philosophy that espouses human reason, ethics, and justice, and the search for human fulfillment. It specifically rejects religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.

Secular Humanism is a comprehensive life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives. Though it posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God, it neither assumes humans to be inherently or innately good, nor presents humans as "above nature" or superior to it. Rather, the Humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of Secular Humanism is the strongly held belief that ideology — be it religious or political — must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this belief, an essential part of Secular Humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy.

While Secular Humanism is recognized functionally as a religion in the eyes of the law, I'd argue that it is not a religion in general. It specifically rejects faith and dogma. There is no claim about afterlife, deities or any supernatural entities. It's not religion, just a philosophy -- unless of course you wish to muddy the discussion by castrating the word "religion".

Even if most atheists are Secular Humanists, it doesn't make atheism a religion. Ever.

2) The U.S. Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal....

 It's called accuracy. And accuracy counts.

Non-religious is a vague group because it encompasses both theists who are not in an organized religion and nontheists. The label, atheist, solves this problem and accurately represents our position on the question of god and religion.

... This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.

Well then, he's fucked too, feeding you misleading information.

Firstly, the term "strong atheist" refers to a subset of atheists who positively claim that there are no gods. In general, this is a minority and does not represent all atheists.

Secondly, the term "non-theists" includes ALL atheists.

Lastly, people who think that religion is misguided and dangerous are called "anti-religionists". And this category is entirely separate from the theism-atheism distinction. One can be either a theist or atheist and be against religions.

And yes, some atheists are anti-religious but please get your facts straight. This second "bit of evidence" does nothing for his case.

3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.

Well, you got part of it right but the conclusion you seem to be drawing is all fucking wrong.

We are offering an alternative to religion: it's having NO religion. We are not selling you another religion; we're asking you to give it up. We're asking you to give up religious dogma for freethinking. We're asking you to give up religious supernatural nonsense for demonstrable reality. Again, unless you're trying to castrate the word "religion", you make no sense offering this "bit of evidence" for your case.

4) Finally -- and you probably knew this was coming -- consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)

What the fuck? Because we're aggressive against religion, we're a new religion? Bite me.

So the abolitionist were advocating a new form of slavery? And animal-rights activists are advocating a new form of animal abuse? People are against pedophiles because they want to engage in pedophilia too? Wow, the logic is impeccable! [/sarcasm]

Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.

While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.

I've already pointed out why the four "bits of evidence" are bullcrap so let's not reiterate here.

But screw me, he's actually going to throw the old "you have faith like us" argument again.

1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs -- in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God -- that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.

We don't have faith the same way religious people do. In fact, we reject faith because we think that it is an invalid path to truth.

Let's take a look at the dictionary:

faith  (feɪθ) — n
1.     strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2.     a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith
3.     Christianity  trust in God and in his actions and promises
4.     a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
5.     complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc
6.     any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7.     allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause

Atheists, those who reach their atheism via skepticism, reject faith according to definitions 1 and 4. Definitions 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 don't apply to atheism (a single belief or position).

So what faith do we have again? We do not have faith -- we deliberately excised it because it is the surest way to keep you away from the truth.

2) Religious faith -- and I'd argue atheistic faith -- doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist. Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.

Again, see previous. Critical reflection and imagination should be quite sufficient.

Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.

No, neither certainty nor doubt is the opposite of faith -- Reason is; something that we embrace and the religious ignore or even despise.

 All in all, this article is just full of misunderstandings of what atheists are.

Confusing Abiogenesis and Evolution

Coming from a creationist's perspective, religious folk advocating some form of creationism always seems to fail to the grasp the distinction between the field of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Deliberately or not, they frequently conflate the two, claiming a "flaw" in abiogenesis therefore constitutes a flaw in the theory of evolution.

Even Wikipedia states different definitions for abiogenesis and evolution:

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose.

Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms. Inherited traits are particular distinguishing characteristics, including anatomical, biochemical or behavioural characteristics, that are passed on from one generation to the next. Evolution may occur when there is variation of inherited traits within a population. The major sources of such variation are mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor, which are described by Charles Darwin as "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful".

