Pooph is marketed across the Internet and on several websites (Chewy, Walmart, Amazon) as a "safe" and "effective" odor eliminator. In an advertising video, the promo guy sprays it directly in his mouth. Chewy has stated that "The wipes and spray can be used directly on cats and dogs." 

Pooph spray is not FDA approved and it does not have to be, because it is a "cleaning product" but the company is telling people through it's advertising that it is safe for human and dog consumption. The Better Business Bureau says the safety is backed up by the "National Advertising Division," but this "division" is not a government agency, but rather one run by the advertising industry itself. Further, did Pooph disclose its "proprietary odor eliminating blend" ingredients to this agency, because it does not disclose these to the consumer, meaning that those buying it have no idea what is really in it. 

All the advertising images I found say that it is safe "*if used according to the directions." On the back of the spray bottle for both the "Pet Odor Eliminator" and "Kitty Litter Odor Eliminator," under the directions, it says "NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN OR ANIMAL CONSUMPTION." Hmmm, then why do they have a guy spraying himself in the mouth in their advertisement? It also says, "Not to be sprayed or applied upon humans or animals." [emphasis added] 

So, while their advertising shows people eating, spraying, and wiping this all over themselves, their bottles (at least the ones I purchased) say not to do this--and their advertising says you need to follow the directions on the bottle after showing people wiping their pets down with it. 

I did a database search to see if any research had been done to determine the safety of using this on dogs/cats/humans, and I couldn't find a single paper on it. If anyone finds a published research paper showing this is safe to spray or wipe on my dog or cat, please let me know by posting a link in the comments (only links to an actual paper determining the safety of this product will be allowed to be posted). Sorry if I am cynical, but I have seen enough junk science in my lifetime. No published papers means they have no clue if its safe or not and shouldn't be promoting it as such. 

I am not saying it isn't safe--I'm saying that without any scientific research determining whether or not it is safe and without knowing exactly what is in the product--this company should not be making the claims that it is safe to spray on things and consume. That they have a disclaimer on the product bottle is proof enough for me they don't think it is all that safe.

The Results of my AUDIT Test (Figured I Post Mine Since I Think All Our Leaders Should Post Theirs, Too)

So, I had to laugh at my results. I have not consumed any alcohol since I was 18. (And although I did get into bars in the United States before I turned 21, I have never drank in an American bar. I drank when I was 18 in England, where it was legal at 18.) I do purchase alcohol annually for Christmas desserts I make--although I do not consume it or them, which led to one doctor being concerned because he did not phrase the question in a way that meant consumption, and I answered it honestly. Apparently, it's a red flag to buy several liters of alcohol around Christmas. However, he seemed to believe I actually consumed the alcohol when I do not consume the alcohol or the desserts I make that have alcohol in them--he totally did not believe me when I tried to explain. (I wonder what he would have thought if he knew I bought a bottle of Everclear to perform a science experiment during VBS at church? I dumped the leftovers in my gas tank, so technically I went through the entire bottle in three hours--although I didn't drink a drop.) 

Anyway, my current consumption level is zero and has been for decades. However, again, to answer the AUDIT test honestly, when I did drink (solely for less than a month when I was 18 and in England), I drank 3-4 "servings" per setting and I certainly had more than six servings in one setting at one time. I did so around older, more seasoned drinkers, who were responsible, put up with my immaturity,, kept me from doing anything stupid and even distracted me to keep me from drinking more when they thought I was hitting it a bit hard--to them, I am forever grateful. 

This was my result from the AUDIT test:

Now, you may be thinking, "Why did she laugh?" because I am a "low risk." I laugh because (1) I have a dark sense of humor and (2) the bold clearly says "It is important that you do not increase your present consumption." My "present" consumption is 0 drinks in over 3 decades. I have absolutely no plans to start drinking at any time in my future, but I find it funny that this test warns me against doing so. At the same time, I totally agree with it--I remember liking the taste of hard alcohol. 

