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]

*Lack of transitional species*

[Dimensio]

*Lack of transitional species*

Exactly what do you mean by this statement? What do you expect to see?

[Mamzelle]

Next we'll be seeing a list of the definitions that we're supposed to accept. Because They Say So.

[Hill of Tara]

thanks :)

[Dimensio]

I notice that you have not yet responded to the last question I presented to you in a previous discussion. Do you believe that by disputing the definitions of terms as used by scientists will retroactively change the meanings of statements that they have made previously using those terms?

[annalex]

I think, I explained where the hoax lies very clearly. Fossil record is not proof of evolution in the same way in which physical or chemical phenomena are proved. May be there is a better proof, but it is not taught, and the result is that science education suffers as a whole.

[Dimensio]

I think, I explained where the hoax lies very clearly.

A hoax implies deliberate deceit. You have not explained where this deliberate deceit occurs.

Fossil record is not proof of evolution in the same way in which physical or chemical phenomena are proved.

The fossil record is not "proof" of anything apart from the existence of fossils. It is, however, evidence for common descent, given the arrangement of the fossils in the fossil record. As I have said, nothing in science is ever "proven", and as such there is never anything in a scientific explanation that constitutes "proof", and no scientific explanation for any observed phenomenon can be "proved".

May be there is a better proof, but it is not taught, and the result is that science education suffers as a whole.

You have not only demonstrated a lack of understanding of the means by which science operates, but you have also failed to demonstrate that evolution is taught as you claim. You have admitted that your claims were based solely upon uninformed speculation. I do not understand why I should consider you a credible source on this matter.

[Hill of Tara]

OK. In addition to what x5452 mentioned in #21, lets see.

1. Natural selection is not a strong enough force to have changed us from bacteria to humans even over a zillion years. How come other animals/beings (like other bacteria) havent changed? What was wrong with their natural selection?

2. The idea of evolution just being completely random doesn't wash. There has to be an Intelligent Force controlling it.

3. There was an issue with the propellors on the first organisms (one-celled.) The organism could not exist without the propellor, it could not survive, but the propellor had to have been brought about by natural selection, which couldnt have happened unless the organism was alive, which it couldnt be, if it didnt have the propellor.

4.According to the theory of evolution, in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life. How'd that happen, what caused it, what caused that, and how did the chemicals and other elements get there?

5. Why do we still have appendixes?

6. If evolution is caused by mutations, why are most mutations malignant and negative?

7. "Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
• Scales had to have mutated into hair.
• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

--There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive. Angler Fish; Chicken Egg
Beaver; Giraffe
Black And Yellow Garden Spider; Incubator Bird
Bombardier Beetle; Woodpecker

more to come if I have time...

[annalex]

You have not explained where this deliberate deceit occurs.

The deceit is deliberate because if the educational cabal is asked to attach a disclaimer that would say what you yourself admit, -- that the fossil record is not proof but evidence, -- then they go hysterical and run to the courts. If they wanted the preent the "evidence" for what it is, "evidence" they would not have resisted a request to do so.

nothing in science is ever "proven"

Yes it is. This kind of nihilism is another demonstration of the harm the evolution superstitionists inflict on high school education. A high school student of physics can prove that electromagnetism exists by demonstrating that a radio operates and explaining its operation in electromagnetic terms. He probably has seen, or could have seen, a crude radio built right in the lab. A high school student of evolution cannot put two lizards in a jar and produce a fish, no matter how much fossil pictures he'd looked at.

you have also failed to demonstrate that evolution is taught as you claim

I did not run a survey. But I had a kid in high school (and more are on their way). If anything beyond fossil records is shown them as proof of evolution, show me that textbook.

[muir_redwoods]

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

No ones ever "proven" how gravity works, it too is a theory, as is atomic theory.

Remember, Newton's "Laws" of motion got corrected by Einstein's "Theory" of relativity.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Cool! I wish them well.

[annalex]

About gravity, kids can prove it exists by dropping stuff on the floor. So, it is a proven fact of physics suitable for schools, while relativity, string theory and so on might not be suitable. About evolution, no similar experiment is there to prove the existence of evolution, never mind its theoretical mechanisms. So keep this stuff off the schools.

[Dimensio]

1. Natural selection is not a strong enough force to have changed us from bacteria to humans even over a zillion years.

Actually, the time frame is approximately 4.5 billion years. In fact, I do not believe that "zillion" is a number.

How come other animals/beings (like other bacteria) havent changed?

Most of them have changed. Those that have not simply have not needed to change in order to continue existing through successive generations.

What was wrong with their natural selection?

Nothing is "wrong". Natural selection has no implicit goal or direction. A lack of change over generations in a population of organisms merely indicates that the organisms are well-adapted for successful reproduction within their environment. 2. The idea of evolution just being completely random doesn't wash.

Evolution is not completely random. The mutations that occur to change traits of an organism are random, however the selection process is based upon that organism's ability to successfuly reproduce in their environment. This is not a random event, as their are specific definable factors within each environment and organism.

There has to be an Intelligent Force controlling it.

This is an appeal to incredulity, and a logical fallacy. Merely being unable to comprehend how a process can occur without an "Intelligent Force" controlling the event does not actually necessitate such a force.



3. There was an issue with the propellors on the first organisms (one-celled.) The organism could not exist without the propellor, it could not survive, but the propellor had to have been brought about by natural selection, which couldnt have happened unless the organism was alive, which it couldnt be, if it didnt have the propellor.

I believe that you are referring to the "flagellum". Responses to claims that a flagellum could not have formed without intelligent intervention are found here. I will also note that the man who brought forth the claim of the flagellum requiring intelligent intervention himself accepts common descent as the most likely explanation as to how diverse life emerged. He merely believes that an intelligent agent intervened at various times to adjust the organisms.

