( pe contributors aici: http://www.contributors.ro/administratie/educatie/teoria-evolutiei-trebuie-sa-se-predea-din-nou-in-scolile-din-romania/ )
Faptul că pachetul de teorii biologice cuplate prin care se explică procesul de evoluţie naturală, cunoscute în limbaj comun ca “teoria evoluţiei”, nu se mai predau de câţiva ani buni în şcoli ne plasează în afara lumii civilizate. Cauza principală a eliminării teoriei evoluţiei este imaturitatea pieţei ideilor din România, în care persoanele se raportează la teoria evoluţiei, şi nu numai, aproape exclusiv pentru utilizarea în scopuri ideologice (în acest caz particular eugeniste, ateiste sau creaţioniste) şi aproape deloc pentru un interes obiective de cunoaştere. O piaţă matură a ideilor ar permite să acceptăm social că nu există nici o incompatibilitate între creştinism, religie în general, şi teoria evoluţiei.
Faptul că pachetul de teorii biologice cuplate prin care se explică procesul de evoluţie naturală, cunoscute în limbaj comun ca “teoria evoluţiei”, nu se mai predau de câţiva ani buni în şcoli ne plasează în afara lumii civilizate. Cauza principală a eliminării teoriei evoluţiei este imaturitatea pieţei ideilor din România, în care persoanele se raportează la teoria evoluţiei, şi nu numai, aproape exclusiv pentru utilizarea în scopuri ideologice (în acest caz particular eugeniste, ateiste sau creaţioniste) şi aproape deloc pentru un interes obiective de cunoaştere. O piaţă matură a ideilor ar permite să acceptăm social că nu există nici o incompatibilitate între creştinism, religie în general, şi teoria evoluţiei.
În acest text mi-am propus să prezint contextul internaţional şi românesc
al predării teoriei darwiniene în şcoli. Câteva informaţii relevante cu privire
la predarea teoriei darwiniene în şcolile din România sunt:
- Rezoluţia Parlamentului European cu
privire la pericolele creaţionismului
- Declaraţia academiilor din lume cu
privire la predarea teoriei evoluţiei
- Situaţia în Rusia în ce priveşte
predarea teoriei evoluţiei
- Vulnerabilitatea României în ce
priveşte receptarea teoriei darwiniene
- O arhivă pentru uz personal cu
literatură de specialitate despre receptarea lui Darwin în Europa de est
şi despre situaţia creaţionismului în lume, îndeosebi în Europa.
Rezoluţia PE, declaraţia
academiilor, situaţia în Rusia
În anul 2007 Parlamentul European emitea rezoluția 1580 cu privire la
pericolele creaționismului, în care se face referire și la declarația cu
privire la predarea teoriei evoluției semnată de numeroase academii din lume (prezentată
în Anexa 1 a acestui text). Pe plan internațional utilizarea ideologică a
teoriei darwiniene este la ora actuală respinsă nu doar de către biologi de
valoare excepțională care lucrează în domeniul evoluției ca Stephen Jay Gold (“Nonoverlapping
Magisteria” aici
), dar și de către cvasi-totalitatea oamenilor de știință din lume (Anexa 2,
declarația Academiilor de științe).
Academia Română, Academia Rusiei și Academia Ucrainei sunt singurele
academii din țări importante ortodoxe care (după cum rezultă de aici) nu au semnat documentul
la care se face referire în articolul 20 al rezoluției PE. În 2006 teoria
evoluției biologice fusese deja eliminată din programa de liceu de către
ministrul Hărdău, iar în Rusia începuse o acțiune sistematică pentru eliminarea
ei. Situația din Rusia arată la ce folosise eliminarea învățării teoriei
evoluției, citez dintr-un autor rus (Konashev 2008):
“The
role of main
exposer and prosecutor
of the evolutionary theory
was voluntary undertaken
by Russian Orthodox
Church. The head
of Russian orthodox church,
the Most holy
Patriarch Moscow and
all Russia Alex
of II, has officially declared:
“Comprehension by the
person, that he is
a wreath of
God’s creation, - only ennobles him and if somebody wants to
think that he has descend from the monkey - let so to think, but do not impose
these views to others”
In
the beginning of February 2006 at press conference devoted to past Christmas
readings in the Kremlin, the manager of
the Moscow patriarchy metropolitan of Kaluga and of Borov Kliment has called to
people to refuse old textbooks of biology in which the origin of the man is
treated from the point of view of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This appeal
has been heard.