Notice the distinction, please. Abiogenesis is the field of study of how life arose. Evolution is the theory which explains how life diversified. Even if I grant that we have no clue whatsoever as to how life arose, we know that once it did, it most surely diversified by the mechanisms proposed by the theory of evolution.

I'll be referring to this post made by a Christian in Singapore.

Right of the bat, the post would be more accurately describing its content if it were titled "The irrationality of Abiogenesis".

Probably the greatest difficulty of all for evolutionary theory is explaining how any life could have begun in the first place.

The theory of evolution is not supposed to explain how life begun. It describes how life diversified. Even if you want to shoehorn god into the picture as the creator of the first cell, that cell would be the ancestor of all life on Earth and evolved by mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. We know life evolved as surely as we know that the Earth orbits the Sun.

The spontaneous generation of even the simplest living organism capable of independent life (the prokaryote bacterial cell) from inorganic materials on the earth could not happen by random mixing of chemicals: it requires intelligent design and craftsmanship so complex that no advanced scientific laboratory in the world has been able to do it

The simplest living organism today is certainly more complex than the simplest living organism when life first started. This argument from complexity fails right there. Scientists studying abiogenesis are not proposing that the first cell is as complex as the simplest modern cell.

Also, this strange ultimatum between spontaneous generation of complex cells and intelligent design is a false dichotomy. Scientists are not proposing that the complexity of life as we know it today arose purely by chance. You get this monstrous error by conflating abiogenesis and evolution.

A living organism emerged by chance from a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of saying ‘miracle’.

Again, this results from a confusion of abiogenesis and evolution. No scientists is proposing that a cell displaying the modern complexities appeared by chance. That would be just as nonsensical to you as to the scientists.

For example, check out the RNA World Hypothesis for what scientist mean by the first "cell".

In fact, some attempts have been made to calculate the probability of life arising spontaneously in his way. Kofahl and Segraves, authors of “The Creation Explanation”, give a statistical model in which they begin with a very generous assumption: that every square foot of the earth’s surface was somehow covered with 95 pounds of protein every year for one billion years. They then estimate the probability that even one enzyme molecule could develop in each one billion years of the earth’s history. The probability is 1.2 times 10^-11 or one chance in 80 billion. They note, however, that even with the generous assumptions and starting with fresh protein every year for a billion years, finding one enzyme molecule—for all practical purposes an impossible task—would not solve the problem at all.

The probability of finding two of the active molecules would be about 10²², and the probability that they would be identical would be 10⁷⁰. And could life start with just a single enzyme molecule? Furthermore, what is the possibility that an active enzyme molecule, once formed, could find its way through thousands of miles and millions of years to that randomly formed RNA or DNA molecule which contains the code for that particular enzyme molecule’s amino acid sequence, so that new copies of itself could be produced? Zero for all practical purposes.

Kofahl and Segraves report a study by an evolutionary scientist who formulates a model to calculate the probability for the formation, not just of one enzyme molecule but the smallest likely living organism by random processes. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10^340,000,000—that is, one chance in 10 with 340 million zeros after it! Yet these evolutionary scientists still believed it happened!

The rest of the article is basically an attempt to awe audiences with numbers. And it's redundant - I'll explain.

But first, get this straight first. We're going to be talking about Abiogenesis - nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Unlike Abiogenesis where scientists are only proposing hypotheses, the Theory of Evolution is firmly established with mountains of evidence and has the consensus of the scientific community.

Here's the thing: Abiogenesis may have been a rare chance event. So throwing really low probabilities (even if the numbers are accurate) at abiogenesis is really redundant - we already know that.

What is important here is the claim that creationists are making: Too rare therefore God did it. But "God did it" is not an explanation at all - it has no explanatory function.

The field of abiogenesis at the very least demonstrates that it is possible for life to have occurred by natural means. The various hypotheses represent the ways by which life might have arose though we do not know definitively which path it took yet.

