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.
The modern scientific method that excludes Intelligent Design and other forms of creationsim is called methodological naturalism. It has its origins as far back of the Greeks, and started gaining traction among Medeival Christian philosophers, but was really kicked off during the Enlightenment by highly religious people such as Francis Bacon. Darwin himself was fanatically religious during his famous voyage. Later, the idea that his nascent theory could interfere with the thought of the direct hand of God driving everything was a source of conflict for him.
Hard core atheist evolutionists like Dawkins insist that anything which is unexplainable can't logically exist.
Hard core young earth creationists insist that we need explain nothing, that the Genesis account supersedes any explanation of the mechanics of life's development.
I suggest that the vast majority of thinking people are somewhere in between.
bump
He is absolutely 100% wrong on #2. There have been “sexual species” that arose in the lab that can interbreed with each other, but not the parent species.
#3 is just idiotic. Because people have not made a computer that is sentient (yet), evolution cannot be true? Did this guy get his brain at a discount? Because he deserved one!
Can’t find the original source right off, but it was in an HSLDA newsletter.
I found this statement, which isn’t exactly what I stated:
“It is surprising to know there is a higher percentage of teachers amongst homeschooling parents than there are teachers in the population at large.”
Because they are using their assumptions to prove their assumptions.
I suggest that the vast majority of thinking people are somewhere in between.
Careful with the "no true Scotsman" logic fallacy there.
That conference was life changing in many ways...if you've ever listened to Dr. Baucham or Mr. Phillips, you know what they teach on the blessings of children. We welcomed baby #5 six months ago and he wouldn't be here if not for Dr. Baucham’s message.
Claims Evolution - A Process. However his arguments are against “Oragin of the Species”
Arguing that Creationism is a better theory whereby to anticipate which components should be in next years Flu Vaccine doesn’t make much sense.
Divine power is a dangerous thing to base predictions of what will happen upon. Or to assume that any amount of evidence to the contrary could ever exclude it’s capabilities.
Evolution assumes naturalism to prove naturalism.
And naturalism is a theology.
Somehow, folks arguing against Creationism assume that creationists believe in static organisms.
A bit of study of what creationists actually believe would disabuse you of this assumption.
Creatures are made with an amazing ability to adapt. This ability is inherent in them. However, the ability to ADD new information is not.
World English Dictionary:
unscientific: — adj 1. not consistent with the methods or principles of science, esp lacking objectivity 2. ignorant of science. Based on the above definition, can any alternative explanations be deemed scientific?
See our articles at www.faithfacts.org.
Natural man creates counterfiets, excuses, and the net result is the loss of reason-reason and willingness lead to the ability to be drawn by God into fellowship.
The world view that holds that man is nothing more than a product of “natural selection”, evolution etc from base species (pond scum ignited by a lighniing bolt) in fact removes man from “in Gods image” and therefore nothing more than an animal, with a bigger brain etc, but still an animal and therefore without value other than as a commodity to be controlled.
This natural equation is lacking-origins still is unexplained-big bang, prime atom, etc all still beg the questions “Why? and How?”. Prime cause is still unanswered.
Logic demands a responsible cause.
“in the Beginning (of time) God created the heavens and earth” (Gen 1:1) explains what God did in “time”, eternity notwithstanding (another fascinating account)....
The final outcome of evolution is that the prince of the powers of this world wins souls by default and hell is filling with deceived (willingly) people (we, in our natural condiition love darkness rather than light).
A biblical world view states this rather clearly.
In the end, all mans activites are either of faith and committment to the Creator God, or in rebellion and in faith to the grand deceivers, self and satan.
Good vs Evil; nothing more, nothing less.
Our task is to win souls to Christ, then and only then can man (once regenerated) lay hold onto the truths that remain unexplainable in our natural reality.
Best;
Accepting creation and using it as a tool to make usefull predictions are two different things. Belief in creation should not eliminate the use of tools.
However you are free to pray that you will suddenly teleport to work. Me I will take the car.
Fruit flies. They are fruit flies. They can reproduce among each other, but not with any other fruit flies. That is “sexual speciation”.
Troubling that the author of this idiocy knows so little that his very second point is contradicted by known science that apparently is quite unknown to this lackwit.
Neither did this slackjaw think to actually LOOK, and neither, if corrected; is it likely that he would LEARN. Nope, he would just keep repeating his talking points.
That's pretty much how all science is taught at the K-12 level. Atomic interactions were not presented to me as theory, although they work under atomic theory, which is "just a theory." They didn't tell me all I learned about how gasses work was "just" part of kinetic theory. I learned about cells in biology as a fact, but they didn't tell me it was "just" part of cell theory. What is taught has changed quite a bit over the years though, as the theories changed and were augmented or superseded by others.
High school is not normally the place where we debate the sciences. It's where the basics are taught. College is the place for such debate. For sake of argument, let's say Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion at all, and is compatible with current scientific method. The ID movement has been trying to do an end-run around how science is taught in K-12, where the dominant theory is taught in the classrooms. They want to introduce ID in schools while it is barely a fringe theory.
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.