One of the
most typical and
loud, sensational anti-darwinian event became court hearing
under the claim of the schoolgirl of 10-th class of 148-th grammar school of
Saint-Petersburg, Masha Shrajber
against Darwin. Charges
of the evolutionary theory in all mortal sins have
captivated the Internet. In particular on one of web-sites it has been declared
the godless character of darwinism.
Many
books on “the orthodox concept of evolutionary biology” were printed instead of
that on the darwinian theory of evolution. That is simply
the renewed doctrine
of creation of the universe.
A lot of
translations of foreign similar products,
including that devoted
“scientific creationism”, are
published too.
Simultaneously Russian Orthodox
Church at first
gradually and then
more and more
openly and persistently press
for introduction in
schools of new course
that is so-called
“Bases of orthodox culture”, as a
matter of fact, the notorious God’s law
The
official purpose of Russian Orthodox Church is following: “From the orthodox
point of view it
is desirable, that
all education system has
been constructed on
the religious foundations and
based on Christian values”
Informal
super task of Russian orthodox church is not only to appropriate that place
(and function) which in a society of “real socialism” the ideological device
of the communist
party of the
Soviet Union (CPSU)
had, including corresponding departments
of the Central
Committee of the CPSU,
but also, finally,
to determine “a general line” of the development of Russia and to stop
any possible deviations from this line.
Total
rejection of “Soviet Utopia” and “Soviet myth” in the post soviet Russia
demanded refusal of the
evolutionary theory. The
same logic demanded not
simply returning to old
regimes and traditions of imperial Russia. With inevitability it was necessary
to surpass them and to build a certain reserve of durability. One of official
modern ideologists wrote in 2003: “Only a formation of information “special
troops” will allow Russia to avoid the hugest losses and do not repeat mistakes
of 1914-1917”
As
a result old, already once the gone bankrupt formula, that
is “autocracy, Orthodoxy
and nationality” have
been revived and
only slightly renewed”
Vulnerabilitatea României în
privinţa receptării corecte a teoriei darwiniene
În România până acum a fost dificil să receptezi doar partea științifică a
teoriei darwiniene, decuplată de instrumentalizările ei ideologice pseudo-științifice
inevitabile social. Presiunea socială asupra intelectualilor este de a te
poziționa ca ateist sau creaționist şi se reflectă și asupra atitudinii
oamenilor de știință.
Biologii români au adoptat în timp:
- fie poziții eugeniste la catedră, cu excese ideologizante în textele lor
nu doar jenante, ci şi periculoase (a se vedea lucările istoricului Marius
Turda, link; recent s-a publicat şi o traducere a unei
din cărţile sale la Ed. Polirom: aici;
un detaliu semnificativ este acordul patriarhului Miron Cristea la
instituționalizarea eugenismului),
- fie ateiste (tipic este cazul lui Nicolae Botnariuc în contextul
stalinist coordonat de Traian Săvulescu în știința română, reverberat în
manuale școlare și lucrări de popularizare proletcultiste în perioada
comunistă din anii ‘50 şi ‘60),
- fie creaționiste (cazul lui Nicolae Paulescu în antebelic, urmat
de noii biologi creaționiști după 1989).
Textele materialist dialectice, staliniste și prolet-cultiste, dar și cele
creaționiste ale unor biologi români pot fi citite la Biblioteca Centrală
Universitară și Biblioteca Academiei. Un studiu istoric detaliat al doamnei
Oghină-Pavie de la Universitatea din Rennes cu privire la lysenkoismul în
România (distorsionare a teoriei evoluției în anii 50) este în curs de apariție
într-un volum ce va fi publicat la o editură internațională de prestigiu.
Despre cele petrecute în biologia sovietică şi românească în acea perioadă a
publict încă din perioada comunismului şi cercetătorul emigrat Denis Buican. În
România doar s-au construit şi distrus cariere pe aceste baze ideologice, însă
în alte ţări consecinţele au fost mult mai grave. O arhivă pentru uz personal
cu articole relevante pentru receptarea lui Darwin în România și Europa de est
(între care și articolul citat al lui Konashev) se poate descărca de aici: link. O arhivă pentru uz personal cu articole cu
privire la situația creaționismului în lume și în particular în Europa se poate
descărca de aici: link.