Postulating a god is not only unscientific, it is redundant. It is also a huge argument from ignorance. What, you scientists don't know how life arose? Ahha! Obviously God did it!

If your creationist argument take the form of "Too rare/complex, therefore God", it's a fallacious argument to begin with - still just an argument from ignorance.

Not knowing how life arose is not argument for god.

I recommend checking out TalkOrigins: Index to Creationist Claims for creationists (or any lay person) who don't understand what evolution is and is not.

Secularism, what is that really?

Okay, let me put it upfront that the article I'll be referring to is old news, really old news, like 2009 old news. Unfortunately, the nonsense in the article is not unnecessarily old. It does seem that Christians in Singapore are importing American Evangelical nonsense. I will use this opportunity to clarify what secularism is and is not.

There seems to be few sources that have the interview of Thio Li-Ann archived. So I'll be using this one archived by AWARE. It should be sufficient for my purposes since I'm not going to be deconstructing the whole interview. If you want that, then I would recommend this other blog's post - it's quite well done I think.

Historically, ‘secularism’ originates from the Latin ‘saeculum’, meaning ‘temporal’, worldly affairs, rather than ‘spiritual’, other-worldly matters. The word ‘secular’ is an emblem of intense historical conflict.

Today, in some circles, ‘secularism’ connotes systematic hostility towards religion, as a synonym for a politicised form of ideological atheism whose creed is that humanity is destined to wholly shed religious conviction. The atheistic word was made flesh in the atheistic state produced by the Russian Revolution of 1917, devoted to Marx’s assumption that religion stupefies the masses and must be eradicated to bring forth the new Communist Man.

......

In 1989, Foreign Minister George Yeo observed the Government was ‘secular but it is certainly not atheistic’. This evinces a rejection of a thick, atheistic version of secularism.

Here is a truncated quote from the interview. Notice the attempt to confuse and conflate atheism and secularism?

Guess what? Secularism and atheism are two completely different things. This attempt to confuse the issue is a dishonest ploy to evoke feelings of opposition to secularism from religious folks.

For the record, if the state/government endorses atheism or antitheism, it is by definition, NOT secular. As such, there is NO such thing as an "atheistic version of secularism". Secularity of the government only means that the government just remain neutral in matters pertaining to the religious beliefs of its citizens.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view. Some courts recognise it as a religion. It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence. We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

It takes faith to believe or not to believe in God or gods. A lot of faith is needed to believe there is no divine. As Turkish journalist Mustafa Akyol wrote: ‘It is the atheist’s opium to regard that unsubstantiated faith as established fact.’ Thick secularism is thus an anti-religion religion.

Again, an attempt to conflate secularism with atheism, this time, as well as Secular Humanism.

It's important to go through this point by point to clarify the confusion about Secular Humanism.

Secular humanism, which posits a morality independent of God, is a comprehensive anti-theistic world view.

Secular Humanism is atheistic in nature though not necessarily antitheistic.

Here is the Minimum Statement on Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

Secular Humanists themselves may be antitheistic but it is not a dogmatic requirement of the stance. In fact, Secular Humanism rejects dogmas.

Some courts recognise it as a religion.

The recognition of Secular Humanism as a "religion" is for functional reasons in the eyes of the law.

It dogmatically asserts the absence of God, without any empirical evidence.

No, it doesn't. That has it ass backwards.

Precisely because there is no empirical evidence FOR the existence of god(s), Secular Humanists do not believe there is/are god(s). The distinction between "do not believe in the existence of god" and "believe there are no gods" is subtle but still important! We simply do not pretend there is one (or more gods) - instead we believe only we, humans, can help ourselves (hence the humanist aspect).

We know from elementary logic that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Whether God exists or not cannot be proved or disproved by evidence or logic.

Gee, except that's not what we're claiming - we haven't disproved god nor can we.

While we can't prove (in correct usage of the word) the existence of god(s), we should be able to demonstrate IF he/she/it exist. But we haven't; Still waiting for those people with the burden of proof to bring in the evidence.