4.According to the theory of evolution, in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life. How'd that happen, what caused it, what caused that, and how did the chemicals and other elements get there?

The theory of evolution only explains events that occur within systems of reproducing organisms. While the question of the ultimate origin of reproducing organisms is valid, and a field of study for many biologists, it is not one that can be answered within the scope of the theory of evolution, as the mechanics of the theory do not apply. For the same reason, the theory of evolution cannot address the ultimate origins of matter, including the components that make up the first organisms. This is not a weakness of the theory; rather, it is a recognition of the scope of the theory's explanatory power, and an understanding that the theory cannot be used to address questions beyond its scope.

5. Why do we still have appendixes?

Why should we not? Thus far their continued presence has not created a sufficient reproductive disadvantage to pressure their removal from our species.

6. If evolution is caused by mutations, why are most mutations malignant and negative?

Most mutations are actually neutral. Other mutations are either beneficial or harmful depending on environmental conditions. Mutations that are absolutely harmful do not factor into evolution, as the organisms with such mutations will not successfully reproduce. In fact, in many cases such harmful mutations prevent a viable organism from forming in the first place. The existence of harmful mutations does not in any way disprove evolution. The only means by which mutations could disprove evolution is if it can be demonstrated that there are absolutely no mutations that are ever in any way beneficial for an organism.

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

I do not understand why you place a laboratory requirement. Not all scientific observation is done within a laboratory. Moreover, evolution has been observed through successive generations of populations, even to the point of speciation.

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

There are two problems with this statement. First, Fred Hoyle was not referring to the process of evolution, but rather the process of a single cell forming where none existed before. As I said earlier, this process would not be evolution, but abiogenesis, and would not be addressed by the theory of evolution. The second problem is that as an astronomer, Fred Hoyle did not have the qualifications to construct such a probability argument. In fact, without knowing all of the initial conditions of pre-life earth, it is impossible for even well-researched biologists are unable to know enough variables to formulate a specific probability calculation.

It should also be noted that Fred Hoyle never disputed the theory of evolution. He simply believed that the first life forms from which evolution started were seeded to Earth from space.

--There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive. Angler Fish; Chicken Egg
Beaver; Giraffe
Black And Yellow Garden Spider; Incubator Bird
Bombardier Beetle; Woodpecker

Please explain how the above creatures "defy" evolution. If you prefer to keep your response and research less exhaustive, select one or two from the list and explain them.

[Dimensio]

About gravity, kids can prove it exists by dropping stuff on the floor.

This does not prove gravity. This merely demonstrates that a force acted upon the "stuff" in a specific fashion for each instance. Dropping "stuff" on the floor does not explain why the "stuff" falls to the floor in the first place. Gravitational theory is required for such an explanation, and not only his the theory behind gravity not proven, but it is a far less well-understood phenomenon than evolution.

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

(though I am not sure why)

[Dimensio]

The deceit is deliberate because if the educational cabal is asked to attach a disclaimer that would say what you yourself admit, -- that the fossil record is not proof but evidence, -- then they go hysterical and run to the courts.

This is because of the motivation behind the disclaimers, as evident by the lack of any desire for such disclaimers for any other field of science covered in high school, despite the same principles applying. Moreover, many of the disclaimers that I have seen are themselves inaccurate, ascribing features to the theory of evolution that it does not present. I do not see a logical reason to object to an inaccurate disclaimer, especially when the motivation for such a disclaimer is clearly to satisfy religious concerns, and not scientific concerns.

If they wanted the preent the "evidence" for what it is, "evidence" they would not have resisted a request to do so.

I am sorry, but I am unable to parse this statement.

Yes it is.

If you disagree, please present an explanation in science that has been proven and reference the proof for this explanation.

This kind of nihilism is another demonstration of the harm the evolution superstitionists inflict on high school education.

I do not see how acknowledging the tentative nature of all scientific explanations is a form of nihilism.

A high school student of physics can prove that electromagnetism exists by demonstrating that a radio operates and explaining its operation in electromagnetic terms.

This would not prove electromagnetic theory. It may serve as evidence for existing explanations regarding electromagnetism, but it would not be proof, as further evidence could demonstrate that the underlying explanations for the observed events are in error.

He probably has seen, or could have seen, a crude radio built right in the lab.

Again, this would not constitute proof of electromagnetism.

A high school student of evolution cannot put two lizards in a jar and produce a fish, no matter how much fossil pictures he'd looked at.

No one is claiming that any such event should occur, so I do not understand why you reference it. I did not run a survey.

And yet you made an authoritative declaration regarding the outcome of a hypothetical survey.

But I had a kid in high school (and more are on their way). If anything beyond fossil records is shown them as proof of evolution, show me that textbook.

I am not aware of textbooks referencing anything as "proof" of evolution, only as evidence.

[annalex]

This does not prove gravity

It proves existence of gravity. I think my post makes the distinction between existence of a phenomenon and the mechanisms of it clear.

[RunningWolf]

I give this case high odds of victory.

[RunningWolf]

The second problem is that as an astronomer, Fred Hoyle did not have the qualifications to construct such a probability argument. In fact, without knowing all of the initial conditions of pre-life earth, it is impossible for even well-researched biologists are unable to know enough variables to formulate a specific probability calculation

Then certainly an anonymous poster (that I call demented) has only admitted to being a computer help technician therefore has no qualifications to speak for or against evo

[Mamzelle]

Try to quote the list as an authority, and see what happens. I don't think you'll be able to coerce many into speaking Grand Masterese.