I filed a Complaint in the U.S. Federal Court System because I have a B.S. in Biology from Indiana University and the Theory of Evolution has been long disproven by science. In the complaint, which the Judge was supposed to take as true, I stated several scientific facts disproving the Theory of Evolution. Here are three:
(1) A species cannot change into another species. Once a species' DNA mutates too much from its parent (including in bacteria) the organism will spontaneously kill itself. For example, there are six times when a triple copy (instead of the normal two) of one of our DNA can create a child--usually with severe disability: Patau syndrome, Edward syndrome, Down syndrome, Trisomy X, Klinefelter syndrome, Jacob’s syndrome. Instead of 46 chromosomes, these children have 47, and these viable, duplicated chromosomes are among our smaller ones. No child with 48 chromosomes ever survives. I actually had a poster (in small print) that listed every single viable human mutation. Anything else is spontaneously aborted--usually before a woman knows she is pregnant. This also makes logical sense because in order for a new mammal species to evolve, multiple mothers would have to give birth to children who could not mate with the species of their parent and produce viable offspring but who could mate with each other.
(2) Cells arise from cells. Spontaneous generation does not happen. This experiment has been running for over 100 years.
(3) DNA breaks down after 521 years. If some cell spontaneously came together in the ocean, combining over 3 million base pairs in a coherent order that can run the entire cell, and then the helicase and RNA that is needed to get that DNA to do anything would also have needed to form with semipermeable membranes and all the necessary cell structures. These would also have to form spontaneously and in the right place and order and it would have had to have happened in less than the 521 years or the DNA would be broken down. Note- we have never observed any of this happening in the over 100 years we have ben trying. And we know all the right starting solution chemicals to combine in a small sealed beaker instead of being completed diluted and contaminated by some primordial ocean.
The former Chechen PM may not understand all this, but he does understand that teach Evolution as a scientific fact when it was long ago disproven, is a affront to religion.
After filing my complaint, the judge did not let me present any evidence. The state defendants did not present any evidence. Instead, she stated that a "similar" case had been tried in a state court decades ago and therefore my case was already decided. Mind you, this "similar" case did not present a single scientific fact showing that evolution was false.
Judges in America have grown lazy. After seeing evidence, if a case is similar to the one you are judging, it is fully allowed for the judge to use that precedent to help decide the case. The Supreme Court, which can only see about 100 cases each year, has repeatedly stated that each case has to be examined before a decision can be made. Instead, judges take the $400 filing fee, look at a complaint and say the plaintiff "failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." The use this motion to dismiss to The fact there was another similar case in the past that had been tried, is evidence that my claim was stated properly and the court can proceed to decide the case based on the evidence I present--not on the evidence of a different case that was already decided.
Below is the Complaint I filed. You decide: If you accept everything I say as true, do I have a case? Did I make a claim?
_____________________________________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Now comes XXXXX REINOEHL, JENNIFER REINOEHL, and XXXXX
REINOEHL (collectively herein “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves, pro se,
and bring this Complaint against Defendants Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corporation, Penn-Harris-Madison Corporation School Board, and Katie
Jenner, Indiana Secretary of Education (collectively herein “Defendants”).
I.
PARTIES TO THE COMPLAINT
A. The
Plaintiff
1.
Jennifer Reinoehl XXXXX.
2.
XXXXX Reinoehl XXXXX
3.
XXXXX Reinoehl XXXX
B. The
Defendants
4.
Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation is a
public school corporation in the State of Indiana with a School Board, also
named as defendants, whose corporation office is located at 55900 Bittersweet
Rd., Mishawaka, IN, 46545 and whose phone number is (574) 259-7941. There are approximately 11,500 students in the
district and about 4,000 attend Penn High School.
5.
Katie Jenner is the current Indiana Secretary of
Education and the head of the Indiana Department of Education, a state
government office located at 100 N. Senate Ave., 9th Floor,
Indianapolis, IN, 46204 and with phone number (317) 232-6610. As the head of
the Indiana Department of Education she is responsible for the curriculum
taught in Indiana public schools. She is being sued in her individual and
official capacities.
II.
BASIS FOR JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343, which provides Federal Courts have jurisdiction
over cases involving a federal question—U.S. Constitutional Rights granted
under the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution, 42 U.S.C.§1983, and the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C.
§2201 and §2202. This Court has
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ cause of action arising under the
Indiana Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 3, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
7.
Venue is proper because under 28 U.S. Code §1391(b)
because one or more defendants reside in this District, and all defendants
reside in the State of Indiana and the events or omissions giving rise to the
claims at issue originated in this District.
8.
An actual and justiciable controversy exists
between the parties.
III.
Statements of Facts
9.
XXXXX and Jennifer Reinoehl live within the Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corporation public school district.
10.
XXXXX Reinoehl also lives within the
Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation public school district.
11.
XXXXX and Jennifer Reinoehl are parents of XXXXX
Reinoehl II, Samuel Reinoehl, XXXXX Reinoehl, and L.R. who have attended Grissom
Middle School, Discovery Middle School, and Penn High School—public schools run
by the Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation.
12.
