…and this is a 
It's nothing personal, but we're getting a little worried about the economic competition you've been delivering lately, so we need to even the playing field a little. A couple of Christian evangelical real estate billionaires have created a Noah's Ark tourist attraction in Hong Kong. Pretty soon you'll be as stupid as we are.
Oh, wait! "Tourist attraction"? It's supposed to poison the minds of the locals, not traveling Westerners! Dang. Maybe we can ship a few container ships full of Bibles and Chick tracts over there instead.
Comments
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 16, 2009 1:39 PM
The hell with shipping bullshit, er bibles, to China. Send them the whole Discovery Museum intact, with Ken Hambone thrown in riding a dinosaur as a bonus. China will be a raving lunatic overnight, all part of their rapid equilization to Western thought and practice.
Posted by: ZADL | June 16, 2009 1:41 PM
Ummm don't they grind up fossils over there as "dragon bones" and take them as medicine? Same with sticking needles in people and claiming it'll fix rickets, or swallowing rhinoceros horn as an aphrodisiac, torturing bears for bile to take as medicine and so on and so on and so on?
Seems they're just as stupid in their own way as anyone else you'd care to name. Chinese medicine is pretty damn foolish, as full of magical thinking and "wisdom of the ancients" malarky as anything else in the woo woo world.
I'm not defending the evangelicals here, just pointing out that everyone is stupid, and that no one group has a monopoly on dumb group-think.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 16, 2009 1:45 PM
Forbidden fruit and all that. We'll pretend that this is special knowledge we want to keep to ourselves, and offload it onto the Chinese.
And, ZADL, granted all peoples have their stupid beliefs, like most Chinese medicine. Our Western stupidity of creationism/ID is organized stupidity specially designed to poison the scientific well. It's the highest grade of stupid on the earth, IMO.
We shouldn't hoard all that stupid for ourselves.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: tubbolard | June 16, 2009 1:54 PM
such an innocuous title. but right below it is the figurative little flag waver with his little flag labeled, "assemble here to bash those who think differently from us."
So what have we has just so far?
well we started by insulting the bible then went on to misnaming a fundie, moved on to everybodys stupid no matter what they believe if the don't believe as we do.
Somebody track the following for me:
Use of Xian as tho insulting
Mislabeling of God as "Sky Fairy" or "imaginary"
"you Death Cultists" (pretty sure I know who's gonna bring that old canard to the party)
One point for each of the typical stupidities will be awarded and the winner gets to label them selves IM for Idiocity Master
Posted by: cousinavi | June 16, 2009 1:56 PM
No need to apologize to the Chinese, PZ. Also pointless to try and convert them. They will simply smile and go on taking over.
Remember all those years ago, when most of the science journals were replete with western (and commonly Jewish) names. A cursory review publications in the hard sciences reveals a rather stunning increase in the frequency of Wangs, Changs and Ma's over the past...well, you can set up the X and Y axis as suits you...
Nevertheless, from one living in just that part of Asia - SEEING the numbers of biology, chemistry, physics, engineering students doing HARD research - I suggest you all start brushing up on your Mandarin. THEY are NOT going to be as stupid as we are. Our only hope is to try and keep up.
Posted by: Jello | June 16, 2009 1:56 PM
The locals' long association with magical woo aside the Chinese have for the most part been blowing off the christotards for 400 years now. It'll take more then a cheesy theme park to get them to swallow this particular load of bull..
Posted by: X-man | June 16, 2009 2:03 PM
This is great news...When global climat changes finally melts the ice in Antartica and Hong Kong is under water, we can perhaps use this to see if A) it actually floated, and B) if it can actually hold 2 of every animal.
We should start an internet poll to determine which two humans we should put on the Ark...This should be interesting.
Posted by: X-man | June 16, 2009 2:06 PM
This is great news...When global climate change finally melts the ice in Antartica and Hong Kong is under water, we can perhaps use this to see if A) it actually floated, and B) if it can actually hold 2 of every animal. Alternatively, we encourage those silly evangelicals to use it as it should be used...as a supository!
PZ...you should start an internet poll to determine which two humans we should put on the Ark...
Posted by: Bad Albert | June 16, 2009 2:08 PM
The article mentions a guy named Chan Kai-ming, Executive Director of Sun Hung Kai Properties. I used to work with someone in Hong Kong with that name. Nah, it couldn't be the same guy. It's China you know, land of a billion people. Even if you're one in a million, there's a thousand just like you.
Posted by: Newfie | June 16, 2009 2:10 PM
I call it, "Fred". It hasn't complained so far... its fans seem to think that that bothers it though.
Posted by: cousinavi | June 16, 2009 2:14 PM
I might also add...for all the Chinese rituals, and geomancy, and incense, and ghost month firecrackers...(it's such a polytheistic, animist, Taoist mishmash...), it's PRACTICALLY just not an issue.
There is just NO Chinese religious philosophy that would ever hinder stem cell research or force anyone to remain pregnant.
The Chinese craft their spiritualism to suit practical ends.
The stupid Christians, relatively speaking, have it backwards. Which is to say, it's POSSIBLE to have spiritual convictions and NOT be as utterly fucked as the missionaries.
And, less sarcastically (without sacrificing accuracy, I hope)...