People can drink responsibly, but young people rarely figure that out. Because of my own experiences, I am a firm advocate of keeping track of just how much your 20-something kids are drinking and encouraging those who can drink responsibly to demonstrate that ability in front of them. I had good friends. My husband had his mother, who is German and who treats alcohol differently than Americans do. Neither of us were around enablers who babied us through our hangovers.

It is also important that people take the test and get help if the test says they need it. You can take it here.

The President Doesn't Have a "Right of Visit and Search"

 The "right of visit and search" that President Trump is declaring he has to search innocent vessels is a right only extended during a war. The U.S. Congress is the only American entity that can declare war on a nation, and it has not declared war on Iran. It could be argued NATO also has this right, but most of the NATO countries do not support a war with Iran. Any visiting and searching of vessels that our Navy does will be done illegally. Oh, and although pirate ships also fall under this right, if we board any ship and it isn't a pirate ship, we have to make compensation to that ships owners and nation.

Some Americans have jumped on the "no nuclear enrichment for Iran" without apparently realizing that this would mean Iran can't use nuclear power. It would also mean Iran could not establish data centers, among other things--but presumably if they did this they would be more intelligent and limit theirs, unlike the U.S., which has 4000+ (no other country has 1/10 that). 

When will other countries realize that this is all about money and stock manipulation (see my other post). Leaders like Netanyahu and Trump, who have no hope of being re-elected are grasping at straws and hoping to at least make themselves a nice nest egg before they must permanently leave politics. The U.S., unfortunately, has no laws against our elected leaders dabbling in the stock market and doing insider trading--it's only those under them. 

The U.S. didn't want Russia to get nuclear bombs either. Our leaders told us it would be the end of the world because those crazy Russians would kill us. Thus, the decades long Cold War. 

Ironically, of the nine countries who have nuclear bombs, the United States is the only one to use one and they some how have justified the fact that they only used it on civilian populations who were completely unsuspecting and who had no bomb warnings or shelters that could protect them. This is similar to how we convinced Americans that it was a great thing we were able to destroy an Iranian ship--their best ship, without expanding on the fact that the only reason that ship was there was because it was participating in war games with the United States and was there under a peace treaty. No, we shot them in the back as soon as they were heading home, while they were completely unsuspecting. We are just like Epstein--we play a simple war game and make other countries think we're just a friendly country before screwing them. 

In actuality, the only thing Russia getting nuclear weapons did was stop us from using them again. Granted, with our trigger happy President and his henchman Hegseth, we may start bombing everyone again. We are already only hurting civilians in Iran, just as Israel is primarily targeting civilians in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel is absolutely correct in that the world has forgotten the history of WWII. Now, just as then, Hitler was allowed to do what he wanted and took over SEVERAL countries before the rest of the world even told him to stop!! That is exactly what Israel and the United States are doing while everyone looks the other way. 

The Real Reason for the U.S/Israel-Iran War

Many people like to approach this as a Zionist thing--and it certainly appeals to Zionism. But the truth of the matter is that Netanyahu wants Israel to be the tollbooth for all the oil in the region. Israel wants the power to shut the world's oil on or off and effect world markets, and it wants other Gulf Countries to pay for this. By forcing Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, they can go to those who were dragging their feet and get them to seal this deal. 

If the other countries were smart, they would understand that pipelines are pretty easy to blowup. None of the Middle East has been able to protect itself from Iran. Personally, if I had a neighbor who could beat me up, I wouldn't go picking fights with him/her all the time. 

My questions are twofold: Why is the United States helping with this? Is it (as some have hinted) because our President is scared of even more things that Israel agents have on him beyond Epstein? He shouldn't be since former President Clinton showed you won't be impeached for sexual immorality or lying on the stand. I think that the President is helping Israel manipulate markets. On April 1, everyone in the news knew that President Trump was going to make an announcement at 8 pm--an odd time. That he was going to make this announcement was known for over 24 hours and promoted. In the morning of April 1, while markets were opened, it was rumored throughout the news that he was going to announce an end to the war in Iran. Gas prices were affected accordingly. Then, the announcement came and it said nothing except we were absolutely not ending the war. 

Most people think stocks have to go up to make money on the stock market. This is not true. Stocks can go down and people can make money on them by short selling. Short selling works best, of course, when you know what the market is going to do and you can guarantee it is going to drop. 

My second question is: Why does the world ignore that the U.S. and Israel are obliterating citizens, just as Israel did in both Palestine and is doing in Lebanon, but when Iran attacks civilians in retaliation, they are committing war crimes? Ever since the United States decided to drop to atomic bombs on civilian cities in Japan, war has shifted from two armies fighting each other to one army wiping out the civilians of another country. In Korea, we killed refugees. In Vietnam, we attacked unarmed civilians and dropped Agent Orange on them. How can any American complain about war crimes when we measure our own actions with a different stick? 

Today's warfare is even worse. People are not making the decisions as to what targets to hit in Iran, Palestine, or Lebanon. The 4000+ AI centers scattered throughout the U.S. are doing it for our military. They are choosing what to target, and they are choosing to target girl's schools, universities, and pharmaceutical companies. Many troops following orders end up scarred for life because of the evil things they are told to do. When will Americans put a stop to this and execute any commanding officer that authorizes a civilian target?

(AI was used to help generate this image, and hours were spent by the author editing it.)

America--No Longer a Democratic Republic

The Founding Fathers of the United States set up a clear system of checks and balances between Congress, the Courts, and the President. However, since that start, we have been eroding that balance. At first, it was the switch from senators being elected by state legislature to being directly elected. By the early 1900s, it was further eroded by excluding or making it nearly impossible for third parties and independents to get on state ballots. Since NATO, Congress has slowly given up its sole right to declare war and has looked the other way as presidents executive ordered their way around things. 

In the past ten years, Americans have seen government supported online censorship and AI-algorithms that intentionally censor certain topics or create a soundbox where people only see information they support pushed back at them--making them more likely to believe false theories as they see them promoted over and over again. 

I in no way shape or form believe Trump is like Hitler, but he certainly seems to be trying for that image right now. There are a few similarities. When Hitler invaded Austria, the rest of the world looked the other way and claimed Austria wanted it. (Obviously,  The Story of the Trapp Family Singers had not been published, but one would think governments might have realized no country in the history of the world has ever been like, "Oh-oh-oh!! Colonize me!! Please! Please! Please!" It took several countries before the rest of the world was like, "Hmmm, maybe we shouldn't let him go unchecked like that." Now, we are invading many countries and setting up puppet governments. This is no different than colonizing them.

The United States has also been selling its balanced government to its intelligence agencies--as have most countries. If you think about it, no agency should ever be doing something so secret that its country's leaders are not told about it, but that is what our intelligence agencies have been doing for over half a century. I am not talking about military intelligence, which I believe is very important, but this is general intelligence operating outside the military. U.S. agencies were staffed with Nazi's who were basically given pardons for their war crimes if they came and worked for our government--including in research, teaching, and intelligence areas. What did these people who apparently had no problem acting outside the laws do? Well, one of the main jobs of our intelligence agencies have been to take over other countries and interfere in their elections--all in the name of "democracy." The also form alliances and share information with the intelligence agencies of other nations. 

Now, congress has become obsolete. The people who have been in are apparently too old and too tired to care that Trump will spend $1 trillion every three months just to invade and put a puppet government in Iran, Venezuela, and other countries. The puppet government in Ecuador has already been there for a while. Hegseth talks about the Monroe Doctrine while ignoring that we can't have troops around the world, start a war with Iran, taunt China in its own waters and train troops for Ukraine if we are following the Monroe Doctrine. He isn't practicing the Monroe Doctrine--he's empire building, which is in complete opposition to the Monroe Doctrine.

