Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Russian Anti-Evolution Suit Enters Court Room

Posted by Zonk on from the popular-thing-to-do dept.

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."

8 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 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.

  2. 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.
  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. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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.