First Russian Anti-Evolution Suit Enters Court Room 485
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."
Believer's Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Article even has a slant! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
If your faith is so weak... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, gotta get rid of those tempting "ideas" out there in the big bad world. Might lead a person to think.
Re:other theories (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Miscommunication on Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Never really understood why (Score:1, Insightful)
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
Re:Article even has a slant! (Score:2, Insightful)
- John
Re:If your faith is so weak... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Believer's Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Article even has a slant! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sure! Here's your alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:other theories (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Article even has a slant! (Score:1, Insightful)
As I stated, I am a Christian, which means I know that God created man. As a humble Christian, I willfully admit that I don't know how God created man, which means that I am in no position to tell anyone that they are wrong, or what they should teach in schools, and especially what they should believe themselves. 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. Such an argument would be futile anyhow as I've already claimed ignorance to the how, just not the who. And quite frankly, no one can prove the WHO one way or another anyhow.
Faith and intelligence are in no way mutually exclusive.
Re:Never really understood why (Score:1, Insightful)
Am I the only one... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
so, who's really behind this? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Article even has a slant! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Article even has a slant! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Article even has a slant! (Score:1, Insightful)
Christians, UFO nuts, and others of their ilk keep saying things like that even though they're completely incorrect, and then expect everybody to back off and not dispute the flaky beliefs they love to try and shove down our throats.
However I can cite plenty of evidence which disproves your claim; You will have a harder time supporting your own stance. Some people also love to claim that science and faith (or religion) aren't mutually exclusive either, yet even a child can see the total illogic of that argument too.
Genuinely intelligent people only accept as proven those things which are verifiable. Everything else is an unsupported hypothesis at best. You "christian scientists" will flame me for pointing that out, but that's just another piece of evidence suggesting a lack of genuine intellect.
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:other theories (Score:5, Insightful)
The makers of Airplanes and Zeppelins are usually on a tighter schedule than evolution is.
Re:other theories (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you campaign against that? All those teachers teaching that things fall down as fact
Re:other theories (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:other theories (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
School for Intelligent Design (Score:2, Insightful)
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.Re:other theories (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:other theories (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:other theories (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:other theories (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Article even has a slant! (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps, as a Christian, his fundamental axioms are different from yours. Or perhaps your axioms are very similar, but he has had different experiences in his life that lead him to different conclusions. But if you're going to go around picking on religious types insisting that they don't use the word "know" to describe their beliefs, then you better stop saying that you "know" that Antarctica exists, or that your mother gave birth to you, or that you and chimpanzees share an ancestor.
Re:other theories (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Here's what's proven (Score:3, Insightful)
As a believer, it pains me to see so many people giving Faith a bad name with this kind of dopiness.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
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.