While Trump lets Hegseth do whatever he wants, Congress lets Trump do whatever he wants. Why? I think they believe they can escape the American wrath by pushing it all on Trump. But a Congress that ignores Trump is a Congress that supports him. A Congress that refuses to act when the people of the United States want them to act is a useless instrument.

In my opinion, Trump is more like Chairman Mao. He has surrounded himself with his own soundbox that tells him what he wants to hear. But when the U.S. Navy has to attack a ship that was granted protection to participate in a military display with the United States by India, that doesn't show a strong military. That shows a military that is so broken and defunct it can only attack dirty or risk losing. If that ship had been aware it was not protected, we would not have murdered the people on it so easily. In fact, as much as I am glad we aren't putting boots on the ground, not doing so shows how afraid our leadership is that it will get its butt kicked.

Will the American people care enough to vote for and run as independents to get these good-ol'-boys out and get real people in? I hope so, but it might be too late. Terrorists have struck American soil before, and Iran is reportedly the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, but our leaders think attacking their country and taking out their leaders is fair game. This time, however, we are working with an underpaid military made up of mostly new rejects so they can meet their recruiting goals. It is spread across the world and the U.S., and we just took out a beloved religious leader. 

The Noble committee showed wisdom beyond Trump's bluffs about ending wars (that actually are still going on). Instead of going down as the President of Peace, he will go down in history as the President who was responsible for World War III while Congress looked the other way. 

A New Lancet Study that Failed to Show Its Results Weren't Random Says Tylenol Isn't Linked to Brain Damage

News stations have jumped on the bandwagon, claiming 40 studies were reviewed in this Lancet paper that makes me realize just how lax and/or bought-out the Lancet is. The problem is that they only included 17 of those studies in the meta-analysis. Digging deeper, we find they didn't get statistical significance with p-values over 0.4 (they should be below 0.05). Why was this study published? This isn't a randomized controlled trial that was simply too small to be significant. No, this was a literature search. The entire purpose of meta-analyses is to combine small studies to achieve statistical significance. They failed. Further, they used estimated estimates to help shape their data and computer AI to model the results. 

If you really want to know the truth, scientists have known for a long time that Tylenol/ acetaminophen/ paracetamol causes brain damage in kids just as it causes liver damage in adults: 

Acetaminophen causes neurodevelopmental injury in susceptible babies and children: no valid rationale for controversy

This study is from 2023, before politics were attached to it.

News agencies should be ashamed of themselves

Not Surprising: Major News Agencies Are Lying About the CPI and Tariffs

 So, CPI is not a real number anyway. How it is calculated constantly gets "adjusted." For example, they negate price increases because the "new" version is "better" so "there wasn't really any inflation." (Think about how your car now comes with a standard radio and power windows, so since it is "better" the price increase since the 1950s isn't really a price increase and won't go into CPI.) 

And then there is the whack way they calculate how much inflation there is. For example. Let's say you bought a house for $112,500 last year and a "similar" house costs $121,500 this year. Normal people would simply see how much that increased: (112500/121500) * 100= 9.3% 

That isn't, as you might have guessed, how the government does it. They use this math problem, which makes little sense to me but lowers the numbers nicely: ((121500-112500)/112500) * 100= 8% Voila! Less inflation despite the truth. 

But, this month, the news agencies decided to flat out lie in their headlines about what the report says to push their anti-tariff agenda: 

Here’s how Trump’s tariffs could be impacting prices for US consumers (CNN)

U.S Inflation Accelerated in June as Trump's Tariff's Pushed Up Prices  (NY Times)

US consumer prices rise in June as tariff pass-through begins (Reuters)

First, let's clear things up--the new tariffs do not go into effect until August 1. That's right--these news agencies, which all know this, are blaming inflation for June on something that will not happen until August. They are picking small pieces of the inflation breakdown to highlight in their report while ignoring or attempting to paint others in a more favorable light. 