And now we'll move onto the rest of the nonsense.

Secular democracies should be neutral not only between traditional religions but also regarding modern religions with atheistic foundations.

What in the world is "modern religions with atheistic foundations"? Some forms of Buddhism is atheistic but that sure isn't modern.

Again, it seems that this is yet another attempt to claim that atheism somehow constitutes a religion. Well, it isn't. Being an atheist effectively means having no religion. Lacking belief in god makes you an atheist; No rational atheist asserts that god(s) do not exist and even those who do make that assertion are not organising a religion!

But let's move straight to most important part, the biggest "misunderstanding",

Thus, Singapore secularism is 'agnostic' and 'thin'. The Government does not favour or disfavour any particular religion. We practise 'accommodative secularism' described by the Court of Appeal as removing restrictions to one's choice of religious belief. Religious values do have a role in public debate.

Agnostic secularism of this sort is a virtue; it is a 'framework' which facilitates the peaceful co-existence of religions.

Conversely, militant secularism is an illiberal and undemocratic vice in seeking to gag religious views in the public square and so to privilege its atheistic values, as in communist states.

Secular fundamentalists are oppressive where they seek to mute religiously informed convictions in public debate, by demonising a view as religious.

The distinction between "accommodative" and "millitant" secularism is fucking nonsense.

Okay, I won't be quoting anymore. Here on is my explanation for secularism.

Secularism is one of the constitutional devices that sought to protect the people from the state (government) and vice versa, in this case, from religious discrimination. It means that the state must remain neutral towards religion, that is, the state cannot endorse any religions (no preferential treatment, no favorite or state religion) and cannot discriminate against any religion. This guarantees freedom of religion (as well as from religion).

Maybe it would be clearer if I used hypothetical examples.

It means the government cannot come out tomorrow and announce that Buddhism is the state religion of Singapore and its temples will now enjoy tax free status that other religions are not entitled.

It means the state cannot proclaim that we have amended the Singapore Pledge and it will now read:

We, the citizens of Singapore,
accept our Lord Jesus Christ as our one and only savior,
regardless of race, language or gender,

It means we cannot write into our law that all pork and pig related products shall be banned and no non-halal stalls will ever be permitted.

It means the Prime Minister cannot proclaim that we will now endorse state atheism and will now print "One Nation under No Gods" on our dollar bills.

Clearer now?

Secularism also means that members of the government cannot inject their religion into our constitution, our laws or anything endorsed by the government.

We may not inject Creationism into our national Science curriculum at our public schools.

We may not criminalized abortion on the basis of any religious doctrine.

We may not discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of any holy text.

We may not allow state-led prayer in our Parliament or public schools.

And yes, those examples come from America where religious nuts are trying to destroy the secularity of the USA.

To put it simply, secularism means you cannot impose your religious views on others via the government but neither can the government tell you what you can or cannot believe/do because of someone else's religion.

I hope you can see that that's a good thing, otherwise, you might be a bigot or possibly a theocrat... just guessing...

It is not Islam - It's Religion

This is a response to "'Flaming' of Islam has to be stopped" published in the Review and Forum section of The Straits Times, 6 April 2011.

An American pastor branded a cultist by estranged followers eventually made good on his threat to burn the Quran. He can now rouse his dwindling flock by saying President Barack Obama, the Defence Secretary and the general conducting the Afghanistan campaign could not stop him from dramatising his beliefs.

Okay... So he "won" some boasting rights in some people's perspective. Uh huh.

Which were, what? Of the wanton killings by Muslim rioters that his act caused in Afghanistan the past week, pastor Terry Jones disputes that he has blood on his hands. His next act, he suggests, is to place Prophet Muhammad 'on trial', just as he had the Quran. Its burning had been the 'sentence'.

Bloody fucking nonsense.

"Wanton killings by Muslim rioters that his act caused"? It might as well have read "Failures in School Examinations caused by Science."