The Chinese, for ALL that, are just fundamentally comfortable with the concept of Atheism. It never draws the remotest sort of surprise, much less rebuke, for saying, "Nah...I don't think any of that silliness is true."
The Chinese simply shrug and smile and go about their business. You couldn't ask for more than that from any proper humanist, could you?
Jumped up Jesus on skis! Am I still even on topic? What was I huntin'?
Oh yeah! That's it. Brush up on your Mandarin kids.
Ni hao (KNEE how) = hello
Posted by: Gingerbaker | June 16, 2009 2:21 PM
You gotta love the quote from the Executive Director of the
dumptourist attraction:"Noah's Ark will give Hong Kong a new tourist attraction and help promote positive values of love for life, family and nature."
That would be the same 'love of life, family, and nature' that God showed when he vengefully killed every living life form on Planet Earth (except Noah and his boat mates) because some sinful humans ticked him off, right?
Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle! Using the Noah's Ark story as a vehicle for 'love of life'.
Posted by: Ick of the East | June 16, 2009 2:42 PM
Don't worry. Christianity is not a serious problem in HK. We'll just point and laugh and get back to work.
Posted by: FlameDuck | June 16, 2009 2:50 PM
So they finally figured out where Noah kept the dinosaurs?
Posted by: Cypress Green | June 16, 2009 3:03 PM
WOW! I didn't know Noah transported only 134 fiberglass animals on the ark. And somewhere I heard there's over 5000 species of frogs alone! *Sigh* I wish I'd been home schooled.
"Noah’s Ark will...help promote positive values of love for life, family and nature. (It)is a place where people can get close to nature...is full of happiness and positive messages...will lift people’s horizons with new knowledge and let them rethink life and experience love.”
A fake boat with fiberglass animals brings you closer to nature?! No, the luxury hotel, restuarants and Expo Hall do that!
Posted by: Helene | June 16, 2009 3:19 PM
Scratch that comment I made earlier about there being hope for our species..........
Posted by: David | June 16, 2009 3:22 PM
Mongolians love getting container-loads of free Bibles. Pages torn from them are used for, uh, personal hygiene in the rural areas.
Posted by: His Shadow | June 16, 2009 3:31 PM
"assemble here to bash those who think differently from us."?,
Think differently? This isn't a debate over whether Star Wars is better than Star Trek. Creationism is a tired and ridiculous dogma that needs to die. It stands in the way of knowledge with lies and half truths that expect believers to deny the reality of existence. There is nothing positive about Creationist beliefs. They are lies dressed up as faith and spoon fed to the credulous.
Posted by: Ty | June 16, 2009 3:31 PM
"well we started by insulting the bible then went on to misnaming a fundie, moved on to everybodys stupid no matter what they believe if the don't believe as we do."
Translation:
Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh...
Posted by: bric | June 16, 2009 3:41 PM
"In an eerie echo of this confession a sex column in a university student journal has prompted more than 800 complaints from Hong Kong residents seeking to have the postal authorities reclassify the Bible as “indecent” due to its sexual and violent content.
Among the incidents that prompted the complaints such scenes as:
• A woman nails a man’s head to the ground with a tent peg while he sleeps
• A father turns his virgin daughter over to a mob who rapes her to death
• The body of a woman is cut up by her family and pieces are sent to her relatives.
• Numerous scenes of mass murder and rape
• Infanticide on God’s orders
• Sex slaves
• Mass murder of members of other religions
• Murder of nonbelievers
• Judicial killing of people who work on the Sabbath
• Wholesale destruction of cities
• Slavery
• Human sacrifice
If the ban passes Bible would have to be sold with adult warning labels and only offered in plain brown wrappers."
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/182883/Hong_Kong_Post_Office_Eyes_Bible_Ban
ps they didn't ban it
Posted by: GMacs | June 16, 2009 3:50 PM
Maybe we can ship a few container ships full of Bibles and Chick tracts over there instead.
No, PZ, that's not even funny. The Chinese people have experienced enough human rights violations, they don't need Jackass Prick thrown into the mix.
Posted by: Metro | June 16, 2009 4:30 PM
Hey--if we can ship them a few containers of Chick tracts and Bibles, why can't we send them ALL?
Actually, if you call it a "mission" you could probably get them to pay for the shipping!
Posted by: David G. | June 16, 2009 4:54 PM
The last time we brought Jesus over there, some guy named Hong Renkun claimed to be his brother and took over southern China.
So yes we should do that, it would be fantastic.
Posted by: TheThomas | June 16, 2009 4:59 PM
Why isn't there any billionaire atheists investing in tourist attractions for me?
...or is that called a school?
Posted by: KeithB | June 16, 2009 5:05 PM
Is this kind of Noah's Ark attraction OK?
http://www.skirball.org/index.php?option=com_ccevents&scope=exbt&task=detail&ccmenu=v2hhdcdzie9u&oid=28
I have been there and it is really neat.
Posted by: tubbolard | June 16, 2009 5:07 PM
Ty dude seriously go back to school you clearly failed in translation. :-)
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | June 16, 2009 5:15 PM
"Noah's Ark will give Hong Kong a new tourist attraction and help promote positive values of love for life, family and nature."
Family values like getting drunk and then cursing your son when he tries to stop you from running around naked?
Posted by: Barry | June 16, 2009 5:22 PM
Read the article carefully. It says the “Kwok brothers” are behind the project. Well, that says it all doesn’t it.
