# 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:** 7
**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, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/121 "2003-05-12T05:16:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Yes, that is exactly what the establishment clause means. The government is not permitted to consider religious beliefs when drafting legislation. There we disagree. I think that the phrase refers to the establishment of a state-approved religion (as existed in England at the time the Constitution was drawn up). Neither its words nor its intent suggest that the mere consideration of religious beliefs are off limits. > [@](#): > > The laws respecting sabbath days were unconstitutional and that’s why they were overturned. This country has not always practiced what it preached, but that doesn’t mean that religiously derived laws are permissable under the constitution. But these were common during most of our history, and are scarcely unknown today. What about laws that provide for students to be absent from school for Jewish and Christian holidays? What about the fact that Devil’s Tower is closed to climbers in June because it is held sacred by certain Indian Tribes? ---
**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, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/122 "2003-05-12T05:16:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Taoists would have some complaints with your argument and Hobbes’. Taoists? 😕 What are you talking about? > [@](#): > > You should pay more attention to the meanings of the words you use. What word did **Apos** misuse? 😕 ---
**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, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/123 "2003-05-12T05:20:58Z")
> [@](#): > > There we disagree. I think that the phrase refers to the establishment of a state-approved religion (as existed in England at the time the Constitution was drawn up). Neither its words nor its intent suggest that the mere consideration of religious beliefs are off limits. Well you can disagree all you want. The Supreme Court says you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > But these were common during most of our history, and are scarcely unknown today. What about laws that provide for students to be absent from school for Jewish and Christian holidays? What about the fact that Devil’s Tower is closed to climbers in June because it is held sacred by certain Indian Tribes? These are laws which accomodate the free practice of religion by citizens. They do not codify any specific beliefs into law. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/124 "2003-05-12T05:22:55Z")
Xema, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court is granted the power to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment applicable to the States. Thus, the prohibition on Establishing Religion applies to both the Federal and State Governments. Teaching Creation Science furthers a religious belief. If the State Government GIVES MONEY to a teacher that is teaching a religious belief in her official capacity as a school teacher, they are in effect ESTABLISHING RELIGION. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/125 "2003-05-12T05:23:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Taoists? 😕 > What are you talking about? \*\* The “State of Nature” argument. > [@](#): > > \*\*What word did **Apos** misuse? 😕 \*\* ‘Murder’. He seems to confuse it with ‘kill’. ---
**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, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/126 "2003-05-12T05:24:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Those who framed the constitution were Deists steeped in the ideals of the enlightenment. Jefferson, for one, specifically rejected much of the Bible. In this, was he typical or unusual for learned men of his time? Do you believe he rejected its view of laws and morality? > [@](#): > > BTW, there is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian” tradition. Judeo-Christian = Christian. I don’t understand this. Are you saying there is no such thing a Jewish thought, philosophy, morality, ethics? What are we to make of all that’s written along these lines? ---
**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, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/127 "2003-05-12T05:30:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Well you can disagree all you want. The Supreme Court says you’re wrong. Bear in mind that the context of this discussion is the original framing of our laws. It can thus be argued that what was said and done quite some time ago is more relevant that what has transpired recently. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/128 "2003-05-12T05:32:49Z")
hmmmmm? You folks have been having fun. I do notice that there was a semantic issue that was missed early on. The OP mentioned the act as being “against the law” and several posts reiterated that point or used the term “illegal.” Now **Xema** has actually been arguing a position that the act would not be a _criminal_ act because it did not violate a _statute_. (Whether **Xema** has failed to make this explicit distinction out of carelessness or with great care, I do not know.) However, none of the earlier posts before the hijack claimed that teaching religious creationism was a _criminal_ act, only that it was “against the law.” The Constitution is the highest law of the land and an act in defiance of that _law_ is, indeed, “against the law.” Multiple court cases have supported that position. This, however, is a different statement than that teaching Creationism is a _criminal_ offense–a statement that no one has actually made. ---
