Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution

 

[From Christian Newswire] "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.)" Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution

Should students be taught the story of evolution based on a faulty naturalistic worldview?

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "What alternative worldview do you propose?  A *super*naturalistic one that takes into account things like miracles and paranormal events and entities?"

 

The truth of the Bible should not be forbidden in schools (Ge 1:1, Jas 1:21). 

 

"Scientists may have authority to tell us how to hybridize corn or manufacture medicines, but they have no special expertise to tell us what worldview to believe.  They have no valid claim on us when they leave the bounds of science and issue metaphysical proclamations that the universe is a product of 'purposeless, meaningless matter in motion.'  We need to develop sales resistance to such aggressive philosophical proselytizing (Pearcey, Total Truth:  Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity)."   

 

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "Someone needs to re-read Darwin's actual theory."

 

Today, we have variations on a theme. The theory may change but the commitment to naturalism remains. A religious commitment to atheism is not science:

"The first question many scientists ask is not whether a theory is true, but whether it is naturalistic. They no longer consider it appropriate to ask whether life evolved by natural forces, but only which natural processes were at work. And once science has been defined in terms of naturalism, then something very close to Darwinism has to be true.

Anyone who believes in naturalism or materialism 'must, as a matter of logical necessity, also believe in evolution,' writes Tom Bethell. 'No digging for fossils, no test tubes or microscopes, no further experiments are needed.'

...Evolution wins the debate by default. Getting an exact theory of how the process happened is secondary (Pearcey, Total Truth, pg. 170)."
 

"He [Darwin] never set out to prove that life can come from non-life.  Rather, he was trying to determine where the life we see today came from."

 

"Darwin himself once admitted that the existence of irreducible complexity (though he didn't use that term) would stand as a refutation of his theory. He even offered it as a test: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' With the explosion of knowledge from molecular biology, it appears that Darwin's theory has indeed broken down (Pearcey, pg. 187)."

 

"[S]tay open to the fact that you could be wrong."

 

You will do the same? The story of evolution is vain imagination (Ro 1:21).

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "Never mind that some of the people who've testified against teaching creationism in schools were Christians..."

 

Do you believe people ever lie about being a Christian? Eph. 4:14.


"I'll give you a hint....The thing that makes something science is the methodology behind it."

 

Never mind the fact that God gave you the scientific method , can you repeat creation? Ge 1:1. Have you found a transitional form from the goo to the zoo to you? Enyart.

What type of science are you speaking about? Are you speaking of: "operational (observational) science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves," or "historical (origins) science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view (What is Science)."
 

"The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, i.e. it is an explanation of the evidence that we have."

 

It is an explanation of the evidence we have. It is not the best explanation of the evidence we have--anything but the other explanation (Ge 1:1). That would make you responsible to a holy God. Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30, Re 2:5,16; 3:3

"Creationism...it isn't science."

 

"Christianity...[makes] claims about the material world--about the origin of the cosmos, the character of human nature, and events in history, preeminently the Resurrection...By providing evidence of God's work in nature [Intelligent Design], it restores Christianity to the status of a genuine knowledge claim, giving us the mains to reclaim a place at the table of public debate (Pearcey, pg. 178)."

Why do want the truth of scripture kept from students?

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "SD, you may as well throw in the towel now and save yourself further persecution embarrassment."

 

We share the truth (Ac 20:20).

Kill zem. Kill zem all.

 

[The truth of the Bible should not be forbidden in schools (Ge 1:1, Jas 1:21).]  "Fine. Present it to the best of your ability, and don't cry if it gets rejected. Deal?"

 

Christians take the instruction of children seriously (Deut. 6:6–9).  We don't leave these things up to Hillary Clinton.

 

[Operational science/Metaphysics] "Why accept their authority even regarding hybridizing corn and manufacturing medicine?"

 

Do you believe secular scientists set out to sabotage your corn?

 

"No, I leave that sort of tinfoil-hattery to folks like yeshuaslavejeff."

 

Do you think Christians believe conspiracy theories in general?

 

Response to comment [from a Catholic]:  "It goes to motive. No one raised that kind of silliness about his opponent, who really was not born in the U.S. But of course McCain is white..."

 

Why are you raising that silliness now?

