Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution

Yes, we know our title is crazy, but that’s also the title of a press release we found that was issued by something called the Christian News Wire. Their website informs us here that: “$75 is what we charge to transmit your 400-words-or-less press release to our exclusive national media list.” Sounds like a good deal.

This is the press release we’re talking about: Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution. Judging by its length, we’d guess that it’s one of the $75 jobs. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

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.

This is major news indeed! Who is Tom Ritter? We can’t find much information about him, but we did find a post about this news release at the very creationist internet forum, Free Republic. If you want to see comments from some of the most scientifically illiterate people in the universe, here’s a link to that thread.

Okay, let’s read on from Ritter’s press release:

The argument presented in full: Evolution is Unscientific

[…]

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.

Powerful arguments indeed! We continue:

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.

Jeepers — so that’s what it’s all about! Here’s more:

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.

Wow — this guy’s case is irrefutable! Evolution is in big trouble. Here’s the rest of the press release:

(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.)

That’s it. We imagine that Ritter has fantasies of capturing national headlines with this lawsuit. But we predict that his case will be ignominiously dismissed. One never knows, however, so stay tuned.

Addendum: Here’s a link to a copy of Ritter’s Complaint.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution

  1. I must be a new species because I’m unable to breed with my ancestors.

    Just as well.

  2. ” but cannot breed with its ancestors.” this comes real close to ceding the point, seems to me.

  3. 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.

    Hasn’t this ever bothered any of the creobots, IDiots? A computer still has a hard time driving an automobile safely, of course, and yet our machines can do a number of things so very much better than can our brains. The Designer can’t make computers, or what?

    What’s really funny about Ritter’s lawsuit (how long before that’s thrown out for being absurd?) is that its first “problem” with evolution isn’t even about evolution per se. The most basic knowledge seems to be beyond the vast majority of creationists.

    Good going there, too, with denying the soundness of DNA evidence, Ritter. We can easily show that species have diverged from other species, unless, of course, the forensic DNA evidence used in countless court cases doesn’t actually count for anything. Or if it can’t tell us that all dogs are related to each other.

    Yes, all you have to do is deny our ability to do science by correlation of data, and then evolution fails. As does all science.

  4. I have always wondered about this. If there were no Theory of Evolution would there still be Creationists?

  5. Benjamin Franklin

    I have always wondered about this. If there were no Theory of Evolution would there still be Creationists?

    Yes, but you wouldn’t hear them if they fell in a garden.

  6. This guy is going to have an easy time proving his three points: artificial life hasn’t yet been created from inert matter, we can’t breed with our ancestors, and computers aren’t self-aware. There’s no challenge here — evolution loses. But for the same filing fee he could have also sued the Big Bang. More bang for his buck, so to speak.

  7. The argument presented in full: Evolution is Unscientific

    F–k you, Mr. Ritter.

  8. Point 1) Has nothing to do with evolution and even if it did, there is significant evidence that it happened. In fact, it is 100% likely that abiogenesis happened… after all living things exist don’t they?

    Point 2) The wikipedia article “Evolution of Sex” lists 29 references ranging from a book dated 19798 to a research article published in Journal of Theoretical Biology published in 2006.

    Point 3) isn’t related to evolution either, except in the fact that it had to evolve. Evolution would still be true even if no intelligence had evolved… as can be seen in the real world.

  9. It’s fun, fun, fun over at Pharyngula. PZ put up a post about this (SC was first of course!)–with footnotes no less!
    Check it out (if your sensibilities aren’t too delicate)
    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/tom_ritter_has_figured_out_the.php

  10. “Free Republic. If you want to see comments from some of the most scientifically illiterate people in the universe, here’s a link to that thread.”

    That’s funny. All I saw was:

    Creatard #1:
    Goobledy gook. Goobledy. Goobledy.

    Creatard #2:
    Bok! Bok! Bok! Ba-gok!

    Creatard #3:
    Gobble! Gobble-gobble-gobble!

    Creatard #4:
    Screeeeech! Hu! Hu! Hu!

  11. NDaBoonies: “I have always wondered about this. If there were no Theory of Evolution would there still be Creationists?”

    If we ever stop letting the scam artists bait-and-seitch definitions os “creationism” and “creationist(s)” the answer will be crystal clear to all. Before the TOE everyone was a “creationist” in the sense of denying the TOE, but no one was one in the sense of misrepresenting it.

    Your (rhetorical?) question is a perfect example of why I almost never use the words “creationism” and “creationist(s)” unless I make it absolutely clear from my context which definition I have in mind. Instead I use terms like “rank and file evolution deniers” for the people on the street who deny evolution because they misunderstand it, having “learned” it almost exclusively from misleading sound bites. I use “anti-evolution activist” for those who actively misrepresent it, whether they are professionals or amateurs more interested in preaching to others than just quietly believing fairy tales.

    Thus “rank and file evolution denier” could be anything from a committed flat-Earther to someone who uncritically repeats “I hear the jury’s still out about evolution.” While the activist could be a anything from a Discoveroid who admits or “plays dumb” about common descent, or a politician hell-bent on getting “creationism” taught in public school science class, while undermining the DI’s efforts to distance ID from “creationism.”

  12. Huh? What is his “legal” standing to pursue such a lawsuit? It doesn’t sound like he is personally affected by the teaching of evolution which would be a basis for “legal” standing. So what is he asking the court to do? Ban teaching of biology since you can’t teach it without mentioning evolution? If you can’t teach creationism or intelligent design because they are religiously based, what does that leave?

  13. Roger, as far as I can tell, he’s a teacher who doesn’t want to be required to teach evolution. So that’s his standing.

    On the other hand, there is no way any court will ever put this on the docket.

  14. OgreMkV: “Roger, as far as I can tell, he’s a teacher who doesn’t want to be required to teach evolution.”

    If he’s like the rest of those handout-demanders, he’ll gladly be required to teach evolution, as long as he’s allowed to drown it out with long-refuted “weakness” arguments and censor the refutations of those arguments.

  15. Benjamin Franklin

    According to Rittard’s website, he taught PHYSICS for ten years.

    On it, he also goes into full-Bozo “Second Law of Thermodynamics” mode.
    http://christianityinthepublicsquare.com/atheism.html

    The topper, though, is the answer to the question – Why are you really filing this frivolous lawsuit, Tom Rittard?

    Why?

    In general, people must view Christianity as a sensible and understandable institution.
    ….(Also, people respect an institution that stands up for itself.)

    ….This is critical for young people.

    There you have it, Your Honor. He rests his case. Evolution is unscientific because he demands everyone to be a Christian. Just like him.

  16. (1)… Evolution deals with the development of life, not its origins… Evolution is a work in progress, unlike your dogma (*ahem Bible ahem*)

    (2) is irrelevant… once two species go apart, they go apart…

    (3) not only do we theorize, we have proof… and it’s not your holy book, it’s actual proof 🙂