Posted on 03/13/2006 10:10:03 AM PST by SirLinksalot
By Claire Bigg
A 15-year-old Russian schoolgirl has filed a court action to demand that creationism feature in the school biology curriculum, alongside Darwin's evolutionary theory of the origins of life. The idea of introducing creationist views into the classroom seems to find sympathy among a number of Russians, particularly young people. Religious zeal, scientific ignorance, or simple bravado -- what makes young people reject the long-enshrined theory of evolution?
MOSCOW, March 10, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Maria, a schoolgirl from St. Petersburg, is demanding that the Russian Education Ministry rewrite biology textbooks to include the view of creationism -- the belief that God created the universe and all living beings as described in the Bible.
Teaching only the theory of evolution, she says, violates freedom of conscience and religious rights, and therefore runs counter to the constitution.
Tired Of A Secular Curriculum
Schraiber is assisted in her lawsuit by her father, Kirill, and by three lawyers representing the Russian Orthodox, Muslim, and Jewish faiths.
Like in Western countries, the curriculum taught in state schools in Russia is strictly secular. A number of young Russians, however, are not opposed to seeing that change.
Aleksandr, a 19-year-old Moscow student, fully backs Schraiber's initiative. "It seems like a very good thing to me," he said. "Inner spiritual development should definitely have its place in education. I think notions such as ethics should also be included [in the school curriculum]. These are very useful things."
Sergei, a 22-year-old working for a construction firm, does not believe in evolution theories. He says schools should teach children more about religion, without however falling into proselytizing. "I think that God exists," Sergei said. "It is 100 percent clear that we do not descend from the ape, according to Darwin's theory. I am in favor of teaching topics in school that would enable people to choose themselves what religion they will adhere to, without leaning towards one religion in particular."
And Anastasiya, a 17-year-old student, agrees that the theory of divine creation should be added to the theory of evolution in the school program. "Yes, so that children can have a choice, so that they have the possibility of deciding what is closer to them, so that they make this choice themselves," she told RFE/RL.
Not all young people agreed, however. Some thought that creationism had no place in schools.
Darwin In Decline?
At Moscow's imposing Darwin Museum, creationist theories are not an option.
Schoolchildren come here to learn about how species evolved and adapted to their natural environment. On weekends and holidays, the museum, which has three floors teeming with stuffed animals and skeletons, receives about 3,000 visitors a day.
Richard Dawkins, an eminent British ethnologist, famously said that one had to be either "ignorant, stupid, or insane" to deny the theory of evolution.
The director of the Darwin Museum, Anna Klukina, is more diplomatic. But she agrees that those rejecting Darwinism do so out of gross ignorance. It seems like a very good thing to me. Inner spiritual development should definitely have its place in education -- Aleksandr, 19.
"The masses understand neither the theory of evolution nor Darwinism itself. I witness this on a regular basis. The theory of evolution is based on three postulates that cannot be called into question," she says. "The first postulate is the existence of mutability. The second postulate is the existence of the fight for survival. The third is natural selection. But for the masses, Darwinism equates to man descending from apes, and that's all. Darwin, however, never said this, that's the whole tragedy."
Contrary to the common belief that Charles Darwin's theories boil down to the descent of man from the ape, his theory of evolution stipulates that all life forms are related and have descended from a common ancestor.
Darwinism Vs. God
Klukina also firmly rejects the claim that Darwinism precludes the existence of God.
She argues that the late Pope John Paul II publicly recognized evolutionist theories, and that Darwin himself, who studied theology at Cambridge University, was a deeply religious man.
Soviet Legacy
Sociologists, however, say scientific ignorance is not the only factor behind the rejection of evolution theories in Russia.
Some say the spiritual vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its atheist ideology is at the root of this trend.
I think that God exists. It is 100 percent clear that we do not descend from the ape, according to Darwin's theory -- Sergei, 22.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels admired Darwin's theory of evolution, which they thought supported their own theory of social evolution. A simplified and somewhat "Sovietized" version of Darwinism therefore occupied pride of place in the biology curriculum of Soviet schools.
