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.Great, a semi-local school for me. A great way to waste taxpayer money. And I know that there are many people who will agree with him who will disagree. The problem is, his argument is so simplistic, and so wrong, that I could win the case against him. If you are going to take this to court, at least have a reasonable case that has a chance of winning. This is more likely meant to be a publicity stunt than a case that he actually thinks he cn win, hence it is a waste of taxpayers money.
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
Interesting that he seems to understand that there is a difference between biology and evolution. Keep that in mind for a later point. Now I'm not sure of his logic in this paragraph. Is he trying to make an argument or just stating his premise. I'll assume the latter since he doesn't make any cogent argument at this point. I take it he is basically trying to say he is not anti-biology, just anti-evolution. Here is his actual argument:
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.
Wow. That's it, huh? I truly can't even say nice try. Now remember, I have no more experience in biology than basic high school and college classes from 15+ years ago. These arguments are just off the top of my head and I am certain that the people who actually argue this case will have much more expertise. The fact that I can so easily explain his objections does not bode well for his case.
(1) This is a common mistake by those arguing against evolution. Evolution is a process that explains how one living organism changes into a new living organism, it does not address the origin of life from non-living substances. This is where i bring up his earlier point that biology and evolution are not the same. He seemed to understand that earlier, but he obviously doesn't understand specifically what the topic of evolution covers. Furthermore, the lack of an explanation for one process does not mean that the explanation provided for other processes is wrong, it has no impact on the processes described by evolution. His first argument has absolutely no detraction to evolution.
(2) New species discovered in 2010. Ok, the evolution of these species was not observed, but that is not likely to happen. In the first place, evolution does not happen in hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, or centuries. It takes thousands of years for observable changes to occur. Longer for speciation to happen. However, I'll grant him this. Of his three arguments, this is the one that could actually apply to the issue.
(3) Huh? So the fact that we have not created sentient computers in 50 years is evidence that evolution is junk science? This makes absolutely no sense. In the first place, computers aren't evolving. In the second place, 50 years is very little time compared to the millions of years that it has taken humans to evolve. This argument again has no relation to the validity of evolution. Also, the little quip thrown in about no other animals being able to contemplate their own existence is debatable. It is definitely a claim he cannot prove. It is also irrelevant to the claim that evolution is not scientific.
Ask anyone who espouses evolution if these three points are not true.Ask anyone who espouses evolution (or just general logic) if these three points have any impact on the validity of evolution.
If evolution is unscientific, why teach it? Because no Creator means no God. In other words, evolution taught without a possible alternative is Atheism.Well, evolution is scientific and you have done nothing to cast doubt on that with your arguments. As I said above, evolution does not describe the origin of life, just the EVOLUTION of one for of life into another. So evolution on its own does not absolutely rule out a creator. Also, there are many Christians that believe in both God and evolution so these statements are obviously untrue. Evolution my cast doubt on the creation myth of the Bible but it does not absolutely negate it, at least not for all people.
Now Atheism rests on an article of faith (A strong belief that cannot be proven but is nonetheless believed).No, Atheism rests on the fact that the existence of a god is not proven and that acceptance of a claim should be based on evidence and proof, not faith. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the claim that a god does not exist. Again it seems that you are discussing a subject that you misunderstand. Atheism, in and of itself, is not a religion anymore than lack of belief in aliens or ghosts is a religion.
Therefore Atheism is a religion
So there you have it. A lawsuit based on misunderstandings of the subject matter and bad logic. But the school will need to spend money to defend itself and the courts will spend time hearing the case. What a waste.