Second, let's look at the actual report on the BLS website. It states "The index for shelter rose 0.2 percent in June and was the primary factor in the all items monthly increase." Hmm, last I checked Americans did not import shelter from other nations. Generally, we don't live in yurts, tents, or other importable shelter types. I am pretty sure RVs and van conversions are counted as "vehicles" and not shelter despite there ability to be used as such. 

The highest 3 year-over-year increases are from shelter, restaurants/food away from home, and utilities (electric and gas). Along with what I said above, I doubt anyone is flying to China and having their takeout imported. Now, we do import utility gas, but we also export utility gas (natural gas/propane) so it seems to me, if it were becoming more expensive to import it, we would just stop exporting so much. 

There is so much garbage the news can blame President Trump for--why are they making up false headlines to promote anti-tariff rhetoric?

Zelensky-Trump Wear a Suit Meme

 

Christians Who Pray for Israel Are Not Following the Bible

For the past year, I have heard churches preaching that we have to pray for Israel. This, however, goes against the Bible. 

God is very clear. He punishes those who turn their backs on Him. 

"Although our sins testify against us,

    do something, Lord, for the sake of your name.
For we have often rebelled;
    we have sinned against you.
8 You who are the hope of Israel,
    its Savior in times of distress,
why are you like a stranger in the land,
    like a traveler who stays only a night?
9 Why are you like a man taken by surprise,
    like a warrior powerless to save?
You are among us, Lord,
    and we bear your name;
    do not forsake us!"  Jeremiah 14: 7-9

God's response is: 

"Then the Lord said to me, “Do not pray for the well-being of this people. Although they fast, I will not listen to their cry; though they offer burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Instead, I will destroy them with the sword, famine and plague.” Jeremiah 14: 11-12

When people sin, they get God's punishment. Every time in history when the nation of Israel, God's chosen people, have rejected Him, He has punished them. "If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.” Joshua 24:20 Further, God said the Israelites had disobeyed him so he  would not drive the other nations out. Judges 1:1-3

During the time of Jeremiah, the nation of Israel no longer served God. Currently, the nation of Israel no longer serves God. For over a thousand years, the Israelites have both refused to accept Jesus as their Savior and refused to perform sacrifices as required by the Old Testament law. 

You may think that God requires mercy and not sacrifice, but murdering children around you is not mercy. The Israelis are not showing any mercy or performing sacrifices. 

Should we move all the Americans off our U.S. border who are being murdered by illegal immigrants to safe lands the way our current president wishes to relocate Palestinians? We could just allow those breaking the law, like the Israelis, to take over that area. Vengeance belongs to the Lord--not to Israel. Israel has not stopped at Palestine. It has now, with the blessing of the United States, invaded Lebanon and Syria and Iran. 

We looked the other way when Hitler invaded Austria and Poland and Hungary, too. How dare I compare Israel to Hitler? Sometimes we become the evil we hate. Bullies like to make you feel powerless. In this case, they do it by labeling you with a derogatory term because they don't like the truth you put out. FYI, Jewish people like George Soros served Hitler and helped him kill Jewish people--what did he care, he wasn't religious. (This has been toned down after Hungary promoted it, so it is difficult to find. The facts are the Jewish council in Hungary was solely responsible for deporting Jews to death camps. It was only operational from March 20, 1944 to January 21, 1945 in Hungary and during that time it deported almost every single Jew in Germany. George Soros worked for this organization. both as a courier and helping his godfather carry out theft. The lie is that in his later years he resigned from it and went into hiding--but it was only active for less than a year and it stopped being active when the war ended. Hungarian Nazis surrendered February 13, 1945--three weeks after the council was dissolved.) If I were Jewish (and I may actually be), I would be disgusted with what the Jewish people who killed their own did. That's pro-Semitic and anti-traitor. On the other hand, Soros said he grew up in a Jewish anti-Semitic home. Does that make him anti-Semitic? No. His actions do--but then he uses his money to turn the tables on those who call him out.) 