Posted by: Chelonian | June 16, 2009 5:35 PM
Can I just say... Not all tourists in china are westerners, far from it. During a 4-month stay in the southeast, I had ample opportunity to see that the Chinese themselves have a well-developed culture of tourism. I visited some sites around Chengdu in particular where I was warned I would have to deal with hordes of tourists... And that was true, but not in the way I expected. There were actually very few westerners (which I'll define here as "white people" for operational purposes) but busloads of Chinese and others from all over Asia as far as I could tell.
Posted by: Diego
|
June 16, 2009 5:58 PM
My sister had a friend in high school whose father seemed quite sane until the religion got to religion, which it somehow always did when he entered the room. We were watching anime and it catalyzed him to give a discourse on Asian cultures, generalizing wildly left and right. Then he said that communism was the best thing to happen to China because it evened the playing field for Christian missionaries by getting rid of the old superstitions. The poor kid was set to die of embarassment whenever his old man opened his old man opened his zealot mouth.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 16, 2009 7:01 PM
ZADL: in a funny turnabout, the Chinese version of medical scams is usually fake "Western" medicine - white coats and lab imagery is the seller, not wisdom of the ancients.
Posted by: Rev. Dada Grind | June 16, 2009 7:11 PM
Family values like getting drunk and then cursing your son when he tries to stop you from running around naked?
No, family values like having sex with your close relatives.
Hey, if it was OK for Lot....(Genesis 19:36)
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 16, 2009 7:24 PM
We already ship Bibles over there. Have been for years. Now we are able to do it via cell phone - even though it is illegal there. People want Bibles in China and American missionaries smuggle them in to those who want them.
Noah's ark? Good. At least the Chinese are back off on some of hostilities to western world and Christianity. Sounds like we are making progress afterall.
Posted by: SocraticGadfly | June 16, 2009 7:27 PM
Speaking of "evangelicals," we have another GOP Xn sex hypocrite who can't keep his pants on. Maybe Pentecostal John Ensign can claim demonic possession.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
June 16, 2009 7:44 PM
Hey I'll trade Ken Ham and his museum for more of this any day!
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 16, 2009 8:28 PM
T-Rex was a distant relative of the chicken – proof of the bird/dino link
------------------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHA!
That was funny!
I suppose this does explain the viscious violent bloodthirtsy pack hunter nature of chickens though.
I suppose the next thing you will tell us is that turtles evolved from rocks becuase of hard shell. EH?
OOOH! I know.
Apes evolved from space aliens' pets who crashed here and got stranded? I suppose apes had feathers too?
Posted by: raven | June 16, 2009 8:52 PM
The resulting civil war killed 20 million people. One of the bloodiest wars in the history of the world, the Taiping rebellion.
Very biblical style xian morality.
Posted by: Dawe | June 16, 2009 9:03 PM
Well if you want to send all your bibles please do, we are big on recycling scrap paper over here. about 10 percent of HK population is Christian, but it is mostly the middle class and rich, including our dimwitted and unelected fearless leader Donald Chung. Which is an issue as they tend to end up in charge of policy and we don't have full universal suffrage... teeth grinding.
There is no separation of Church and state so we also have a bunch of pick and mix religious organizations running schools partially funded by my tax dollars, proselytizing all over the place.
And the education authority is in throws of agony whether they should permit schools teach ID as an "alternative" to science.
The Mainland is soooooo much more sensible on the place or religion in society.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 16, 2009 9:15 PM
And the education authority is in throws of agony whether they should permit schools teach ID as an "alternative" to science.
-------------------------
WOW! That's great. Wake up America. China is now really ahead of you. I wish American leftwingers were in China and the common sense people were here. Can we trade?
What are the darwinists afraid of? They are afraid that thier alreay failing idea of feathered lizards and ape-like people might become distant history if children are given a real choice rather than indoctrination in public schools.
That's what the debate is about in America - choice, not force. Why are militant leftists so pro-choice on baby killing and not education?
Posted by: Otto | June 16, 2009 9:42 PM
What a shame that it isn't in mainland China.
Now that would have been interesting.
Posted by: GBM | June 16, 2009 9:49 PM
"The Mainland is soooooo much more sensible on the place or religion in society."
As someone who just finished up a year of teaching Conversational English in Hunan, I totally agree. The only time that religion was even mentioned in my class was on the day I taught the word superstition to my students. After lecturing to my students about black cats and broken mirrors for a few minutes I asked the class to come up with other examples of superstitions and instantly about half of them shouted 'god'.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 9:52 PM
First of all, we don't worship Darwin as you lyingly imply. Makes you a fraud to say so. We aren't afraid of evidence for creationism. Just cite the peer reviewed scientific literature that backs up your idea of creationism. Oh, yes, there is none in the scientific literature, since creationism is a religious idea, not science. Only science should be taught in science class, and only science can refute science. Quit yapping and publish your papers with physical evidence.Posted by: GBM | June 16, 2009 9:53 PM
"The Mainland is soooooo much more sensible on the place or religion in society."
As someone who just finished up a year of teaching Conversational English in Hunan, I totally agree. The only time that religion was even mentioned in my class was on the day I taught the word superstition to my students. After lecturing to my students about black cats and broken mirrors for a few minutes I asked the class to come up with other examples of superstitions and instantly about half of them shouted 'god'.