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "I don't want children taught lies as if they were true."

 

Too bad they are taught the lie of evolution in godless public schools.  

 

"I note you only responded to a few of my responses to you."

 

I recognize your a priori commitment to materialism.

See:

The Religion of Evolution

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  [Kill zem.  Kill zem all. :reals:] "Exterminate."

 

Subpar.

 

Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts [Zech. 4:6].
"Notice that this is God’s message to Zerubbabel. Now who is Zerubbabel? He is serving as the civil head of Jerusalem (while Joshua is serving as the religious head). He was the head of the tribe of Judah at the time of their return to Jerusalem after the seventy-year Babylonian captivity. He is the one who led the first group of his people back to their homeland, as described in the Book of Ezra. Zerubbabel’s great work was that of rebuilding the temple, but the work was dogged by danger from the outside and discouragement from within. God is giving this vision to strengthen the faith of Zerubbabel. It has real meaning for him, and also it contains a great principle for you and me.
Here is the message: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” The words might and power are quite interesting. Might is a general word for human resources such as physical strength, human ability or efficiency, or wealth. Power also denotes mere human strength—physical, material, and mental strength. Therefore, let me give you my translation of this verse: “It is not by brawn nor by brain, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” You can see that this would be a great encouragement to Zerubbabel, the civil ruler. He and Joshua, the religious ruler, were represented by the two olive trees who were supplying oil to the lampstand. The message is simply this: It will not be by your cleverness, you ability, or your physical strength that the temple will be rebuilt, but by the Spirit of God.
My friend, if the Spirit of God is not in our enterprises today, they will come to naught because God is not carrying on His work by our brain or brawn. We speak of clever preachers who deliver very well-composed sermons and all of that, but God’s work is not carried on that way. Sometimes a clever preacher is a dangerous man. The fellow who is sharp mentally may be sharp in the wrong direction and cause a great deal of difficulty among God’s people. I have had to stand on the sidelines and see a great deal of religious racketeering going on when I couldn’t lift my voice against it without being misunderstood. It is quite evident that some clever fellows were good backslappers, good public relations men, good administrators, had nice personalities and a great deal of charisma, and they made an appeal. But God does not carry on His work by the human instrument. It is “not by might nor by power”; it is not by brain nor by brawn, but it is “by my spirit, saith the Lord.”
Let me be personal and very frank. Anything that Vernon McGee does in the flesh, that is by his own effort, God hates. He can’t use it. It will come to nothing because it is nothing in the world but Vernon McGee building a haystack which ultimately is going to be consumed by fire. God wants to do His work through us, by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is important for us to see.
Now looking into the future, this will be especially true during the Millennium. Again, it will not be by brain or by brawn, “but by my spirit, saith the Lord.” David Baron has put it like this: “It is in His light, and by means of the golden oil of His Spirit, which shall then be shed upon them abundantly, that Israel’s candlestick shall yet shine with a sevenfold brilliancy for the illumination of all the nations of the earth.” That, my friend, is a great statement.
Back in the days of Zechariah there was a remnant that needed this encouragement because they were overwhelmed by opposition, and they were beset by doubts and by fears. So the vision was given—it is the Word of the Lord unto Zerubbabel—to encourage them."
McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 3:923-924

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "Animals talk in language that humans can understand (the serpent in Eden and Balaam's *** donkey)."

See:

That Old Serpent

"Prayer and anointing with oil heals sickness and injury."

