Russia’s science and higher education ministry has dismissed the head of a prestigious genetics institute who sparked controversy by contending that humans once lived for centuries and that the shorter lives of modern humans are due to their ancestors’ sins, state news agency RIA-Novosti said Thursday.

Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.

Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.

  • Haagel@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    With all due respect, my friend, you’re assuming a false dillema. The majority of academic scientists are religious, reflective of the general population’s religious affiliation.

    Of course there are a minority of highly vocal outliers on both sides of the spectrum who profit from the discord, real or imagined.

    https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-do-scientists-believe-religion-among-scientists-and-implications-for-public-perceptions/

      • NOSin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Not throwing a pike here, but you are short sighted.

        To think it needs to be compartmentalized or that religion and science are mutually exclusive is a false dilemma as said above.

        Science can simply be the way that God/s would choose to interact with our world.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          They’re not necessarily incompatible, technically, but I am very suspicious of anyone who claims to be a scientist yet are willing to believe such extraordinary claims despite a complete lack of evidence.

          If they would never use such a low bar for evidence in literally anything else in their lives (such as, presumably, their academic and scientific career, which I hope didn’t involve “faith” at all), and yet are willing to completely suspend that need for evidence for their belief in the supernatural, then I don’t trust them.

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            This is the real issue. Sure, science and religion COULD exist at the same time, but science is all about not making assumptions where you can instead build data, and heavily distrusting anything you can’t build data for. Religion is specifically designed to never be tested. It can never be meaningfully supported or negated through observable mediums, which makes it the antithesis to science regardless of their potential coexistence.

            • Haagel@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              kuhna

              According to the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, making assumptions and dismissing contradictory data is a regrettable but very common part of the scientific process that eventually results in a shift in the paradigm of thinking. Every scientific theory that we know today has gone through these phases and will likely continue to change in the future.

          • NOSin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            So, because you don’t understand how can someone accepts that something they don’t have proof for, can exist, because they don’t have proof against after all, you’re ready to start doubting their professionalism or their capacity ?

            That seem even more unscientific than what you tried to condemn through a fallacy.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes. And it’s just as likely that super-god created God to do exactly that.

          But that’s not the point. The scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability. To believe in God without evidence or repeatability means they’ve compartmentalized that part of their thinking.

          • NOSin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            You’re claiming a fact out of one of your assumption.

            That thread is delightful in irony today, lots of self proclaimed unbiased and scientific, acting very biased and unscientific.

          • Haagel@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Can you prove that the scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability? That sounds like circular reasoning.

                • d00ery@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  We can think practically about knowledge too.

                  I put my hand on a hot stove, it burns, I remove my hand and the burning stops. Isn’t that knowledge?

                  • Haagel@lemmings.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Yes, of course, but it’s not the extent of knowledge.

                    Nor is it universal knowledge. What burns your hand isn’t going to burn other materials, or even other organisms.

                    There’s always a limit to what can be perceived with the organic senses. That’s the axiomatic flaw of empiricism.

                    What do you think? What is knowledge?

    • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      There’s a few Neil DeGrasse Tyson clips I remember seeing around about various scientific and religious interactions.

      Like he calls nonsense on the BCE/CE vs BC/AD change because scientists, and really most of scociety, operates on the Gregorian Calendar which was created by the Catholic Church under Pope Gregory XIII and is the most accurate calendar we’ve ever made to account for leap years. Why deny the creators of a fantastic calendar their due respect just because they were religious in a time when everyone was religious?

      And in a different he also talked about the Baghdad House of Wisdom and how throughout the Middle Ages of Europe, Baghdad was a center of intellectual thought and culture, until the Fundamentalists got into power and declared manipulating numbers was witchcraft, and ended up being a huge brain drain in Baghdad for centuries.

      • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        His point about the change to BCE/CE is the actual nonsense. His point is that we should keep religious terminology being used in science? Out of respect for the creators? When have we ever done that? Science is secular and should be a secular pursuit. Every biologist and anthropologist shouldn’t have to reference Christ just to date their samples even if the calendar is the same. I respect NDT for his work but his awful takes like this hurt what he says often.

        • danl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Planet names, days of the week, months, which year is zero - even that we have 7 days in the week - All of these are direct religious references that we’re fine with.

        • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think the BCE/CE thing is dumb because it’s just a religious calendar under a different name. It doesn’t change what Year 1 represents anymore than changing the spelling of a word changes its etymology. If we want a secular calendar we should do something like add a few thousand years to count from the founding of the first cities, or have it start in 1945 with the founding of the UN, or even 1970 when Unix time begins. As I see it, calling it the ‘common era’ does absolutely nothing to divorce the calendar from the birth of Jesus.

      • Moghul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        NDT is a massive blowhard. I’m not religious but I got turned off by his weird interview with God thing.