According to Lev Gudkov, a sociologist who heads the department of social and political studies at the Yuri Levada Center, creationism signals a desire to reject anything associated with Soviet times: "It is definitely a post-Soviet, exaggerated, insistence on pre-Soviet traditional views. This is observed mostly among young people and among the elderly. We discern an overall tendency towards imitational traditionalism that emerged as a reaction to the vacuum of ideas and beliefs that followed the disintegration of Soviet ideology."
A poll conducted by the Yuri Levada Center last September showed that only 26 percent of those surveyed supported the theory of evolution, while 49 percent of respondents said they believed man was created by God.
Gudkov, however, warns against taking initiatives such as Maria Schraiber's too seriously.
Since the most fervent advocates of creationism in schools seem to be teenagers and young adults, Gudkov says that efforts to publicly reject the theory of evolution is likely to be partly driven by a desire to challenge the established order.
Wrong. Parents can teach their kids whatever they want. My argument rests solely in what's taught in public schools. I am not hunting down parents who teach their kids Creation stories and sending their children off to re-education camps. Your "tyranny" argument doesn't hold any water.
Besides, I'm not interested in teaching opinion. It's not my opinion that the sky is blue; it's a plainly observable characteristic of reality. It's not my opinion that the Earth goes around the Sun; it's an inferrable fact that individuals can seek to confirm or deny based on their own experiences.
Science class is not for teaching points of view; you can relegate that to Social Studies or English. It makes no more sense to teach kids about both evolution and Creationism than it does to teach kids about the Earth being both round and flat. It's not a matter of opinion.
Then explain why home schooled Christian youth consistently score among the highest in the nation in aptitude tests...
Probably because Christian parents have a tendency of emphasizing to their children the importance of education and academics in general, and are in general more likely to make sure that they are good parents. I have no qualms with Christians and no real problem with modern Christianity; I simply don't want the theology or mythology of one particular religion taught in a public school science class.
Do you have any proof of that contention?
You want public schools to teach kids that the world was created by an intanglible all-powerful diety... and you're asking me for proof of my contentions?
It is indeed your own problem in that each one of us, individually, will have to stand before God and give an account of our lives. But it is not a problem you can solve on your own without Jesus Christ.
I'm not particularly interested in solving this so-called problem.
Your response is non-sequitar.
Ah, the good old Guilt by Association fallacy.
You know, those people used guns too. That must mean...hmm..
>>To state that studying cause and effect does not help wipe out superstition
> I didn't state that.
Really?
Me: "Conservatism means to examine cause and effect and react and plan accordingly. This has *always* meant to push superstition back, as the supernatural does not play well with cause and effect, and nor can superstition be demonstrated to have value."
You: "No."
> It doesn't hurt evolution or Darwinism to know that it was official dogma of communist states
It does hurt your standing when you state such flat-out LIES. Darwinism was *not* supported in most of the Communist world, but, instead, Lamarckism/Lysenkoism. The fact that you would so readily lie about such an easily confirmed fact demolishes any credibility you might have on this or any other topic. Slink back to DU with you.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ly/Lysenko.html
"As president of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences he became the scientific and administrative leader of Soviet agriculture. In 1937 he was made a member of the Supreme Soviet and head of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. He first became known for his process (vernalization) of moistening and refrigerating the seed of spring wheat, thereby reputedly imparting to it characteristics of winter wheat. He became the leader of the Soviet school of genetics that opposed the theories of heredity accepted by most geneticists and supported the doctrine that characteristics acquired through environmental influences are inherited (see acquired characteristics). Lysenko rejected neo-Mendelism and was a disciple of the Russian horticulturist I. V. Michurin. Lysenko’s theories were offered as Marxist orthodoxy and won the official support (1948) of the Soviet Central Committee. "
http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html
"Lysenkoism refers to an episode in Russian science featuring a non-scientific peasant plant-breeder named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko [1898-1976]. Lysenko was the leading proponent of Michurianism during the Lenin/Stalin years. I. V. Michurin, in turn, was a proponent of Lamarckism. Lamarck was an 18th century French scientist who argued for a theory of evolution long before Darwin. ...
