Nutjob Tom Ritter sues Pennsylvania over Evolution

[DC]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

The study of galaxy formation and evolution is concerned with the processes that formed a heterogeneous universe from a homogeneous beginning, the formation of the first galaxies, the way galaxies change over time, and the processes that have generated the variety of structures observed in nearby galaxies. It is one of the most active research areas in astrophysics.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

PZed was kind enough to footnote his thesis.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/tom_ritter_has_figured_out_the.php

 

[slingblade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

Again, I didn't say there wasn't an evolutionary type of process there.

You think I'm saying something I'm not saying. You're going to keep making this argument until you realize I am saying something else.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Indeed. It's understood that when one uses the term "evolution" by itself, one is referring to the theory in biology. That other things in other fields of study can be referred to as "evolution" doesn't make them related--after all, not only do galaxies evolve, but so do fashions, the role of the French monarchy in history, and punk rock. Few would confuse these evolutions with the biology one.

 

[catsmate]

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.

But I suspect Ritter is the kind who wants to try Darwin's bones for heresy....

PZed was kind enough to footnote his thesis.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/tom_ritter_has_figured_out_the.php

I linked to that in my OP

 

[MattusMaximus]

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.

The big bang is a scientific theory, genius. One which I teach in my high school & college physics and astronomy classes

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

Perhaps you have been out of the loop for the past 50 years or so. The big Bang is an observable occurrence. We can see and measure that everything in the universe is moving apart. The most recent Hubble mission confirmed measurements on how fast the universe is expanding.

Of course this requires understanding that the Big Bang has nothing to do with some explosions a long time ago.

 

[Wildy]

does it not include the formation of suns and planets etc? so it is a somewhat evolutionary process.

I thought this thread was about a biological process?

 

[Corsair 115]

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?

I'm not sure what he meant, which is why I responded to that part of his post in the first place. Perhaps he'll clarify his comment.

 

[slingblade]

I'm not sure what he meant, which is why I responded to that part of his post in the first place. Perhaps he'll clarify his comment.

Hope so, because I think I agree with your original question to him, on re-reading.

Yep, clarity would be a good thing.

 

[catsmate]

Here is the actual complaint Rotter file. Now I'm not a lawyer (witness, plaintiff, juror, expert witness yes, lawyer no) but it strikes me as, well, rubbish.

This teaching [evolution] is unscientific. [No reason for this assertion provided.]
This teaching is actually Atheism (no Creator = no God)
Objectively, Atheism is a religion, albeit a silly and unscientific one.
This is like teaching Jesus is Lord

 

[KingMerv00]

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.

The courts have acknowledged that while atheism is not a religion philosophically, it should be treated as one legally. This is a good thing. It gives atheists more protection.

 

[Southwind17]

The courts have acknowledged that while atheism is not a religion philosophically, it should be treated as one legally. This is a good thing. It gives atheists more protection.

I'd be interested to read some elaboration: 'acknowledged'? 'non-philosophical' religion? 'Legally treated' religion? 'Protection' against what, exactly?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I don't see the connection between athiesm and evolution. Maybe someone here can explain that to me.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't see the connection between athiesm and evolution. Maybe someone here can explain that to me.

Do you see the connection between atheism and evolution, though? Sorry - couldn't resist.

I suppose for the faithful, evolution is seen as undermining a key manifestation of their god, namely ID. As such they equate evolution with atheism. Is that logic too simple?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Do you see the connection between atheism and evolution, though? Sorry - couldn't resist.

I suppose for the faithful, evolution is seen as undermining a key manifestation of their god, namely ID. As such they equate evolution with atheism. Is that logic too simple?

So theists are afraid of it because they don't understand it? Basically it is kind of like people who see walking on the moon as a threat to their religious teachings?

I kind of remember hearing someone say that they did not think men walked on the moon because, to them, heaven was not far from there.

Does anyone think that evolution supports atheism or that there is a tangible connection?

 

[Quinn]

I think PZ may have set himself up with this part:

Now Atheism rests on an article of faith (A strong belief that cannot be proven but is nonetheless believed).¹⁶
Therefore Atheism is a religion.^17
16Which is also true for every single science, which makes them, by this definition, religions.

¹⁷Just like chemistry, physics, agriculture, and auto repair.

Countdown to sarcasm-challenged fundies totally missing the point and loudly crowing, "See!!!! PZ Meyers admits science is a religion!!!!" in 3, 2, 1...

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

If you don't know number 2, just refer to Kent Hovind asking "Why don't we see a cat coem from a dog?"

Because they have plenty of their own species and aren't lonely or desperate enough yet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

And d'uh! Evolution theory has been thoroughly proven by the scientific evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't see the connection between athiesm and evolution. Maybe someone here can explain that to me.

If God didn't do it, nature did. The problem isn't that atheists should buy into evolution theory, the problem is claiming it is somehow part of their 'religion'. So accordingly Christians who accept evolution theory must be atheists.