XXXXX and Jennifer Reinoehl are also the parents
of T.R., who is currently too young to attend high school, but whom XXXXX and
Jennifer Reinoehl expect to transition into Penn High School as they have done with
each of their other children.
13.
At all times alleged herein, defendants were
acting under color of state law.
14.
Penn High School teaches, in accordance with
Indiana Department of Education guidelines, the state-sponsored, atheistic,
religious Theory of Evolution (herein “evolution”) and the state-sponsored,
atheistic, religious Big Bang Theory under the guise that they are “science.”
15.
The Theory of Evolution, often associated with
Charles Darwin, states that all known life descended from one, common, original
ancestor. The National Academy of Sciences summarizes the Theory of Evolution
as follows:
“Biological evolution concerns changes in living
things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things
share common ancestors. Over time, evolutionary change gives rise to new
species. [Charles] Darwin called this process ‘descent with modification,’ and
it remains a good definition of biological evolution today.”
16.
This statement was made with the knowledge that
the Theory of Evolution breaks many other scientific laws and theories as well
as defies observation since no species (as that term is scientifically defined)
has ever been observed to change into another, “new species.” This definition
also carefully avoids stating that the original organism from which all others
had to have descended had to have arisen spontaneously—which in itself violates
scientific laws. Most scientists, when presented with the arguments contained
within this Complaint, admit that the Theory of Evolution is highly flawed as a
scientific theory. However, since they have been indoctrinated with it while
attending public schools and universities, they are reluctant to abandon this
religious teaching.
17.
Even though the Theory of Evolution has been
scientifically disproven, it is continued to be taught in public schools as “scientific
truth” concerning the origins of the universe and species.
A. Hypothesis
Criteria Required For True Science
18.
All scientific laws and theories must be a
scientific hypothesis and meet the criteria for a scientific hypothesis.
19.
Scientific hypothesis, including those for
scientific theories, must meet specific requirements including that they must
be testable and that they must be falsifiable. In other words, “There are other
inhabited planets in the universe” is not a scientific hypothesis because we
cannot falsify it. We cannot send humans or probes to every other planet in the
universe. Even if we sent a probe to a planet and potentially found life, not
finding life would not falsify the hypothesis because not finding life does not
mean it does not exist. Therefore, it is not a scientific hypothesis because it
is not falsifiable.
20.
Another example of a statement that does not
meet the criteria for a scientific hypothesis is, “Our universe is surrounded
by another larger universe that it is impossible for us to contact” because if
we cannot contact the universe, we cannot test that it exists.[1]
21.
Because scientific hypothesis must be both
testable and falsifiable, they cannot reference supernatural—which behaves
unpredictably and therefore cannot be tested. Saying the God of the Bible
created humans is not testable, just as saying Nature (also known as the god
Gaia among other names) created humans is not testable. There is no test we
could conceive that would require either God or Nature to perform an act of
creation for us. Further, even if we did discover a way to test if God or
Nature created humans, performing the test without success would not falsify
our hypothesis since other factors might have been present at the time of
humans’ creation of which we were unaware.
22.
Although there is nothing wrong with making
observations and coming up with theories that sound plausible based on those
observations, most theories derived from this method are incorrect. This is why
theories must be testable in order to become a scientific hypothesis and they
must survive repeated testing to become actual science.
23.
For example, about a century ago, it was
observed that DNA found in every living cell only had four nucleotides, whereas
proteins were made up of 22 amino acids. Based on this observation and
mathematical calculations, proteins were thought to be the genetic material.
Scientists believed, without experimentation, that only four nucleotides would
not be enough to pass on all the information needed in a genome. It was not
until Hershey and Chase performed an experiment disproving this theory and
showing DNA was the genetic material. Scientists did not believe their results,
and so Hershey and Chase had to perform a second, different experiment that
verified their results. Repeatedly testing a hypothesis or theory and achieving
the same results is important in determining the validity of a hypothesis.
24.
Another more recent example concerns artificial
or non-nutritive sweeteners. It was known that artificial or non-nutritive
sweeteners had no calories and provided a sweet taste similar to sugar. From
this, scientists believed, without experimentation, that replacing sugar with
these substitutes in foods and beverages would help people lose weight. In the
decades since the first artificial or non-nutritive sweetener was introduced,
more people began drinking these “diet” beverages but obesity also increased
during this time period.[2]
Slowly, experiments began showing that artificial or non-nutritive sweeteners
increase weight gain despite the fact they contain no calories.
B. The
Big Bang Theory
25.
One scientifically disproven theory XXXXX
Reinoehl and L.R. were taught as truth by Penn High School in accordance with
Indiana Department of Education Guidelines was that the Universe originated in
a giant explosion referred to as the “Big Bang Theory.”
26.
Where the energy in the Universe came from is a
question for religion because there is no way to test it, and the creation of
matter and/or energy violates the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy—which
states mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms,
including but not limited to changing from mass to energy. The Law of
Conservation of Momentum (Newton’s First Law) states that momentum is
conserved—if something is unmoving, it will remain unmoving.
27.
Scientific experiments support the above laws, which
have been tested for centuries.
28.