This statement brazenly ignores the autonomy of the Muslims involved in the riotings and killings. If I killed a murderer's mother as revenge for the murderer's killing of my mother, would I somehow be relieved of my responsibilities because my actions were a reaction to offences against  me? I say not.

There is nothing theatrical about random acts of provocation. They are downright dangerous, abetted in some cases by permissive laws. A case could be made out that there are degrees of madness or delusion which afflict leaders of cults. But how to define depravity within an American constitutional context of free speech guarantees? Bringing decorum to the religious sphere has to start in America because intolerance tends to find fertile soil in its interior communities.

I honestly don't believe that Free Speech itself is the issue here. It is not the root of the problem at hand. Again, blaming Free Speech for permitting religiously motivated hateful speech is like blaming cars for people speeding in them.

That the Quran burning was a triumph of ignorance and bigotry, there is no doubt. Fair-minded people are rightly alarmed at the poisonous overtone of religious contestation that arose after the Sept 11 attacks spawned a misleading view of Islam. What is being done to roll back the prejudice? The pastor's act and that of a Danish newspaper cartoonist who drew offensive caricatures of the Prophet are signs of an anti-Islam baiting campaign gathering force. It could get more widespread, in Europe as well as in America. It will spark retaliatory mob violence which in turn will harden attitudes against Islam. What then?

 Again, it seems unusual to me that the author of this article passes over the autonomy of the people involved in the "retaliatory mob violence". 

So it's not okay to speak ill of others' religion but it's okay to kill people, destroy property because you were pissed over someone speaking ill of your religion. 

What's the bigger issue here? Somebody needs to get their priorities straight and I don't think it's me...

The American public, politicians and the media have acted sensibly in condemning the pastor for his stunt. The Quran-burning ritual which took place on March 20 had been deliberately blacked out by media. It became public knowledge only after the pastor posted a video of it on his website. But America may have to go beyond a climate of censure as a check against intemperance, to consider criminalising incitement in an expansion of hate-crimes legislation. Arguing free speech as a First Amendment bedrock protection may become less convincing over time when religious extremists begin to cause schisms and serious disruptions in society. The European Union has just as robust protections. Yet Germany and many other European nations still outlaw denials of the Holocaust and the Jewish extermination. What could be more injurious to social order in a post-Sept 11 world than the 'flaming' of Islam as sport?

The article seeks to pin blame on Free Speech for permitting insults that causes Muslim robots to go insane and kill people. No?

"Bullshit"  is an appropriate response I think.

The problem as I see it is two pronged (and Free Speech ain't either one of them) - it is education in general and religion itself.

It is a failure of education of the public in general. Fundamentalist Christians are thought to be poor in their general knowledge of religions around the world (their religion included). It doesn't help that the religious, conservative segments of the population perpetuate the "Islamist" stereotype of Muslims in general in their communities and some media sources.

One might argue that the failure of education is due to certain religious attitudes which brings us to the other prong.

Throughout history, religions has demonstrated their ability to cause and catalyse conflicts. This is no exception.

Create insular societies based on unevidenced claims to ultimate truths and a connection to the divine creator of the universe. Follow that up by creating an Us versus Them scenario where "us" is good and godly and "them" is evil and of the devil. Wait for one party to do something perceived as inflammatory by the opposing side and watch the shit hit the fans.

Yes, the pastor did something distasteful - he burnt a Quran. And yes, just distasteful. It's not the most pleasant or eloquent way of making a point but still, it is a valid point and can/should be discussed.

But we don't fucking kill people for it. You can be all pissy and disagree with that pastor but if you go ape-shit and kill somebody over it, you are wrong. Period.

The author seems to skip over this aspect as he attempts to blame Free Speech for the problem as if it was acceptable to murder because someone insulted your religious beliefs. To this, my first  response was "WTF?"

Such obscene irrationality on the part of the religious should be condemned whenever and wherever it happens. Instead, here it's seems to be regarded as somehow acceptable because it's religious.

If you don't like people criticizing your religion, perhaps it's your religion that needs fixing - you don't "fix" the people.

