Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Government The Courts Science News

First Russian Anti-Evolution Suit Enters Court Room 485

Posted by Zonk
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Russian Anti-Evolution Suit Enters Court Room

Comments Filter:
  • by jfengel (409917) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:11PM (#17259406) Homepage Journal
    If you don't like Darwinism, you're welcome to try Lysenkoism [skepdic.com]. 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.
  • 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

    Those other "theories" are not "scientific theories"

    .
    • Re:other theories (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FellowConspirator (882908) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:28PM (#17259678)
      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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Steppman2 (1029992)
      As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven, with no specific reference to creationism...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory.
      • by drxenos (573895)
        Well, that's because Evolution is fact.
      • by IllForgetMyNickSoonA (748496) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:46PM (#17259968)
        Oh... you mean, it's only the god-given right of you creationists to present your "theory" as a fact? :-)
      • Re:other theories (Score:5, Insightful)

        by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:46PM (#17259984) Homepage Journal
        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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ArcherB (796902)
          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.

          Which would explain the the parent post is asking that evolution is not presented as fact, but as a theory, much like the theory of relativity, the big bang theory and so on are all presented as theories. Unfortunately, I've seen too many instances where evolution is presente
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by It'sYerMam (762418)
            For sake of succinctness, in my experience, most of our scientific theories are presented as fact. Have we proven that photosynthesis takes place in the mechanism we believe it does? How about that cells have a phospholipid bilayer? That the universal law of gravitation is universal? All of these are presented as facts, but, in reality, we have simply made repeated observations that imply they are true, and none that imply they are not.
          • Re:other theories (Score:4, Insightful)

            by JohnFluxx (413620) on Friday December 15, 2006 @04:30PM (#17260676)
            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
        • by PopeRatzo (965947)
          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.
      • >As a creationist, I'd be content with a statement saying that evolution isn't proven

        so you'd be content with a lie, then?

        evolution is a fact. get over it. you are wrong about creationism and no amount of whinging can change a fact.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by buhatkj (712163)
          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.
      • by tomjen (839882)
        As a member of the flat earth society, I would be content with a saying, that it has not been proven that the earth is round - with no reference to to a flat earth...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory.
      • Therein lies a problem. Evolution is not taught as a fact, it's taught as a theory - in the scientific sense of the term. Science deals with theories and models that can be used to describe and predict natural phenomenon. Scientists don't generally assert that anything is a "fact" in the absolute sense, because doing so would imply that a model is so complete and perfect that it couldn't be further refined or characterized. Natural selection is a theory because it presents a coherent model of a natural phen
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by shark72 (702619)

        "most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory."

        Congratulations... you're officially the millionth person to misunderstand the use of the word "theory." Those who would like to read along can type "dict theory" into their Firefox URL bar:

        The "theory" in "theory of evolution" refers to the first definition of the word:

        a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

        A lot of peopl

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        evolution isn't proven...most of us just have a problem with it being taught as a fact instead of a theory.

        It hasn't been proven that selection, natural or otherwise, can act on genetic variation to drive divergent change, leading to speciation? That's been proven, shown, witnessed, documented, reproduced, studied, published, talked about, and probably everything short of being made into an opera starring Pavarotti.

        The problem is that creationists and ID folk want not just their own opinion, but t

  • Believer's Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MECC (8478) * on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:12PM (#17259422)
    "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.

    • 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?

      I don't know about Russia, but I do believe more than a few european countries do have laws that limit speech about religion, race, etc. I am thinking about a recent case of a Swedish pastor who came under charges for asserting that homosexuality was wrong. I would think with laws like that on the books, this may get more of a heari
    • by Salvance (1014001) * on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:28PM (#17259680) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:28PM (#17259684)
      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.
  • Theory (Score:5, Funny)

    by DrugCheese (266151) * on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:13PM (#17259428)
    A giant meatball slipped off that plate and thus our earth was born.
    • Re:Theory (Score:4, Funny)

      by eln (21727) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:29PM (#17259702) Homepage
      Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Qubit (100461)
      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?
      • 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?

        That's disgusting! We need to get this filth off the shelves! Won't somebody think of the children?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by drinkypoo (153816)
        I don't know about that but any good Stephenson fanboy knows that thousands of years before christianity was even thought of, Enki created rivers when he whacked off. Everything in christianity was ripped off from some prior religion. Christianity has really only one differentiating feature: The golden rule. It goes beyond simply saying "don't do things to other people that you don't want done to you" - it specifically says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It differs in that the admonish
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Ngarrang (1023425)
      I believe you might be insulting the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org]. His Noodily Appendage did not "slip" the meatball from the plate, it was thrust forcefully because it was not worth to touch the plate of His Noodiliness.
  • by BDPrime (1012761) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:15PM (#17259456) Homepage
    Sweet! It looks like Russians have caught the frivolous lawsuit virus. I guess we must have won the Cold War after all.
  • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:15PM (#17259458) Journal
    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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JohnSearle (923936)
      Who am I to say how God created man
      Or perhaps, who are you to say whether God created man...?

      - John
    • by wasabii (693236)
      Curiously, how does one "believe in ID?" Seriously, explain your view.
      • by ArcherB (796902)
        Curiously, how does one "believe in ID?" Seriously, explain your view.

        Since you asked:
        It's quite simple really. God created the heavens and the earth and all the oceans, seas, lands, and plants and creatures. What is not explained is how. That's where science comes in.