What is known as the Big Bang Theory was
proposed based solely on the observation that galaxies outside our own appeared
to be moving away from us at a measurable rate. From this simple observation an
epic-length mythology on universe origins was written to support atheist origin
views, and it was rewritten whenever observed evidence was different than prior
predictions.
29.
For example, those supporting this theory,
theorized, in opposition to conservation of momentum, that the initial
explosion released material quickly, but then rapidly slowed and remained
unchanged at the current rate for 13 billion years. In space, there is no
friction or drag to slow particles down. However, the rate at which the
universe is expanding is extremely slow and not at the speed that a massive
explosion would have perpetuated. For this reason, instead of following the observed
laws of physics, atheists created an untestable mythology in opposition to
scientific laws.
30.
Based on Newton’s First Law and the fact that
space—especially a matterless primordial space—is a vacuum, the initial
explosion rate would have never been altered since there would be no reason for
it to have slowed. This mythology also violates known physics rules about
explosions, such as that they generate uneven pressure and an explosion as
large as one needed for the Big Bang to have occurred would have created
varying rates of acceleration, instead of the observed steady rate of all
bodies in the universe. We also can observe that if this explosion happened, it
eventually generated different sizes and densities of planets, stars, black
holes, and other celestial bodies. According to know physics laws and particle
behavior, including theories of gravitation, different sized bodies would move
at different rates if their acceleration originated from the same place. This
varying behavior is not observed.
31.
Finally, what we observed with the Hubble
telescope is that all the objects are moving away from all other objects in the
universe. Not only does this defy gravitation—larger objects in proximity to
smaller ones attract them—but if there was one central explosion that
accelerated all these objects, they would all be moving away from that singular
point, and we could discern that point or at least theorize its location. We
cannot.
C. Advocates
of the Big Bang predicted there would be a cosmic microwave background that
would be uniform and of a uniform temperature. When these advocates discovered
and photographed it, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for “proving” the Big
Bang Theory. However, it was soon found out that the cosmic microwave
background was not a randomly formed uniform background with little temperature
variation as necessary to support the Big Bang Theory. Instead, the background
directly correlates with the plane of our Milky Way Solar System. It also has
greater temperature fluctuations across it than what would be allowed by the
Big Bang Theory, including both warm and cold spots. Even though the cosmic
microwave background that was discovered disproved the Big Bang Theory because
it did not meet the predicted requirements, children are still taught the Big
Bang is truth. Instead of accepting the facts, atheistic scientists ignore them.
32.
In science, energy cannot be created or
destroyed. The energy required to start a massive explosion would have had to
have been spontaneously created in violation of this scientific law.
Evolutionist try to get around the laws of thermodynamics by stating the energy
was there and “transformed,” but again, energy cannot spontaneously transform
according to scientific laws and experiments that supported those laws.
Scientifically, some action had to cause this transformation according to the Third
Law of Motion.
33.
Just as it would be impossible to go back in
time and observe how the universe was created, it is equally impossible to form
a hypothesis that can be disproven that explains how the universe spontaneously
exploded—especially when atheist scientists are biased enough to overlook data
disproving their theory. These theories also cannot be tested. There is no way
to meaningfully recreate any origin event considering the vastness of the
universe and the earth’s relative smallness.
C. Spontaneous
Generation
34.
Another scientifically disproven theory XXXXX
Reinoehl and L.R. were taught as truth by Penn-Harris-Madison School
Corporation in accordance with Indiana Department of Education Guidelines was
that biological organisms spontaneously arose from Chemical Evolution.
35.
Louis Pasteur had disproven Spontaneous
Generation in an experiment started in 1859 and continuing until the present
time. Simply renaming “Spontaneous Generation” into “Chemical Evolution” does
not change the fact Pasteur definitively disproved the theory.
36.
In the case of Chemical Evolution, to support
their disproven hypothesis, evolutionary atheists, who are notably sentient
beings, will mix various chemicals together in a test tube and use electricity
to infuse energy into the system. Although the scientists selected the
chemicals based on their sentient knowledge of biological organisms and added
electricity instead of other forms of energy to “mimic” lightning, never once
has life been observed to form spontaneously in these experiments. Nor can
these scientists do any more than create individual pieces of biological
agents, such as proteins, DNA, lipids, etc. They, with all their knowledge
cannot and have never created a working cell from only chemical precursors.
This further supports Pasteur’s experiment disproving the hypothesis that life
can arise spontaneously.
37.
The Theory of Chemical Evolution is in direct
conflict with Cell Theory, which states, “All cells come from preexisting cells
created through the process of cell division.” Unlike the Theory of Chemical
Evolution, which has never been observed, Cell Theory is easily observed and
has been observed repeatedly. Never has life been observed to spontaneously or
chemically arise in nature.
D. Dating
Systems
38.
The Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation teaches
and the Indiana Department of Education requires all Indiana public schools to
teach students, including but not limited to LR. and XXXXX Reineohl, that the universe,
the Earth, and biological life itself has a history of billions and millions of
years.
39.
This teaching is based on mathematical
calculations, including one theoretical paper published in the 1970s about
geological methods of dating. At no time has the data in that paper, which was based
purely on mathematical calculations and not actual experimental data, been
experimentally tested.
40.
