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.
No. Archive.
Since EVERY academically trained scientist in America believes wholeheartedly in Darwinism, WHY are we losing ground to just about everybody else in biological research?
Because we have too many religion-addled fools for parents who are dead set against teaching science to their children if that science conflicts with their religious myths. That's why.
Not enough Americans in the field.
Two reasons: poor preparation and lack of funding for students.
As for the poor preparation...I've seen it first hand in trying to teach first year college bio. HS teachers seem to tiptoe around anything that might get Creationists upset, so the kids come in knowing very little in areas that touch on evolution. Then I waste time explaining that in bio class you have to study what biologists think, not argue about it before you even begin to understand it.
"The freedom of the uneducated and superstitious serf."
Perhaps to you, but freedom none the less. Do you not believe that tax-paying Christian and Jewish parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their convictions?
Darwinist think THEY know what's best for other people's children and DEMAND that nothing but their ideas be taught.
That is tyrany, pure and simple.
"Darwinist think THEY know what's best for other people's children and DEMAND that nothing but their ideas be taught."
Teach your kids whatever you want. Send them to private school, or home-school them.
But if you're going to send them to a school paid for by my tax dollars, then I'm going to make damn sure that those kids learn something useful and productive.
Someday, hopefully in the far future, I'm going to be dying on a hospital bed somewhere, and will depend on doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical manufacturers, etc., to give me more time. When that happens, I want to have the brightest, most capable minds of the next generation at my disposal.
I won't need them praying for me and telling me that God has a plan. I'll need them to freakin' *repair* me. They will be much less effective in the latter task if they believe I was assembled by an omnipotent creator whose plan is outside their intellectual grasp.
No fear. It is just inappropriate. We don't discuss scriptures when we talk about physics. Why talk about magic when we discuss evolution?
Creationism belongs in mythology/philosophy class.
But this is generally good news. The Ruskies will fall further behind in bio research.
So do American Indians. So do Hindus. So do Buddhists. Do we teach all their creation myths as part of science as well?
Belief in creationism did not hinder the scientific revolution, nor did it hinder the multitudes of Christian doctors and nurses who helped bring the medical arts to the current state.
You have no way of knowing the adverse affect of teaching Creationism as science. And there is no inherent conflict between belief in Evolution and being a Christian. This is a canard you guys toss out there from time to time.
My old friend of mine in a doctor at John's Hopkins and is much in demand. His research has literally brought the hospital millions. He is a Creationist.
Name him.
Eventually here will come a point at which you can't be "repaired". If you have not made peace with God through Christ before you die then you will face and eternity separated from Him.
A nice sentiment. Has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but it is nice.
Yep, and you're welcome to push your education curriculum preferences on public schools with the power of tax dollars. I'm also welcome to push mine. In neither case is this "tyranny" of any kind.
Belief in creationism did not hinder the scientific revolution, nor did it hinder the multitudes of Christian doctors and nurses who helped bring the medical arts to the current state. [...] My old friend of mine in a doctor at John's Hopkins and is much in demand. His research has literally brought the hospital millions. He is a Creationist.
I'm not talking about the skills of individual scientists, inventors, doctors, and so on. Given that we're discussing the teaching of children, I'm talking about preparing our youth for success and increasing their likelihood of someday becoming valuable members of society.
It is harder to reconcile Creationism with observable real-world phenomena and known engineering practices (homeomorphisms, recombinatory genetics, etc.) than it is to reconcile evolutionary theory with said phenomena. Teaching Creationism therefore makes it needlessly more difficult for children to grow up to become successful pharmaceutical researchers, for example (note I didn't say impossible by any means, simply more difficult).
If you have not made peace with God through Christ before you die then you will face and eternity separated from Him.
Sounds like nobody's problem but my own.
"Those who live by superstition lower themselves to the animal level and negate the very reason for freedom."
You infer those who disagree with you are "animals" who believe in "fairy tales" and you still can't see they tyranical nature of your ideology???
> Do you not believe that tax-paying Christian and Jewish parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their convictions?
Sure. But they do *not* have the right to lie about science or force their religion into the public classroom, anymore than the Scientologists or Muslims do.
> Darwinist think THEY know what's best for other people's children ...
Incorrect. "Darwinists" think they know what science has revealed about the origin of species. And so far, they seem to be correct. Nobody has yet come up with a viable alternative theory.
> You infer those who disagree with you are "animals" who believe in "fairy tales"
Two points:
1) What are they, if not animals? Plants? Minerals? Robots? Sorry, but humans *are* animals. Primates to be a bit more precise.
2) Do you have a problem calling, say, a Wiccans beliefs in the supernatural "fairy tales?" Do you think that someone who refers to an animst as having fairy-tale beliefs is somehow being "tyrannical?"
In mythology or theology class, sure. But that discussion doesn't belong in a science class.
"And there is no inherent conflict between belief in Evolution and being a Christian. This is a canard you guys toss out there from time to time."
I assure you, there is. Jesus referred to Adam and Even as real, historical people.
Non sequiteur response (although I am curious where Christ spoke directly about Adam and Eve as historical people -- please provide a citation).
I certainly will not. He is a private individual and not a member of FR.
So you made him up.
"Has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but it is nice."
Reread the post I replied to. He was speaking of end-of-life situations.
No, he was speaking of having unqualified people acting as health practitioners. You were the one who brought up the theological end of life statement. And it still has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
That's great!
Do they get to wear red kerchief around their neck?
Oh, the good old days.
That's great!
Do they get to wear red kerchiefs around their neck?
Oh, the good old days.
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.