**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, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/129 "2003-05-12T05:34:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > Xema, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court is granted the power to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment applicable to the States. Thus, the prohibition on Establishing Religion applies to both the Federal and State Governments. > Teaching Creation Science furthers a religious belief. If the State Government GIVES MONEY to a teacher that is teaching a religious belief in her official capacity as a school teacher, they are in effect ESTABLISHING RELIGION. Yes, I agree with this. I stop short of viewing her as chargeable with the “crime” of violating the first amendment – I think that bears on the actions of governments, not individuals. ---
**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, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/130 "2003-05-12T05:40:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Xema \* > \*\*What about the fact that Devil’s Tower is closed to climbers in June because it is held sacred by certain Indian Tribes? \*\* The National Park Service instituted a _voluntary_ ban on climbing the Tower, and stated that it would not enforce that ban. Because it is voluntary, rather than established as a law, the act was not deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See [_Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt, 1998_](http://web.hamline.edu/law/lawrelign/sacred/lodge2.htm). ---
**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, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/131 "2003-05-12T05:41:55Z")
Much as I’ve enjoyed this (well, most of it) I must now sign off - it’s 1:45 here and I must be up at 5. ---
**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, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/132 "2003-05-12T05:48:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*hmmmmm? You folks have been having fun. > > I do notice that there was a semantic issue that was missed early on. The OP mentioned the act as being “against the law” and several posts reiterated that point or used the term “illegal.” > > Now **Xema** has actually been arguing a position that the act would not be a _criminal_ act because it did not violate a _statute_. (Whether **Xema** has failed to make this explicit distinction out of carelessness or with great care, I do not know.) However, none of the earlier posts before the hijack claimed that teaching religious creationism was a _criminal_ act, only that it was “against the law.” The Constitution is the highest law of the land and an act in defiance of that _law_ is, indeed, “against the law.” Multiple court cases have supported that position. This, however, is a different statement than that teaching Creationism is a _criminal_ offense–a statement that no one has actually made. \*\* I had intended to make a comment regarding that point, but am not anywehere near well-enough versed in law to support my position. From what I have seen, violations of the OP’s sort would fall within the realm of civil law, not criminal law. And [those are two different animals](http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/133 "2003-05-12T05:48:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, I agree with this. I stop short of viewing her as chargeable with the “crime” of violating the first amendment – I think that bears on the actions of governments, not individuals. Well it looks like Xema isn’t going to see this for a great while, but I’ll post the explanation anyway. By neccesity, the Constitution has to apply to individuals that are acting as agents of the Government. The Fourth Amendment makes it illegal to burst into peoples homes without a search warrant. The entire State Government of Oregon can’t burst into my home, so I assume the amendment applies to actions that are done by Agents of the Government. In this case, a police officer is an agent of the government. Police officers work for the government, so do school teachers. ---
**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, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/134 "2003-05-12T05:55:12Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t understand this. Are you saying there is no such thing a Jewish thought, philosophy, morality, ethics? What are we to make of all that’s written along these lines? I’m saying that the phrase “Judeo-Christian” is not really inclusive of Jewish thought. It’s a pseudo-inclusive way to talk about Christian thought. Once you add the “Christian” part, you’ve left behind the “Judeo” part. Yes, there is Jewish thought in Christianity, but there is no Christian thought in Judaism. Any paradigm which includes both Jewish and Christian thought is therefore _ipso facto_ Christian. There is nothing in “Judeo-Christian” thought which can be separated from Christianity proper. There is much which can be separated from Judaism, ergo, "Judeo-Christian is really just a weasel phrase for Christian. ---
**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, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/135 "2003-05-12T06:22:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I mean that those who framed our laws partook of the Judeo-Christian tradition of laws, ethics, morality etc. The bible was taught almost universally in western society at that time – few if any of those who founded this country and framed its laws would have not been very familiar with it. As I pointed out before, you’re making a “guilt by association” argument: as if we are in the dark as to what the thinking of the framers was. But we are NOT in the dark. They left extensive writings on their thinking. And no, the basis IN THE LAW for having statues against murder is not based on solely or even primarily God’s say-so or religious tradition. There are countless religious traditions that are not law: it’s just not enough. Instead, these thinkers developed a framework of natural rights that, in the minds of many, stood in direct opposition to religious mores which held that morality rested solely on Biblical and heavenly authority, not based on some rationalist philosophy. While Christian values certainly played a major role in our society, to act like that fact makes everything, by mere association, a subset of Christian thought is pure nonsense. Western legal thinking did not begin and end with the publication of the Bible. Indeed, Enlightenment probably did more to change Christianity than the other way around, and it was Enlightenment principles and thinking that primarily inspired the founders. > [@](#): > > I’m thinking of the way in which the beliefs and attitudes of the lawmakers were formed – in what traditions they were educated and grounded. Sure, but you seem to make the mistake of thinking that because Christianity was a part of that tradition, that therefore it must be the primary factor in everyone’s thought. Just because I was raised in a culture of Pokemon does not mean that everything I do is designed to “catch em all!” Plenty of people looked to entirely different ideas, even formulated new ideas of their own, as the basis for legal philosophies. Indeed, most legal philosophies were concerned with technical matters and proceedural traditions like the common law, not theology. ---
**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, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/136 "2003-05-12T06:29:18Z")
> [@](#): > > Here’s the first problem: ‘murder’ is by definition an unlawful act. If it’s lawful, it’s not murder, regardless of what our interpretations of whether that killing is correct or justified. It can’t be an “acceptable everyday practice” for that reason. > “Honor killings”, when men slay women who have supposedly defamed the honor of their families, aren’t murders in the societies in which they usually take place. Yawn. As I thought I made clear, the issue IS the matter of having laws against murder, and NOT our particular interpretation of whatever killings should be legal and what shouldn’t (be called murder and what shouldn’t). The idea is not that all societies had to conform to our idea of what actions were punishable by death, or what non-full members of society count as legitimate protectees, and so on, but rather that the society acted, as a matter of due process, to prevent recognized citizens from simply slaughtering each other over a sixpence whenever they felt like it. That’s the issue on which, at its most basic level, societies cannot really live without: they have to have some concept of murder: killing that is not acceptable to the general social order. > [@](#): > > Taoists would have some complaints with your argument and Hobbes’. Sure, but no one would be able to understand what their complaints are anyway. If they say anything of substance, they’ve betrayed the Tao, and we can safely write them off as inconsistent. 🙂 > [@](#): > > You should pay more attention to the meanings of the words you use. And you should pay more attention to how they are being used. ---
**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, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/137 "2003-05-12T06:31:53Z")
> [@](#): > > The government is not permitted to consider religious beliefs when drafting legislation. This is not, to my knowledge, strictly true. What the government is barred from doing is acting for a religious purpose: a particular secretarian end, advancing one view over another. That doesn’t mean that religious beliefs cannot enter into the debate, or inform the reasoning of people in the process. It just means that the law has to have a plausible secular purpose. ---
**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, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/138 "2003-05-12T06:42:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*This is not, to my knowledge, strictly true. What the government is barred from doing is acting for a religious purpose: a particular secretarian end, advancing one view over another. That doesn’t mean that religious beliefs cannot enter into the debate, or inform the reasoning of people in the process. It just means that the law has to have a plausible secular purpose. \*\* Yes, you’re correct. It was just bad phrasing on my part. What I meant to say was that legislation cannot be drafted purely to serve the interest of a religious view. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2003, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/139 "2003-05-12T07:03:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Yes, you’re correct. It was just bad phrasing on my part. What I meant to say was that legislation cannot be drafted purely to serve the interest of a religious view. \*\* Which means there has to be a secular purpose behind it. There is no “secular purpose” behind teaching a religious doctrine like creationism. ---
**Author:** ![ronbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ba9def/32.png) [@ronbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ronbo)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2003, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518/140 "2003-05-17T22:23:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ColorFlip \* > \*\*My teacher also told us that there is more than one theory but its against the law for her to teach other ones, she can only teach Darwins Theory. Why cant she teach the other theorys? arnt we supose to learn at school and not just get one view on things?😕 :smack: > > Thanks > ColorFlip \*\* ColorFlip: If you’re still watching the thread, I thought I would bring it back to the heart of your question. Evolution is a fact. It is a Law: the Law of Evolution. Science still talks of the Theory of Gravity, but don’t test it by jumping off of a building. Evolution was a Theory 100 years ago, now it is an accepted Fact. Your teacher cannot teach other theories because they are not based on science, they are based on religion. You are not supposed to be confused by teachers that do not know the difference between science and religion. I’m sorry that you were. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evolution-theory/174518.md?page=8)