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."

42 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. Sure! Here's your alternative by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you don't like Darwinism, you're welcome to try Lysenkoism. It's got a long, if not exactly proud, history in Soviet Russia. It's been pretty thoroughly proven false, but unlike Creationism, it's at least a falsifiable theory.

  2. 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. Re:Believer's Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me make a few things clear:
      1. The textbook does NOT refer to religion in negative way. Being a Biology textbook, it ignores religion completely.
      2. The Russian law says nothing about not dissing religious groups. It does say that inciting inter-racial or inter-religious violence is punishable, but dissing is completely ok.
      3. The girl who has "sued" the school is not religious in any special way. In fact, she dresses and looks like a goth. The lawsuit itself has been initiated by her father, working for some small PR outfit and in bad need for publicity. Now, thanks to the lawsuit, he has got onto national TV, if only for a few moments.

      The whole thing is a publicity stunt and everybody including most journalists acknowledges that.

    3. Re:Believer's Rights? by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      No problem:
      http://news.ntv.ru/99758/
      http://www.lawlinks.ru/view_news_spb.php?id=29775 ...

      There's a small problem: you need to read Russian :)

  3. Re:In Soviet Russia... by lecithin · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia...

    They didn't have this problem.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
  4. Theory by DrugCheese · · Score: 4, Funny

    A giant meatball slipped off that plate and thus our earth was born.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:Theory by eln · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Re:Theory by Qubit · · Score: 3, Funny
      A giant meatball slipped off that plate and thus our earth was born.
      Are you trying to say that the Earth was created when the FSM's balls dropped?

      Speaking of which, maybe man was created when God went through puberty and...umm...you know, did a little too much "one-handed websurfing". I mean, doesn't the bible say that he sowed his seed all over the land?
      --

      coding is life /* the rest is */
  5. The frivolous lawsuit virus by BDPrime · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sweet! It looks like Russians have caught the frivolous lawsuit virus. I guess we must have won the Cold War after all.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. The schools name is by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cervantes Gymnasium. Am I the only one that thought "that must be where the Soul Calibur people go to train."

    I sincerely apologize for any pain the above pun may have caused.

    1. Re:The schools name is by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cervantes Gymnasium. Am I the only one that thought "that must be where the Soul Calibur people go to train."

      I bet most Slashdotters don't know the following, which comes from http://www.dictionary.com/

      Gymnasium - An academic high school in some central European countries, especially Germany, that prepares students for the university.

      The term is used a lot in the former Soviet Union. I've heard it used in Ukraine to describe what we in America would call "high school".

  9. 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
  10. OMG! by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come back Commies! All is forgiven!

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  11. Re:other theories by FellowConspirator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Correction: the other proposals for the development of life on earth are conjectures, not theories (scientific or otherwise). Further, Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. That hypotheses has well withstood credible scrutiny and attempts to disprove it, and so is considered a theory (mind you, the modern understanding of the theory is quite more involved than Darwin would have imagined). Darwin never created a theory for the origin of life.

  12. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  13. 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.

  14. Obligatory by hellfire · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Russia, the theory evolves you!

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  15. Our magical overlords.... by bgog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why stop at biology. I suggest an alternative to physics. Magic. Specifically the evocation school. Man a 4d6 fireball would do wonders for the worlds energy problems.

  16. Russian Evolution Joke Toolkit by adimarco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here, start with this simple formula - "In Soviet Russia, [direct object] [transitive verb]s YOU!"

    Insert words relevant to evolution or intelligent design. Bam! Instant humor. Be the envy of your friends and coworkers.

    --

    "I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
  17. Species and life aren't the same thing by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ain't it funny his writing was entitled, "The Origin of the Species." When he did not mean origin. Heh. Actually when he said species, he didn't mean life, he meant Species . i.e. Why the various living beings are all physically different from one another and not an amorphous grey goop.

    --
    Deleted
  18. Re:other theories by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh... you mean, it's only the god-given right of you creationists to present your "theory" as a fact? :-)

  19. 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
  20. 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."
  21. More on-topic this time... by copponex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    (from Jesus Camp)