Posted by: Levi in NY | June 16, 2009 9:57 PM
上帝在中国已经死了！ :)
Posted by: GBM | June 16, 2009 9:58 PM
sorry about the repeated posts guys.
Also evolution denier if you could explain endogenous retroviruses in a way that doesn't require either (a) common descent or (b) magic, I'm all ears.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 10:07 PM
Rational people are afraid of the irrational pushing their idiocy into schools. Whether you chose to accept it or not, evolution is the best explanation we have for the biodiversity on earth. Backed by hundreds of thousands of pieces of research. The falsifiable research refuting evolution? Zero.
Posted by: Levi in NY | June 16, 2009 10:15 PM
Actually, when referring specifically to the Christian God the Chinese use the name "天主" (tiānzhǔ) which literally means "sky lord". And in magical thinking a lord is essentially a magical spirit like a fairy or wizard, just with power.I love when Christians like to deny how their religion associates their God (i.e. "the man upstairs") and Heaven (which most languages just call "sky") with the sky, just because we now understand scientifically that "up" is relative to your position on Earth and all that's up there is air and then space. But reading the Bible, it's pretty obvious the writers really thought those things were physically above them in the sky, separated from the earthly realm we inhabit on the ground.
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 16, 2009 10:15 PM
Only science should be taught in science class
-------------------------
Fine. Would have anything to say if young earth creationism was taught as a course all by itself and it was totally optional?
Probabaly would - and that just destroyed your argument.
Whether you like it or not, people are still very divided on evolution/creation. It's been 150 years now and not all people are converted to darwinism yet. Nor will they ever be. Nearly half of Americans in general still do not beleive in molecules to man evolution. God still plays a vital role in daily life. If you have not destroyed that with the help of satan I might add,in 150 years, what makes you think churches and Christians and Muslims and Hindus, etc. are going to give in in another 150 years? You are fighting a losing battle. Darwinism is not number one on people's check list for eternal survival.
You see, you worship a man with an idea. We worship the God who created the man with the idea. Darwin is dead. In the ground. Rotton. Never to rise again (except on judgement day). Christ died and rose again and still reigns.
There is no peer reviewed scientific literature for creation except for the Bible. Just becuase you have a bunch of fellow scientists with PhDs looking over faulty assumptions, doesn't make it accurate or correct.
Better check those peer related journals. How many of them have personal political agenda/bias against religion?
I still cannot fathom how some people think that everything that exists just popped into existance all on its own in a perfect working order. Is there a peer reviewed journal to explain how an entire universe suddenly came into existance all from nothing, formed galaxies, solar sytems, planets, moons, life, civilizations, etc. in a perfect working order? I would love to talk to that person who wrote that review.
Oh yeah. I already have. It was God.
Sorry. Looks like a bunch of scientists just wasted their time on evilution. You really should read the book Casting Out Demons. it could help.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 10:27 PM
If it is taught in mythology class, comparative religion, or philosophy classes, yes. As far as a course by itself, five minutes, "goddidit", end of class. There is no content. You have shown no physical evidence for you imaginary deity. So he doesn't exist. The bible is a work of fiction. No god, so it can't be the word of god. All you have a lies and misrepresentations, which you keep presenting here like they mean something. They are your delusions. Keep them to yourself.Posted by: GBM | June 16, 2009 10:27 PM
"Fine. Would have anything to say if young earth creationism was taught as a course all by itself and it was totally optional?
Probabaly would - and that just destroyed your argument. "
I'm glad that you feel comfortable telling me what I would and would not have a problem with. Now if you had an ounce of intelligence you would realize that your proposal completely fails to address the objection. The big problem is with YEC being taught as science, and making it voluntary simply does not address that.
Personally I would have no problem with it being taught in a philosophy class, along with ideas like last Thursday-ism, determinism, and atheism (gasp!).
Incidentally truth is not a democracy, and the number of people who believe a thing has no inherent bearing on the truth of that thing. At one time in history the vast majority believed that the earth was flat, does that mean that it was flat until Herodotus came along?
Also I note that you failed to respond to my challenge.
Posted by: dan | June 16, 2009 10:43 PM
OMFG!i think ED has struck a blow for reason. I can't refute any of his arguments at all. What are we going to do?
Posted by: Evolution denier | June 16, 2009 10:57 PM
If it is taught in mythology class, comparative religion, or philosophy classes, yes. As far as a course by itself, five minutes, "goddidit", end of class. There is no content. You have shown no physical evidence for you imaginary deity.
-------------------------
No, not mythology class. Young Earth creationism class. It would be an entire year long course. There are plenty of resources out there that we could use to make a year long course. I am thinking of doing it in my church with AIG and Apologetics Press materials. No reason why we could not do it in a high school is there? Don;t want your pulic funds going to it? Fine. We'll start an after school class at someone's house and discuss why the Biology teacher is wrong. Got a problem with that too? Why? That would be a privacy issue, not a public funded educated issue would it not?