God promised Israel the land if they got rid of all the tribes in it. They did not. They disobeyed and made covenants with the pagan tribes that were there. It is not our job as Christians to get in the way of God punishing any nation or people. He is the one who said because Israel disobeyed it would never have peace. Period. Further, Palestinian Christians, who are following God's command, have been targeted and killed by Israel. Baptist hospitals have been taken over by Israeli military. And Americans are okay with this. Are we praying for the Christian Palestinians who follow God or are we only praying for those who do not? Because of God's command in Jeremiah, I usually don't pray for anyone unless I know s/he is a Christian. The only prayers non-Christians get is that a prayer they draw closer to God and repent. Sorry, if you don't believe in my God or worship Him, why do you want me praying for you?

Hamas attacked Israel with American weapons that we had given to Ukraine and that they sold on the black market and then bragged about doing it. Fact-checkers say, "There is no concrete evidence for this." They cannot and did not say, "We kept track of every weapon we sent to Ukraine and we know where everything is so this is false." The fact is they admit they have no clue what Ukraine did with what we have given them. Of course, even though we have no clue what happened to them, we "know" they weren't used for anything illegal or bad. Huh? Whatever. If you know that, then tell me where they are and what they were used for. If you know what they were not used for, you should also know what they were used for. If you lost track of them completely, you don't have a clue about any of it. 

The only thing we should pray for Israel is that it finds Jesus and because they have found Jesus, that makes enduring any punishment God pours upon them easier. I'm sorry if that offends you, but sometimes the Truth is tough to swallow. Being a Christian is hard. Praying for a Godless people to avoid any punishment God allows is dangerous. 

As Christians, we go through two types of tribulation--that of God's punishment and that of living in a fallen world--where sometimes we are punished for doing what God wants and sometimes we lose those we love through disease and sickness. As Christians, we are to endure these things, and we have God's strength to help us through them. Christians are oppressed daily in China, in Muslim countries and throughout the world. Should we just forcibly move those Christians out of the places they live and give them a happy ghetto or concentration camp to keep them safe? 

The Abortion Sob Story--When Doctors Promote an Agenda by Encouraging Women to Have Abortions

 By now, everyone has probably heard of at least one woman who couldn't get an abortion and needed one because her baby had a fatal condition and would die soon after earth. The problem is that the conditions these babies have are not always fatal--therefore, the doctors in states where abortion has restrictions and who deliberately tell these women their child will "probably" die are not being good doctors. Any woman who is told by a doctor that her baby has a condition that will "probably" kill it but which does not qualify for fatal condition clauses in state laws should question the doctor.

I refused genetic testing for all five of my kids. There was no medical reason to conduct it in my opinion--if something is "found," I was told at the time there was nothing they can do about it to help the baby better survive. The sole purpose of genetic testing, to the best of my knowledge, is to encourage women who may give birth to a disabled child to have an abortion. The only other thing it can do is cause pregnant women to worry more--which is not good for the pregnancy. 

This is not the only story of a woman complaining that she had to leave her home state to get an abortion when she found out her baby had the almost always fatal Trisome 18. The problem is that like other stories I have heard where mothers are told their babies will die, these are almost old wives tales doctors are passing on. This woman, for example, lived to be at least 40 years old with Trisome 18. Doctors tell people their baby will "probably" not live past the first year, but 1 in 20 do. If you have an abortion, your baby will die immediately. Trisome 13 is another "fatal" syndrome. The oldest documented man alive was 31 years old. 

Then there is the Florida ad that is being banned by DeSantis. DeSantis is right: the ad is false based on what has been leaked about "Caroline" the Tampa woman in the ad. She was purportedly 20 weeks pregnant when she found out. Once again, doctors played on this woman's emotions and told her she would die and the baby would die if she did not have an immediate abortion. The last I checked, real medical scientists would never say something like this because no one can predict medical outcomes with 100% accuracy. That is the thing that was driven in to me and my father when he was undergoing cancer treatments. He died even without being pregnant. My grandma went through her treatments and lived--and is still alive.

