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.

[annalex]

The motivation behind the disclaimers should not invalidate them. The motivation behind those who want to teach evolution on high school level is materialism, or perhpas atheism. If motivational evidence is admissible in this dispute it should be examined for both sides.

The rest of your post jumbles up the distinction between proving existence of a phenomenon and proving a specific mechanism for it. All we ask is a proof that evolution exists. Put that proof, not fossil observations, in the textbooks, or accept a disclaimer that draws attention to the distinction between proof and evidence.

[muir_redwoods]

The mechanism of gravity is not only unproven but still speculative. Your notion of proving by dropping an object is akin to proving evolution by pointing to a human. Evolution theory is critical to modern biology so the theory you think is too speculative for high schools is taught as the basis for medical schools subjects. There are all kinds of experiments demonstrating evolution as true and you can do your own research because its been my experiance that it is wasted effort on my part to try to teach people who don't want to learn.

[Dimensio]

The motivation behind the disclaimers should not invalidate them.

Perhaps not, however the extremely limited application does call into question their necessity, and disclaimers containg factual errors decidedly invalidates them.

The motivation behind those who want to teach evolution on high school level is materialism, or perhpas atheism.

Are you able to demonstrate this assertion?

The rest of your post jumbles up the distinction between proving existence of a phenomenon and proving a specific mechanism for it.

The existence of a phenomenon is merely summed up as an observation, however observations explain nothing. Scientific theories are the means to explain why phenomenon occurs, and those explanations can never be proven. If you wish to draw a paralell between evolution and other scientific theories and what those theories explain, I am able to do so. The observation of objects falling when dropped is explained by the theory of gravity. In the same way, the observation that diverse life forms exist is explained by the theory of evolution.

All we ask is a proof that evolution exists.

If you are referring to specific phenomenon, as you suggested earlier, then ample observations of evolution events can be presented.

[Dimensio]

Your statement does not answer my question. I will rephrase my question: what do you hope to accomplish with respect to the theory of evolution by challenging the given definitions of existing terminology?

[annalex]

Gravity is the phenomenon whereby things fall down (let's spare each other the details). I see a thing fall down, I see gravity exists. Evolution is the phenomenon whereby girls and boys of a species fool around and another species emerges. I see two lizards produce a fish, I see evolution exists. I see a human, like you suggest, (or a fish, or a dead lizard) and I know a human exists, but I know nothing about evolution.

If experiments that prove that evolution exists, exist, then teach them. What are they? I never heard of one, not did my stepson.

If the evolution theory is useful for medical students, teach it to medical students. Do not teach it to high schoolers who need to understand what science is in general; or teach it as a speculation useful in medicine.

[annalex]

I am not interested in anyone's motivations.

The observation of objects falling when dropped is explained by the theory of gravity. In the same way, the observation that diverse life forms exist is explained by the theory of evolution.

The fact that objects fall down is gravity. The theory explains why, or in what measure. The fact that diverse life forms exist is not evolution, it is zoology.

then ample observations of evolution events can be presented.

Then present them.

[Dimensio]

Gravity is the phenomenon whereby things fall down (let's spare each other the details).

I do not understand why you wish to "spare each other the details", when the details are important in understanding that your definition is not only incorrect, it is woefully incomplete. Gravity is the phenomenon whereby matter attracts more matter relative to mass and distance.

I see a thing fall down, I see gravity exists.

You cannot conclude anything useful regarding the nature of gravity simply based on an observation of "a thing falling down".

Evolution is the phenomenon whereby girls and boys of a species fool around and another species emerges.

This is again an inadequate an incomplete explanation. A more complete brief explanation is that evolution is the phenomenon whereby alelle frequencies change over time, causing -- in some cases -- eventual genetic compatability between two subpopulations descended from the same parent population. This has, in fact, been observed.

I see two lizards produce a fish, I see evolution exists.

The mechanics of evolution would not suggest that two lizards produce a fish. You are suggesting an observation whereby a member of one species gives birth, in a single generation, to a completely different species. Such an event has never been suggested as a mechanism of evolution.