    MOM: (reading from "Exploring Creationism with Physical Science") One popular thing to do in American Politics is to note that the summers in the United States over the past few years have been very warm. As a result, global warming must be real. What's wrong with this reasoning?
    KID: It's only gone up 0.6 degrees.
    MOM: Yeah, it's not really a big problem, is it?
    KID: No. I don't think that... it's going to hurt us.
    MOM: It's a huge political issue, global warming is, and that's why it's really important for you to understand...
    KID: Is evolution too?
    MOM: Um, not really. On a much...
    KID: Creationism?
    MOM: Um, it's becoming one now. What if you had to go to school where the teacher said, "Creationism is stupid, and you're stupid if you believe in it?"
    KID: I think they should...
    MOM: Well, or what if you had to go to a school where the teacher said "Evolution is stupid, and you're stupid if you believe it?"
    KID: I wouldn't mind that.
    MOM: You wouldn't mind it. If you look at Creationism, it's the only possible answer to all the questions. It's the only possible answer.
    KID: That's exactly what dad said!
    MOM: Mmm hmmm, it's the only possible answer to all the questions.
    KID: Oh, yeah...
    MOM: Oh, yeah.
    MOM: Did you get to the part on here where it says that science doesn't prove anything? And it's really interesting when you look at it that way.
    KID: It is?
    MOM: It is.
    KID: (reading further) I think, personally, that Galileo made the right choice by giving up science for Christ.
    (later)
    MOM: We know when things started changing, you know, prayer got taken out of school, and um... the schools started falling apart. And now the rest of us are going, wait a minute, where is my country? Our firm belief is, there are two types of people: those who love Jesus and those who don't.

  22. Two-Track Science Curriculum by Ardipithecus · · Score: 3, Funny
    Piece of cake, except for /.ting close minded geeks:

    For those who require the greater challenge, who have open minds, and the strength to question and see beyond the well-worn path:

    Track A: The four basic elements, Roman numerals, epicycles, alchemy, leeches, phlogiston, aether, UFOs, WMDs, Great Poets, Atlantis, etc.

    For the blinder loving set,

    Track B: Calculus, Diff Eqs, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Western Civ, etc

    By not putting all the eggs in one basket, there's a better chance of success.

  23. Re:other theories by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Informative

    No.
    Evolutionists do not believe it started randomly.

    They have seen evidence of natural selection.

    They have fossil records that coordinate with geologic and other records showing a lack of human fossils fairly recently in history. Predictions made based on plate theory and other models of historical geology have been tested successfully.

    The fossil record shows various waves of complex creatures but once you get back far enough, the creatures become simpler and more primitive.

    Natural selection provides a reasonable explanation for how creatures can change from a mouse type creature to an elephant type creature in only about 10,000 years. We have observed new species to come into existence in our life time. We have strong evidence from dna that humans had severe pinch points in the very recent past and that we only existed as a species for a couple million years at most.

    However-- evolution theory says NOTHING about the start.
    Basically it only says that creatures who reproduce more have more children and so their children eventually become the population.
    Given random mutations which have no affect in reproductive fitness, the random mutations will be carried.
    Given random mutations that lower reproductive fitness, they will disappear (at a speed relative to how harmful they are).
    Given beneficial mutations that increase reproductive fitness, those creatures with those mutations will rapidly come to dominate a population.

    Looking at the record the best you can say is "it's likely that creatures were very simple before the earliest hard records.

    However- it directly confronts religious text since it pretty much says man did not exist and "near men" did exist in pre-religious times. Just like a religion that says the earth is the center of the universe is provably WRONG, any religion that seriously says man only existed for under the last 10,000 years is provably wrong.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  24. 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!
  25. 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.

  26. 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

  27. Re:other theories by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're mixing and matching. The Theory of Evolution is not, and will never be, proven. But evolution itself, is proven. We have the fossil record to show how various creatures have evolved over time. It is only the mechanism(s) that cause or influence this process that is not proven. The act itself is a fact.

    Same thing with gravity. We know gravity is real. We can measure it, we can experience. However, the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity are not proven and will never be. All these theroies do, as the Wiki indicated, is lay out a testable, verifiable process which best explains how these facts come about.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  28. 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.
  29. Re:In Soviet Russia... by freeweed · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course not. Darwinian evolution was a non-issue during much of the Soviet Era, thanks to Lysenko and his influence with the highest levels of government.

    Mass starvation ensued. Ignore Mr. Darwin at your own peril, folks.

    Obligatory karma whoring Wikipedia link.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  30. 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
  31. Re:Sure! Here's your alternative by deevnil · · Score: 3, Informative

    Capitalism is sort of a religion, everybody treads the mill hoping that one day someone will notice what a hard worker they are and promote them. Predictably, you are rewarded with more work, and your motivator is instead compensated for a wonderful job. Don't talk shit about capitalism though or the wealthy will tear into you about the day or two they had to actually do something and broke a sweat. You'll never hear the end of it.

  32. Anti-Evolution Suit by DeadboltX · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where can I buy one of these Anti-Evolution Suits?
    Will it protect my DNA from evolving and prevent my offspring from, say, developing a 3rd eye?