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.

[Ken H]

The problem is this...

I was addessing my post to this statement:

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

Do you accept the American Heritage Dictionary definition of theory, quoted in an earlier post?

A first year Biology textbook, however, proclaims fact and science fiction side by side with equal force. It isn't until you undertake extensive study of the field in question (and that too only if you have a mind sensitive to the vagaries of logic and philosophy) do you realize which is which.

Would it be accurate to infer that you are confident that you realize which is fact and which is science fiction; and that you believe evolution is science fiction?

[RunningWolf]

proclaims fact and science fiction side by side with equal force....
(and that too only if you have a mind sensitive to the vagaries of logic and philosophy) do you realize which is which

Thanks for that Old_Mil. I think many minds are sensitive to that which you state.

Wolf

[Old_Mil]

Would it be accurate to infer that you are confident that you realize which is fact and which is science fiction; and that you believe evolution is science fiction?

You would be correct in such an inference. As far as definitions go, if you mean to use this:

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption

Feel free to do so. However, keep in mind that when evolution is taught, it is taught as fact. When ID proponents seek to have it taught as a "theory" as defined above, evolutionists howl in protest.

[muir_redwoods]

" You want to obfuscate the simple fact that gravity's existence is observable, and evolution's existence is not, hence the interest in detail."

Nothing is observable to the blind. If you took genetics in college and still say there is no evidence for evolution you ought to get your money back.

[annalex]

Genetics provides no evidence for evolution; rather to the contrary.

I took physics, not genetics, in college.

[Old_Mil]

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.

This is typically what happens. Evolution is presented as fact, and studies such as this which have nothing to do with evolution as hypothesized by Darwin are given as examples.

[x5452]

Which is why the teaching should be postponed to secondary education or presented along side other ideas.

[Dimensio]

Like I said, teach what is observed, then offer hypotheses. Just lik when we teach gravity or magentism, we teach what we observe, then offer explanations.

Evolution is an explanation. Diverse life forms are observed. Also observed is the fossil record in its specific configuration, showing -- among things -- that organisms existed in the past that do not exist now and that organisms exists now that did not exist in the past. Evolution is the explanation for the existince of diverse life, the fossil record in its specific configuration and -- most recently -- remarkable similar features found in DNA of organisms already determined to share common ancestry.

You second paragraph makes no sense. We observe bodies of any size conforming to the laws of gravity.

On the contrary. Newton's laws break down at the subatomic level, and also at the macroscopic level due to relativistic problems.

We do not observe any species, excepting perhaps some primitive organisms, evolving.

Again, this is not true. Evolution has been observed in a multitude of species whenever environmental pressures exist that give members with specific heritable traits a survival advantage.

[Dimensio]

I fail to understand how your quote constitutes or demonstrates a hoax. Could you perhaps elaborate?

[annalex]

Evolution is an explanation. Diverse life forms are observed

And God making them all in one day is another explanation. But you only want to teach the explanation you like. Newton's laws break down

The point is, Newton's laws explain what we observe in everyday life and in planetary motion, even though not everything on subatomic or deep space levels. Evolution postulates what we do not observe, one species producing another, then offers one explanation among many of how that can be.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is presented as fact, and studies such as this which have nothing to do with evolution as hypothesized by Darwin are given as examples.

How is the development of antibiotic resistance not an example of evolution?

[Dimensio]

And God making them all in one day is another explanation.

The difference is that evolution not only explains the existence of all diverse life, but also the fossil record which indicates that existing diverse life did not exist in the past and DNA patterns that strongly suggest that diverse species existing today share common ancestry. In addition, the mechanism that drives evolution is identifiable and observed in the form of mutation changing heritable traits and environmental conditions selecting for specific heritable traits. To compare with your example, there are no means of observing any gods creating any life forms.

The point is, Newton's laws explain what we observe in everyday life and in planetary motion, even though not everything on subatomic or deep space levels. Evolution postulates what we do not observe, one species producing another, then offers one explanation among many of how that can be.

On the contrary, as I have already explained, speciation events have in fact been observed.

[js1138]

Quote mine alert.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ah_quote.htm

[Dimensio]

Genetics provides no evidence for evolution; rather to the contrary.

Could you elaborate on this claim, to explain how genetics provides evidence "contrary" to evolution?

[annalex]

But again, these are evidence without proof. No one would seriously object to evolution being taught for what it is, a hypothesis that together with the indirect observations such as you enumerate, looks plausible. You would not then object to someone pointing to areas which still remain without evolutionary explanation, such as irreducible complexity of features and organs.

Evolution would be a high school material when observations of speciation that overcomes irreducibly complex barriers in high animals, -- such as cows becoming dolphins, or dolphins, cows, or what have you, other than viri and moths, -- are available. Then it will be something that can teach the scientific method alongside gravity or magnetism.

Or else evolution can become high school material today is it admits its hypothetical nature and the paucity of its observed base, quits hiding behind the semantics of "theory" and "hypothesis", quits hiding behind lawyers, and allows critical views to be taught at the same time. That would be a good illustration of how honest science is done.

[annalex]

Genetics teach that genotype is inherited intact, and phenotype is not inherited. The only way to alter the genotype, so that it is no longer the same species, is a random mutation, the probability of which we don't know and which has incompatibility with life as the only likely outcome. The likelihood of taking a dolphin and mutating it into a cow is the same as taking your PC, and whack it with a hammer enough times to produce a washing mashine.

[Old_Mil]

How is the development of antibiotic resistance not an example of evolution?

Because an antibiotic resistant bacterium is still a bacterium. What's more, a Staph Aureus bacterium that acquires resistance is still Staph Aureus. This example simply has no bearing on the idea Darwin proposed and does nothing to prop up the concept that all life shares a common ancestry that arose from a primordial soup by random chance.

Take the doctrine of endosymbiosis, put forth by evolutionists to explain the origin of the eukaryotic cell. This has never been observed. Yet it is taught as biological truth based on the observation that mitochondria seem a bit like bacteria (nevermind that they have radically different functions, cristae, etc) to people who are predisposed to believe that evolution is true.

In fact, looked at it from that perspective, 99% of the arguments "for" evolution are nothing but the same sort of vague unsubstantiated tin-foil hat concepts that people are criticized for in the realm of politics on a daily basis.

[x5452]

Whether evolution turns out to be true or not isn't related to the law suit.

Its whether students (in an environment where many old timer teachers are soviet style athiests) should be forced to learn the theory from folks prone to doing more than show the facts.

[annalex]

Yes. Which is the same dynamics we have in America, except Russia is freeing itself from the atheists and we are enslaving ourselves to the same.

[x5452]

Too true! (They even allow Religious education in public schools now which the ACLU is intent to outlaw here)