If the evolution theory is useful for medical students, teach it to medical students. Do not teach it to high schoolers who need to understand what science is in general; Do not teach it to high schoolers who need to understand what science is in general;

Are you suggesting that no science should be taught unless there is ample evidence to suggest that the scientific teaching will, without question, be useful in the student's life?

[Mamzelle]

I will rephrase. All this will help folks see this list when it waved under their noses, and understand what's afoot.

re: I will rephrase my question: what do you hope to accomplish with respect to the theory of evolution by challenging the given definitions of existing terminology?)))

Passive voice, once again.

"Given" by whom? An obsessive evoFReak who posts ten new evo threads a week hoping to find new folks to browbeat? You'll have to defend the definitions, one at a time, when you try to sell your "list". Someone will be around to see to it. I don't see how one can be any clearer than that, even to the pathological OC crowd.

[Dimensio]

I am not interested in anyone's motivations.

Yet you speculated upon the motives of those who with to teach evolution in high schools. This would suggest some level of interest.

The fact that objects fall down is gravity.

This is incorrect. The fact that objects fall down is merely a set of observations.

The theory explains why, or in what measure.

Actually, the theory primarily explains why. The Law would explain in what measure, though it should be noted that the only existing Law of gravity is itself incomplete and of limited application.

The fact that diverse life forms exist is not evolution, it is zoology.

However evolution is a means of explaining why diverse life forms exist, much like the theory of gravity is a means of explaining why objects fall down. I do not understand your unwillingness to accept the similarities.

[Mamzelle]

re: Are you suggesting that no science should be taught unless there is ample evidence to suggest that the scientific teaching will, without question, be useful in the student's life?)))

Well, at least you can credit the possibility that the bulk of Real science takes place quite happily without need of a Loyalty Oath to Darwinism. Medical school, even pre-med, concerns itself little with this debate. Evolution functions as a handy model, not dogma.

[Dimensio]

"Given" by whom?

Given, thus far, by every professional scientist with whom I have conversed, and from various sources on scientific terminology. If you believe that professional biologists who publish articles regarding the "theory of evolution" are using terminology with meaning different than what those of us who have presented definitions to which you object use, then please explain what you believe them to mean and why.

[Dimensio]

Then present them.

I can reference a number of events. It is not a difficult task to observe bacteria evolve resistance to various antibiotics. I can also reference the peppered moth study. While it is true that some creationists have claimed that the study was fraudulent, thus far none have actually demonstrated an act of fraud in the work. If you are referring to a larger scope, I can defer back to my previous reference to the article "Observed Instances of Speciation".

[Mamzelle]

re: If you believe that professional biologists who publish articles regarding the "theory of evolution" are using terminology with meaning different than what those of us who have presented definitions to which you object use, then please explain what you believe them to mean and why)))

Then you'll just have to stick around and wait. It's your Master's card, and I'm not betting till you ante.

[muir_redwoods]

Sparing you the details of the mechanism gravity and science in general has led you to the point where you are now; possessed of no understanding of the things you criticize.

[annalex]

Then teach that you can observe viri or moth speciating, and then say that it is you hypothesis that higher animals speciate as well. Spare me the gorilla with a stick pictures, and perhaps you'll begion to make sense. That would be an honest analogy of how physics are taught.

[annalex]

Well, no. I took physics in college and have an understanding of genetics and evolution that is better than the high school drivel that you guys teach. You want to obfuscate the simple fact that gravity's existence is observable, and evolution's existence is not, hence the interest in detail.

[Ken H]

Next we'll be seeing a list of the definitions that we're supposed to accept. Because they say so.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000. 

theory 

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice:

[x5452]

Widly accepted, you mean like the geocentric theory. :)

[x5452]

Further where are the creatures with no eyballs and transitional not yet working eyeballs? :)

[Dimensio]

Then teach that you can observe viri or moth speciating, and then say that it is you hypothesis that higher animals speciate as well.

The observation of such organisms speciating is not the sole basis for the conclusion of common descent. In addition to the fossil record, extensive DNA investigations have recently revealed information across various ape species, including humans, that strongly suggests common ancestry.

That would be an honest analogy of how physics are taught.

I am unaware of any physics course that claims that statements regarding interactions of large bodies of matter within the same relative frame are merely hypothetical speculations based upon observations of smaller objects.