Nutjob Tom Ritter sues Pennsylvania over Evolution

catsmate

No longer the 1
catsmate
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
34,767
Well actually just the The Blue Mountain School District in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Apparently Evolution is unscientific therefore Atheism is a religion. :eek::confused::rolleyes::jaw-dropp
"Press Release" here

Evolution is Unscientific

"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity." -- Richard Dawkins, famous Atheist

Biology studies organisms. It can also explain how organisms got that way, but studying organisms does not require explaining how they got that way, and the theory of evolution is bad science.

Evolutionists cannot demonstrate that three critical points are even possible, let alone that they actually happened:

(1) No one has demonstrated that life can be created from non-life. (Reports of artificial DNA do not alter this fact. Life is still required.)

(2) No one has demonstrated that a new "sexual species" can be created. (Since the definition of species is contested, for these purposes it is defined as an organism that can breed with its own kind and produce fertile offspring, but cannot breed with its ancestors.)

(3) Evolutionists theorize the human brain evolved from lower forms. Over 50 years into the age of computers, machines can crunch numbers far better and faster than humans, recognize and use language and tools, and beat us in chess. Yet science has yet to build even a rudimentary computer that can contemplate its own existence, the hallmark of the human brain. (Contemplating your existence is best understood as imagining what will remain after your death.) And no animal, no matter how "intelligent," can do this either.

Ask anyone who espouses evolution if these three points are not true.

If evolution is unscientific, why teach it? Because no Creator means no God. In other words, evolution taught without a possible alternative is Atheism.

Now Atheism rests on an article of faith (A strong belief that cannot be proven but is nonetheless believed).

Therefore Atheism is a religion.

And it is illegal to teach religion in the public schools.
Click to expand...
And he adds:
I am not defending creationism or intelligent design. But evolution has not proven its case, and until it does, saying it is the only explanation for present life is Atheism.
Click to expand...

ETA: Our favourite Minnesotan has a deconstruction of Ritter's "arguments" here.
 
Last edited:
1. Nothing to do with the theory of Evolution....
2. wow a new strew man? or what?
3. wtf?
 
Except that atheism DOES NOT 'rest on an article of faith', it derives from a lack of evidence. Ergo atheism is not a religion, it's common sense, plain and simple, albeit not common enough, sadly.
 
What in the hell does his third point have to do with whether evolution makes sense?
 
just tell him, "Tom, God created Evolution".

unless you're a strict Creationist...believing that the Bible is to be taken literally...then a belief in God and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

There are many theists who know Evolution is indeed real and they still believe in God.
 
If you don't know number 2, just refer to Kent Hovind asking "Why don't we see a cat coem from a dog?"
 
deepatrax said:
just tell him, "Tom, God created Evolution".

unless you're a strict Creationist...believing that the Bible is to be taken literally...then a belief in God and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

There are many theists who know Evolution is indeed real and they still believe in God.
Click to expand...

This ^^^

It pretty much single-handedly destroys Ritter's entire argument.
 
deepatrax said:
just tell him, "Tom, God created Evolution".

unless you're a strict Creationist...believing that the Bible is to be taken literally...then a belief in God and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

There are many theists who know Evolution is indeed real and they still believe in God.
Click to expand...

Intelligent design?
 
Alt+F4 said:
Intelligent design?
Click to expand...

you can teach Evolution science without bringing up God, Intelligent Design or the Big Bang which all require a belief and have no factual evidence proving they exist or happened.

keep the facts in Science class and the beliefs in Religious studies.
 
Evolution doesn't need to be a "why" just a "how".
 
deepatrax said:
you can teach Evolution science without bringing up God, Intelligent Design or the Big Bang which all require a belief and have no factual evidence proving they exist or happened.
Click to expand...


Wait, what? The above reads like you're saying there's no evidence for the Big Bang. Which is totally wrong. There's plenty of evidence demonstrating the reality of the Big Bang.
 
deepatrax said:
you can teach Evolution science without bringing up God, Intelligent Design or the Big Bang which all require a belief and have no factual evidence proving they exist or happened.

keep the facts in Science class and the beliefs in Religious studies.
Click to expand...

:eek: no. Big Bang is supported by evidence.
But also there you still can believe a god caused the big bang, like the Catholic church does. Big Bang and evolution are cause by their god the Catholics belief.
But the scientific theories behind the 2 are supported by evidence.
 
Better than in Virginia, when it's the attorney general trying to use the legal system to silence scientists.
 
deepatrax said:
the Big Bang which all require a belief and have no factual evidence proving they exist or happened.
Click to expand...

Just because it was first thought of by a Catholic priest (along with being a theoretical physicist) doesn't mean it rests on faith.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Wait, what? The above reads like you're saying there's no evidence for the Big Bang. Which is totally wrong. There's plenty of evidence demonstrating the reality of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's talking about the evidence.

I think he's talking about the difference between cosmology and evolutionary science. The Big Bang isn't evolutionary theory; it's cosmological theory. Isn't it?
 
slingblade said:
I don't think he's talking about the evidence.

I think he's talking about the difference between cosmology and evolutionary science. The Big Bang isn't evolutionary theory; it's cosmological theory. Isn't it?
Click to expand...

does it not include the formation of suns and planets etc? so it is a somewhat evolutionary process.
 
For the Big Bang to count as an evolutionary process, wouldn't it have to form other Big Bangs that inherit some of its traits?
 
DC said:
does it not include the formation of suns and planets etc? so it is a somewhat evolutionary process.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's more an equivocation of terms, really. That you can liken aspects of a process to evolution doesn't then make that an evolutionary process.

I'm pretty sure you could teach evolutionary theory without needing to touch on the origin of the universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom