# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![bugg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecae2f/32.png) [@bugg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bugg)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/81 "2003-05-12T02:31:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? \*\* We’re a little off topic from where we should be. It’s not why the law was passed, it’s how it was taught. A school can teach everything it wants about the laws against murder, so long as it doesn’t use religious views. Same with the theories of how we came into existance; you can’t really argue creationism per se without religion… or really bad science. I will be able to teach my child not to kill without relying on religion. I would not be able to teach my child creationism (as in, the story of Genesis) without religion. ---
**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, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/82 "2003-05-12T02:33:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > A. Public. School. Teacher. Is. An. Agent. Of. the. Government. The first amendment makes no mention of “agents of the government.” Do you mean that a public school teacher is equivalent to a member of Congress and intended to be included under “Congress shall make no law …” ? ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/83 "2003-05-12T02:39:18Z")
This seems to have turned into a debate (or several), so I’ll move this thread to GD. bibliophage moderator GQ ---
**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, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/84 "2003-05-12T02:41:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bugg \* > A school can teach everything it wants about the laws against murder, so long as it doesn’t use religious views. My thesis is that the US incarnation of these laws (and possibly many others) have a strong basis in religious views, dating back to long before the laws were framed. I suppose it’s possible to argue that the (generally rather religious) men who framed these laws set aside tradition and their education when framing them, so it’s simply a coincidence that the laws coincide with Judeo-Christian beliefs. But I find that implausible. ---
**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, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/85 "2003-05-12T02:50:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*The first amendment makes no mention of “agents of the government.” > > Do you mean that a public school teacher is equivalent to a member of Congress and intended to be included under “Congress shall make no law …” ? \*\* The First Amendment covers the government _in toto_. ---
**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, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/86 "2003-05-12T02:51:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bugg \* > I would not be able to teach my child creationism (as in, the story of Genesis) without religion. If you want to invoke the Genesis version of Creationism, I believe you are right. But I suspect you could concoct a non-religious “creationist” view of things without great difficulty. The Big Bang can be seen as such a theory: no explanation of causality or the process by which it came about – it just happened. ---
**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, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/87 "2003-05-12T02:53:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*My thesis is that the US incarnation of these laws (and possibly many others) have a strong basis in religious views, dating back to long before the laws were framed. I suppose it’s possible to argue that the (generally rather religious) men who framed these laws set aside tradition and their education when framing them, so it’s simply a coincidence that the laws coincide with Judeo-Christian beliefs. But I find that implausible. \*\* Your “thesis” is contradicted by both the Constitution and the writings of the framers outside the 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, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/88 "2003-05-12T02:58:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > The First Amendment covers the government _in toto_. How does it do that? Since it starts with “Congress shall make no law …” the naive reader might be led to believe that it pertains specifically to Congress and lawmaking, and thus has little bearing on, say, the US Mint. ---
**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, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/89 "2003-05-12T02:59:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*If you want to invoke the Genesis version of Creationism, I believe you are right. > > But I suspect you could concoct a non-religious “creationist” view of things without great difficulty. The Big Bang can be seen as such a theory: no explanation of causality or the process by which it came about – it just happened. \*\* The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. The issue in the OP was _alternative theories to evolution_. There are no alternate scientific theories. The only competing views are religious. ---
**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, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/90 "2003-05-12T03:02:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Your “thesis” is contradicted by both the Constitution and the writings of the framers outside the Constitution. Well, the Constitution is not a recondite document. Bring forth the quote that contradicts me. ---
**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, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/91 "2003-05-12T03:10:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > The issue in the OP was _alternative theories to evolution_. There are no alternate scientific theories. The only competing views are religious. It would be more accurate to say that the only widely expressed competing views are religious. Here’s a non-religious creationist view that’s not widely held: all life on planet Earth was created in a single instant about 200 million years ago by the effects of an intense gravitational field associated with a near-collision with a black hole. I give this view about the same credence as more popular creationist views of ther origins of life. That all such views must be religious is inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/92 "2003-05-12T03:14:25Z")
**Xema** , a series of Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 1920’s have held that the Fourteenth Amendment extends many of the strictures against federal action within the Bill of Rights to state and local governments as well. This is called the “doctrine of incorporation”. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is one such clause which has been “incorporated”. Under this doctrine, neither Congress, nor any state or local government, nor any agent of a state or local government (such as a public school teacher) acting in their official capacity as a government employee may promote the establishment of religion. If they do so, their employer is liable to a lawsuit. ---
**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, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/93 "2003-05-12T03:14:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*How does it do that? > > Since it starts with “Congress shall make no law …” the naive reader might be led to believe that it pertains specifically to Congress and lawmaking, and thus has little bearing on, say, the US Mint. \*\* It happens by extension. Congress is responsible for appropriating and distributing taxpayer money. Congress cannot use taxpayer money to fund religion. All government institutions, including public schools, are funded by taxpayer money. Therefore no government institution may endorse a religious viewpoint. A public school teacher is hired with the understanding that he/she cannot use taxpayer money (cannot accept a publicly funded salary) to propogate any religious viewpoint. ---
**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, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/94 "2003-05-12T03:16:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > **It would be more accurate to say that the only widely expressed competing views are religious. Here’s a non-religious creationist view that’s not widely held: all life on planet Earth was created in a single instant about 200 million years ago by the effects of an intense gravitational field associated with a near-collision with a black hole.** And it would be even more accurate to say that theories of origin are independent from those of explaining the diversity of life, and therefore irrelevant. Not that irrelevancy has proven to be much of a deterrent thus far in the discussion. ---
**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, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/95 "2003-05-12T03:19:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*Well, the Constitution is not a recondite document. Bring forth the quote that contradicts me. \*\* > [@](#): > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ---
**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, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/96 "2003-05-12T03:21:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*It would be more accurate to say that the only widely expressed competing views are religious. Here’s a non-religious creationist view that’s not widely held: all life on planet Earth was created in a single instant about 200 million years ago by the effects of an intense gravitational field associated with a near-collision with a black hole. > > I give this view about the same credence as more popular creationist views of ther origins of life. That all such views must be religious is inaccurate. \*\* This is actually not an alternative view to evolution, nor is it scientific. ---
**Author:** ![Achernar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e274bd/32.png) [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/97 "2003-05-12T03:26:24Z")
Well, **ColorFlip** (the OP), I hope we’ve cleared things up for you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/98 "2003-05-12T03:55:45Z")
> [@](#): > > My thesis is that the US incarnation of these laws (and possibly many others) have a strong basis in religious views, dating back to long before the laws were framed. I’m not sure what you are maintaining here. Laws against murder have stong basis in certain religions. But they also have a strong basis in human society in general, since it’s pretty hard to concieve of an organized society that doesn’t proscribe murder. So which came first? And which presides? From all accounts, there are tons of long standing religious proscriptions (like “I am the Lord your God, don’t have a beer and cheet on me”) that aren’t law, and tons of laws (like “no slavery, thanks”) that aren’t derived from religious tradition. The law is a much more complicated animal than religion, since it primarily concerns the day to day affairs of worldly men. The vast body common law, for instance, has a lot more to do with the ins and outs of business transactions than almost anything else. > [@](#): > > I suppose it’s possible to argue that the (generally rather religious) men who framed these laws set aside tradition and their education when framing them, so it’s simply a coincidence that the laws coincide with Judeo-Christian beliefs. I suppose if we had a magical crystal ball we could look back in ti… oh wait. The framers were actually kind enough to set down in ink their rationales! First of all, we find men that were considered significant in their oddball areligiosity: a bunch a crackpot deists who didn’t think that the Creator had any real interest in the affairs of human beings, but had simply created a rational world whereby moral truths could be derived from logic. I’m not sure where in the Bible you find that rationale, since it doesn’t really show up in human thought until the European Enlightenment, of which most of the founders were children of. Their thinking was this: that religion was a matter of personal conscience, and that it would be best off if left in the hands of the people, the government not concerning itself with it. Instead, the government would be constituted on the grounds of the best system that human reason could think up. It’s hard to underscore how radical these views were, especially compared to other nations all over the world at the time, which couldn’t imagine the idea of governments that didn’t claim to draw their authority or direction from God. Yet, this radical idea won out, and the idea of secular government has spread to almost every corner of the world, with only a few states remaining as holdouts (and even they constantly slipping towards at least secularism in practice, if not in rhetoric) ---
**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, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/99 "2003-05-12T04:05:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jklann \* > a series of Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 1920’s have held that the Fourteenth Amendment extends many of the strictures against federal action within the Bill of Rights to state and local governments as well. This is called the “doctrine of incorporation”. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is one such clause which has been “incorporated”. Under this doctrine, neither Congress, nor any state or local government, nor any agent of a state or local government (such as a public school teacher) acting in their official capacity as a government employee may promote the establishment of religion. If they do so, their employer is liable to a lawsuit. This is much the best argument in favor of the position that Creationism cannot be taught in public schools yet brought forth in this thread – all the others seem feeble by comparison. The relevant part of the 14th amendment is: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” (What is, or should be, the exact construction of this is of course a broad debate of it own.) I think we agree that a teacher can get a school into trouble by advancing a private religious view in a classroom, and that an employee who causes his employer to become embroiled in legal action gives grounds for dismissal. But I still do not see that the teacher can be charged with the violation of a law, absent some specific statute dictating what can and cannot be taught. Though I don’t know for sure, I strongly suspect that there is no such federal statute. I feel certain that the first amendment alone gives no grounds for charging an individual with a crime. ---
**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, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/100 "2003-05-12T04:09:31Z")
Which part of “agent of the government” do you not understand? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518.md?page=6)