The fall of botany

At the end of last year, a discussion of the article by V.K. Zhirova “Man and Biological Diversity: Orthodox view of the problem of relationships” published in the “Bulletin of MGTU” (2008, 11 (4), p. 609626) and accessible on the website of this publication ( http://vestnik.mstu.edu.ru/v11_4_n33/09_zhirov.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf.pdf ). According to its author, the basic principles of biological systematics, laid down by the great Swedish naturalist Karl Lynnei, are rooted in Lutheranism, and therefore are subject to radical revision from the Orthodox position. The system of organisms should no longer be built on the basis of their evolutionary kinship; It is designed to reflect the consequences of the fall, having living creatures according to the degree of their "proximity to the prototype." It is also necessary to protect nature “in vocational”: only those species that are useful, beautiful or friendly to a person are subject to preservation, the care of predators and parasites, i.e. The creatures spoiled by the sowing are recognized as unnecessary. The basis of the country's environmental system is designed to become a network of monasteries; Botanical gardens are proposed to be used for missionary purposes, and the research of biological diversity and the development of “Orthodox systematics” must certainly be carried out under the patronage of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Such an opus would hardly have attracted wide attention, if not for a number of circumstances. Firstly, it is published in the journal from the VAK list, which means he claims to be scientific. Secondly, his author Vladimir Konstantinovich Zhirov is not at all like a marginal: he is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the director of the Polar-Alpine Botanical Garden-Institute (Pabsey) of the Kola Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Kirovsk. Finally, Vladimir Konstantinovich not only composes theocratic utopias, but also tries to realize them in the academic institution entrusted to him. And utopias tend to come true ... The case of fat is extraordinary, but deeply symptomatic for our science and the society in which it is forced to exist.

Water and child

After such an article, the temptation is great to go to the exposure of V.K. Fat like cleric and persecutor of science. There are reasons for this, but we are slightly held: in such an extravagant text, really interesting ideas may well be expressed. In addition, the article was written in the shocking manner, and our righteous anger is clearly into the author. In a word, let's try to read the text of V.K. Fat is extremely tolerant.

So, it raises an important question about the theological prerequisites for Linnaeus’s scientific concepts: the Swedish naturalist was a believer Lutheran and a supporter of “natural theology”, which was reflected in his labors. The reasoning of V.K. Zhirov on this topic unfolds mainly around the Linneev’s idea of ​​significant, artificial and natural features that serve to determine the genus in plants. In Linnaeus, “signs” are important, but still technical terms related to various aspects of the work of botanist, engaged in the classification of their objects. According to V.K. Fat, however, the division of signs into three groups “can be understood as an attempt to solve the antinomy of divine and human creativity by the synthesis of their results. If, from his position, the results of the first are types and births of natural origin (i.e. creation) are ontological by definition, then the second, determined by the totality of artificial, i.e. The incapable of "... satisfactorily distinguish between the genera in a natural order of signs are rather epistemological unit."

The thought is bold, but, alas, not backed by links either to Linnaeus or other sources that would testify to such theological thoughts of the Swedish botanist. At the same time, V.K. Zhirova from somewhere “species and childbirth” appear, although in Lynnei “signs” are applicable only to childbirth. The author also confuses the “delimitation of childbirth” and their “definition” - but these are different logical procedures. In a word, V.K. Fat, to put it mildly, is careless in working with the material.

Further-more, and again without references to the sources: “The denial of the divinity of Christ and the assimilation of His essence of human nature in the Lutheran-Adoptian tradition leads to a distorted understanding of the relationship between the real creatures of God and the person invented ... This also explains the unresolved problem of the species ...”. Um ... even if you follow the logic of the author and assume that the problem of the species in biology has something to do with chry-resistant disputes, then Lutherans will still be: after all, contrary to the opinion of V.K. Zhirova, Lutheranism recognizes the divinity of Christ. He was denied by Adoptsy - but what is known about the influence of this heresy, which came to naught in the 16th century, on the Swedish Protestants of the 18th century? The article has not a word about it.

It seems that it is time to finish tolerant reading - we still do not know anything about the influence of theology on Linnaeus's scientific work. V.K. Fats are not quite competent either in systematics or theology; It is also careless in working with the material. It is clear that before exposing him as obscurantist and cleric or extol him as a fighter for faith and beliefs, we must remember that he is just a hack.

Refuge of ignorance

However, I do not dispute the right of V.K. Zhirov have their own opinion, make mistakes and even hack, as well as print everything that he considers necessary. However, I don’t care where he will print it. If such a text as his article can be presented as a scientific publication, then it is naive to expect from a society of trust in science and its support.

But how is the text of V.K. Zhirova was able to become a scientific article? It is clear that such an important filter as an independent review did not work. Any more or less competent reviewer would send the manuscript for revision, indicating the author at a number of serious actual errors. Why this did not happen - I do not know; Perhaps the editors were simply shy to refuse such a titled author. I would like to hope that the Higher Attestation Commission, which started the selection of domestic scientific journals, will pay attention to the "Bulletin of MSTU".

But the point here is not only a weak review. Article V.K. Zhirova came out in the philosophical issue of the “messenger”, and our philosophy is omnivorous: under her sign, you can publish anything. Quality criteria in this area are extremely blurred, and, it seems, domestic philosophers are not worried about the situation. Alas, their professional publications become a “refuge for ignorance” for everyone.

It can be argued that philosophers themselves cannot figure out what to consider philosophy. This is not entirely true. With all the variety of directions, styles and genres of philosophizing, one can find criteria that distinguish philosophical texts from all others. Any philosophy is always reflection, the thought of thought. The work on philosophy should either consider the problems of a particular technique of thinking proposed by one of the major thinkers, either offer a new technique, or explore the conditions for the possibility of thinking a certain object (being, beauty, power, God, etc.). If there is nothing like that, the text is not philosophical.

From this point of view, the article by V.K. Zhirova is not philosophical, but theological. It does not raise the question of how to think a biodiversity can think or how it thinks it with Linnaeus. The task of the article is to interpret the concepts of Linneus and ideas about biodiversity from the standpoint of Orthodox creed. In principle, theological studies of this kind are important and necessary (at least in order to avoid misunderstandings in relations between science and religion), but more solid than the work of V.K. Fat. Yes, and publishing them in a secular philosophical magazine is not worth it. Discourse is different, they may be misunderstood ....

Plato is my friend ...

There is another mechanism for maintaining the quality of research - this is a scientific reputation. The loss of confidence of colleagues to your results is perhaps the worst punishment for a working scientist. In our conditions, however, loyalty to the institute, laboratory, chef, the value of the reputation often fades into the background, is of paramount importance. Networks are built on reputation, hierarchy is built on loyalty, and sometimes you have to choose between them.
Obviously, V.K. Fat has a powerful resource of the loyalty of his repaired, which allows him to not very worry about the quality of his texts. The response to his article, however, was motivated precisely by concern for the scientific reputation of Pabsis and all of the Russian Botany. This is very gratifying.

Wide discussion of the article by V.K. Zhirova on the Internet began in early December last year, when I.V. Tatarenko, employee of the Moscow State Pedagogical University named after Lenin in Moscow extended a link to her through one of the botanical newsletters. At the same time, she wrote: “I would very much like to hear your opinion on the fresh publication of the director of the polar-alpine Botanical Garden and on the compatibility of his ideas with his position of the head of the natural science state institution. Does this inspire anxiety for the fate of botanical science in Russia? Maybe you can do something together? "

Such an innocent appeal made a commotion. Scientific secretary Pabsis O.B. Gontar organized the collection of signatures of employees in defense by V.K. Zhirova, under the response letter ( http://asafich.livejournal.com/38342.html?thread=1028038#t1028038 ), which is significant in its kind. The call of a private person who is clearly not worth powerful patrons is perceived to discuss a scientific article as a serious attempt on the status of its author. At the same time, the possibility of public polemics is excluded, and the discussion is proposed to be carried out in private, “according to the concepts” (“I.V. Tatarenko, one should first express his disagreement [V.K. Zhirov] personally (which was not made), and only then publish his claims ...”). It is specifically emphasized that “the appeal of I. Tatarenko reflects the personal opinion and attitude of the author to V.K. Girov ”(i.e., an opinion about the chef and his works can be either personal or correct).

