A Bargain Basement Kent Hovind

Tom Ritter is a high school chemistry teacher with a dilemma. How to reconcile his duties teaching public high-school students chemistry and physics when those fields depend so heavily on evolution?

Did I mention that Professor Tom is a creationist? And that he has issued a $1000.00 "challenge" to "evolutionists" to debate him in mid-May on the topic; "Is evolution the only rational explanation to explain life and the existence of modern organisms?"

Apparently, Tom Ritter is Lebanon Pennsylvania's rather shopworn version of Dr. Dino.

Ritter, a chemistry and physics teacher, is astonishingly ignorant when it comes to evolution.

[link] “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.

Evolution is both a fact and a collection of theories. The fact is that evolution occurs. No sane person would even think of denying this. The theories are attempts to best explain how evolution occurs. A science teacher who doesn't understand this should be fired. It's inexcusably ignorant - willfully ignorant.

[link] 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.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is, at best, a philosophical position, and at worst a fanatical religious conviction. It is most definitely not a competing scientific theory to evolution.

Remember, this is a public high school teacher who is making these ridiculous statements - someone that might be teaching yours or my kids, ostensibly, about "science". What it is, what isn't. What the scientific method is and how to properly apply it.

Scary.

[link] “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.”

Now we get to the meat of it. He is under the mistaken impression that all "evolutionists" (his word, not mine) are also all atheists.

Ritter wants to debate "another teacher or professor of science with a strong educational background". Each debater would place $1000.00 in escrow with the outcome of the one-on-one debate judged by an impartial panel of high school students who have answered "undecided" on a survey of whether or not they think that it's OK to teach creationism is public schools.

PZ, I know you're a busy guy, but I think that if this is an online debate it would be right up your alley. Heck, I'd even donate money to help gather up the required thousand bucks.

[link] 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.

Ah. He's associated himself with the Pennsylvania Constitution Party. Things are becoming clearer.

PZ, or any other "teacher or professor of science with a strong educational background", what do you say? You want to do a little mud wrestling with Professor Ritter?