Surgery and radiation are the main treatments for most brain cancers. 1 in 50 people need surgery during pregnancy, so this is a doable thing--although it is recommended to wait until 12 weeks. Her doctors apparently did not advise her of this. In the 1990s--i.e. 30 years ago, there wasn't the technology to pinpoint spots on the body like the head. Now there is. Radiation for cancer can be performed while a woman is pregnant. There are even some chemotherapy treatments that can be given after 14 weeks. Why were these doctors not telling her that at 20 weeks she could begin treatment while pregnant?

Finally, this baby was 20 weeks old. Old school rules that refuse to die state that a baby is "viable" at 22-24 weeks. What that means is that each hospital or government sets an arbitrary time between 22 and 24 weeks where they will attempt to save babies who are born. If the baby is earlier than that, they won't do anything to try to save it and basically will watch it die if it was born alive. This is solely a cost measure that was established to help deal with the ethics of letting a needy baby die. Premature babies--especially this early--cost a lot of health care services. However, AIDS patients cost $32,000 per month for their AIDS medication alone and are susceptible to diseases that do not effect people without it. Are we just going to let AIDS patients die because their care is expensive? 

Doctors justify allowing premature babies to die by saying the baby probably would have died anyway. The problem is (as the study above says) that when all babies who are alive at the start of labor are given survival care after birth (as is the law in Japan), 60% survive. 

Further, because age is sometimes not accurately predicted, many hospitals instead used weight averages. The hospital where I did an internship in the 1990s set it at 900g. (Don't quote me on that exact number--its been 30 years!) So, if your baby was born at 20 weeks, and it was struggling, they would immediately put it on a scale and see if it was heavy enough. If it met the weight criteria, the doctors would work to save it and even resuscitate it if necessary. Because the weighing was done in a hurry, a few "light" babies were worked on--and survived. 

These arbitrary "viability" numbers are so wrong in our medical world today. Babies as young as 19 weeks have survived and are fine. Babies as light as 212 g have survived and are still alive and doing fine. It is crazy that our doctors tell pregnant women they should have an abortion, instead of just letting them give early birth. 

Now, if "Caroline" had been diagnosed with terminal cancer at 8 weeks instead of 20, then of course she should have been given the option--have an abortion, undergo treatment, and extend your life by possibly a few years or stall treatment, potentially die within the year (leaving your daughter and baby motherless), and have the baby (she might have had to go on life support the last trimester to continue allowing the baby to grow if the late treatment did not slow its progression). The latter would come with the extremely rare risk that the cancer could spread to the baby, but if they noticed the cancer metastasizing, they could have made the decision about inducing labor early. Instead, the doctors pushed a political agenda, telling her she would die and her baby would die no matter what if she did not get an abortion--at least this is what she says. 

Either the doctors lied to her or she is lying to us. Either way, DeSantis should stop it. I mean, I couldn't even make a post on Facebook during COVID that cited the CDC, FDA, and academic papers supporting my conclusion and was against mask mandates. This lady shouldn't be allowed to give out bad health information either. 

Yes, Evolution IS Scientifically False

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., 9^th 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 1^st and 14^th 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 1^st and 14^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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 9^th 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.

100.          The Indiana Department of Education’s guidelines for teaching evolution facially and as applied violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including in the following ways: The teaching of evolution or any other origin theory has no secular purpose. Forcing students to use unscientific methods with the sole goal of proving that the universe happened spontaneously in violation of the laws of science detracts from the science education of students and misleads them about hypothesis and bias. The purpose and effect of teaching the Theory of Evolution is to endorse the specific religious viewpoints and beliefs of atheists. Students are not informed of any of the flaws or weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution. The Defendants’ guidelines suggest to students that the Theory of Evolution is scientific and truth while at the same time suggesting any students’ diverse religious beliefs about the origins of the world are false. The Defendants are thereby preferring the religious beliefs of atheists over the religious beliefs of Christians and students of other religions.

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