There is a conflict of the hierarchy, built on loyalty to the chef, with a community of professionals concerned with their reputation. In this situation, N.A. Konstantinova, N.E. Koroleva, E.A. Bo-Rovichev and other employees of the Flora and Pabsian flora and vegetation laboratory, who openly expressed their disagreement with the “response letter” ( http: // asafich. Livejournal.com/39851.html ), and then published a critical analysis of the article of its director ( http://evolbiol.ru/antizhirov.htm ). Thus, they not only saved the reputation of their institute, but also defended the reasoned personal opinion and open discussion - the institutions on which European science holds.

They came to exchange experience

As far as I can judge, V.K. Fat not only dreams of patronage of the Russian Orthodox Church over science, but also actively introduces it in Pabsis. We are not talking (for now?) About any obligation, but the appearance of the chapel in the botanical garden and the conduct of worship in it, as well as the cross on the emblem of the garden, have already caused tension in the team.

On November 2-4, the seminar “Modern Christianity and Natural Sciences” was held in PABSI, in organizing and conducting which creationists actively participated (including from the She-Stodnev Center). Obviously, this seminar was not at all designed for the constructive dialogue of science and faith: after a series of aggressive attacks on science (like “secular science is like a poisonous reptile that needs to cut off the tail and body”) the group of scientists was forced to leave the meeting ( http://geoksc.apatity.ru/print/files/z_10.pdf ).

The fears are inspired not so much by this scandal (everything happens at conferences) as the very fact of the official participation of the institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the organization of the creationist seminar. Thus, the intellectual pop exploits the authority of the Academy in order to demonstrate its supposedly “scientific”. The Academy itself is put up in a ridiculous position: after all, it recently joined the IAP statement on the teaching of evolution (decision of the RAS OS No. 10 dated 05/26/2009), which clearly states the inadmissibility of the replacement of scientific facts about the origin and evolution of the Earth and life on this planet with theories that do not allow scientific verification.

Regarding this case, the Presidium of the Russian Botanical Society appealed to the Department of Biological Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences with a request ( www.binran.ru/rbo/zhirov/ letter.htm ; see below). The answer has not yet been received. I would like to hope that it will be given by participants in the nearest annual session of the Department of Biological Sciences, which will be held in May.

Along with the leadership of Pabsis, V.K. Fat fulfills the duties of the Dean of the Environmental Faculty of the Kola branch of the Petrozavodsk State University, heads the Department of Geoecology of the Apatitian branch of the Murmansk State Technical University, and also teaches at the Murmansk State Pedagogical University. In all these universities, he leads “bioemic” and other courses read from the standpoint of “scientific creationism”. What this leads to his colleague ( http://da-galanthus.livejournal.com/17591. Html? Thread = 36791#t36791 ): “We must pay tribute to Vladimir Konstantinovich, he really does not impose his religious views directly. But according to students of those universities where he reads any courses or any other religious people, I begin to notice more and more readiness to get away from discussing scientific arguments for the arguments of faith. The peak of this is the statement that this provision cannot be proved scientifically, but it is still possible to justify in some way. And every year there are more and more such guys. ”

I note that we are talking about state universities existing on our taxes. And if the penetration of clericals into the school still attracts the attention of the public, then the situation in universities, which greatly depends on the positions of rectors and deans, somehow fell out of attention. A professor reading the course of “scientific creationism” is an obvious symptom of systemic degradation of higher education.

From a Christian point of view

Obviously, the patronage of the Russian Orthodox Church, to which V.K. Fat, does not promise anything good to science or the protection of nature. But as a person of the Orthodox, I am also worried about the other side of the problem: clericalism is destructive for the Church itself. Each institution (whether it be the Russian Orthodox Church, wounds or environmental department) should deal with its characteristic business, without going beyond its competence.

It is enough to ask a simple question: what does the protection of nature have to do with the main task of the Russian Orthodox Church - the spiritual nourishment of its children? It is clear that such activity would only become an additional burden for the church that would take on one of the functions of the state. This was already in the synodal period, which turned out to be the events of 1917. Of course, the protection of nature is also a temptation of access to the resources of protected territories, but we will not think about the bad.

