Reverend AtheiStar Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 "I believe teaching evolution as fact perverts science. You could teach evolution as a theory, and I’d have no problem with that." http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_3647650 Teacher posts evolution challenge By RORY SCHULER Staff Writer Lebanon Daily News ANNVILLE — If you believe in evolution as fact, Tom Ritter has a thousand bucks that says he can prove you wrong. “I want to put one of these evolutionists on the spot,” Ritter said yesterday while standing in his chemistry-lab classroom at Annville-Cleona High School. “I want them to put their money where their mouth is. Let’s belly up to the bar and see what you’re made of.” Ritter, a chemistry and physics teacher, has laid down a public challenge to those who believe that evolution is the only rational explanation behind life and the existence of modern organisms. On the state’s Constitution Party Web site, Ritter has posted the ground rules for a debate to be held in mid-May between himself and a yet-to-be-determined opponent whom he characterizes as an “evolutionist.” Ritter wants to argue the topic and have the debate judged by a panel of high-school students, with a cash prize at stake. The debate is tentatively scheduled for the evening of May 15, 16 or 17. He hopes to find a worthy opponent by Friday. Ritter said he has strong feelings against teaching evolution as fact while leaving out other theories, including creationism. He said those feelings far predate last year’s controversy in the Dover School District in York County, when parents sued to have a statement about “intelligent design” removed from the classroom. “Personally, I don’t have much interest in evolution, creation or ‘intelligent design,’” Ritter said. “I’m interested in science. I believe teaching evolution as fact perverts science. You could teach evolution as a theory, and I’d have no problem with that. “My faith doesn’t have much to do with evolution,” he said. “I believe in God, and I believe there may be a creator. When people teach evolution as (if) it has to be true, they’re teaching something that hasn’t been and cannot be proven. These people — these dedicated evolutionists — are really just dedicated atheists.” Ritter said he believes the teaching of only evolution in public-school science classes is a concept driven by atheists. To be fair, Ritter feels the theory of creation should be offered as an alternate possibility. “Evolution may be right, at least in parts,” Ritter wrote in part of the on-line debate challenge. “But it is not treated as science, and materialism is a faulty theory to rely upon. Thus anyone who insists it is the only possible explanation employs evolution as an article of faith.” He wants the debate to be one-on-one, between himself and another teacher or professor of science with a strong educational background. Each debater is to place $1,000 in escrow. The winner will take the pot. The outcome is to be decided by a jury of high-school seniors who are undecided on the subject, Ritter said. A willing school, from within a 50-mile radius, will be chosen, and then a question regarding the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public-school setting will be posed. Several students who answer “undecided” to the question will compose the panel. No audio-visuals or handouts will be permitted. Each person will have an 18-minute introduction, 12 minutes for cross-examination, and a seven-minute closing statement. The challenger will choose who goes first. Ritter said anyone officially associated with the state Department of Education, any state politician, anyone who teaches a physical science or biology class at an accredited college or university, any member of good standing in a nationally recognized science organization, or on the masthead of a science publication with more than a 500,000 paid circulation is eligible to participate. The Constitution Party of Pennsylvania has also announced it is willing to pay a $500 finder’s fee to the first Pennsylvanian who gets a qualified challenger to actually debate Ritter under the ground rules. While Ritter said he’s not a member of the party, he and the group share several common interests and beliefs, as they connect to the the teaching of evolution. Ritter, 58, of Orwigsburg in Schuylkill County has taught in the Annville-Cleona School District for eight years. A former owner of a screen-printing business and a past Pennsylvania Air National Guard reservist, he also organized the annual Physics Pow-Wow at Lebanon Valley College from 1999 to 2002. He’s a member of the Hersheypark Physics Day committee, was a frequent presenter at state Science Teachers’ Association conventions, and had his article, “The Baker St. Irregulars Meet Archimedes” published in the April 2005 edition of The Physics Teacher. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And if you had any doubt whether he was a raving, foaming-at-the-mouth fundy check out his Constitution Party's Statement if Principles: We recognize and affirm the God-given dignity of the individual and believe that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights most clearly articulate this basic principle. To restore and preserve that fundamental human dignity, we proclaim: That every individual has a paramount right to life from conception until natural death and that government shall not infringe upon that right. That the right of citizens to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and others shall not be questioned. That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property and other assets is an inseparable extension of the individual's inalienable rights. That the primary unit of society is the family (persons related by blood, marriage or adoption) and it must be accorded all rights and responsibilities to direct care of its members, particularly in the areas of education, health care, discipline, and the upbringing of children without government interference. That the United States of America is a sovereign nation and therefore must maintain control over its own affairs. That guided by Divine Providence, our Founding Fathers established this nation on Judeo-Christian principles and therefore the right to the free exercise of religious beliefs is inviolate. That our government is one of limited, delegated powers operating as a republic within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America. The federal government derives its authority from its sovereign citizens and it is to be their servant, not their master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 "I believe teaching evolution as fact perverts science. You could teach evolution as a theory, and I’d have no problem with that." Did you notice this huge mistake that totally exposed his ignorance? He's using the wrong definition of "theory!" And he's supposed to be a chemistry teacher! Of course, he could be like the usual IDC and framing the issue incorrectly to benefit his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 "I believe teaching evolution as fact perverts science. You could teach evolution as a theory, and I’d have no problem with that." Here's an excellent article on what Tom is probably doing: http://www.reverendatheistar.com/only_a_theory.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachelness Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 "I believe teaching evolution as fact perverts science. You could teach evolution as a theory, and I’d have no problem with that." Here's an excellent article on what Tom is probably doing: http://www.reverendatheistar.com/only_a_theory.htm That was a pretty interesting article, especially the paragraphs about framing evolution in the context of family values. How can you argue with that, eh? Thanks a lot for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Why a panel of high school students? Is that because he's a high school teacher and more likely to get support from them - or are they just his buddies whom he'll coach when the time comes? Why not a panel of college students, such as a local college's debate team and their prof? I doubt he'd be presenting this "challenge" if he didn't have a little extra insurance for himself somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charley Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I don't think that this discussion has hit the nail on the head yet. The missing element is use of models of phenomena, not only discussion of what theory is. Models are the temporary constructs of processes that can facillitate some degree of accurate thinking, without hypothetical testing. That is what creationism is, and the degree of it's applicability is only within the pathology of it's adherents. Sadly, that is also the case with many evolutionists. A theory is an explanation of phenomena and processes that is based on hypothetical testing. But to hold a theory as forever true is to negate the need for continued research, by assuming that all of the experiments that were done have isolated all of the necessary elements to an accurate explanation of fact. That has never been true. The very foundation of the natural sciences, particle physics, is in essential doubt and difficult to experiment with. Everything else follows from that, on that shaky basis. What is really going on here is that evolutionists who present their theory as a forever unchallengable fact are being as insecure as the creationists looking for daddy-god, only daring to be blasphemous enough to deny the god, but still being insecure enough to be compelled to tell themselves and others that they have all the answers. The real strength is in living with doubt, and learning all you can. That should be the perspective of our schools, to create brave, thinking people, instead of just another variety of sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greasemonkey Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 just my .02 If the theory of evolution is being revered so much and being taught as utter "fact" instead of the theory it is ...then why has is so drasticly changed from what I was taught in the early 80's in high school science class? If it were being taught evolution as "fact," I hardly see that it could have changed in a mere 20-25 years. I think the fundemental fallacy in the entire arguement with the religious sector is that they simply don't know the difference between a "belief" and a "theory." They hold the same yardstick against TOE as they do their religious belief ...if one thing is wrong, it must all be wrong. Perhaps an easy rebuttal to these debates would be to list out all the things that have been changed, disproved and/or modified in the last 20 years to fit with new evidence found in the meantime. Then take that list to a creationist and ask them how many verses in the bible had been changed, disproved and modified in the book of Genesis in the same timeframe. It wouldn't appear from that example that evolutionists are the ones who have trouble regarding "facts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 That was a pretty interesting article, especially the paragraphs about framing evolution in the