Slashdot Mirror
First Russian Anti-Evolution Suit Enters Court Room
sdriver writes "If you thought it was only the US giving Darwin a hard time, Russia has its own problems starting with evolution. A student has 'sued the St. Petersburg city education committee, claiming the 10th-grade biology textbook used at the Cervantes Gymnasium was offensive to believers and that teachers should offer an alternative to Darwin's famous theory.' The suit, the first of its kind in Russia, is being dismissed out of hand by the principal and teachers. The teacher of the science class had apparently even taken the step of stating at the start of the school year that there were other theories on the origin of life."
"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights,"
I don't know anything about Russian law, but do religious groups have the right not to be dissed? Would that go for all religious groups, and non-religious groups too? Considering how insulting it is to have someone claim theirs is the only right way and everyone else is going to hell, I would think this a precedent that 'believers' wouldn't want to set.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Evolution does not claim that man evolved from apes, but that man and apes share a common ancestor, as do all creatures. Just man and the ape's ancestors were a little more recent that, say, the common ancestor between man and jellyfish.
Disclaimer: I'm a Christian and believe in ID myself. However, I feel that "Darwinism" should be taught in schools. Who am I to say how God created man. I feel that evolution is more of a miracle than Him simply saying "Let it Be" anyway! Just my $0.02
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If your faith is so weak that you need the courts to help you believe, then maybe you need to look in the mirror for the problem?
Yup, gotta get rid of those tempting "ideas" out there in the big bad world. Might lead a person to think.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Untrue. There are scientific theories as to the origin of life, although I'd say they're very much works in progress. They are not, however "other" theories on the origin of life as evolution is not and has never been intended to be a theory on the origin of life. Evolution is all about what happens to life (imperfect replicators) once you've got it.
Darwin's theory says nothing about how life got started. Darwin only talked about how life evolved once it got started.
I guess the teacher needs to go back to school to present the correct information.
Nitpick time. The last line of the synopsis is not what the teacher said. From the article:
"When starting the course on the matter, the biology teacher said that there are other versions of humanity's origin," she said.
That's different than saying how all life began, as the submitter suggested.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I never really understood why anyone give a rat's ass about where we come from ?
... and vice versa so why go and try to make a fuss to convince the world your theory is much better.
What difference is it gonna make in your life now ? or in the future ?
Is it gonna change the way we evolve if we think its done otherwise ?
I took christian religion courses all of my youth at school and that never stopped me from turning into an atheist.
IMO, people suing the state for things like that aren't in it for the greater good of the populate (or the evolution for that matter) they're much more in it for comforting their own ego by trying to think about the children.
But you know what, once these children grow into adults, if Darwin is what they like to think that's what they're gonna think
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
Soviet Union was never a "brutally secular state" - it was always a very religious state. State religion was weird there - it promised "Communism" in the "near future", not the afterlife, but it still was very similar. Now the table has turned, and the CPSU (or in Russian) is replaced by Russian Orthodox Church and there are definite advances to bring religious studies (only Orthodox, nothing for other Christians or Muslims) to schools in Russia. Disclaimer: I've spent most of my life in the USSR.
Which is completely irrelevant since no theory is every proven (how many times does this need to be said?) See the Wiki on what a theory is. Pay particular attention to the first four sentences under the Science heading.
Pick a theory. Any theory. Newton's Theory of Gravity? Not proven. Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Not proven. The Big Bang Theory? Not proven. See the point?
Saying that Evolution is not proven shows a very basic lack of understanding of the scientific process. But hey, don't let me, or anyone else, stop you from continually making a fool of yourself everytime you say a theory isn't proven.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Want to bet on the chances that when the onion is peeled back, Focus On The Family or some other famous US-based evangelical organization is behind the suit? "Send us your dollars so we can do God's work in Russia and force their schools to teach Creationism rather than the Devil's work, Evolution!"
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Am I the only one who thinks that, even if ID was 100%, beyond a doubt, true, that it STILL wouldn't have place in a biology class? Biology is (not the exact definition, bear with me) the science of how organic stuff works. Organic stuff can evolve, period. Whats unclear is how it originaly got jump started. If its some superior being that jump started it, and you know that at 100%, the only thing that changes, is that we'd stop talking about how it all got jump started (beyond maybe a quick mention in 1 sentence in the intro of the book). The intelligent design stuff would still belong to another class, and the explaination of how complex organics change with each iteration (generation) would still be in the biology class.
