The Evolution Debate

Check out these series of evolution vs. intelligent design debate on The New York Times.* http://www.nytimes.com/pages/science/sciencespecial2/index.html.

If such a flurry of arguments are anything to go by, it suggests that the effects of Darwinism - despite its philosophical and social fallacies - continue to have a wide reach and influence among the scientific world... which is ironical - since the belief in it requires even more faith than believing in creation - now you call that science???

Part of the problem - I reckon - is the system of natural theology (proposed by Aquinas) that is at fault here... which sadly many Christians (within evangelical circles) continue to be trapped in.

By trying to "prove" the existence of God within a rationalistic framework, it makes the mistaken assumption that the existence of God can be "proved" - without the necessity for revealed theology.

I am not proposing an existential "leap of faith" here - but rather, for Christians to remember that by trying to prove the existence of an "unmoved mover" or a "unchanged changer" - simply so that the complexities and intricacies of the created world can be explained - is at best a form of Christian deism - that does away with a personal God.

*Thanks to Postmodern Areopagus(http://postmodernareopagus.blogspot.com/) whose blog directed me to the NYT stories.

Haze and the environment

The recent haze that has swept across KL and Indonesia is a serious reminder of our environmental duties that is often swept under the carpet under the name of economic progress and urbanisation.

To make things worse, the church has often been slow to preach the importance of environmental ethics... (i'm not sure why)... maybe we just take the world we live in for granted - forgetting that one of our duties on earth is the redemtion of a fallen world.

As one member of M'sia's Democratic Action Party said, "We are breathing in poison every day. Things have never been this bad."

But year after year, the same thing happens over and over again... one only wonder when we'll ever learn our lesson...

Presidential Elections in Singapore

Yet another uncontested election in Singapore. Opposition critics will say that this is yet another sign of the incumbent electorate manipulating the system to ensure that the status quo is maintained. While this may be a possibility, a more interesting debate would be to examine the nature of politics in Singapore and the reason why capable people seem to be shying from participating - at the highest level.

My own guess would be that there is simply too much to lose trying to go up against a government-backed candiate and thus decide not to. However such a situation is worrying - if this mindset persists on in the next generation.

Competency and character are two important hallmarks of any capable leader... unfortunately the very nature of politics these days is sometimes a public relations exercise more than any other (read: US elections). As such, phenomenon is often mistaken for essence, container mistaken for content and form takes precedence over substance.

I personally do not foresee a optimistic future ahead.

Some post-NKF saga thoughts.

a short reflection of the recent NKF saga that rocked the front pages of the local papers...
----------------


IT is no exaggeration to say that the recent National Kidney Foundation (NKF) saga has greatly tarnished the image of many charitable organizations here.

But it has also brought to light one fundamental flaw that plagues much of our modern society.

That good ends can sufficiently justify bad means.

What do I mean?

Living in a country that is generally governed on capitalistic principles – of which the measurement of success is often that of achieving the bottom-line – it is easy to justify our actions by citing the goals that have been attained.

As such, surely the thousands who have benefited from NKF’s health programmes can justify the questionable means that have been employed.

As what its former CEO T.T. Durai may have argued: For what can be more noble – and important – than saving a human life?

Such an argument can be highly persuasive – given the nature of the work – but in my opinion, is highly erroneous.

This is because its core value - that of pragmatism, or utilitarianism – is ultimately one without any sensible appeal to morality.

In other words – as what Mr Calvin Choo Kahwei wrote - everything is OK as long as you can raise or make more money, or do not get caught. (“Were not questionable means employed”; ST, July 20)

Today, I sense a similar – and even hypocritical – situation at work here.

In the quest for material success, many individuals chose to ignore their moral compass and instead adopt a “survival of the fittest” work ethos, without any concern for what is right – or wrong.

And yet, many of these individuals – when their pockets are hurt – ironically condemn the NKF’s actions, without realizing that these actions were only the logical conclusion of the pervasive forces of pragmatism that is at work here.

In this instance, the NKF has been made a public scapegoat – and rightfully so. But I fear that unless we start to examine our ethical responsibilities, we will be in peril of going down the slippery slope without even knowing so.

I am not saying that we should discard rational principles and targets in exchange for altruistic sentimentalism, but rather, to advocate the fact that our good deeds must be backed by a clean conscience.

Only then, will charity be true charity. Let’s hope we have learnt our lesson well.