context of family values. How can you argue with that, eh? Thanks a lot for sharing. You're welcome. Why a panel of high school students? Is that because he's a high school teacher and more likely to get support from them - or are they just his buddies whom he'll coach when the time comes? Why not a panel of college students, such as a local college's debate team and their prof? I doubt he'd be presenting this "challenge" if he didn't have a little extra insurance for himself somewhere... I totally agree. He's doing what all these nutty creationist challenge folks do, he's stacking the deck in his favor. I'm sure that every one of these "judges" are Bible-believing, Jesus-loves-me-this-I-know kind of people who wouldn't believe in evolution even if all the evidence ever found was explained, in detail, by a panel of experts! It's not in the Bible. Therefore, it's not true. End of discussion. No need to think past God made the first humans magically out of mud and ribs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Very interesting. And at the same time people like Tom Ritter have no problem stating the existence of "god" as a fact, without anything to substantiate it, nor can he even provide a series of tests to prove "gods" existence. So we're supposed to take that at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 What is really going on here is that evolutionists who present their theory as a forever unchallengable fact are being as insecure as the creationists looking for daddy-god, only daring to be blasphemous enough to deny the god, but still being insecure enough to be compelled to tell themselves and others that they have all the answers. Out of all the literature on evolution I've ever read, and it's a lot, I've never, ever seen any scientist present it in the light of "forever unchallengable." They say that if evidence was to disprove evolution then they would have no choice but to go along with it. Unfortunately for the creationists, this has not happened. All we've seen have been ignorance, misunderstandings, forgeries and outright lies. The real strength is in living with doubt, and learning all you can. That should be the perspective of our schools, to create brave, thinking people, instead of just another variety of sheep. I agree. And this is the way evolution has always been presented. They say what would disprove evolution and then go on to say that this has not been the case. This is the whole idea behind a theory being "falsifiable." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 Very interesting. And at the same time people like Tom Ritter have no problem stating the existence of "god" as a fact, without anything to substantiate it, nor can he even provide a series of tests to prove "gods" existence. So we're supposed to take that at face value. Of course. That's because that hypothesis gets special treatment because it's "faith." just my .02 If the theory of evolution is being revered so much and being taught as utter "fact" instead of the theory it is ...then why has is so drasticly changed from what I was taught in the early 80's in high school science class? If it were being taught evolution as "fact," I hardly see that it could have changed in a mere 20-25 years. I think the fundemental fallacy in the entire arguement with the religious sector is that they simply don't know the difference between a "belief" and a "theory." They hold the same yardstick against TOE as they do their religious belief ...if one thing is wrong, it must all be wrong. Perhaps an easy rebuttal to these debates would be to list out all the things that have been changed, disproved and/or modified in the last 20 years to fit with new evidence found in the meantime. Then take that list to a creationist and ask them how many verses in the bible had been changed, disproved and modified in the book of Genesis in the same timeframe. It wouldn't appear from that example that evolutionists are the ones who have trouble regarding "facts." Yup. They project their beliefs about Christianity onto evolution and think that we think like they do. Rachelness, I love your sig pic! "Girls, Tammy just said she believes in Jesus!" LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charley Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Out of all the literature on evolution I've ever read, and it's a lot, I've never, ever seen any scientist present it in the light of "forever unchallengable." They say that if evidence was to disprove evolution then they would have no choice but to go along with it. Unfortunately for the creationists, this has not happened. All we've seen have been ignorance, misunderstandings, forgeries and outright lies. You are right...in what the scientists say, but they are not the people teaching children. In any dixciplne, there are many strict adherents to one school of thought or another, elevating it to unchangeable fact. These are the "Freudians", "Holistic", (etc.) types, who do this out of a desire to be freed from painful thinking and be a noble believer, just as a fundie would. Many of them teach our children. We can all remember a few in our school days. Kids aren't usually encouraged to interpret the text books themselves, which are written mostly by real scientists, but instead are forced to tolerate teachers with lesser credentials who may negate central points of the subject matter. That is what goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 Out of all the literature on evolution I've ever read, and it's a lot, I've never, ever seen any scientist present it in the light of "forever unchallengable." They