So, since biology is a science, and thus only teach plausible theories (since everything in science is -always- open to debate. Thats the very definition), if in its current form, the evolution theory is not fit to be taught, -GRAVITY- isn't fit to be taught either. Should we stop teaching about gravity in physics classes? The hell?
i wonder if this girl (or her father) has had any contact with nutcase american missionaries?
they're a plague spreading their lunatic fundamentalist versions of christianity all over the globe. no-one else cares that much about evolution, no-one else has much difficulty reconciling their christianity with evolution, no-one else insists on such a tiny simpleton god.
They had no less than what they have now unless you're talking about overpriced "luxury" items which only those that used to already be rich back in the USSR days can afford. Things haven't gotten better for nearly any of the people I personally know that have chosen to remain in Russia. But one thing the USSR certainly didn't have but Russia has now, is a populace whose belief in Communism has been substituted by a belief in the teachings of the Russian Orthodox church.
I like basketball!!1!
The makers of Airplanes and Zeppelins are usually on a tighter schedule than evolution is.
And I demand that gravity is presented as a theory and not fact.
Why don't you campaign against that? All those teachers teaching that things fall down as fact
The difference is that there is actually physical, experimental, and historical evidence for evolution. Intelligent design is a completely imaginated explanation for un explained questions. Just like man created the air plane, they created the concept of god too.
If you want to equate believing in something based on evidence to believing in something based on a 2000+ year old book, then obviously you like to simplify the matter until it fits in your narrow, ignorant view of reality.
The study of evolution is deals with how the changes in life occur. Scientists dealing with the origins of life are in the field of biogenesis, a field related to evolution but it is *not* evolution.
This "adaption" you mention is what is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. This is a controversial theory, often used by advocates of Creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent-design) to allow them to accept minor changes (such as differing breeds of dogs, etc) while still allowing them to deny that "macro-evolution" or speciation, can occurr. There is no distinction between the two however - both are evolution, slow change over time.
Your understanding of the word "theory" is mistaken in your above usage. When a scientist says "theory", he usually means a scientific theory. When most of us were growing up, we learned about a certain hierarchy of certainty going from guess->theory->fact, but this theory does not sit inside that tree. When a scientist talks about the Theory of Gravity, for example, he is not expressing reservations about its validity. The Theory of Evolution is not a statement that evolution occurs, it is our current best understanding of *how* evolution occurs. We already know that evolution occurs, as we can observe it in labs. In that sense, evolution is a fact. The theory is an explanation of how that process happens that fits with all our present knowledge about the subject.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
I simply do not understand why this issue is always brought up. The "theory of Intelligent Design" has a place where it is taught, and that is in church (or synagogue or temple). This, to me, is as inane as myself taking my priest to court because he talks about Adam and Even which "offends" my right to believe in evolution. Yes I know that a school is a public institution (and a church a private institution) but there is absolutely no credence behind "Intelligent Design" and really has no place in any institution that inspires learning and developing ideas. Creationsim is just too much of a dead-end theory to be in school.
"God created the world as it is today. Pay no attention to the fossils behind the curtain"Leave creationsim in church. At least that way you are presented with two opposing alternatives and you can use your brain to choose between the two.
Another thing I wonder about: why does evolution disprove God(s) existence? How do we know he didn't design life to be this way, to adapt and spread? I never could understand why religion doesn't take hold of the theory and run with it."Look! God is so awesome he designed life to create the most complex creatures from the most basic of matter!" I guess it just goes against the flattering of the human ego to think that perhaps we are not created in the image of some diety.It makes you a fool and it makes you a liar.
In fairness to the fool, he is not necessarily a liar. He may just be dumb. He may quite plausibly not be smart enough to understand the difference between the fact of evolution, and the theory of evolution. I'd find that quite plausible based on my experience of the large percentage of not so bright people in this world.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Frankly, some religions need to be insulted.
(personally, I think ALL religions are frauds... but that's just me).
But all religions aren't beyond criticism. Do you think EVERY religion, regardless of what it teaches, is worthy of repect and tolerance?