As far as physical evidence for my diety is concerned, You are arguing with your evidence for a diety - me. Look around. The air you breath, the world you live in, the universe that exists - all evidence. If not, then explain how it just appeared out of nothing all by it's little lonesome self.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 16, 2009 11:05 PM
Mythology. You have nothing but a book for fables for evidence. That is mythology. Sorry, there are natural explanations, like abiogenesis and evolution, for all you imply. Failure on your part. I'm talking about physical evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural origin. Something like an eternally burning bush. You alleged evidence is explained by natural processes. You have nothing but your delusions. Keep them to yourself.Posted by: Dawei | June 16, 2009 11:17 PM
May I make some clarification, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, which basically means we got to keep the system the British setup after the handover in 1997. Thus apart from foreign policy and national security, as you would expect, we can do what we want. In theory of course that is. So far Beijing has let us get on with it, with only minor interruptions.
This works both ways, for religion their is freedom of expression, as their are for any other point of view your care to mention, as it should be but there is also state subsidy and indirect support for religious preaching schools which is a bad thing. And now we have the specter of ID being permitted in a science class a far graver threat than some cheesy Xian theme park.
So here is a letter to the South China Morning Post (our local English rag) for your delight. We have the academic community rallying together and aiming to flush the religious out of science education. Read on....
Debate over creationism should be out in the open
MAILBAG
Jun 12, 2009
I am writing in response to two recent cases our group (Concern Group of Hong Kong Science Education) encountered regarding the new secondary biology curriculum.
Our group submitted a paper to the Legislative Council on April 16, urging for clarification from the Education Bureau regarding the statement that is the cause of the current row over creationism.
The article "Creationism row hots up as objectors fight" (Education Post, May 15) mentioned a paper by a group of more than 60 educators, scientists and professionals - dubbed the Creationist 64 - which was sent to the Legco panel. The article argued that creationism was an acceptable topic for inclusion in the biology syllabus.
Recently we learned of another similar submission to Legco by a University of Hong Kong associate professor, Dr Pauline Chiu.
In contrast to our group's transparent approach, these submissions to Legco are not available on the Legco website. As a result, the public has no idea who is approaching Legco about this controversial issue, or what their viewpoints are.
Our group was able to obtain the documents and, to our dismay, we found that both submissions contained misleading information aimed at undermining science. They also contained propaganda concerning creationism and/or intelligent design, ideas which have been debunked (a fact not acknowledged in the paper), and repeated attempts to dilute science to allow supernatural ideas such as intelligent design to be taught in science classes.
The two submissions show many parallels with the behaviour of their counterparts in the USA:
* Attempts to avoid public criticism by preventing the public from seeing their views and their identity. Our group, by comparison, is transparent: our submissions are available for public view and critique; moreover we can be found on Facebook.
* Undermines the definition of science and even avoids mentioning it to allow supernatural ideas be "smuggled" into the science class.
* Failing to be open about their true position and agenda as creationists or proponents of intelligent design - the "Creationist 64" used almost exclusively creationist/intelligent design propaganda but did not reveal that fact in the papers to Legco and the Education Bureau.
* Omitting crucial facts. Dr Chiu omitted the fact that intelligent design embraces supernatural causes - not science - and is unsupported by evidence,
* Not revealing themselves as Christians, who are bound to oppose evolution and support creationism/intelligent design because of their personal beliefs.
We respect Christians and their belief in divine creation by a deity but we strongly oppose their attempt to smuggle personal and religious beliefs into the science classroom and call it science.
To influence legislators and officials in the Education Bureau by such acts is not what we expect in a democratic society such as Hong Kong, especially from "educators, scientists and professionals".
To allow an open discussion, we have put both of their papers on our website http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/
It is unfair in a public debate to hide true opinions from public scrutiny.
We have also issued rebuttals to their papers which are also available on either the Legco website http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ed/papers/ed_e.htm or on our site.
VIRGINIA YUE (convener and spokesperson), Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education
High hopes for orals after 2008 unfairness
The Ombudsman recently highlighted flaws in the setting of some of last year's exam papers.
One aspect that was not mentioned was the dozen or so English oral papers set for Form Five candidates.
In this exam, candidates are given a task, with three suggested areas to discuss in order to complete that task.
If, for example, the task is to tell a waiter what they would like for dinner, the three suggestions may be "what appetizer to order", "what main course to order" and "what dessert to order". However, with many of last year's papers, the suggestions were along the lines of "what food to order", "what drink to order" and "how to settle the bill".
While this last suggestion does form part of the dining experience, it does not match the given situation of presenting the order to the waiter. Yet many of last year's oral sets had this out-of-place third suggestion.
The exams authority may offer a rebuttal that the instructions advise that students "may" wish to discuss the suggested, but it is unfair to offer question papers with irrelevant and misleading suggestions.
To make matters worse, the grading given is purely subjective, and there is no recourse for challenging the final marks given, unlike that of almost all the other exam papers.
One hopes that the oral exam papers this year are of a higher calibre.
Posted by: Dawei | June 16, 2009 11:19 PM
May I make some clarification, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, which basically means we got to keep the system the British setup after the handover in 1997. Thus apart from foreign policy and national security, as you would expect, we can do what we want. In theory of course that is. So far Beijing has let us get on with it, with only minor interruptions.
This works both ways, for religion their is freedom of expression, as their are for any other point of view your care to mention, as it should be but there is also state subsidy and indirect support for religious preaching schools which is a bad thing. And now we have the specter of ID being permitted in a science class a far graver threat than some cheesy Xian theme park.