Many geological dating methods are based on
half-lives that are too long to test in order to determine if the decay remains
steady under various stresses, such as high temperature or excessive pressure.
Testing that has been performed has shown decay rates are not steady and can be
influenced by environmental factors.
41.
Geological dating methods also rely on knowing
the accurate composition of the item being tested when it was formed. It is
impossible for scientists to go back in time and observe or measure the
composition of the item at its genesis.
42.
Things, such as newly formed rock, do not return
expected results. Instead of geological dating results consistent with a new
rock’s age, the testing inaccurately shows the rock is millions of years old.
43.
Further proof these methods are unreliable show
in that the “predicted” age of the universe and earth changes over the decades.
44.
The above disproves the hypothesis that
radiometric testing is an accurate measure of age. Still, Defendants continue
to teach and cause to be taught that radiometric testing is a scientifically
accurate measure of age.
E. The
Fossil Record
45.
Another disproven aspect of the Theory of
Evolution L.R. and XXXXX Reinoehl were taught as truth by Penn High School in
accordance with Indiana Department of Education Guidelines was that the fossil
record shows single celled organisms gradually mutating into multi-celled
organisms. This theory, originally called “Transmutation” was scientifically
disproven in the 1800s prior to Charles Darwin renaming it “evolution.”
46.
Upon examining the fossil record, one finds the
“earliest” fossils are those of algae mats. Contrary to what the Defendants
teach and require to be taught, these organisms did not mutate into something
that was better suited to its environment. In fact, these algae mats were and
have always been best suited to their environment since they still exist today
and can be found in Australia. In fact, many of the “precursor” fossil animals that
are found “early” in the fossil record also still exist today. There was never
a reason for them to mutate because they were fit as they were initially found
in the fossil record.
47.
In addition, looking at the entire fossil
record, you do not find a gradual change that occurs slowly over time. Instead,
you find numerous organisms in the exact same few layers and then huge gaps
that would amount to millions of years if radiometric testing could be
trusted—with absolutely nothing in them. After that, you will find another few
layers, with numerous organisms. These layers are not necessarily organized
with single-celled organisms in the bottommost layers and more complex
organisms in layers higher up.
48.
The dangers of making non-scientific assumptions
about fossils found in the record that cannot be tested and treating them as if
they were a scientific hypothesis—or worse, scientific “truth”—is evident in
the history of the coelacanth. The coelacanth with its lobed fins was long
believed, based solely on the look of its fossil, as being the first fish to
crawl out of the ocean. This religious belief was not based on scientific
hypothesis or experimentation. It was solely based on how the fish looked. The
fish was also thought to be extinct.
49.
When the fish was discovered to be not extinct,
it was also discovered that it could only survive in the deep oceans. There was
and is absolutely no possible way that this fish could have ever crawled out of
the water and become the first amphibious organism on earth. Once this
discovery was made, atheistic evolutionists found another similar looking fish
fossil with lobed fins and again claimed that was the fish that first climbed
out of the sea. There is no scientific evidence that fossil is nothing but another
coelacanth.
F. Speciation
50.
The Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation
teaches and the Indiana Department of Education requires all Indiana public
schools to teach students, including but not limited to L.R. and XXXXX
Reineohl, that morphological features can determine if two or more animals
belong to the same species.
51.
In McLean v. Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F.
Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982), the Court stated in opposition to the Intelligent
Design theorists’ similar term “kind”:
“[T]here is no scientific definition of
"kinds" and none of the witnesses was able to point to any scientific
authority which recognized the term or knew how many "kinds" existed.
One defense witness suggested there may be 100 to 10,000 different
"kinds". Another believes there were "about 10,000, give or take
a few thousand."
This was one
reason given for denying that Creationism/Intelligent Design were scientific
theories.
52.
Although
scientists have clearly defined “species” as: “a group of organisms that share
a genetic heritage, are able to interbreed, and to create offspring that are
also fertile,” scientists do not adhere this definition.
53.
For
example, in the cases of dinosaurs, where it is impossible to test if one extinct,
fossilized animal bred with another and produced fertile offspring, scientists
solely use morphological similarities—with one scientist finding similarities
and another not finding them.
54.
Because the fossil record does not support
transmutation or “evolution” as it is now called, when Charles Darwin wrote his
primary evolutionary texts, he relied not on the fossil record but instead on
physical similarities and differences between, what he deemed to be eighteen
Galapagos finch “species” even though these finch “species” all successfully
interbreed, as well as interbreed with other “species” from the mainland, and
therefore are the same species according to the scientific definition of “species.”
The primary morphological differences between these “species” are their beaks.
This would be the equivalent of saying that humans with different nose shapes
are different species—regardless of their ability to produce fertile offspring
together. Despite knowing these birds breed with each other and produce fertile
offspring, they are still considered and named as different “species” today.
55.
Darwin’s
finches on the Galapagos islands and surrounding areas show that morphological
differences have no bearing on whether or not the animal is the same or
different species according to the scientific definition. Despite this, in, for
example, the case of flies, one fly is considered a different species simply
because the pattern of veins on its wings is different than that of another fly—another
morphological difference. In the case of mice (Peromyscus crinitus and
Peromyscus hooperi), one mouse is considered a different species because it
lives on the opposite side of the Grand Canyon—it is location that scientists
have used instead of whether or not these two “species” could produce fertile
offspring as the definition of species requires.
