On DNA methylation:
The inheritance of acquired epigenetic variations.
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 ?
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 (DNA->RNA->protein), but they do show that Lamarck was not always entirely wrong either.
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.
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.
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.
Xema, we’ve all been providing cites to back up our positions. Perhaps you’d care to provide even one to back up yours?
They were also men who made a considered and deliberate decision not to codify any of that religious tradition into law.
As for the specific legality of teaching creationism, this site 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.
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 site is a treasuretrove of cases in which teaching creationism has been banned by federal courts.
On this page we see:
A search for 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.
They’re not only free to, they’re mandated to.
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.
Wow. Two pages from one drive-by posting. Is this some sort of record?
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.
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.
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.
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.
A. Public. School. Teacher. Is. An. Agent. Of. the. Government.
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?
Oops, I misread your post. I thought you said you do maintain otherwise. Please disregard my last post.