However, in the sole hyper-power of the world, the United States of America, fundamentalist Christians have immense influence on the political scene, and thus the seat of power.

These groups are anything but humble, and possess a world view where anything that is not condoned in the 'Good Book' should similarly be outlawed or made a crime, whether or not such viewpoints are still relevant in the 21st century. These groups want to:

>>change the education system to re-classify the Judaic Genesis as a 'true' science subject instead of religion;

>>ban all women from having abortions instead of leaving the choice to the mother;

>>stop all assistance to African countries that promote condoms as a health prevention against Aids which is killing two million Africans each year because of religious opposition to contraception;

>>make promising embryonic stem-cell research a crime because of the religionistic valuation that the 'potential' life of an undeveloped embryo far outstrips that of the millions of people who suffer from spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders, et cetera.

When religionists encroach on these areas of science using their religion as the basis, it is only inevitable that scientists will retort in the area of religion using science as the basis.

The beauty of science is that science is non-dogmatic, and is constantly being rewritten and refined in light of new evidence.

Science and mathematics will always give the same answer to the seeker regardless of what faith or denomination the investigator is.

On the other hand, the student seeking answers from religion will find different, incompatible, mutually-exclusive responses from the different faiths, with each faith's religionist claiming that only their religion is the 'true' religion.

Because of the lack of humility from each faith's adherents, wars have been fought over religious differences, and millions have perished in these battles.

Also, scientists do not discount the possibility of a Creator. Science cannot prove the non-existence of a First Cause.

Instead, science simply says that a Creator is highly improbable.

Life can be so elegantly explained by the scientific and simple theory of evolution that the need for a Creator to explain life is unnecessary.

On the other hand, religionists know with 100 per cent certainty that God exists, although they cannot demonstrate irrefutable proof of the existence of their First Cause.

As you may discern from the tone of my letter, I place my faith with science.

Wong Nian Jun