"In any case, Michurin's views on evolution found favor with the party leadership in the Soviet Union. When the rest of the scientific world were pursuing the ideas of Mendel and developing the new science of genetics, Russia led the way in the effort to prevent the new science from being developed in the Soviet Union. Thus, while the rest of the scientific world could not conceive of understanding evolution without genetics, the Soviet Union used its political power to make sure that none of their scientists would advocate a genetic role in evolution.
"It was due to Lysenko's efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lamarckism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. Lysenko rose to dominance at a 1948 conference in Russia where he delivered a passionate address denouncing Mendelian thought as "reactionary and decadent" and declared such thinkers to be "enemies of the Soviet people" (Gardner 1957). He also announced that his speech had been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Scientists either groveled, writing public letters confessing the errors of their way and the righteousness of the wisdom of the Party, or they were dismissed. Some were sent to labor camps. Some were never heard from again. "
Not even close. Call it what you want, eventually when you guys keep trotting out this "Darwinism is trojan horse for Atheism" tripe you're going to have to answer to those points.
About the ninth time I've brought that up in the last week and not one answer.
PM is on record as saying that the Biblical creation myth is "the truth" and therefore should be taught as a theory.
There is no point in discussing anything further. But we need to make sure him and his ilk don't destroy a generation.
I certainly agree with that. They didn't like competition.
I know you are here, I can hear you hyperventilating.
You are arguing against things I never stated nor implied.
Are you saying you are not a "darwinist tyrant?"
Since the phrase is pretty meaningless, yes.
Moe importantly, from your 83 (which is what I posted to):
For the most part they are not scientist and in general they are scientifically illiterate.
If I grant your equvilance between "Darwanist Tyrant" and Evo, then name one who is scientifically illiterate. I can certainly point to CRIDers who are scientifically illiterate.
"You can't win this one."
You're right, I can't. You can't argue with someone who won't answer simple questions.
All the best to you.
Please document this, it's always been my impression that the figure was considerably lower.
"Hmm...ok, who are these "Darwinist Tyrants", then?"
The ones who use their positions of authority and infulence to shut out of the class room competing accounts of human origins.
PING
That's the whay CRIDers "argue." When you expose them -- with their own words -- they dissapear into the woodwork.
You would think they would learn they can't get away with it. Then on another thread, they will try to run the same game. If you quote their words back to them, they whine to the Mods that you are breaking the rule about "taking an argument from thread to thread."
Note: Be careful with the "L" word -- they whine about that too, even if they are busted doing so. I think PH can direct us back to the FreepSpeak lexicon...
Tell me which question I didn't answer. Just for the record.
"Tell me which question I didn't answer. Just for the record."
"Do you believe the universe has existed forever, or do you believe it come into being a finite amount of time ago in the past?"
Actually, Lysenko didn't oppose evolution. He opposed natural selection. Evolution and natural selection are not the same thing. Leftists often oppose natural selection, but embrace evolution. Conservatives often do the opposite.
Lysenko was an advocate of evolution, but for ideological reasons couldn't tolerate natural selection. So he supported Lamarckism, an earlier (than Darwin) version of evolution that rejects natural selection.
From one of your linked sources:
###Lysenkoism refers to an episode in Russian science featuring a non-scientific peasant plant-breeder named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko [1898-1976]. Lysenko was the leading proponent of Michurianism during the Lenin/Stalin years. I. V. Michurin, in turn, was a proponent of Lamarckism. Lamarck was an 18th century French scientist who argued for a theory of evolution long before Darwin.###
Ahh, your philsophical question. You are right -- I won't answer philsophical questions on a scientific thread.
The question is of no relevance. Particularly since you already know The Truth, so my opinion shouldn't matter.
Asking silly questions about non-germain issues doesn't count. What color are your eyeglss frames? When you step out of the door in the morning, do you turn right or left? Does your gum lose its flavor if you leave it on the bedpost overnight? These wuestions have as much meaning as yours.
I am NOT going to let you change the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.