More Muslims respond to MM Lee

After the initial responses to MM Lee Kuan Yew by the Malaysian leaders, reported on 26 Jan 2011, more responses continued to appear in newspapers. Not surprisingly, a majority of those responses are from Muslims. In my observations, these responses can be grouped into 3 categories.

The first, and possibly the most common response, is to take offence at the MM's comments. Such was typical of the responses offered by the Malaysian leaders in the first article in response to the MM. Responses along these lines is typified by claims that Muslims sensitivities were ignored and that the comments have caused the community hurt. Occasionally, a good old personal attack is thrown in as well.

Here's a nice example

Right-wing Malay rights group Perkasa slammed Mr Lee, saying he seemed to be adapting the same tactic as non-Muslim opposition leaders in Malaysia who raised sensitive issues without bothering about Muslim sensitivities.

Perkasa secretary-general Syed Hassan Syed Ali: “Perkasa does not consider [MM Lee] Kuan Yew as being less able to respect other religions, but instead, consider him as a very senile old man.”

MM's remarks on integration draw flak
(The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2011)

Such responses do not warrant any response other than "Sorry, deal with it." Unless they're going to actually address what the MM is saying, there's really nothing to respond to.

The second kind of response are those of the "defence of the faith" variety. These responses usually say that the MM is simply wrong because Islam teaches religious harmony as well and is therefore do not hinder integration. Here's one such response from Singapore Muslims organisations reported by TODAY:

On Thursday, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) had said that Islamic teachings do not hinder Muslims from integration in Singapore society. AMP echoed these views and said that "a good Muslim is duty bound, in Islam, to be a good Singaporean".

Muslim bodies irked by MM's remarks
(TODAY, 29 Jan 2011)

Well, good for you. I am glad that that is what your version of Islam teaches although I do hope that you embrace reality soon. Arguments about "true Islam" holds no water with me and are not of my concern.

The third response tend to be more rational/measured. The counter claim that they offer is that Singapore Muslims are integrating with the rest of Singapore and therefore the MM is either simply wrong or overstating the case. Here's an example:

But Perdaus feels that the level of integration "has significantly progressed" and "a better understanding and appreciation" of Singapore's cultures now exist between Muslims and non-Muslims here. It cited the community's participation in Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles and contributions by humanitarian relief organisation Mercy Relief as examples.

Muslim bodies irked by MM's remarks
(TODAY, 29 Jan 2011)

I think that such responses kinda missed MM Lee's point. He is not claiming that Singapore Muslims are not integrating - he is claiming that the integrations was poorer when compared to other races/religions. Here is the relevant comment by the MM.

"I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That's the result of the surge from the Arab states."

MM's remarks on integration draw flak
(The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2011)

Religions, in general, are divisive so it might seem unfair to pick on Islam. But it does seem obvious that Islam has less buffers to tribal behaviours. Christianity has a huge emphasis on proselytizing and thus appears friendlier to people. Buddhism and Taoism behave more like life philosophies in general and thus create less/no threat to religious harmony. Smaller religious groups exert less influences by virtue of being small. Islam, well, other than claiming it teaches religious harmony, has no such "buffers". This might be the reason why MM made his claim.

So that's my take on the responses so far.

As I was doing research for this entry, I found something disturbing. PKMS, the Singapore Malay National Organization, has called for MM Lee to be investigated for sedition. According to their press statement, it said,

Is it not that Mr Lee Kuan Yew's statements are distorting and inciting racial and religious disharmony? Does it not fall under the Internal Security Act? Mr Lee championed the Internal Security Act (ISA), is it not Mr Lee himself breached the act openly and disrespectfully? Can the book 'HARD TRUTH' be a subversive document and should be classified under the Sedition Act (Cap 290) and shall fall under The Internal Security Act Chapter 3 (Special Powers Relating to Subversive Publication etc.)?

