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."
Sure! Here's your alternative (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sure! Here's your alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
other theories (Score:2)
Those other "theories" are not "scientific theories"
.Re:other theories (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:other theories (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:other theories (Score:5, Insightful)
The makers of Airplanes and Zeppelins are usually on a tighter schedule than evolution is.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:other theories (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re:other theories (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't you campaign against that? All those teachers teaching that things fall down as fact
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:other theories (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is such a cop-out, when evolution-skeptics try to crea
Re: (Score:3)
This is a fascinating phenomenon. If you talk to a biologist, he'll most likely laugh at this claim. Evolutionary changes exist on a continuum. Creationists have taken that portion of the continuum that is so obvious that nobody could argue against it (even though creationists were more than happy to fight it back in the good old days) and renamed it "adaptation" to separate it off and keep evolution as a dirty word. They have
Re: (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.
Scie
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, dogs prove ID, since they've been bred for specific purposes by humans.
Re: (Score:3)
Hardly. If the specifics of their religion contradict reality, then reality wins.
Failure to realise that is stupid. Don't blame me for that fact.
You are no more right than anyone else, and it shows your terribly misplaced conceit to think otherwise.
Depends on the subject. I'm much more right than most people on some obscure topic that I k
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"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 lot of peopl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Believer's Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Believer's Rights? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Believer's Rights? (Score:4, Informative)
http://news.ntv.ru/99758/ [news.ntv.ru]
http://www.lawlinks.ru/view_news_spb.php?id=29775 [lawlinks.ru]
There's a small problem: you need to read Russian
Theory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Theory (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
That's disgusting! We need to get this filth off the shelves! Won't somebody think of the children?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The frivolous lawsuit virus (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
- John
Re: (Score:2)
They are on the specific articles of absolute faith. How can two Christians have differing articles of absolute faith unless at least one of them is wrong?
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: (Score:2)
I would disagree. I think you believe God created man. The problem is that, given your statement, it doesn't appear that you have any doubt whatsoever as to the truth of your conviction. This is a good demonstration of faith.
I would have to disagree again here. In adopting faith, you have closed the door on any kind of reevaluation of anything you already have faith in.
Re: (Score:3)
When you believe something strongly enough, you kno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
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: (Score:2)
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:If your faith is so weak... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you routinely believe in everything that you nothing about?
The schools name is (Score:5, Funny)
I sincerely apologize for any pain the above pun may have caused.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The schools name is (Score:4, Informative)
I bet most Slashdotters don't know the following, which comes from http://www.dictionary.com/ [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".
Re: (Score:2)
This is awesome! (Score:2)
Religious Warfare in Russia (Score:2)
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.
Species and life aren't the same thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, the title is entirely accurate: it is about The Origin of Species , as in the origin of the wide variety of different kinds of plants animals; a reasonable rephrasing might be "The Origin of Diversity"; it is not titled The Origin of Life.
OMG! (Score:5, Funny)
Here's Something Inflammatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution of the courts... (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
Our magical overlords.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Russian Evolution Joke Toolkit (Score:5, Funny)
Insert words relevant to evolution or intelligent design. Bam! Instant humor. Be the envy of your friends and coworkers.
Header misstates article (Score:2)
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.
More on-topic this time... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Two-Track Science Curriculum (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's brilliant! Imagine the research papers that could come from the A track:
... and countless others
Amazing (Score:2)
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
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.
Big relief (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Theory? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Grrr! (Score:2)
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!
Anti-Evolution Suit (Score:4, Funny)
Will it protect my DNA from evolving and prevent my offspring from, say, developing a 3rd eye?
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Funny)
They didn't have this problem.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Informative)
Mass starvation ensued. Ignore Mr. Darwin at your own peril, folks.
Obligatory karma whoring Wikipedia link. [wikipedia.org]
Soviet Mass Starvation was mostly deliberate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Er, the "failure of the broken political system" was a direct result of the fact that the political system was based on and promoted adherence to acceptable ideological dogma as the ba
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, can't say that. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are you frick'in kidding me?!?!
The biologists had ALL of the best supplements for building muscle and speen! And those guys were FAST!!! No way, man! The Biologists are SCARY: they are not geeks!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Acetyl-CoA + 3NAD+ + FAD + GDP + Pi + 2H2O + CoA-SH -> 2CoA-SH + 3NADH + 3H+ + FADH2 + GTP + 2CO2 + H2O
We biologists are geeks too, of course. We just do things the hard way (the long, hard, wet, and salty way -- if you like).
Re: (Score:2)
Bonus point for trivia, but my guess is that this involves a recent convert to some form of Protestant evangelicalism, and hence the nutty posturing.
The Orthodox church doesn't have the kind of problems reconciling itself with science. Not that the typical Russian today is very religeous.