Din punct de vedere strict ştiinţific contribuția biologiei românești la
dezvoltarea teoriei evoluției biologice în ultimii 150 de ani pe plan
internațional este, în ansamblu, extrem de redusă, cu excepția eforturilor unor
cercetători emigrați din țară și a unor cercetări efectuate după 1989, după
ieșirea din izolare și racordarea la comunitatea internațională. Ca rezultat majoritatea
oamenilor vorbesc din cărţi, nu şi pe baza propriilor cercetări şi lucrări
ştiinţifice.
În aceste condiţii nu este suprinzător că BOR nu are încă specialiștii
necesari în toate domeniile ștințifice care să îi permită să realizeze
caracterul de impostură al creaționismului. Există, totuşi, o delimitare instituțională a
BOR de creaționism în primul pe criterii de bun simț (“Falsa problemă a
predării creaționismului”, link). Ceea ce nu se poate susține în această poziție
a BOR din perspectiva omului de știință este doar faptul că teoria evoluției
este în mod necesar ideologizată; nu, ea se poate face foarte bine ca hard science, după cum o dovedesc
publicațiile de specialitate – existența fenomenului evoluției nu este mai
ipotetică decât existența atomilor, electronilor, a universului ca model folositor al lumii, capabil de explicare
și uneori de predicție, furnizat de științele naturii printr-o metodologie bine
precizată. Cu precizarea că lumea nu se reduce la acest model al universului,
fapt pe care îl resping adepţii abordărilor scientiste frecvent şi ateiste.
Ideologizarea educației științifice și religioase a cetățenilor este o
vulnerabilitate importantă a României. Oamenii de știință, filosofii științei
și teologii au datoria civică să facă tot ce depinde de ei pentru ca ideologiile
care susțin autoritarismele de orice formă, cu consecințele lor distructive
asupra libertății de gândire, să nu se poată dezvolta în România. Iar guvernul
are responsabilitatea să susţină cercetarea fundamentală în toate domeniile
biologiei, nu doar în cele cu abordări reducţioniste, fie şi ca instrument
pentru crearea unei mase critice de oameni nevulnerabili la manipulare
ideologică, direct avizaţi cu privire la ce înseamnă concret în ştiinţă
moştenitoarele actuale ale teoriei darwiniene.
Operaţional, decidenţii ar trebui să includă cât mai curând teoria
evoluţiei în programa şcolară, cu obligaţia din partea celor care o predau să
nu o utilizeze în scopuri ideologice, ci exclusiv descriptive: un model pe baze
ştiinţifice al modului în care organismele biologice s-au schimbat în timp.
Relaţiile dintre modelele biologiei şi cele propuse de alte tipuri de
discursuri cum sunt cele religioase, împreună cu felul în care oamenii crează
astfel de modele şi la ce le folosesc, se pot înţelege, de către cine are
astfel de curizităţi, la orele de filosofie.
Anexa 1 Rezoluția 1580 (2007) a Parlamentului European
“The dangers of creationism
in education
1. The aim of this
resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of
belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to
pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science.
It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist.
It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent
belief from opposing science.
2. For some people the
Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life.
Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible
ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and
about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism
could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council
of Europe.
3. Creationism, born of the
denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long
time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are
tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few
Council of Europe member states.
4. The prime target of present-day
creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education.
Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school
science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a
scientific discipline.
5. Creationists question the
scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of
evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of
not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as
scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements
as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.
6. We are witnessing a
growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature,
evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.
7. There is a real risk of
serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has
to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with
science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant,
but is in fact dangerous.
8. Creationism has many
contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more
refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution.
However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray
its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.
9. The Assembly has
constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made
possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a
rather significant factor in economic, technological and social development.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built
on facts.
10. Creationism claims to be
based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are
of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific
quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing
from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in
these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists
and spread doubt and confusion in their minds.