In addition to that, the statement also said,

We urged MUIS, as the highest Islamic authority in Singapore, advise Mr Lee Kuan Yew of the true teaching of Islam. Does Mr Lee's statements incite sentiments of protest among our Muslim brothers and may cause religious disharmony? We have also heard echoes of agreement from followers of other religion, who agree to Mr Lee's statements and they had even suggested for eradication of the Muslim in Singapore. Is Mr Lee's book subversive and cause of hatred and excite disaffection against Islam?

We demand Mr Lee Kuan Yew to apologize to the Singapore Muslim community and the Muslim world in general. We demand the book 'HARD TRUTH' be strictly banned and condemned.

This is religious lunacy. MM Lee's statements cannot be regarded as seditious under the law if the law is to be meaningful at all. Granted, I am no lawyer, they might be right to the letter of the law but this is clearly not the spirit of the law. The Sedition Act is intended to prevent religions from turning onto each other. But in this case, it is being used to essentially censor any form of speech critical of religions.

If Singapore, and the world, is to make any progress, then such speech must be permitted. If people take offence at such discussions then clearly that is their issue - people do not have the right not to be offended.

Nobody is disparaging anybody's religion with thoughtless remarks. It should be clear that there is a difference between

Muslims are [Insert vulgarity or insult here].

and

Muslims are integrating less smoothly than the other religions/races.

The MM's statements were essentially arguments for his point - a rational person should engage his arguments in a reasoned discussion. We should not be shutting down people simply for holding a difference in opinion - that should not be what we want or should do.

PKMS' suggestion is obscene to anybody who still respects the freedom of speech.

I urge all Singaporeans to be rational here. Please think.

Of Catholics and Condoms

The Church is rearing its ugly head here in Singapore - this one is about sex, morals and condoms.

According to The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2011, in the article, "Call to tweak sexuality education",

Some Catholic school principals have met Ministry of Education (MOE) officials to discuss how the ministry's sexuality education programme can be tweaked.

Among other things, they had asked for a segment on the use of condoms to be modified so that it better matches Catholic beliefs. The segment includes a video on the use of condoms.

And apparently,

A spokesman said the ministry conducts periodic reviews of its sexuality education programme, and consults parties such as parents, teachers, students, health professionals and religious leaders. [My emphasis added, in italics]

Although, it also said,

'While the presentation of information could be refined, the core messages of the HPB remain relevant and will be retained,' the spokesman said.

Needless to say, I disagree with the pseudo moral ideas of the Church. But more importantly, I think that the MOE should not compromise with religious opinion. Singapore schools, Catholic or not, should not be doling out fantastical conceptions of morality.

Let's take a look at what the religious representatives have said. In a letter to Catholic school leaders, Archbishop Nicholas Chia wrote

He acknowledged that Singapore was "a secular society where no specific religious group has the right to impose its beliefs on others".

He went on to say that "within the context of our Catholic schools, however, I would find it unacceptable if students were given a compromised message on premarital sex. This applies to all students in the school".

It is unfortunate that he thinks that it was "unacceptable" but being a "Catholic school" is not excuse. It is a school - it must teach anything and everything deemed necessary by the ministry. Should there be a conflict of interest, students' welfare and education comes first, religious beliefs second. The secular interests of all students cannot be compromised by religious opinions of one segment.

On the use of condoms, he cited Church literature and teachings

He said that the Church's teaching 'concerns marital acts, since marital acts are the only ethical sexual acts in the eyes of the Church'.

He added: 'If we present to our young people how to use the condom outside marriage, just in case you need it, it would be as though the Church is teaching us how to sin less grievously which makes no sense.'

Indeed, it makes no sense, because the very concept of premarital sex as a sin makes no sense. Granted, they do have the freedom to stick to their pseudo moral views under the pretext that it's their religious dogma.

But we're talking about teenagers here - we know that some of them, like it or not, are definitely going to fuck each others' brains out. If all we're going to give them is essentially "Say No To Sex" and stay a virgin for your future spouse or Jesus, you are going to be a grandparent.

To add insult to injury, the Catholic Church in general is also known for its stance against abortion as well. No to contraception, no to abortion? - it's almost as if the Church wants more teen pregnancies. In this respect, the Church seems uninformed about practical realities or it is grotesquely insensitive about human suffering

This is not surprising given that the Catholic Church's (I am no longer referring to just those in Singapore) involvement in the global child rape scandals and the AIDS pandemic in Africa. This corrupt organization seems more concerned  with itself and its doctrines than the people that they care for - we would be better off treating its "moral" claims with skepticism if not ignoring them completely.

Flak Crap

In response to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's remarks about Muslims in his recently published book "Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going", several Malaysian leaders said that MM Lee was wrong.

According to The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2011,  in the the article, "MM's remarks on integration draw flak", MM Lee assessing the progress of multiculturalism in Singapore, said in his book:

"I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not want to offend the Muslim community."

"I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That's the result of the surge from the Arab states."

"I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam."

"I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate."

"But now, you go to schools with Malays and Chinese, there's a halal and non-halal segment and so too, the universities. And they tend to sit separately so as not to be contaminated. All that becomes a social divide.

When asked what Muslims in Singapore needed to do to integrate, he said:

Be less strict with your Islamic observances and say 'Okay, I'll eat with you.'

I agree with what MM Lee has said on this issue. Content-wise, no disagreements. He certainly was candid with his sentiments - and I am sure some may take issue with how bluntly he has voiced them. But I will defend that point. There is no way one could criticize religion, Islam no less, without "offending sensitivities". But it must happen if we are to make any headway.

Let's move on to the responses the Malaysian leaders had to offer.

De facto Religious Affairs Minister Jamil Khir Baharom, asked to comment on MM Lee's remarks, said he hoped Malaysians would not support views that linked Islam to blocking racial integration and national development. “I am worried such views will spread into Malaysian society, which has many types of ideas,” he said, 

Typical politically-correct response. Meaningless trite. But he follows up with something more telling of his views.

...adding that followers of Islam were taught to be moderate.

Is this more politically-correct nonsense? Or is this his personal, religiously driven response?

If the latter, then the thing to point out is the implicit "my" in front of the word "Islam" - that is, "my Islam taught its followers to be moderate." We have to ask, which Islam? And is it really "moderate" as some would like to claim. As much as some would like to say that the "true Islam" is a "religion of peace", the Qur'an is much like the Bible, the big book of multiple choice - peace is but only one of the available options.

Next we have the Malaysian Islamic Development director-general Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz who said,

MM Lee had failed to take Singaporeans away from the mindset of the 1960s, which was a period of prejudices and suspicions against Muslims.

"1960s" is a reference to the racial riots in Singapore (in 1964 and 1969) - those riots were fuelled in part by racism in general between the Chinese and Malays. Today's Singapore paints a different picture between the said races.

In any case, the issue MM Lee is addressing now is a whole different animal compared to that of the 1960s. So it seems unusual to bring it up - if anything, the director-general is the one still stuck in the 60s.

Right-wing Malay rights group Perkasa slammed Mr Lee, saying he seemed to be adapting the same tactic as non-Muslim opposition leaders in Malaysia who raised sensitive issues without bothering about Muslim sensitivities.

I addressed this previously - criticizing religion however tactfully will come off as being offensive to somebody. But this shouldn't be the issue. These "leaders" should be responding constructively instead of rushing to take offence like lay people.

Perkasa secretary-general Syed Hassan Syed Ali: “Perkasa does not consider [MM Lee] Kuan Yew as being less able to respect other religions, but instead, consider him as a very senile old man.”

A personal attack, how mature. To me, a sign of intellectual defeat.

Parti Islam SeMalaysia Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan said Mr Lee’s comments made him sound like a “racist militant fighter”.

A first glance, it looks like yet another personal attack. But a second look suggests this is more of the "OMG, you're so offensive" bullshit.

On the whole, it seems that the Malaysian leaders mentioned seems to have nothing more to offer than some politically-correct drivel with taking offence as a side. Pitiful.