Sorry, bub... but some religions and religious nuts need to be called out for their kookiness and insulted to the n-th degree.
Scientology, for one, is worthy of NO respect whatsoever... it's not even a real religion. It's creator came up with it on a cocktail napkin on a bet...
Frankly... some of the shit people believe needs to be ridiculed. They need to be completely embarrassed out of their blind stupor.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
and so the _blatant_ non-atheist bashing commences. not that there wasn't plenty in the earlier posts, yours just had the most "oomph" to it.
//just don't wanna be first in line for the lions
///darwin never said life came from inanimate matter, which is the crux of the creationist argument IMHOP, regardless of which form of it one chooses. regardless if it was 7 days or 7 billion years i just don't buy it that a bunch of muck and volcanic ash suddenly sprang to life and formed cells totally randomly.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
The reason your analogy is laughable is that nobody's proposing that today's science books are the word of God. They're just condensations of the current knowledge related to a certain field.
We know that science is fallible. Indeed, that's what makes it science. In 2000 years, the science books will be updated to reflect new understanding about the world based on evidence and tests of hypotheses. Nobody's editing the bible to keep up with the world.
MRSH-Recording device, corned beef sandwich with kraut, seafaring bird, and the foamy top of a beverage.
This "adaption" you mention is what is sometimes referred to as micro-evolution. This is a controversial theory, often used by advocates of Creationism (and to a lesser extent, intelligent-design) to allow them to accept minor changes (such as differing breeds of dogs, etc) while still allowing them to deny that "macro-evolution" or speciation, can occurr. There is no distinction between the two however - both are evolution, slow change over time.
Which is such a cop-out, when evolution-skeptics try to create the distinction. They try to do it because among scientifically minded and aware folks, saying species don't change over time is a sure way to be laughed at. They're trying to get their creationism-based beliefs to be accepted scientifically, so they create the whole "macro-evolution" red-herring, but it doesn't work. So they agree that "micro-evolution" occurs. Alright. Take a population, split it in two such that there is no cross-breeding. Over time each experiences "micro-evolution". Eventually one of these "micro-evolutionary" changes modifies reproductive mechanics, such that were you to bring the two populations together again, they would be unable to interbreed. Bam, you have speciation.
You can't accept "micro-" without "macro-". As you say, they're really one and the same.
The enemies of Democracy are
Religionists might have it a bit easier if they weren't so provably dopey. But that's what happens when you lock yourself into the notion that a parable that's meaningful to living a good life is a description of reality.
As a believer, it pains me to see so many people giving Faith a bad name with this kind of dopiness.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It depends what you mean by "proven". The scientific method can't technically prove anything. However, it can give overwhelming evidence in favour of something. For example, we have no proof that the sun will come up tomorrow. What we do have is enough evidence to convince any sane person. This preponderance of evidence is often referred to as a "proof". Another example: suppose a man is on trial for murder. Seventeen people say they saw him do it, the police have a bloody knife covered in his fingerprints, and the first words out of his mouth when he was arrested were "I'm glad I killed the bastard". Again, technically, we have no proof that he was the murderer. The witnesses could be lying, someone else could have used the knife to murder the victim while wearing gloves, and the "bastard" he was referring to may have been an irritating housefly. But can you see why, in the absence of other evidence, we may colloquially refer to this as a "proof" in the interests of clear communication?
As I understand it, the Theory of Evolution has been "proven" at about that level of certainty. The problem with the statement that creationists want teachers to read (that it hasn't been 'proven') is that it implies that alternative theories (e.g. creationism) have a non-negligible chance of being true, and that evolution has substantially less scientific evidence than, for example, gravity. This would be utterly false, regardless of whether you believe there is philosophical evidence for creationism. We should not endeavour to teach our children massive falsehoods, either explicitly or implicitly, so your statement fails.
I would, however, welcome a separate mention on the curriculum of the philosophy of science - the differences between the reasons for accepting a scientific theorem and the reasons for accepting a logical proof, details of the scientific method and so on and so forth. As long as it is made clear that these issues affect the whole of science, and that students may reject individual theories on the basis that they "haven't been proved" only by rejecting the whole of science, then I feel children can only benefit from exposure to them.
To know recursion, you must first know recursion.