If evolution is not true, then
there is a Creator,
and He gets to set the rules
and judge us by them.
Can't have that!
Posted on 01/27/2011 6:49:36 AM PST by Sopater
Tom Ritter, who taught physics and chemistry for over a decade, has filed a federal lawsuit against The Blue Mountain School District in the Middle District of Pennsylvania (13:11 – CV – 116), where he resides. This same district that rendered the infamous Kitzmiller decision in 2005. The argument presented in full:
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.
(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.)
For more information, contact Tom at ritterthomas754@gmail.com.
“Evolution” is a CAREFULLY PROTECTED “state” religon.
Both are beliefs, and can be argued until you turn blue. Believe what you will, if it pleases you and does not bring harm no others. May the hammer of Thor protect you.
Absolutely. He's right though.
Theistic vs. atheistic theories of evolution
The theory of evolution just stated rests on a theistic foundation. In contradistinction to this is another theory resting on a materialistic and atheistic basis, the first principle of which is the denial of a personal Creator. This atheistic theory of evolution is ineffectual to account for the first beginning of the cosmos or for the law of its evolution, since it acknowledges neither creator nor lawgiver. Natural science, moreover, has proved that spontaneous generation—i.e. the independent genesis of a living being from non-living matter—contradicts the facts of observation. For this reason the theistic theory of evolution postulates an intervention on the part of the Creator in the production of the first organisms. When and how the first seeds of life were implanted in matter, we, indeed, do not know. The Christian theory of evolution also demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the contrary, rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.
The secular humanist/atheists’ greatest coup was getting people to accept that their religion wasn’t a religion, and was therefore “neutral”.
Nothing is taught without some base assumptions, ie, through some lens of a worldview.
There is no “neutral” worldview. Ideas and philosophies have consequences.
Whatever happens to be the dominant scientific theory. And that does change. It's true for any science subject.
“There is no “neutral” worldview”
That is the exact phrase that caused us to pull our kids out of public school and begin homeschooling 3 years ago. No small decision considering that my husband teaches at that school ;-).
If the only theories available to us are those of natural selection and intelligent design, he is precisely correct.
To explain that organized complexity on Earth exists as a result of a creator's design does not explain the organized complexity of the creator himself.
And to state that the creator's complexity is unknowable by man is simply an assertion, not an explanation.
The occupation with the highest percentage of homeschooled kids is... drumroll...
PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS!
Now, I’m not sure what you mean by “that is the exact phrase that caused us to pull our kids out of public school”.
Did a teacher/administrator say that they were teaching from a neutral worldview,
or did you hear some speaker/advocate that convinced you of the fact that schools were teaching from a non-neutral secular humanist worldview?
But what should be taught in the science classrooms of gov’t schools? ........................................ Religion? Separation of church and state would apply, so you can expect even more law suits. But if you add religion, how many other religions would enter the picture? Wouldn’t their views on divine intervention also be considered? (i.e. The Great spirit created many things before man walked the earth.) There are too many questions to be answered as to how and why we are here. It seems the simplistic answer to all those questions, we can not answer are, God made it so. I believe the answers are below our capability to answer at this time. Maybe thousands of years from now when our brains use their full capacity we may have the answers. Its all about the human brain, is it not? Rhet.
Here's a novel idea: How about we get back to the scientific method in the classroom? You remember: OBSERVATION being the means to actually formulate an hypothesis?
When dealing with origins which cannot be OBSERVED based on the scientific method, how about we teach both views as the THEORIES they actually are rather then one theory being labeled 'fact' while the other theory is slandered as 'pseudo-science'? Then let the students decide which theory they will believe.
Creationists have been calling for the above solution only to be snarled at by evolutionary atheists. But I suppose when you are employing the liberal tactic of silencing all forms of dissent we can't have the teaching of the opposing viewpoint now can we? /s
Logically, there has to be an “uncaused cause”, and that’s the Creator.
Only if your definition of evolution is "everything starting with the Big Bang is 100% random chance". I agree that that is consistent with atheism and is what Dawkins believes.
But it's quite possible to believe in a Creator who set up the mechanism of evolution in order to develop life over billions of years. Many people I know believe this. They are not atheists.
Evolution is the respondent? Wonder if he’ll countersue? Or maybe he merely will move for dismissal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.