When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the Lord [Exod. 30:17–20].
"The priest could not come into the tabernacle to serve unless he had first washed. The priest got contaminated when he was on the outside. When you go to church and do not enjoy the service, maybe it is not just because the preacher is dull. Maybe you are a dirty saint. When you have the combination of a dull preacher and a dirty saint, you do not have a very exciting service.
We get dirty in this world, and we cannot worship until we are cleansed. That is why the Lord washed the disciples’ feet. He is still doing that today. We need to go to the laver, friends. That is the first thing the priest did. If they were going to the brazen altar, they washed before and after. If they were going into the Holy Place, they washed before they came in and washed when they came out. I am of the opinion that the matter of washing was very important. It was so important, in fact, that I can imagine one priest saying to another priest at the laver, “How many times have you been here today?” The other priest might reply, “Nearly a dozen times.” And the first priest would say, “Well, I’ve been up here over a dozen times. And look at my hands—I have dishpan hands because I have washed so much. I wonder why God wants us to do this so often?” And Aaron, standing in the background, might have said, “The Lord wants you to wash and wash and wash so that you will know that you have to be holy. You cannot worship Him, serve Him, or be of use to Him unless you have been cleaned up.”
The idea that a dirty saint can serve God acceptably simply is not true. Every now and then you hear of some man getting involved with a woman, and folk say, “My, I do not understand how a thing like that can happen to one who is doing a great work for God.” The man might have been a preacher or a fine Christian worker, but if you check his work, you will find out that it is wood, hay, and stubble. In 1 Corinthians 3:12–15 we learn that, “…if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built there-upon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” His “great work” amounts to nothing in God’s sight. God wants us to be clean.
The priests were to wash in the brazen laver. We are to come to Him in confession. First John 1:9 tells us that “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This laver of brass pictures our sanctification. We must wash if we are going to serve God. We must wash if we are going to be used by God. We must be clean. Not only should our garments smell like sweet incense, but our bodies should be washed with pure water. The pure water is the Word of God.
The laver was made out of brass. The women brought their highly polished brass mirrors to make the laver. They did not have glass mirrors then. The mirrors revealed dirt and that was the purpose of the laver. The laver cleansed the priest, and the laver pictures the Word of God. The Bible is a mirror and when we look into it, our sin is revealed. We then need to confess that sin and be cleansed.
Now you are not to confess your sin publicly; you go to Jesus Christ in private. That laver is in heaven. I think that every Sunday, before we ever go inside the church, we should confess our sins for the week. Do not tell me that you don’t get dirty. Your eyes get dirty. Your mind gets dirty. Your hands get dirty. Your feet get dirty. You get dirty all right. One of the big troubles in our churches today is that there is too much spiritual B.O. We need to confess our sins to Him and wash before we go in to worship. God does not accept worship until it comes from a cleansed heart nor will He accept service except from a cleansed heart."
McGee, J. Vernon: Thru the Bible Commentary. electronic ed. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1981, S. 1:ix-297

"Undetectable entities can communicate with and even take control of humans."

See:

Demon Possession

"Dead people rise up and walk after having been dead for extended periods (Lazarus, specifically)."

See:

Jesus Raises Lazarus from the Dead in Bethany

 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  [Conspiracy Theories] "Just certain Christians that can't accept their positions might be wrong."

 

The answer is no.  Christians acknowledge evil in the world (1 Sam. 24:13; 2 Sam. 3:39; Job 8:20; 34:8, 22; Psa. 14:4, 6; 26:5; 36:12; 53:4; 59:2; 64:2; 92:7, 9; 94:4, 16; 101:8; 119:115; 125:5; 141:4, 5, 9; Prov. 21:15; Isa. 1:4; 31:2; Jer. 23:14; Hos. 10:9; Mal. 3:15; 4:1; Matt. 5:45; 7:23; Luke 13:27; 16:10; 18:11; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 6:1, 9; 2 Cor. 11:13; Phil. 3:2; 1 Pet. 3:18; 2 Pet. 2:9).

 

You do not have a biblical worldview.  As my pastor likes to say:  "Don't give up what you know for what you don't know."  Are you suggesting we should give up God's word for your opinion?  Your monkey stories are not convincing.

 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "Evolution isn't evil."

 

Evolution is a godless theory (Ro 1:21). 

 

"Today...it is clear that the naturalistic story did not succeed.  Change and law do not mimic design.  Applying the Explanatory Filter to lives' origin, we find that the sequence in DNA is neither random (chance) n nor regular (law).  Instead, it exhibits specified complexity, the hallmark of design....It is beginning to look like the key to interpreting the organic world is not natural selection but information (Pearcey, pg. 201)."

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "Sorry, but "this event happened, the Bible says so" does not fit the bill for verifiability and repeatability."