11. Evolution is not simply
a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have
serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical
research, aiming at combating infectious diseases such as Aids, are impossible
if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the
risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if
the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.
12. Our modern world is
based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology
forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well
understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of
fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one
of the most serious threats to human and civic rights.
13. The war on the theory of
evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious
extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements. The
creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and
this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict
creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.
14. All leading
representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more
moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope
John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity
and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
15. The teaching of all
phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore
crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it
must occupy a central position in the curriculums, and especially in the
science syllabuses, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up
to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical
overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant
bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on
which pesticides no longer have any effect.
16. The Council of Europe
has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the
name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any
other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to
cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific
respectability.
17. Science provides
irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why
things are” but to understand how they work.
18. Investigation of the
creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism
and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the
values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct
threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council
of Europe’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.
19. The Parliamentary
Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education
authorities to:
19.1. defend and promote
scientific knowledge;
19.2. strengthen the
teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its
methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;
19.3. make science more
comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary
world;
19.4. firmly oppose the
teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the
theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any
discipline other than religion;
19.5. promote the teaching
of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculums.
20. The Assembly welcomes
the fact that 27 academies of science of Council of Europe member states
signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on
academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.
Assembly debate on 4 October
2007 (35th Sitting) (see Doc. 11375, report of the Committee on Culture,
Science and Education, rapporteur: Mrs Brasseur). Text adopted by the Assembly on
4 October 2007 (35th Sitting).” (link;
raportul care a stat la baza rezoluției
este aici, iar un memorandum de răspuns care apăra
creaționismul în numele libertății de exprimare aici)
Anexa 2 Declarația academiilor de știință cu privire la predare
teoriei evoluției.
“We,
the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within
science courses taught in certain public
systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable
theories about the
origins and evolution of
life on Earth are
being concealed, denied, or
confused with theories not
testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children
about the methods
and discoveries of science
and to foster an understanding of the science
of nature. Knowledge of the natural world
in which they live empowers
people to meet human needs and protect the planet.
We agree that
the following evidence-based facts about
the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this
planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if
there are still
many open questions about the
precise details of evolutionary
change, scientific evidence has
never contradicted these results:
1. In a
universe that has evolved
towards its present configuration for
some 11 to 15 billion years, our
Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since
its formation, the
Earth – its
geology and its
environments – has
changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical
forces and continues to do so.
3. Life
appeared on Earth at least
2.5 billion years ago. The
evolution, soon after,
of
photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least
2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing
substantial quantities of oxygen.
In addition to the release of
the oxygen that we breathe,
the process of photosynthesis
is the
ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human
life on the planet depends.
4. Since its
first appearance on Earth,
life has taken
many forms, all of which continue
to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the
modern biological and biochemical
sciences are describing and
independently confirming with increasing precision.
Commonalities in the
structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today,
including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
We also subscribe to the following statement regarding the
nature of science in
relation to the teaching of evolution
and, more generally, of any field of scientific knowledge :
·
Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the
nature of the universe
that has been successful and of
great consequence. Science
focuses on (i) observing the
natural world and (ii)
formulating testable and
refutable hypotheses to derive
deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence
is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are
developed that account for
and explain that evidence, and
predict the likely structure or process of still unobserved phenomena.
·
Human
understanding of value and purpose
are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components
– scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural
and political contribute to it.
These different fields
owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and
their limitations.
While acknowledging current limitations, science is
open ended, and subject to
correction and expansion as new
theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.
✦ ✦ ✦
1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical
and
Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian
Academy of Science
4. Austrian
Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The
Royal Academies for
Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and
Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The
Academies of Arts, Humanities and
Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese
Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical
and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the
Czech Republic
18. Royal
Danish Academy of Sciences
and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology,
Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union
of German Academies of Sciences
and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian
Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the
Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal
Irish Academy
28. Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science
Council of Japan
31. Kenya
National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the
Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian
Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and
Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian
Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts
and
Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan
Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science
and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del
Peru
45. National Academy of Science and
Technology,
The Philippines
46. Polish
Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des
Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian
Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore
National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian
Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal
Academy of Exact, Physical and
Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss
Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The
Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The
Academy of Sciences for the
Developing World (TWAS)
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu