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."

17 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. Believer's Rights? by MECC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
    1. Re:Believer's Rights? by Salvance · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd agree if the creationist view had any scientific basis whatsoever. Science classes try to only teach theories that are rooted in verified hypotheses. If the creationists can provide some scientific fact, instead of just saying "it says so in the bible, and the bible is always right, therefore it's true", then schools would be much warmer to teaching intelligent design/creationism/etc.

      --
      Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
  2. Article even has a slant! by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From TFA:
    In the United States, several lawsuits challenging the theory that says humans descended from apes have been filed in courts...


    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.
    1. Re:Article even has a slant! by monoqlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Humans are now technically viewed great apes( part of the family Hominidae). Humans and chimpanzees are very close relatives and share a common ancestor, who was also an ape, 4 to 7 million years ago.

      What evoluton does not claim:

      1. Jesus was a monkey.
      2. God didn't create the planet or the universe.
      3. God doesn't exist.
      4. Natural selection is random.

    2. Re:Article even has a slant! by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What evoluton does not claim: ...
      2. God didn't create the planet or the universe.
      3. God doesn't exist. ...

      You are quite correct that the theory of evolution makes no claims as to God's existence, the origins of the universe, or even the actual origins of life. One of the reasons it raises the ire of many religious people, besides contradicting literal readings of their chosen holy book, is that it it goes a long way to refuting one of the remaining strong arguments for the existence of God, the Argument from Design. The Argument from Design essentially says "Given how remarkably well suited and pieced together everything is, how designed it looks, the only reasnable explanation is that it has been designed by some intelligence". For a long time, up until Darwin really, this was a devastatingly strong argument for the existence of God. The great Scottish philosopher Hume shredded the argument but, in failing to find any better explanation for the appearance of design, eventually capitulated - he could see the argument was flawed, but couldn't offer anything better in it's stead. Then along came Darwin with the theory of evolution by natural selection, and we have an entirely credible and reasonable explanation for the appearance of design: the hard work of R&D is done by the blind, mindless, but most certainly not random, process of natural selection; given enough time the appearance of design is the natural result.

      Of course evolution says nothing about the universe, just the appearance of design amongst life. However, in refuting the case of design with regard to life, and with Hume's powerful critique of the Argument from Design, one has to be more cautious with regard to playing the "finely tuned universe" Argument from Design card - sure, we don't have an alternative explanation for it yet (though there are a few potential candidates - see Smolin's evolutionary universe model), but we know that explanations for the appearance of design that don't involve a creator can be found from the example of evolution. The fact that alternative explanations exist means the appearance of design is no longer enough to conclude the existence of God.

      What this has meant is that there really aren't any solid rational arguments for the existence of God, and a lot of people miss that, hence the desire to fight or try and discredit the theory of evolution. Instead arguments for the existence of God must now take the form of emotional, or personal arguments, which while effective and powerful for those who are receptive to religion, are decidedly unconvincing for those who harbour doubt or are skeptical. Ultimately I tend to see those who feel the need to discredit evolution as people who have doubts about their faith: emotional arguments are not enough for them.

      (Disclaimer: I am a (weak) atheist; I am naturally skeptical, and certainly haven't had any religious experiences that might convince me)
    3. Re:Article even has a slant! by metlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man.

      No, as a Christian, you believe that God created man. There is a difference.

      Belief does not imply knowledge (read up on discourses on epistemology etc).

      All I ask is that you grant me the same respect and stop trying to tell me what I should be believing or that my belief system is somehow not compatible with reality.

      Aye. I fully agree with you - but only as long as it is stated that it is a belief and not a fact. Faith and facts are entirely different entities.

      Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.

      That is arguable. Faith and facts, however, are mutually exclusive, unless substantiated with reproducible, empirical, scientific evidence.

      I may believe in a purple dragon, however that does not imply that a purple dragon exists. And moreover, as an intelligent man, it is my opinion that because of the lack of any reproducible, empirical, scientific evidence, the probability of the exitence of a purple dragon is minimal. Therefore, without sufficient evidence (despite the appearance of dragons in several pieces of literature), I would have to say that I do not particularly believe in a purple dragon, or more precisely that the existence of such a creature is highly improbable.

      Similarly, one's belief in something is rather independent of one's intelligent thoughts on the topic.

      Just because one is intelligent in other domains (e.g. arts, music, maths, literature, biology, physical and natural sciences etc.) does not necessarily imply that they are intelligent when it comes to what they believe in.

      As a physicist, I may be excellent in solving differential equations, however that does nothing for my skills in biology. Or painting. Or music.

      Likewise, intelligence exhibited in other domains does not necessarily imply the application intelligence when it comes to faith.

      Cheers.

  3. If your faith is so weak... by kent_eh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:If your faith is so weak... by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thinking is for heretics.

  4. Miscommunication on Darwin by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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."


    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
  5. Re:Sure! Here's your alternative by AndreyFilippov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:other theories by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven,


    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
  7. Why do you think Russia's such a hot destination? by Mariner28 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why do you think Russia's such a hot destination for Evangelical Christian missionary programs? With all those years of Stalinism keeping religion under its heel, it's ripe for the picking. And naturally, ID and Creationism follows fundamental evangelical Christian teachings around the globe.

    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."
  8. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Sciros · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  9. Re:other theories by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Everything we humans make from Airplanes to Zeppelins requires thought and planning. Evolutionists believe that this thinking process was not needed in the case of life.

    The makers of Airplanes and Zeppelins are usually on a tighter schedule than evolution is.

  10. Re:other theories by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  11. Re:other theories by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:other theories by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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