56.
Worse than these cases, where the animals are
never examined to see if they can produce fertile offspring, is the case where
scientists know two animals can produce fertile offspring but insist on
labelling them as different species. For example, lions (Panthera leo) and
tigers (Panthera tigris) are known to be able to produce fertile
offspring, but scientists have still classified them as different species in
the same genus because a cross has not yet been found in the wild.
57.
On the other hand, domestic dog breeds are all
considered the same species—Canis lupus familiaris—despite the fact no
cross between a Pomeranian and Husky has been found in the wild.
58.
If scientists themselves do not clearly follow
the definition of species, especially when this definition is well-written,
objective, and testable, and instead resort to subjective, untestable variances
from that definition, then the definition of “species” is just as meaningless
and unscientific as the Intelligent Design scientist’s “kind.”
59.
Further, since the Theory of Evolution is based
on one species changing into another “new species,” not following the
scientific definition allows the supporters of the atheistic religious Theory
of Evolution to claim new species are regularly observed and created whenever
they find a different variation of a known animal.
G. Spontaneous
Abortion
60.
The Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation
teaches and the Indiana Department of Education requires all Indiana public
schools to teach students including but not limited to L.R. and XXXXX Reineohl,
that one species changes or evolves into another species and all evolved from a
single, common ancestor (that had to have appeared through spontaneous
generation).
61.
However, it is known by scientific geneticists
that it would be impossible for one species to mutate into another species. Every
species from bacteria to humans have a set defined number of mutations that can
occur in their DNA. Any living thing that varies from the allowed mutations
will be spontaneously aborted. For example, in humans, three copies of
chromosome 13 or three copies of chromosome 18 or three copies of chromosome 21
or three copies of the sex chromosomes are all viable. Three copies of the
remaining 19 chromosomes result in death and spontaneous abortion within the
first month of pregnancy. Although there are numerous viable mutations—the
overall number and kind is set for all organisms.
62.
All geneticists are aware of the limitations of
genetic manipulation. When they make small purposeful mutations to organisms,
such as when they put a single human eye gene into a fly, they hide these
mutations from the fly’s natural detection safeguards so it does not
spontaneously kill itself. They also refrain from making too many genetic edits
because it would be impossible to hide them all. When too much foreign DNA is
introduced, even into bacteria, the organism will kill itself.
63.
These facts are all well-known and discussed in
undergraduate college science classes. All the Defendants played an equal role
in the pain and suffering Plaintiffs endured, by forcing XXXXX and Jennifer
Reinoehl’s children, including but not limited to XXXXX Reinoehl, to learn and
cite as truth religious origin stories that were different from those in which
they believe in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments
of the U.S. Constitution and the Indiana Bill of Rights, Article 1, Section 3.
H. Facts
64.
Indiana
Department of Education Guidelines mandate the atheist’s religious myth of evolution
is taught in all Indiana public schools and students are tested to confirm
their knowledge of the subject.
65.
For example, 2016
Biology guideline B.5.1, which applies to 9th grade students,
states:
“Evaluate anatomical and molecular evidence to
provide an explanation of how organisms are classified and named based on their
evolutionary relationships into taxonomic categories.”
66.
Anatomical and molecular similarities are not
the basis of how species are defined—it is whether or not animals can reproduce
viable offspring that can then reproduce viable offspring that determines
whether or not something is the same species—the scientific taxonomic category
upon which all the other taxonomic category definitions are based. If
structural similarities defined taxonomic relationships, platypus would be
closely related to ducks. Scientific taxonomy does not even place ducks and
platypus in the same phylum—which is one of the highest tiers of taxonomic
classification (as opposed to species which is one of the lowest tiers).
67.
The 2016 Biology
guideline B.5.2, which applies to 9th grade students, states:
“Communicate scientific information that common
ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical
evidence including both anatomical and molecular evidence.”
68.
Again, this standard requires students to
compare morphological features and if any similarity can be found, the student
is to declare that supports the atheistic origin myth of evolution. This is not
testing to see if one can evolve into another and is not based in science.
Semi-trucks and houses are both rectangular and can hold things inside them.
That does not mean one evolved from the other or that they had a common
ancestor. If we had lost all documentation of how semi-trucks came into being
there would be absolutely no way to develop a scientific test to discover
whether or not they had evolved from houses.
69.
The 2016 Biology
guideline B.5.3, which applies to 9th grade students, states:
Apply concepts of statistics and probability to
support a claim that organisms with an advantageous heritable trait tend to
increase in proportion to organisms lacking this trait.
70.
Students are required to use statistics and
probability to prove the Theory of Evolution, when hypothesis are
supposed to be tested by attempting to disprove them. At no point are students
asked to determine the probability or statistical likelihood that about 2.7
million DNA nucleotides floated together in the estimated 321,003,271 cubic
mile ocean in a way that was meaningful to conducting life for a cyanobacteria,
and after doing so random sets of 63-100 RNA nucleotides formed in clumps in
within 0.8 micrometers of that DNA and these formed in sequences that were
meaningful to performing the duties of mRNA, tRNA, and rRNA, and that in that
same 0.8 micrometers a sufficient number of enzymes and proteins that necessary
for any life function also spontaneously formed or arrived at the exact same
time as the rest and then some spontaneously formed into carboxysomes, some
proteins spontaneously formed around gas bubbles that also would have had to
been in that same place at that same time and created gas vacuoles and then
layers of chlorophyll bearing molecule membranes bound together in that same
place at that same time surrounding the other required ingredients for basic
cell function, and 37,000 DNA nucleotide base pairs also would have gathered in
that 0.8 micrometer spot of the ocean and came together in a way that created
the functioning mitochondrial directions, and themselves in that same membrane
before it spontaneously closed itself to the rest of the ocean. This is only a
small detail of everything that would have had to have happened at exactly the
same moment if Chemical Evolution occurred.
71.
Instead of the above real numbers and real
situation that had to have existed in order for Chemical Evolution to have
occurred (and without Chemical Evolution there would have been no life form
that existed to evolve into anything else), students are given one or two
traits to work with and fabricated numbers and fabricated scenarios on which to
carry out their probability and statistical analysis—which, not surprisingly,
is designed to convince students the atheist’s religious version of creation is
true. Teaching students to be biased and “prove” a hypothesis is not science
and is a scientific fallacy scientists try to prevent.
72.
The 2016 Biology
guideline B.5.4, which applies to 9th grade students, states:
“Evaluate evidence to explain the role of natural
selection as an evolutionary mechanism that leads to the adaptation of species,
and to support claims that changes in environmental conditions may result in:
(1) increases in the number of individuals of some species, (2) the emergence
of new species over time, and/or (3) the extinction of other species.
73.
“Nature” is defined as phenomena of the physical
world collectively. To “select” something means to carefully choose the most
suitable item. Nature is not a sentient being—although the ancient Greeks and
many cultures do worship Nature (i.e. Gaia or Mother Nature among other names).
If the scientific definition of species is adhered to, there has never been a
“new species” because no living being from bacteria to humans can give birth to
a living being that is outside a set, small amount of variation.
74.
The 2016 Biology
guideline B.5.5, which applies to 9th grade students, states:
Construct an explanation based on evidence that
the process of evolution primarily results from four factors: (1) the potential
for a species to increase in number, (2) the heritable genetic variation of
individuals in a species due to mutation and sexual reproduction, (3)
competition for limited resources, and (4) the proliferation of those organisms
that are better able to survive and reproduce in the environment.
75.
Again, the standard requires students begin with
a belief that evolution is true and search for ways to support that claim. This
is not science nor is it what scientists are supposed to do. (1) Although many
species, such as the Giant Panda, have low reproductive rates and only produce
five to eight cubs in a lifetime, humans also have low reproductive rates and
currently are only producing two to three children (worldwide average) during their
lifetime. Humans, despite their low reproductive rate, are not on the verge of
extinction and their population is generally believed to be increasing. (2)
Genetic mutations are not always heritable. This is especially true if the
mutation is too different from the parent and results in a spontaneous
abortion. For example, neither cervical cancer nor lung cancer—both mutations
induced by environmental factors—are heritable. Finally, as stated above, the
original algae found in the “earliest” fossils was the best able to survive and
reproduce in the Earth’s environment since it was originally formed and it has
done so. There was no reason for other mutations of it to have survived and
turned into anything else.
76.
The 2016 Biology
guideline B.5.6, which applies to 9th grade students, states:
Analyze and interpret data for patterns in the
fossil record and molecular data that document the existence, diversity,
extinction, and change of life forms throughout the history of life on Earth
under the assumption that natural laws operate today as in the past.
77.
For this exercise, the natural laws that operate
today—including that organisms which mutate to far from their parents are
spontaneously killed before they can develop—is ignored. The actual fossil
record, which does not show a natural progression from one organism to another
but instead shows a variety of organisms and then has hundreds of layers
without any organisms in it at all is also ignored. Instead of actual fossil
records, students are given fabricated records. They are also given hand
drawings, instead of actual pictures, of chickens, dogs, humans and other
animals in a fetus stage. Although photographs show differences, the hand
drawings are rough and made to look like each other to encourage biased
comparisons that lead to the preconceived conclusion they are almost identical.
78.
During the 2018-2019 school year, XXXXX Reinoehl
was a 9th grade student at Penn High School, a Penn-Harris-Madison
School Corporation school located in Indiana and was taught the atheist Theory
of Evolution as if it were scientific truth, including but not limited to the
above guidelines, which are against her religious beliefs as a Christian.
79.
During the 2019-2020 school year, L.R. was a 9th
grade student at Penn High School, a Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation
school located in Indiana and was taught the atheist Theory of Evolution as if
it were scientific truth, including but not limited to the above guidelines, which
are against her religious beliefs as a Christian.
80.
Plaintiff XXXXX Reinoehl and her parents XXXXX
and Jennifer Reinoehl suffered emotional pain and suffering because Defendants
violated their Constitutional Rights.
IV.
ARGUMENT
81.
