Creationism in the Philippines?

Actually, as I recall my high school biology text book (back when I was in the dark ages) used the terms micro and macro evo. I can't remember the contents, though.Can someone else verify this?

Depends on your definition of 'intermediate.' Some would argue that Archeopteryx (sp sorry) is a perfect example of an intermediate fossil, most creationists seem to disagree.

Stephen Gould talks about micro and macro evolution.This is what talkorigins.org says:

You're right of course, but I think it's safe to say that mainstream science agrees with the validity of such fossils. From what I've read in other threads, the creationist arguments against the 'intermediate' or 'transitional' nature of these fossils are far from convincing. In fact, I've never even encountered a creationist who was willing to explain what a valid transitional fossil would be like.

Can anybody else give their take on the article I put up in the OP? I'm planning to write the editors who published the article; but before I do I'm really interested in hearing what others have to say. After all, if I point out any inaccurate or misleading points in the article, I want to be sure that I'm right. I'd also like to see if anybody thinks that this is a real attempt to introduce creationism/ID in Philippine high schools. I may be overreacting to a little thing, after all.

The problem I see is that the article was written for the purpose of easy-to-digest. Like I said before, the points made by the article aren't exactly wrong. They're just not the whole story. If the author wanted to make it more clear, he would have gone much more into detail. I'm not sure if the end result would be as easy to digest as the current version.Take the fossil record, for example. Does the average person in the Philippines actually know what fossil is? Heck, does the average person in the USA know what a fossil is?Now that I think about it, I don't think the author could have done that much more than what he wrote.