V.K. Fat also writes about the need for missionaryness among scientists, but his own activity leads to the opposite effect. I am sincerely offended that according to V.K. Zhirov, some of my colleagues are judging the whole church. At the same time, the Russian Orthodox Church demonstrates a much more balanced and reasonable attitude to the problems of ecology (see “Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church”) than the director of Pabsis. And “scientific creationism” is not at all a general church doctrine: the Russian Orthodox Church simply does not have a certain position on the issue of evolution (I believe that the theory of evolution is safely combined with the Orthodox faith, but this is a separate conversation).

I want to believe that V.K. Fat is deeply sincere in its endeavors, but sincerity does not yet justify their consequences. It is appropriate to recall the Hippocratic call "Do not harm". Klekalism is no better than militant atheism, including for the Church itself.

Alexey Oskolsky,
candidate of biological sciences,
Senior researcher
Botanical Institute. V.L. Komarova RAS
(Saint Petersburg)

* * *

To the department of biological sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences
From the Presidium of the Russian Botanical Society

Deep -liable colleagues!

As we became known from the note by Yu.L. Voitekhovsky, published in the journal of the Geological Institute of the KNC RAS ​​“TITITTA” (No. 4 (10), 2009, p. 23-24), on November 2-4, 2009, a seminar “Modern Christianity and Natural Sciences” was held in the polar-alpine Botanical Garden of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Pabsey of the Russian Academy of Sciences). “Modern Christianity” was mainly represented by creationists (supporters of the doctrine of the creation of the world and man in accordance with the literally understood text of the Bible), who did not recognize the basic principles of natural science knowledge. At the seminar, aggressive statements against secular science sounded, after which a number of scientists were forced to leave the meeting.

We were extremely worried about not only this incident, but also the very fact of the official participation of the Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in organizing and conducting a creationist event. Like all citizens of the Russian Federation, creationists have the right to gather to discuss and disseminate their views, but we consider the involvement of RAS in this activity completely unacceptable. The Academy of Sciences is designed to ensure a high level of fundamental science in our country, and not contribute to the promotion of ignorance.

Creationists present their views as an “alternative” scientific concept designed to replace the theory of evolution. Мы не имеем ничего против альтернативных научных теорий, если они действительно научны. Креационизм же лежит вне науки как таковой: он объясняет природные явления действием сверхъестественных сил, которые принципиально не могут быть исследованы научными методами. На недопустимость подмены «научных фактов о происхождении и эволюции Земли и жизни на этой планете теориями, не допускающими научной проверки», указывает и «Заявление IAP о преподавании эволюции», к которому присоединилась РАН (решение ОС РАН № 10 от 26.05.2009 г.).

Допуская проведение креационистского семинара в подведомственном институте, Академия наук демонстрирует признание «научности» креационизма. Такой жест не только противоречит официальной позиции Академии и ухудшает её имидж в глазах общества, но и дает креационистам мощный пропагандистский козырь. Подобный шаг кажется нам особенно опасным в условиях нынешней агрессивной кампании по дискредитации теории эволюции и внедрению креационизма в школьные курсы естествознания.

Среди членов РБО есть верующие и неверующие люди. Мы уважаем личный мировоззренческий выбор любого человека, но считаем, что научное знание не связано с этим выбором. Мы понимаем, что религиозное осмысление выводов науки сопряжено с трудностями, устранить которые можно только путем кропотливой совместной работы компетентных ученых и богословов. Развитие такого сотрудничество возможно и желательно — но оно несовместимо с попытками религиозного вмешательства в науку. Идея патронажа РПЦ над научными исследованиями, высказанная сопредседателем оргкомитета семинара, членом-корреспондентом РАН В.К. Жировым («Вестник МГТУ», том 11, № 4, 2008 г. стр.609-626), абсолютно неприемлема для нас.

Мы просим Отделение биологических наук РАН высказать свое отношение к участию академических институтов в организации и проведении креационистских мероприятий, а также дать принципиальную оценку фактам распространения креационизма и вмешательства религиозных активистов в ход научных исследований.

Р.В.Камелин, чл.-корр. РАН, президент Русского ботанического общества
В.Ю.Нешатаева, докт.биол.наук, ученый секретарь Русского ботанического общества
5 февраля 2010 г.
www.binran.ru/rbo/zhirov/letter.htm

Обсудить в ЖЖ-сообществе trv-science_ru .