Just as changing the name of Spontaneous
Generation to Chemical Evolution does not make it a viable scientific
hypothesis, changing the name of Atheism to Evolution does not make it any less
a religion. Evolution is a non-scientific belief, made in opposition to the
known, tested, and observed laws of science. It bestows upon “nature” both
intelligence and supernatural power to select and discern one animal from
another. Evolution is inherently a religious origin myth, argument, or
assertion that falls outside the realm of science. It is neither scientific nor
a testable theory in the scientific sense.
82.
Since the time of ancient Greece, when the
atheist philosopher Thales first proposed an evolutionary theory because he did
not believe in the Greek gods (something referenced in Plato’s Apologia). It
has been recycled throughout the centuries as an atheist alternative to how
life began.
83.
The Indiana guidelines require students not to
scientifically attempt to disprove the Theory of Evolution, but instead to find
morphological similarities, ignore scientific laws, and use fabricated
information to support the belief.
84.
The effect of the Indiana Department of
Education’s guidelines is that public school science teachers are compelled to
present to their students in biology class information that is inherently
religious, not scientific, in nature. This is a clear and direct violation of
the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits the teaching or
presentation of religious ideas in public school science classes. The
Plaintiffs, parents and child in the Penn-Harris-Madison School District, bring
this lawsuit to enforce their rights under the Constitution of the United
States. As their remedy, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that the defendants’
evolution teaching guidelines violates the Constitution of the United States.
They also seek an injunction to prevent such violations and damages.
85.
“Families entrust public schools with the
education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding
that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that
may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family.
Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is
involuntary. See, e. g., Grand Rapids School Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S.
373, 383 (1985); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 60 , n. 51 (1985); Meek
v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 369 (1975); Abington School Dist. v. Schempp,
374 U.S. 203, 252 -253 (1963) (BRENNAN, J., concurring)” Edwards v.
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578.
86.
Under the first amendment, the Supreme Court has
ruled that even generic prayers, which offend atheists, cannot be led by public
school teachers in schools. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Similarly,
tenants of Atheism that specifically deny there is any God that created things
in six days and that speak about origins of life and the universe are offensive
to Christians. In this case, students do not have the ability to opt out of
these teachings. If generic prayers that offend atheists cannot be said,
atheist origin myths cannot be taught as if they are scientific truth when they
are not.
87.
The Eastern District of Arkansas—McLean v.
Arkansas Bd. of Ed., 529 F. Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark. 1982)—ruled that since
“kind” is not clearly defined in the Intelligent Design Theory, it cannot be
taught alongside Evolution because it is a religion and the term “kind” was
only found in the Biblical creation story and the Bible is the founding
document for Christianity. This ruling was later referred to and cited with
approval by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578
(1987)
88.
However, Evolutionist also do not follow the
clearly defined scientific meaning of “species” and classify animals as if they
are different “species” when according to the clear definition, they are in
fact the same species. They do this because the in the Origin of Species, the
founding book for evolution, Charles Darwin did not follow the clear,
scientific definition of “species.” Had he done so, his theory would have been
immediately refuted since it was not one “species” mutating into another that
he observed, but instead variations of the same species. By the Court’s precedent
for Intelligent Design, evolution, is also a religion and not science and
cannot be taught in schools.
89.
Evolution is a belief that the origin and
development of living organisms came into being outside of observed laws and
scientifically known limitations on genetic variation. Stating that the
universe and everything in it came about in a way that is in opposition to
scientific laws and known scientific facts, but refusing to attribute those
deviations to an intelligent creator is the central tenet of traditional
atheistic religions. As such, evolution is inherently religious.
90.
Evolution promotes positions taken by advocates
of Atheism, who continuously attack public institutions for having any
semblance of Christianity, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers and those
governing the United States for the first 100 years of its existence allowed
not only things such as school prayer but also things such as reading the Bible
and its creation story in public schools.
91.
Despite having all the tenets of atheistic
religious belief and failing to follow scientific laws, those supporting
evolution refuse to admit it is a religion and instead claim that any religion,
including Christianity, can fit into it. A clear reading of Genesis 1, which
states the Universe and everything in it was created in six days, refutes that
the Judeo-Christian origin belief and evolution can be superimposed. Because
the atheist Theory of Evolution specifically attacks the Judeo-Christian origin
story, it has the purpose and effect of advancing the atheist religion and
results in the entanglement of the state with religion—as would any philosophy
or theory about the origin of the universe and life.
92.
When the Theory of Evolution was first proposed
and first taught in schools, it was taught alongside eugenics—another topic
that was once boasted to be science but now considered pseudoscience. Just as eugenics—or
the purifying of the human race—has been removed from public school science
curriculum, evolution, another pseudoscience upon which eugenics was founded,
also needs to be removed from it.
93.
XXXXX and Jennifer Reinoehl and their children,
including but not limited to XXXXX Reinoehl, are Christians. They believe that
a sentient God created the universe and all life within it. Religiously
teaching life and the universe arose spontaneously from nothing over billions
of years when scientists have disproven the theory of Spontaneous Generation
and Transmutation, and when these atheist evolution myths violate the
established rules for hypothesis and the established laws of science infringes
upon Plaintiffs’ first amendment rights.
94.