say that if evidence was to disprove evolution then they would have no choice but to go along with it. Unfortunately for the creationists, this has not happened. All we've seen have been ignorance, misunderstandings, forgeries and outright lies. You are right...in what the scientists say, but they are not the people teaching children. In any dixciplne, there are many strict adherents to one school of thought or another, elevating it to unchangeable fact. These are the "Freudians", "Holistic", (etc.) types, who do this out of a desire to be freed from painful thinking and be a noble believer, just as a fundie would. Many of them teach our children. We can all remember a few in our school days. Kids aren't usually encouraged to interpret the text books themselves, which are written mostly by real scientists, but instead are forced to tolerate teachers with lesser credentials who may negate central points of the subject matter. That is what goes on. It wouldn't have bothered me any. I like that kind of passion in a science teacher. I don't remember evolution being taught at all in my high school. It was only years after high school, when I became an Atheist, did I start to learn about this fascinating subject! I would have loved to have someone like Dawkins telling me that evolution was an "unchallengable" fact. I salivate at the thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Wonder Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 "No audio-visuals or handouts will be permitted." What's he afraid of? Evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Very interesting. And at the same time people like Tom Ritter have no problem stating the existence of "god" as a fact, without anything to substantiate it, nor can he even provide a series of tests to prove "gods" existence. So we're supposed to take that at face value. Of course. That's because that hypothesis gets special treatment because it's "faith." After thinking about it a little, I realize why so many Christians are doing this, and attacking evolution this way. They want evolution to become a "faith" instead of science, just because then they can attack it on the next level, with redemption, eternal life and meaning of life etc. They just want to take the "science" out of it and treat it as another religion. If they can say "evolution is just another religion", then they can demand schools to stop teaching it or demand creationism to be on the same level in the teaching. Since they have a hard time making ID to stand up to scientific scrutiny, they try to drag down evolution to the same level as ID. "No audio-visuals or handouts will be permitted." What's he afraid of? Evidence? Yup. Sounds about right. Because he wants Evolution to be tried as a religion and faith and not as a scientific theory. He knows that if he does, then ID or Creationism have to match it, and they can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 "No audio-visuals or handouts will be permitted." What's he afraid of? Evidence? I have this on my site. After I read it, a few years back, I knew it was essential to my collection. But I know something I bet you don't. I had been planning, at the time, to put excerpts from this on Freethought Radio and so I emailed him. He said he was a theist! I asked him, though, what brand of theism he subscribed to and he never wrote back. In answer to your question, I'd say "Yes!" After thinking about it a little, I realize why so many Christians are doing this, and attacking evolution this way. They want evolution to become a "faith" instead of science, just because then they can attack it on the next level, with redemption, eternal life and meaning of life etc. They just want to take the "science" out of it and treat it as another religion. If they can say "evolution is just another religion", then they can demand schools to stop teaching it or demand creationism to be on the same level in the teaching. Since they have a hard time making ID to stand up to scientific scrutiny, they try to drag down evolution to the same level as ID. Precisely. They want to make evolution a SOCAS issue just like their precious creationism and it's mutant form, IDC. Problem is, it's not. Evolution is purely scientific and evidence based and therefore has nothing to do with faith or religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Wonder Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 "No audio-visuals or handouts will be permitted." What's he afraid of? Evidence? I have this on my site. After I read it, a few years back, I knew it was essential to my collection. But I know something I bet you don't. Well, it's hardly surprising. I have seen this, for example: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html <-- judging by the domain name... theist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend AtheiStar Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 "No audio-visuals or handouts will be permitted." What's he afraid of? Evidence? I have this on my site. After I read it, a few years back, I knew it was essential to my collection. But I know something I bet you don't. Well, it's hardly surprising. I have seen this, for example: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html <-- judging by the domain name... theist. Well, it surprised me. I realize that many of the non-scientist believers in evolution are also believers in a deity of some sort, but his knowledge was so in depth of the subject I thought that he was in the same category as almost all the other bioligical scientists: Atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts