# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/61 "2003-05-12T01:24:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.E.D. \* > \*\*You better provide a cite, buddy. AFAIK, there is no such thing as Lamarckian inheritance, and if you’re going to claim otherwise, you need to back up those claims. \*\* On DNA methylation: [The inheritance of acquired epigenetic variations.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2593687&dopt=Abstract) A bit of googling reveals numerous other variations on this theme. The herbicide resistance, and barnacle tooth pattern are both examples from the 80’s, and don’t show up easily on an internet flooded with sites “disproving” the work of Lamrck and Lysenko. There are however plenty of other examples of the non-genetic inheritance of acquired traits provided here: [Who Needs Genes ?](http://www.as220.org/~tomfool/meta/dnachap_7.html) There’s no law which states that **all** characteristics must be passed through the genome. The two cases I sited provided specific mechanisms for non-genetic inheritance. Again, IIRC, the herbicide resistance turned out to be based on a particular conformation of a protein in the chloroplast membrane which, was unaffected by the herbicide, and, like a prion, catalyzed the transformation of other copies of the enzyme into the resistant form. Inheritance was thus through the membrane structure, not the genes. With the barnacles, the sibling barnacles teeth grew directly up against the parents teeth, and thus acquired the same pattern of grooves as the parent. Of course none of these cases are strong enough to raise any doubts with respect to the power of the [central dagma](http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/GG/central.html) (DNA-\>RNA-\>protein), but they do show that Lamarck was not always entirely wrong either. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/62 "2003-05-12T01:27:29Z")
It is against the law to kill another person. It is not illegal because God said so, it is illegal because the legislature says so. The legislature may have decided to make murder illegal because its practice is detrimental to government’s duty to protect the lives and property of citizens. I have it on record that God says we should not wear fabrics made of more than one fiber, nor should we eat bats or herons. No legislature has made cotton blends or bat-kebabs illegal (so far as I know), and so it seems that not everything proscribed by God Himself is important to the maintenance of the civil state. The legislature has decided that the teaching of any religion’s origin myth in a science classroom in a public school is illegal. Therefore, it seems to me that “Creationism” is more like bat-eating than it is like murder. ---
**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, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/63 "2003-05-12T01:32:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*Yet you supply no evidence of her being charged with any crime, which means your post did not respond to mine. \*\* The school fired her because she was violating federal law. If they had let her continue, the school, itself, could have been charged with federal civil rights violations. Individual teachers are not usually charged because firing them resolves the federal issue for the school. ---
**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, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/64 "2003-05-12T01:35:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Xema_ > Is the codification of this in religious belief over thousands of years just an irrelevant coincidence? Those who drew up US laws on murder were uninfluenced by this – they invented the concept of murder as crime independently? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Yes. Those responsible for framing US laws tended to be men steeped in a long religious tradition. The notion that they ignored this tradition when framing laws is hard to accept. You supply no evidence for your view. ---
**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, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/65 "2003-05-12T01:35:44Z")
**Xema** , we’ve all been providing cites to back up our positions. Perhaps you’d care to provide even one to back up _yours_? ---
**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, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/66 "2003-05-12T01:39:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*Those responsible for framing US laws tended to be men steeped in a long religious tradition. The notion that they ignored this tradition when framing laws is hard to accept. You supply no evidence for your view. \*\* They were also men who made a considered and deliberate decision not to codify any of that religious tradition into law. ---
**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 12, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/67 "2003-05-12T01:42:01Z")
As for the specific legality of teaching creationism, [this site](http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/app-a.html) lists some important Supreme Court decisions on the matter. Teaching creation, whether in exlcusion of evolutionary theory, or mandated alongside it, has, in fact, been determined to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. The _Webster v. New Lennox School District_ case also seems to demonstrate that prohibiting a teacher from teaching creationism altogether is permissable. I am not sufficiently versed in Constitutional Law to know if such rulings necessarily make it _illegal_ to teach creationism, but they do appear to mean, at the very least, that a school district is free to take punitive measures against teachers who do so. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/68 "2003-05-12T01:43:43Z")