Teaching that one “species” mutates into
another, when this is scientifically disproven and in direct contradiction to
Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, violates Plaintiffs’ first amendment rights.
95.
Hypothesis that meet all the requirements of
being a scientific hypothesis cannot be formed about the origins of the
Universe and the origins of the life within the Universe and therefore must be
limited to classes on religion and philosophy—in which all creation stories
from all religions should be presented as equal. When public school teachers
falsely claim the Theory of Evolution to be “scientific truth” and teach it as
such in public schools, they violate first amendment rights by establishing a
state, atheist religion.
96.
Defendants’ evolution teaching guidelines were originally
added to school curriculums precisely because they promote Atheism.
97.
Defendants’ evolution teaching guidelines do
nothing to improve and much to harm science education in school. It promotes
scientific fallacies of “affirming the consequent” where students are
encouraged to seek evidence to confirm a hypothesis instead of disproving them,
it promotes the fallacy of “false analogy” where students are taught to assume
that because animals share a few characteristics with humans then they must
share other characteristics with them, and it promotes the fallacy of
“confirmation bias” where students are taught to favor the data that supports the
Theory of Evolution’s hypothesis.[3]
98.
Unless an injunction issues from this Court,
Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable harm from the Defendants’
teaching of evolution.
V.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES
99.
The actions of the Defendants, as set forth
above, which are fully incorporated herein, entitle plaintiffs to relief under
42 U.S.C.§1983 because Defendants, acting under color of state law, subjected
plaintiffs to a deprivation of their rights under the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as applied to the
states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
101.
The Defendants’ evolution teaching
guidelines promote religious views that are not adhered to by the Plaintiffs as
well as to other students and their families, and invades the Plaintiffs’
prerogative to instruct their children about their beliefs with respect to
religion. The Plaintiffs perceive the Defendants’ actions as conveying a
governmental message that students should subscribe to Atheism and the views
reflected about the origins of the earth in the Theory of Evolution. The
Plaintiffs feel harmed, intimidated, and distressed by the Defendants’
endorsement and promotion of religious views which they feel should not be
taught in public school.
102.
The Defendants’ evolution teaching
guidelines results in excessive entanglement of government and religion,
coerced religious instruction, and an endorsement by the state of Atheism over other
religious views and of one religious viewpoint over others. The Defendants evolution
teaching guidelines also result in an excessive entanglement of government and
religion because, for example, the Penn-Harris-Madison teachers must field
questions about conflicts between religious beliefs and the Theory of Evolution
and according to the guidelines must do so in a way that supports Atheism and
suppresses Christianity and the belief that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible
inspired Word of God. Any subject—whether history, philosophy, or science that
teaches evolution requires a continuing involvement of state officials, who not
only have encouraged the teaching of Atheism but who also are necessitating
that teachers of evolution become spiritual guides for students and answer
religious questions that any discussion on origins would include.
103.
The Defendants’ Evolution guidelines violate XXXXX
and Jennifer Reinoehl’s rights under the Establishment Clause by subjecting
their children to an unwelcome government endorsement of the religion of Atheism
that has caused and will continue to cause them irreparable harm. To avoid this
harm, Plaintiffs have to provide private education for their children.
104.
The Defendants’ Evolution guidelines violated XXXXX
Reinoehl’s rights under the Establishment Clause by subjecting her to unwelcome
government endorsement of the religion of Atheism that caused her irreparable
harm. To avoid this harm, Plaintiffs have to provide private education for
their children.
105.
As a result of these current
violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Establishment Clause, Plaintiffs are
entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.
COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF THE
INDIANA BILL OF RIGHTS ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3
106.
The actions of the Defendants, as set forth
above, which are fully incorporated herein, violate, both facially and as
applied, Article 1, Section 3 of the Indiana Bill of Rights. The purpose of the
Defendants’ evolution teaching guidelines is to advance and endorse religion
and a particular religious viewpoint. The Defendants’ evolution teaching
guidelines succeed in doing so, resulting in an excessive entanglement of
government in religion, coerced religious practice, and an endorsement by the
state of Atheism over other religions. The Defendants’ requirements for
teaching evolution also represent an impermissible appropriation of state funds
for the purposes of sectarian education.
107.
As a result of these current violations of
Plaintiffs’ rights under the Indiana Bill of Rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to
declaratory and injunctive relief.
VI.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, in light of the
foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following:
A. a declaratory
judgement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and §2202 and 42 U.S.C.§1983 declaring
that the Defendants’ requirements for teaching Evolution violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States and Article 1, Section 3 of the Indiana Bill of Rights;
B. an injunction
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 prohibiting the Defendants from teaching the Theory
of Evolution or causing it to be taught in any public school and removing all
literature and media promoting or describing the Theory of Evolution from
public school science classrooms;
C. damages
against the Defendants for violating the Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section
3 of the Indiana Bill of Rights;
D. an order
awarding Plaintiffs costs incurred in this litigation; and
E. any and all
other relief the Court deems just and proper in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Reinoehl XXXXX
Reinoehl
[1] http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/aboutscience/hypotheses.html
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db109.htm
[3] https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2017/03/13/common_logical_fallacies_committed_by_scientists.html
No comments:
Post a Comment