St. Petersburg schoolgirl sues authorities over Darwinism

RIA Novosti ^ | 01/ 03/ 2006

[x5452]

St. Petersburg schoolgirl sues authorities over Darwinism 18:42 | 01/ 03/ 2006

ST. PETERSBURG, March 1 (RIA Novosti, Maksim Leonov) - A St. Petersburg schoolgirl intends to go to court over the compulsory teaching of the theory of evolution at Russian schools.

Maria Shraiber's father, Kirill Shraiber, who is also her lawyer, told a news conference in St. Petersburg that the suit did not seek to abolish the teaching of Darwinism in schools but to give schoolchildren the right to study other theories about the origins of life.

"Darwin only presented a hypothesis that has not yet been proved by him or anyone else," Shraiber said. "Hence, we think that school education imposes this theory on children as the only scientific option, which violates the human right to free choice."

Shraiber said the lawsuit against the Education and Science Ministry would be filed soon at a district court in Moscow.

"We will be represented in court by several lawyers ... who are now drafting the suit," he said.

The Russian lawsuit echoes a string of similar disputes in the United States over teaching creationism alongside Darwinism in the school curriculum.

[x5452]

ping

[IronManBike]

God bless her and her family!!!!

[x5452]

Indeed.

[x5452]

ping

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks. Junior?

[Dimensio]

"Darwin only presented a hypothesis that has not yet been proved by him or anyone else," Shraiber said.

It is strange to single out evolution for this claim, when it applies equally to all other scientific explanations for phenomenon.

"Hence, we think that school education imposes this theory on children as the only scientific option, which violates the human right to free choice."

This is a strange claim. How is a right to "free choice" violated by presenting the only existing scientific option regarding species diversity?

[annalex]

Ask any number of school graduates who got good grades in their biology class, what is the proof of evolution and they will cite fossil records. But ask similar group a similar question about physics or chemistry and they will cite space travel, atomic bomb, stuff that went boom under their noses, etc.

If there is a real proof of evolution, let them teach it. When they teach that occurence of similar dead species in archaeological layers proves evolution they insult the intelligence of better students and further dumb down the bad ones.

[Hill of Tara]

Yay, hopefully this will lead to Intelligent Design being taught in Russian schools. God bless her I hope she wins, and Intelligent design becomes part of the curriculum.

[Dimensio]

Ask any number of school graduates who got good grades in their biology class, what is the proof of evolution and they will cite fossil records.

Could you be more specific. Are you referring to high-school level biology or collegiate level? Also, have you conducted a personal survey to justify this claim, or is it merely speculation?

I would daresay that while the fossil record provides strong evidence for evolution, it is not "proof" because no scientific theory, including evolution, can be proven. Moreover, DNA has rapidly become another very strong line of evidence for common descent.

But ask similar group a similar question about physics or chemistry and they will cite space travel, atomic bomb, stuff that went boom under their noses, etc.

I do not quite understand your meaning here. If you were referring to college-level students who had studied evolution extensively, it is likely that their field of study is biology, and as such their expertise regarding nuclear physics or astrophysics would be limited.

If there is a real proof of evolution, let them teach it.

There is no "proof" of any scientific explanation. There is merely strong, compelling evidence that has led to the explanation acheiving the level of "theory".

When they teach that occurence of similar dead species in archaeological layers proves evolution they insult the intelligence of better students and further dumb down the bad ones.

Indeed, as this not only misrepresents the vast supporting evidence for evolution, but it also misrepresents the very means by which science operates.

[Dimensio]

God bless her I hope she wins, and Intelligent design becomes part of the curriculum.

Am I correct in inferring from your comment that you wish for the practice of scientific teaching in Russian schools to be made substandard?

[Mamzelle]

Well, gee! I didn't know they could bring these sorts of actions in Russia. How fascinating.

[wallcrawlr]

Even the former commies would like the freedom to hear about an alternative.

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[annalex]

No I did not conduct a formal survey, nor do I know of one. I ask you to compare a high school graduate who got a good grade in biology with a high school graduate who got a good grade in physics. Ask the first what proof of evolution he knows and he will point to dinosaur or monkey skeletons arranged in a suggestive way. Ask the second what proof of electromagnetism he knows and he will turn on the radio. The first is a hoax; the second is experiential proof. But both are taught as proofs, which is a disgrace.

[Dimensio]

No I did not conduct a formal survey, nor do I know of one.

Then I am afraid that you cannot claim that your speculation has any basis in known fact.

Ask the first what proof of evolution he knows and he will point to dinosaur or monkey skeletons arranged in a suggestive way.

However, as you have already admitted, you have no basis in reality for drawing upon such speculation. It is possible for a student who received high grades in biology to understand the scientific method sufficiently to state that evolution, like all other scientific theories, can only be further supported by evidence and never fully proven.

Ask the second what proof of electromagnetism he knows and he will turn on the radio.

Again, not only is this speculation not grounded in fact, as you have admitted, but this is also meaningless. Aptitude in biology does not translate to aptitude in any other scientific field of study.

The first is a hoax;

What, exactly, are you claiming to be hoax and can you demonstrate that it is indeed a hoax?

the second is experiential proof.

I do not understand what you mean by "experimental proof". Could you be more specific here?

[Hill of Tara]

"Am I correct in inferring from your comment that you wish for the practice of scientific teaching in Russian schools to be made substandard?"

No, the standard will actually be improved with the addition of Intelligent Design.

The evolutionist BS they are teaching right now isnt true, its the dumbest theory, and even a moose* wouldn't believe the nonsense theories concocted by that crackpot Darwin, who found a few birds with weird beaks and tried to change the world of science with such a poorly founded "theory."


* no disrespect intended toward those worthy creatures.

[x5452]

They have Christian education in many schools also, in fact more folks are opposed to the uber separation of church and state as we have here, and the state is of the opinion that allowing religious expression in schools helps prevent terrorim by promoting morals.

[Hill of Tara]

"There is merely strong, compelling evidence that has led to the explanation acheiving the level of "theory"."


the "evidence" is neither strong, nor compelling,except to those who desperately want to believe it.

[Dimensio]

No, the standard will actually be improved with the addition of Intelligent Design.

I am curious. How would the addition of non-scientific conjecture, such as Intelligent Design, taught as though it were science improve scientific standards?

The evolutionist BS they are teaching right now isnt true,

What specifically is "BS" that "isnt true", and how do you know this to be the case?

and even a moose* wouldn't believe the nonsense theories concocted by that crackpot Darwin, who found a few birds with weird beaks and tried to change the world of science with such a poorly founded "theory."

It would appear that you do not understand the basis for Darwin's work on the theory of evolution. While he was intrigued by certain features of finches in the Galapagos, that is hardly the foundation of his theory.

[Dimensio]

the "evidence" is neither strong, nor compelling,except to those who desperately want to believe it.

Perhaps you could explain what you see as inadequacies in the evidence thus far used to support the theory.