The Written Statement of the Evolution Theory Revision Petition Initiator

  1. Lemma
  2. Pisana izjava inicijatora peticije za reviziju teorije evolucije
  3. Serbian
  4. Petition 2017 Initiator Statement (en)
  5. Stevanovic, Aleksandra
  6. Scientific theories and disciplines > Biology:evolution
  7. 1-9-2017
  8. The Initiator of the Revision of Darwin’s Theory Statement
  9. Radio Televizija Srbije
    1. Darwin, Charles (1858)
  10. petition 2017 - Darwinism - Creationism
  11. 1/9/2017
    1. Radmilo Rončević, PhD and a retired surgeon, the initiator of the petition for the revision of the Theory of Evolution in his written statement and reply to the critique of deprecated critics that had previously discussed his initiative as well as the fact that petition was considered by the ones it had not been aimed at.

      He said that the petition was primarily directed to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development whose Minister said that his suggestion would not be considered in his domain.

      The stance of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) is still waited upon, but Rončević has reminded on the Memorandum, an anonymous document issued by the academicians and the reaction to it.

      The stance of the Senate of the University of Belgrade is also questionable for Rončević. In addition, he criticized the Ethical Committee of the Serbian medical society due to its “Bolshevik ideological conclusion” that characterized the petition as religious-ideological pamphlet against the science itself. 

      Rončević deems the criticism neither justified not scientific. He is still waiting for the answers from the Board for Education, Science and Technological Development of the Parliament of Serbia, and the Senates of the University of Novi Sad, Niš and Kragujevac.

      At the same time he states that the public reaction assures him that there is significant interest in realizing the truth regarding the Theory of Evolution, but added that none of the critics have tried to analyze the facts mentioned in the petition and argumentatively controvert to them.