 

You have an internal (Jer 31:33) and external witness (Ps 19:1) as well as the scriptures (Ro 1:20):

 

"The logical flaw in the theory [of evolution]...is that it undercuts itself.  For if all our ideas are products of evolution, then so is the idea of evolutionary psychology itself.  Like all other constructs of the human mind, it is not true but only useful for survival.  Daniel Dennett may call Darwinism a "universal acid" that dissolves away traditional religion and ethics...but it is the height of wishful thinking...to presume that the acid will dissolve only other people's views, while leaving his own views untouched.  Once the very possibility of objective truth has been undermined, then Darwinian evolution itself cannot be objectively true....If all ideas are products of evolution, and not really true but only useful, then evolution itself is not true either.  And why should the rest of us pay it any attention?...Discovering that a philosophy is self-referentially absurd is a sure sign that it is fatally flawed....

 

[I]f we are "machines" created by natural selection, how can we "correct" the force that created us?...How does a machines ruse up against its creator?...There is nothing in evolutionary psychology to account for ...the power of choice...[U]niversal human experience confirms the reality of moral choice, evolutionary psychologists cannot actually live on the basis of their own determinist theory.  They may try to, but when the contradiction between theory and life grows too pressing, they suddenly abandon their theory and proclaim their autonomy from the power of the genes...

 

...[I]f we are really programmed by our genes through Darwinian selection, how could anyone make an "un-Darwinian" decision?  In fact, how could anyone make free moral decisions at all?  The notion that we are free to act in un-Darwinian ways is completely irrational within the Darwinian worldview. 

 

The reason people are compelled to take an irrational leap is that no matter what they believe, they are still made in the image of God.  Even when they reject the witness of Scripture, they still face the constant witness of their own human nature.  At some point, even the most adamant scientific materialists find that their own humanity resists the deterministic implications of the Darwinian worldview--that human nature stubbornly refuses to remain within the cramped confines of any mechanistic philosophy....When that happens, they simply issue a declaration of independence from the power of the selfish genes, and take a leap of faith to a traditional concept of moral freedom and responsibility,...even through it is completely unwarranted within their own worldview....Christians can live consistently on the basis of their worldview because it fits the real world (Pearcey, pg. 217- 219)"

 

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "You truly are confused about science versus religion, aren't you?"

 

What do you mean by science?

 

Response to comment [from a Christian]:  "Now hear this: the bible isn't a biology textbook."

 

Yet, where it speaks of biology it is true.

 

See:

 How to Know the Bible is the Word of God by Adrian Rogers

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "Why do Christians bother [evangelizing]? Because they genuinely want to, or because they are commanded to?"

 

It's the least we can do consider the great gift we've been given (Mk 16:15, 2 Cor 5:11).

 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "No science includes God as part of the explanation."

 

You speak for all scientists? I thought scientists never stopped asking questions? Who is limiting the science because of their vain imaginations? Ro 1:21.

See:

 Do real scientists believe in Creation?

"For one thing, science does not proceed by sheer induction--by collecting and organizing facts. It proceeds by proposing hypotheses and then testing them (the hypothetico-deductive method), and theories are accepted based on a wide range of factors, from simplicity to how well they cohere with existing knowledge (Pearcey, pg. 303)."

 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "Goddidit is not a testable or falsifiable hypothesis, therefore it cannot be included in science."

 

We (by "we" I mean Christians) have more of an argument than "God did it." :rolleyes:  Christianity is a comprehensive worldview. 

 

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:  "Goddidit is not a testable or falsifiable hypothesis..."

 

Too bad you do not believe God (Ge 1:1). Why do you call yourself a Christian? Heb 11:6.

We (by "we" I mean Christians) have more than "goddidit".

"Cosmological argument:

Everything that had a beginning has a cause
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Design argument:

Every design has a designer.
The universe—and life—has a highly complex design.
Therefore, there is a Great Designer.

Moral argument

Moral laws require a lawgiver
Absolute moral laws exist.
Therefore, there is an absolute Moral Lawgiver."

See:

 Evidence of God

Is creation testable and repeatable? Were you there?

 

Response to comment [from an atheist]:  "I'm sorry to say this so bluntly Serpentdove, but your website is an atrocity...[Y]ou're using arguments that are talked about in Philosophy 101 when discussing fallacies..."

 

"Am I not turtley enough for the turtle club." ~ Pistachio Disguisey 1 Cor 1:27

 

Lawsuit Filed Against Evolution