So here is a letter to the South China Morning Post (our local English rag) for your delight. We have the academic community rallying together and aiming to flush the religious out of science education. Read on....
Debate over creationism should be out in the open
MAILBAG
Jun 12, 2009
I am writing in response to two recent cases our group (Concern Group of Hong Kong Science Education) encountered regarding the new secondary biology curriculum.
Our group submitted a paper to the Legislative Council on April 16, urging for clarification from the Education Bureau regarding the statement that is the cause of the current row over creationism.
The article "Creationism row hots up as objectors fight" (Education Post, May 15) mentioned a paper by a group of more than 60 educators, scientists and professionals - dubbed the Creationist 64 - which was sent to the Legco panel. The article argued that creationism was an acceptable topic for inclusion in the biology syllabus.
Recently we learned of another similar submission to Legco by a University of Hong Kong associate professor, Dr Pauline Chiu.
In contrast to our group's transparent approach, these submissions to Legco are not available on the Legco website. As a result, the public has no idea who is approaching Legco about this controversial issue, or what their viewpoints are.
Our group was able to obtain the documents and, to our dismay, we found that both submissions contained misleading information aimed at undermining science. They also contained propaganda concerning creationism and/or intelligent design, ideas which have been debunked (a fact not acknowledged in the paper), and repeated attempts to dilute science to allow supernatural ideas such as intelligent design to be taught in science classes.
The two submissions show many parallels with the behaviour of their counterparts in the USA:
* Attempts to avoid public criticism by preventing the public from seeing their views and their identity. Our group, by comparison, is transparent: our submissions are available for public view and critique; moreover we can be found on Facebook.
* Undermines the definition of science and even avoids mentioning it to allow supernatural ideas be "smuggled" into the science class.
* Failing to be open about their true position and agenda as creationists or proponents of intelligent design - the "Creationist 64" used almost exclusively creationist/intelligent design propaganda but did not reveal that fact in the papers to Legco and the Education Bureau.
* Omitting crucial facts. Dr Chiu omitted the fact that intelligent design embraces supernatural causes - not science - and is unsupported by evidence,
* Not revealing themselves as Christians, who are bound to oppose evolution and support creationism/intelligent design because of their personal beliefs.
We respect Christians and their belief in divine creation by a deity but we strongly oppose their attempt to smuggle personal and religious beliefs into the science classroom and call it science.
To influence legislators and officials in the Education Bureau by such acts is not what we expect in a democratic society such as Hong Kong, especially from "educators, scientists and professionals".
To allow an open discussion, we have put both of their papers on our website http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/
It is unfair in a public debate to hide true opinions from public scrutiny.
We have also issued rebuttals to their papers which are also available on either the Legco website http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ed/papers/ed_e.htm or on our site.
VIRGINIA YUE (convener and spokesperson), Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education
High hopes for orals after 2008 unfairness
The Ombudsman recently highlighted flaws in the setting of some of last year's exam papers.
One aspect that was not mentioned was the dozen or so English oral papers set for Form Five candidates.
In this exam, candidates are given a task, with three suggested areas to discuss in order to complete that task.
If, for example, the task is to tell a waiter what they would like for dinner, the three suggestions may be "what appetizer to order", "what main course to order" and "what dessert to order". However, with many of last year's papers, the suggestions were along the lines of "what food to order", "what drink to order" and "how to settle the bill".
While this last suggestion does form part of the dining experience, it does not match the given situation of presenting the order to the waiter. Yet many of last year's oral sets had this out-of-place third suggestion.
The exams authority may offer a rebuttal that the instructions advise that students "may" wish to discuss the suggested, but it is unfair to offer question papers with irrelevant and misleading suggestions.
To make matters worse, the grading given is purely subjective, and there is no recourse for challenging the final marks given, unlike that of almost all the other exam papers.
One hopes that the oral exam papers this year are of a higher calibre.
Posted by: Dawei | June 16, 2009 11:23 PM
May I make some clarification, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China, which basically means we got to keep the system the British setup after the handover in 1997. Thus apart from foreign policy and national security, as you would expect, we can do what we want. In theory of course that is. So far Beijing has let us get on with it, with only minor interruptions.
This works both ways, for religion their is freedom of expression, as their are for any other point of view your care to mention, as it should be but there is also state subsidy and indirect support for religious preaching schools which is a bad thing. And now we have the specter of ID being permitted in a science class a far graver threat than some cheesy Xian theme park.
So here is a letter to the South China Morning Post (our local English rag) for your delight. We have the academic community rallying together and aiming to flush the religious out of science education. Read on....
Debate over creationism should be out in the open
MAILBAG
Jun 12, 2009
I am writing in response to two recent cases our group (Concern Group of Hong Kong Science Education) encountered regarding the new secondary biology curriculum.
Our group submitted a paper to the Legislative Council on April 16, urging for clarification from the Education Bureau regarding the statement that is the cause of the current row over creationism.
The article "Creationism row hots up as objectors fight" (Education Post, May 15) mentioned a paper by a group of more than 60 educators, scientists and professionals - dubbed the Creationist 64 - which was sent to the Legco panel. The article argued that creationism was an acceptable topic for inclusion in the biology syllabus.
Recently we learned of another similar submission to Legco by a University of Hong Kong associate professor, Dr Pauline Chiu.
In contrast to our group's transparent approach, these submissions to Legco are not available on the Legco website. As a result, the public has no idea who is approaching Legco about this controversial issue, or what their viewpoints are.
Our group was able to obtain the documents and, to our dismay, we found that both submissions contained misleading information aimed at undermining science. They also contained propaganda concerning creationism and/or intelligent design, ideas which have been debunked (a fact not acknowledged in the paper), and repeated attempts to dilute science to allow supernatural ideas such as intelligent design to be taught in science classes.
The two submissions show many parallels with the behaviour of their counterparts in the USA:
* Attempts to avoid public criticism by preventing the public from seeing their views and their identity. Our group, by comparison, is transparent: our submissions are available for public view and critique; moreover we can be found on Facebook.
* Undermines the definition of science and even avoids mentioning it to allow supernatural ideas be "smuggled" into the science class.
* Failing to be open about their true position and agenda as creationists or proponents of intelligent design - the "Creationist 64" used almost exclusively creationist/intelligent design propaganda but did not reveal that fact in the papers to Legco and the Education Bureau.
* Omitting crucial facts. Dr Chiu omitted the fact that intelligent design embraces supernatural causes - not science - and is unsupported by evidence,
* Not revealing themselves as Christians, who are bound to oppose evolution and support creationism/intelligent design because of their personal beliefs.
We respect Christians and their belief in divine creation by a deity but we strongly oppose their attempt to smuggle personal and religious beliefs into the science classroom and call it science.
To influence legislators and officials in the Education Bureau by such acts is not what we expect in a democratic society such as Hong Kong, especially from "educators, scientists and professionals".
To allow an open discussion, we have put both of their papers on our website http://sites.google.com/site/hkscienceeducation/
It is unfair in a public debate to hide true opinions from public scrutiny.
We have also issued rebuttals to their papers which are also available on either the Legco website http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr11-12/english/panels/ed/papers/ed_e.htm or on our site.
VIRGINIA YUE (convener and spokesperson), Concern Group for Hong Kong Science Education
High hopes for orals after 2008 unfairness
The Ombudsman recently highlighted flaws in the setting of some of last year's exam papers.
One aspect that was not mentioned was the dozen or so English oral papers set for Form Five candidates.
In this exam, candidates are given a task, with three suggested areas to discuss in order to complete that task.
If, for example, the task is to tell a waiter what they would like for dinner, the three suggestions may be "what appetizer to order", "what main course to order" and "what dessert to order". However, with many of last year's papers, the suggestions were along the lines of "what food to order", "what drink to order" and "how to settle the bill".
While this last suggestion does form part of the dining experience, it does not match the given situation of presenting the order to the waiter. Yet many of last year's oral sets had this out-of-place third suggestion.
The exams authority may offer a rebuttal that the instructions advise that students "may" wish to discuss the suggested, but it is unfair to offer question papers with irrelevant and misleading suggestions.
To make matters worse, the grading given is purely subjective, and there is no recourse for challenging the final marks given, unlike that of almost all the other exam papers.
One hopes that the oral exam papers this year are of a higher calibre.
Posted by: Dawei | June 16, 2009 11:29 PM
Oups apologies, but Scienceblog server swore that my post had not gone through the little lier.
Posted by: Zar | June 16, 2009 11:30 PM
Evolution denier wants young-earth creationism to be true because it condones incest. That poor, literal motherfucker.
Posted by: Dahan | June 16, 2009 11:35 PM
evolution denier,
Promise us that you'll get some help, OK? A lot of us here are very empathetic and it hurts to see someone suffering from the kind of mental problems you so obviously are afflicted with.
There's nothing shameful about having a mental disorder. It's fairly common and science has made remarkable progress in treating certain types of problems. If you don't have insurance, there are also care units that are still willing to help. Good luck and come back when you're feeling better, alright?
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | June 16, 2009 11:35 PM
People are, science is not.
"People" also think Britney Spears is a talented musician, Vikings actually wore horned helmets as a rule and that there really are Nigerians Royalty that have money for you.
The problem with those dismissing the well established science of Evolution is that they are almost invariably under the thumb of having to believe what their pastor, priest, imam etc.. tells them.
Posted by: No Comfort in Lies
|
June 16, 2009 11:41 PM
It must have been so amazing living in biblical times, with a whopping 67 DIFFERENT KINDS OF ANIMALS!!! Amazing stuff! Since there was just that one creation, and with the rate of extinction, we only have, what? maybe 14 different kinds now. How inspiring...
Posted by: raven | June 16, 2009 11:49 PM
Irrelevant. We don't vote on reality.
People in the USA not so long ago were very divided on whether black people should be property or free. This was not settled by voting but by force of arms resulting in a bloody civil war that nearly destroyed the USA.
People in Europea were once sharply divided on whether the earth was the center of the solar system or the sun was. After burning Bruno at the stake and almost burning Galileo, the RCC said oopppssss, we were wrong.
You do know that Geocentrism is wrong? Probably not, 26% of fundie cultists still think the sun orbits the earth.
Posted by: Sundeep | June 17, 2009 12:07 AM
First, while there are plenty of Christians here, most accept evolution and the percentage of people (especially the youth) who are creationists (YEC/OEC) are pretty low.