        Don't take my word for it. The best philosophers in history have argued for and against first cause [wikipedia.org]. I'm a mental midget compared to some of these guys. And unless your name is Descartes (pronounced Day-Cart), I'm guessing you are as wel
    • by monoqlith (610041) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:31PM (#17259738)
      Humans are now technically viewed great apes( part of the family Hominidae [wikipedia.org]). 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.

      • by monoqlith (610041)
        Excuse me, the common ancestor was ape-like.
      • by cje (33931)

        What evoluton does not claim:

        2. God didn't create the planet or the universe.

        This is, of course, completely true.

        However, if you believe that the entire universe is only a few thousand years old, as many extreme Christians do, then you could make the case that biological evolutionary common descent implies that God didn't create the planet and the universe (although, in truth, the same could be said about pretty much any branch of natural science). The problem is that a lot of the afore-mentioned extreme Ch

      • by Coryoth (254751) on Friday December 15, 2006 @04:11PM (#17260368) Homepage Journal
        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)
  • by kent_eh (543303) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:16PM (#17259488)
    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.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:19PM (#17259524) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Now all the people who don't believe in evolution can make sure they wear the Russian anti-evolution suit and buy some extra ones for their descendents. That way, they can be sure that they're still human a few millenia from now when the rest of us are all sporting extra noses and are mostly giant brains floating in strange liquid-filled glass cases...
  • What I think makes this article interesting is the history of religious warfare we've seen in Russia over the years. It sounds like things are heating up there again.
  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:22PM (#17259596) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • OMG! (Score:5, Funny)

    by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:23PM (#17259612) Journal
    Come back Commies! All is forgiven!
  • I get the impression that the "Intelligent Design" movement has received widespread and fairly eclectic promotion around the globe, and that we can expect to see similar ID-inspired anti-intellectualism in most of the developed world (there is already more than enough regular anti-intellectualism in most of the under-developed world). I think it is at least somewhat interesting to compare the spread and spreaders of ID with the spread of Qutbism. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have many ID'ers goin
    • 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

  • I'm surprised that Darwinism knocked Marxism off the "must promulgate to death" educational list and that it's being battled in the courts instead of the streets. I guess this is American democracy at work in Russia.
  • Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)

    by hellfire (86129) <deviladv@PASCALgmail.com minus language> on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:36PM (#17259820) Homepage
    In Russia, the theory evolves you!
  • by bgog (564818) * on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:40PM (#17259878) Journal
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Coryoth (254751)

      Why stop at biology. I suggest an alternative to physics.

      Not that hard to do, as long as you're using ID style reasoning: pick some holes, or currently poorly understood areas (which, let's face it, every field of science has), rattle on about them for a while, then leap across the false dichotomy and claim that, since the current theory fails to explain things therefore your alternative must be the truth! Gravity is a lie! Teach the Controversy! [kuro5hin.org] (complete with entirely valid references to peer reviewed phy

  • by adimarco (30853) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:41PM (#17259888) Homepage
    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.
  • 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."

    Not "theories" -- "other versions of humanity's origin,"

    That's the whole point, isn't it? That creationism isn't a scientific theory?

    It's perfectly reasonable to teach other "versions" in a comparative religion and folklore course.
  • by copponex (13876) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:52PM (#17260058) Homepage
    (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.
  • by Ardipithecus (985280) on Friday December 15, 2006 @03:56PM (#17260110)
    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.

    • That's brilliant! Imagine the research papers that could come from the A track:


      • Why Atomic Weapons Shouldn't Work
      • Remote Viewing As A Safe Replacement For Satelite Surveillance
      • Magnesia and Castor Oil - The Only Physics You Really Need

      ... and countless others

  • by J05H (5625)
    It's amazing how nobody in the press or these unlettered savages can tell the difference between evolution (change through time) and the origin of life? They are totally different issues and very different fields of study.

    Evolution is proven fact, otherwise corn, dogs and dolphins wouldn't exist. If evolution wasn't an ongoing process then you would be an exact clone of your mother. Every time two lifeforms mate, they perform an act of evolution. Life originated somewhere, that's also a fact. Did it origina
  • by Shados (741919) on Friday December 15, 2006 @04:07PM (#17260284)
    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.
  • As an american it's comforting to know ignorance isn't limited to this country it's a universal concept.
    • by Shados (741919)
      I think we need to come up with the theory of Devolution. Because its what is happening to man kind now. We hit our pinacle, and now we're back tracking. I'm going to laugh from my grave when a hardcore christian's kid is born with a tail and brown fur.
  • Theory? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SQLz (564901) on Friday December 15, 2006 @04:15PM (#17260448) Homepage Journal
    "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."

    No, there is only one theory about the origins of life. The theory is called the theory of evolution. Creation is based on old testament fables passed down from generation to generation by the tribes of Israel and put to text by scribes. The stories are supposed to teach deep lessons to the unwashed masses about what it means to be a person, not offer a theory on the creation of life. To come away from the book of genesis with the idea that God created the earth in 7 days means you completely missed the lessons the author was trying to teach. This is the reason why I think Christians are way off track, they have a totally wrong interpretation of Jewish texts. Maybe they should ask a Rabbi for help.

  • Origin of Life theories != Evolution != Natural Selection (Darwin's theory)

    I hate when people get these 3 distinct things all mixed up. Darwin never even used the word "evolution". Evolution was recognized as occuring LONG before the theory of Natural Selection was proposed to explain it, and Darwin (to my knowledge) never even broached the subject of where life came from in the first place.

    Arrrrgh!
  • by DeadboltX (751907) on Friday December 15, 2006 @07:00PM (#17262808)
    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?

Happiness is a positive cash flow.

Working...