**Xema** is of course just being a troublemaker, since there is no perceptible content behind any points made in those posts, but for people who want some solid references, the [Americans United for Separation of Church and State](http://www.au.org) site is a treasuretrove of cases in which teaching creationism has been banned by federal courts. On [this page](http://www.au.org/resources/talkingpoints/evolution%20creationism%20talking%20points.doc) we see: > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court has held schools cannot prohibit evolution, nor can they offer “equal treatment” of religious theories in science classes. > > In 1968, the Supreme Court said an Arkansas law that banned evolution from the state’s public schools violated church-state separation, calling the measure “anachronistic” and a violation of “religious neutrality.” (Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97) > > The high court turned away the creationists’ efforts again in 1987 when the justices ruled that a Louisiana statute mandating the teaching of “creation science” alongside evolutionary biology violated the Constitution. As Justice William Brennan explained, the Louisiana creationism statute “seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.” (Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578) > > A federal appeals court also rejected requiring teachers to read an evolution disclaimer aloud in 1997. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Louisiana school board’s requirement that teachers read a disclaimer to students saying evolution is not intended to “dissuade the Biblical version of Creation.” The federal court ruled that the practice was aimed at the “protection and maintenance of a particular religious.” A [search for creationism](http://www.au.org/search/search_results.asp?CiMaxRecordsPerPage=25&sc=%2F&TemplateName=query&CiSort=rank%5Bd%5D&HTMLQueryForm=http%3A%2F%2Fau.org&qu=creationism) on the site comes up with many more hits. And yes, **Xema** , our federal courts do work off of American laws. And even that Constitution thingy. ---
**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, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/69 "2003-05-12T01:44:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Law to know if such rulings necessarily make it illegal to teach creationism, but they do appear to mean, at the very least, that a school district is free to take punitive measures against teachers who do so. They’re not only free to, they’re mandated to. ---
**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, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/70 "2003-05-12T01:48:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.E.D. \* > we’ve all been providing cites to back up our positions. Indeed? Your asserted that teachers are bound by the Constitution. I asked you what law they are charged with violating if they fail to do so. Show me the cite that addresses this. I continue to feel that the notion of an individual being charged with a violation of the constitution doesn’t work here, and I can’t seem to find where all these cites you allude to show otherwise. Enlighten me. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/71 "2003-05-12T01:52:56Z")
Wow. Two pages from one drive-by posting. Is this some sort of record? ---
**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, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/72 "2003-05-12T01:55:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*Indeed? Your asserted that teachers are bound by the Constitution. I asked you what law they are charged with violating if they fail to do so. Show me the cite that addresses this. > > I continue to feel that the notion of an individual being charged with a violation of the constitution doesn’t work here, and I can’t seem to find where all these cites you allude to show otherwise. Enlighten me. \*\* Do you want an example of individuals charged with federal civil rights violations? Do you remember the Rodney King federal trial? The cops in that case were charged with (and convicted of) violating the civil rights of Rodney King. It is _illegal_ for an agent of the government to violate the US Constitution. ---
**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, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/73 "2003-05-12T01:56:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > The school fired her because she was violating federal law. Which 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, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/74 "2003-05-12T02:01:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*Which federal law? \*\* Aaaaaaarrrrgggghhh!!! What are you, the guy from _Memento_? You’ve been told over and over again. It violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said so multiple times. ---
**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, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/75 "2003-05-12T02:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > It violates the First Amendment. And you believe the first amendment is a law that an individual can be charged with violating? Here’s the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So how does an individual, as opposed to Congress, violate this? Is the teacher “Congress?” Did the teacher “make a law?” You act like I’m trying to be difficult. I’m saying that I think this says clearly that it bears on government (i.e. Congress) not on an individual. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/76 "2003-05-12T02:21:48Z")
Um, I believe that was covered under the parts where folks said that, as a teacher employed in the public school system, she was a representative of the government. Or, that it was incumbent upon the school system, as a branch of the government, to stop an individual from violation the Seperation Clause while on their time. ---
**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, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/77 "2003-05-12T02:24:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*And you believe the first amendment is a law that an individual can be charged with violating? > > Here’s the first amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. > > So how does an individual, as opposed to Congress, violate this? Is the teacher “Congress?” Did the teacher “make a law?” > > You act like I’m trying to be difficult. I’m saying that I think this says clearly that it bears on government (i.e. Congress) not on an individual. \*\* A. Public. School. Teacher. Is. An. Agent. Of. the. Government. ---
**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, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/78 "2003-05-12T02:26:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Exapno Mapcase \* > **Xema** , our federal courts do work off of American laws. I don’t believe I’ve maintained otherwise. ---
**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, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/79 "2003-05-12T02:28:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*I don’t believe I’ve maintained otherwise. \*\* WTF? It is the job of federal courts to intepret federal law. That’s what they do. That’s _all_ that they do. Do you think they just make up laws as they go along? ---
**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, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/80 "2003-05-12T02:31:31Z")
Oops, I misread your post. I thought you said you _do_ maintain otherwise. Please disregard my last post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518.md?page=5)