Second, you should probably know that Hong Kong was behind an attempt to re-categorize the Bible as indecent: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=41646 (yes, it's WND, but the story is real), so it would only be available to adults. We're not exactly Bible-thumpers, although we do have a lot of immigrants (from SE Asia) who are very Christian.
Finally, the Noah's Ark will end up being like Disneyland: most locals will ignore it.
Posted by: No Comfort in Lies
|
June 17, 2009 12:09 AM
Anyone read this article : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6485447.ece ? It's really interesting, and goes over how people with irrational, falsifiable delusions (especially those that fit well with their ideologies) are practically immune to evidence that contradicts those beliefs. It's an interesting (and depressing) read. Also seems to apply to much of this thread.
Posted by: Malc | June 17, 2009 12:25 AM
Leaving the ED hysteria aside - back to PZ's original post:
"Tourist attraction"? It's supposed to poison the minds of the locals, not traveling Westerners!"
HK is pretty much separate from China proper - different laws, different culture and more importantly, different concept of 'us'. To the 'locals' (HK residents of European or Asian descent) 'tourists' most definitely includes 'mainlanders'.
"Maybe we can ship a few container ships full of Bibles and Chick tracts over there instead."
And we'll treat them exactly the same way we treat the rest of the toxic trash you ship to us - send it north over the border asap. See:
http://www.e-stewards.org/news/081108_following_the_trail.html
PZ's heart is in the right place so I'll overlook the condescending parochialism this time...
Posted by: bric | June 17, 2009 2:24 AM
It's not just Hong Kong, I have a friend in Guangzhou who was talking about all the foreign workers trapped there by the bad weather last year; it turned out they were all Chinese, just not Cantonese: to him anyone who doesn't speak Cantonese is a foreigner. Incidentaly he needs a visa for Hong Kong or Macau, even though culturally he feels they are part of his region.
Posted by: Rodger T NZ
|
June 17, 2009 2:42 AM
Looks like a Kwok of shit ,to me.
Posted by: Scrabcake | June 17, 2009 4:19 AM
Oh man. Hong Kong is too easy. I dare them to try that crap in mainland china. And I'll try really really hard to feel bad for them when the Chinese Government inevitably smacks them down.
Because if the Chinese Government is good at anything aside from managing staggering numbers of people, it's smacking down any religion that puts some earthly entity before them in the chain of command...like say...the Pope, or some charismatic preacher.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 17, 2009 9:06 AM
Rev. Dada Grind
Hey, that's what the whole story of Noah amounts to:
Genesis: God made Adam and Eve, they had sons, one of the sons killed one of the other sons, but so far there is one small family and the rest of the kids had to come from somewhere so, after a whole lot of incest, the angels came to Earth and found the daughters of men fair.
Which sort of killed the whole inbreeding thing, which pissed off God mightily because he liked the incest, and Lots of it. Essentially God created the world because he is a big old pervert.
Because man was screwing heavenly bodies rather than close relatives, God decided to drown the world, saving a small family and some guy who came along for a ride in the family fun edition of the Love Boat.
Posted by: mewletter | June 17, 2009 11:34 AM
Lucky I AM Chinese... although I'm quite regretting that I hardly write Mandarin. Anyway, it's a theme park to the locals. Or something. Will visit there myself if it did ever open, gawk and had a good time riding the 'roaring lion's rollercoaster' ride. LOL
Posted by: mewletter | June 17, 2009 11:36 AM
Lucky I AM Chinese... although I'm quite regretting that I hardly write Mandarin. Anyway, it's a theme park to the locals. Or something. Will visit there myself if it did ever open, gawk and had a good time riding the 'roaring lion's rollercoaster' ride. LOL
Posted by: Greg Peterson | June 17, 2009 12:23 PM
Paging Righteous Fists of Harmony...paging Righteous Fists of Harmony....
Posted by: Tommykey | June 17, 2009 1:00 PM
When I visit Hong Kong again, my family and I will just stick with Ocean Park.
Posted by: astrounit | June 18, 2009 10:22 AM
Who's "we"? I'm certainly not part of that "Western Influence".
And if any local Chinese swallow that rot, well, they've then imbibed on a viral cocktail chock full of fancy ways to deter their usual way of thinking...and they;ll also have to do something about it. As we do.
I would like to see a world in which the WHO recognizes the threat of an ideological pandemic with the same "concern" with which they attribute a blooming flu or other nasty contagious disease.
On the other hand, they (nor, apparently, anybody else, after all the hoopla expended over the last decade over the "extreme urgency" of it) were particularly competent in checking, well, you know, swine. Or birds, it turns out. Just for example. Almost nothing done to monitor anything.
Fascinating.
Oh well...I suppose it's likely they couldn't recognize the comparable threat to human health posed by ridiculous belief systems even if they DID recognize it officially as a potential threat. They can't seem to recognize much of ANYTHING, except maybe some important protocols on how to deal with emerging issues and ensuring that the public is well informed through their very important "outreach" efforts.
As far as getting anything actually accomplished through hard work (like keeping an eye on the viral flu situation that most likely will affect humans) that agency and every other associated agency right down to the last researcher has amply been shown to be a sham.
Meanwhile, Novartis has apparently quite easily come up with a viable vaccine. Can't fault THEM for not knowing what to vaccinate against until it showed up.