# Evolution Theory **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518 "2003-05-11T17:37:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/21 "2003-05-11T23:41:30Z")
Laws against murder are not inspired by religion. They are inspired by a government’s resposibility to protect its citizens. The bible says you shouldn’t cheat on your wife, but in most states, adultery isn’t actually illegal, per se. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/22 "2003-05-11T23:46:37Z")
In any case, before this gets out of hand, no it is not illegal to teach creation science in public schools: > [@](#): > > Dr. John Moore, Professor of Natural Science at Michigan State University for over 30 years, pointed out that in creation science: > > No new laws are necessary, there is no possible violation of so-called separation of church and state, since no religious teaching is involved.2 But would the United States Supreme Court buy that? Yes. In Edwards vs. Aguiliard, 482 U.S. 96 (1987), they said: > > … teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. > > That ruling also sustained the finding of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as follows: > > No court of which we are aware had prohibited voluntary instruction concerning purely scientific evidence that happens, incidentally, to be consistent with a religious doctrine or tenet. > > Therefore, the teaching of creation science is solidly supported by law—as long as the court’s rules are followed. From [this site](http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-196.htm). Granted, it’s from a creationist website, but it’s still valid. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/23 "2003-05-11T23:52:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.E.D. \* > Laws against murder are not inspired by religion. They are inspired by a government’s resposibility to protect its citizens. An interesting assertion. What cases can you name where such laws pre-date religious tenets to the same effect? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/24 "2003-05-11T23:56:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*And if a public school mentions laws against murder, which are almost certainly related to religious tenets (and thus “theistic in nature”), are they equally “illegal?” > > But, more to the point, what law is a teacher charged with if he/she mentions Creationism? The first amendment is not a law, but an amendment to the US Constitution, which purports to control what the US Government and State governments can do, and not the actions of individuals. When was the last time an individual was chared with a violation of the first amendment? > > (I find myself in a strange position here, seeming to defend Creationism, in which I do not believe. I think what I’m really defending is the right to express certain beliefs.) \*\* Laws against murder are not theistically derived and have no connection with any religion, they are purely rationalistic. The difference is the introduction of the _supernatural_ into the curriculum. When a teacher is working for a public school, he/she is acting as an agent of the state. They are, in effect, the voice of the government. The government can’t teach creationism. I honestly don’t know about the mechanics of charging the teacher, but the _school_ would be guilty of civil rights violations and would be ordered to desist by a federal court if the issue was pushed. Public schools get their funding from the government. A PS which refused to comply with federal law would probably be shut down, and it may be possible that individuals could be charged with federal civil rights violations. They could definitely be sued. IANA civil rights attorney so I really don’t know the details. Hopefully one of our lawyers can help us out. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/25 "2003-05-11T23:58:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*[nitpick] > Well there are a _few_ examples of Lamarckian inheritance. IIRC resistance to a particular class of herbicide in some plants, tooth patterns on some barnacles, and some DNA methylation patterns provide examples of the inheritance of aquired traits. Still, that’s not enough to make it worth teaching in high school. > [/nitpick] \*\* It should be noted, however, that while there _are_ examples of non-genetic traits which can be passed from generation to generation, these are not equivalent to Lamarck’s “use and dissuse” (typically referred to as “the inheritence of acquired characteristics”). There are also examples of phenotype-affecting extrachromosomal genes (present in the cytoplasm or mitochondria) which fall outside the normal rules of Mendelian heredity. There is, however, no evidence that an adaptive response is ever transmitted backwards to an organism’s DNA, which is what true Lamarckian inheritence would require. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/26 "2003-05-12T00:03:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.E.D. \* > \*\*In any case, before this gets out of hand, no it is not illegal to teach creation science in public schools: > From [this site](http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-196.htm). Granted, it’s from a creationist website, but it’s still valid. \*\* Well, the devil is in the details, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > No court of which we are aware had prohibited voluntary instruction concerning **purely scientific evidence** that happens, incidentally, to be consistent with a religious doctrine or tenet. > > Therefore, the teaching of creation science is solidly supported by law— **as long as the court’s rules are followed** Since creationism is not a scientific theory and cannot present any “purely scientific evidence” to support it, it cannot possibly follow the court’s guidelines. This ruling is purely theoretical. **if** a scientific theory of creationism could be formulated it would not be illegal to teach it. As of now, that standard has not been met. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/27 "2003-05-12T00:04:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Laws against murder are not theistically derived and have no connection with any religion, they are purely rationalistic. And so you assert that the fact that all major religions include structures against murder is just a coincidence? Our law did not derive from this precedent? Interesting. > [@](#): > > When a teacher is working for a public school, he/she is acting as an agent of the state. They are, in effect, the voice of the government. The government can’t teach creationism. Wht not? Is it in the Constitution? In some Federal law? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/28 "2003-05-12T00:06:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*An interesting assertion. What cases can you name where such laws pre-date religious tenets to the same effect? \*\* It’s completely irrelevent if religious laws coincide with secular laws. The laws of the _United States_ are completely secular and are derived _independently_ of religious laws. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/29 "2003-05-12T00:06:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*And in your view the US Constitution is a “law,” governing the actions of individuals? \*\* The Constititution is not “a law” (as in statute), it is **the** law of the land. ---
**Author:** ![Agback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/977dab/32.png) [@Agback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agback)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/30 "2003-05-12T00:06:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker \* > \*\*Well, I think there are at least two theories of evolution: punctuated equilibrium and gradualism, with the former being a relatively recent refinement. \*\* Actually, I don’t think these theories do exist. It seems to me from the sidelines that all biologist agree on the neo-Darwinian synthesis. The gradualists (who tend to reject that label, by the way) deny that they believe that evolution is always slow and never stops, and accuse the punctualed equilibrarian of believing in saltation. The punctuated equilibrarian denies that he believes in saltation, and accuses the gradualists of believing that evolution is always slow and never stops. Meanwhile, people from outside the discipline with a religious axe to grind exaggerate the significance of the squabble. Regards, Agback ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/31 "2003-05-12T00:10:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Although we don’t know much about Sumerian law, scholars agree that the Code of Hammurabi, written by a Babylonian monarch, reproduces Sumerian law fairly exactly. Sumerian law, as represented in Hammurabi’s code, was a law of exact revenge, which we call lex talionis. This is revenge in kind: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, **a life for a life** ,” and reveals to us that human law has as its fundamental basis revenge. Sumerian law was also only partly administered by the state; the victim had to bring the criminal to court. Once there, the court mediated the dispute, rendered a decision, and most of the time a court official would execute the sentence, but often it fell on the victim or the victim’s family to enforce the sentence. From [this article.](http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/wa/HWCDA/file?fileid=111226&flt=High_School&pathTitles=/Ancient_Law/Ancient_Near_East/Sumerian_Law_(scroll_down)&version=2&tg=Law) I could find nothing that indicates whether or not Sumerian religion prohibited murder, but clearly their law says that taking a life is punishable by same. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/32 "2003-05-12T00:12:42Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Xema \* **And so you assert that the fact that all major religions include structures against murder is just a coincidence? Our law did not derive from this precedent? Interesting.** The fact that all cultures forbid murder just shows that forbidding murder is a universally _rational_ thing to do. No, our laws against murder did not derive from any religious code. > [@](#): > > \*\*Wht not? Is it in the Constitution? In some Federal law? \*\* Yes, it’s in the constitution. First amendment, establishment clause. The government cannot establish a state religion. That means that the government cannot endorse one religious view over another. The government cannot take a stand on the _truth_ of any particular religious view. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/33 "2003-05-12T00:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > It’s completely irrelevent if religious laws coincide with secular laws. The laws of the _United States_ are completely secular and are derived _independently_ of religious laws. This sounds like another assertion. What evidence can you put forward that, for example, those responsible for framing the early laws in the US were completely secular and derived what they enacted independent of religious law? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/34 "2003-05-12T00:19:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*This sounds like another assertion. What evidence can you put forward that, for example, those responsible for framing the early laws in the US were completely secular and derived what they enacted independent of religious law? \*\* The fact that they were _forbidden_ by the US Constitution to pass religiously derived laws. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/35 "2003-05-12T00:25:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary T \* > The Constititution is not “a law” (as in statute), it is **the** law of the land. And as such, it bears on governments, not individuals. Which means that assertions (as by tomndebb and Diogenes) that individuals teaching Creationism violate the Constitution are specious. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/36 "2003-05-12T00:27:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*What evidence can you put forward that, for example, those responsible for framing the early laws in the US were completely secular and derived what they enacted independent of religious law? \*\* Let’s put it this way: what evidence can **you** put forward that said laws **were** derived from religious law? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/37 "2003-05-12T00:27:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*And as such, it bears on governments, not individuals. > > Which means that assertions (as by tomndebb and Diogenes) that individuals teaching Creationism violate the Constitution are specious. \*\* Not when those inividuals are acting as _agents of the government_ which is exactly what public school teachers are doing. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/38 "2003-05-12T00:28:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*And as such, it bears on governments, not individuals. > > Which means that assertions (as by tomndebb and Diogenes) that individuals teaching Creationism violate the Constitution are specious. \*\* Individuals teaching in a public school are essentially agents of the government, and are, in fact, state employees, and therefore bound by the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/39 "2003-05-12T00:29:51Z")
High five, on the simulpost, **Diogenes**. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/40 "2003-05-12T00:33:22Z")
High five back atcha, **Q.E.D**. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518.md?page=3)