Jump to content

Separation of Church and State: A Fallacy


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Are we getting into a Creationism v Evolution debate here? Or are we simply arguing the rights of people to be made aware of both in a fair and non-prejudiced manner?

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Paddy Gregory ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paddy, those things go pretty much hand-in-hand. Seperation of church and state, in context, was an argument used to keep the government from regulating religion. Nothing more, nothing less. Some prior arguments have already mentioned the "legalistic twisting of definition," and that is exactly what has happened in this case. The argument was, in laymans terms, that since everyone has their own set of beliefs and ideals they have also their own independant religions, regardless of what they label it as.

No two people can have exactly the same religion, either, since no two people share the exact same thoughts, beliefs, exposures, or experiences. Each and every person has a right to their own individual beliefs as well as right, under the freedoms given in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to express those beliefs. In truth, "churches" are simply collectives of individuals with *similar* beliefs, ideals, and goals, protected by the right to peaceably assemble.

In this modern age, we feel the need to fit everything we encounter into neat little categories. People put themselves into categories just as much as others are forced into them. This is how such insitutions come about. But one does not need an institution to join or be forced into any of the available categories.

--Edited to further elaborate--

The point of my mentioning both Creationism and Evolutionism is this: If a person choses not to believe in God, or a god, then must still have to decide what they DO believe. You may chose to believe that aliens planted us on earth thousands or millions or billions of years ago; whatever suits your fancy. But regardless of what anyone believes, there is no room for alternate and opposing truths.

As I already stated, there is more evidence in support of the Cannon (Christian Bible) than there is in support of Evolution. In fact, evolution isn't just sorely lacking in evidence, it has a fair bit of evidence stacked against it. As we advance further in science (Especially medical science and the study of DNA) many scientists are coming to the conclusion that there MUST have been some greater creator. And yet we still teach Evolution in schools, because in theory, it is not supposed to support any particular religion. Well, aside from the fact that what is being taught is, itself, a religion... it is simply VERY unlikely. Also (Knowing that so much of the Cannon HAS been proven, and that none it has, or can be, disproven) if what the Cannon says is true, then that would make it history, not merely religion. In any case, at the moment, some ammount of relgious faith IS required for either viewpoint.

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Scrivener ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Melcar:

Steve perhaps you could read through this thread again to tell me where anybody said that they shouldn't be able to? I seem to have missed that post somewhere.

The only thing I Said was school SANCTIONED. In other words the Teacher/Principal/School worker - getting before a class and saying "Let us Pray". If a group of students have time during school hours(Recess, Whatever) and they get together and pray instead of play, who CARES? That is not the ISSUE!


The issue is not government in this regard, it's performance. For instance, a private company would not want its personnel to approach prospective clients with prayer. That would hinder the performance.

Same thing with educators -- it would hinder the fact that they are supposed to be teaching. Now, if the teaching of the day is complete (school day is over), the teacher has a RIGHT to pray and ask students to join. The students have a RIGHT to decline.

Why is that? Because that prayer would NOT interfere with ANYONE's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

As I already stated, there is more evidence in support of the Cannon (Christian Bible) than there is in support of Evolution. In fact, evolution isn't just sorely lacking in evidence, it has a fair bit of evidence stacked against it. As we advance further in science (Especially medical science and the study of DNA) many scientists are coming to the conclusion that there MUST have been some greater creator. And yet we still teach Evolution in schools, because in theory, it is not supposed to support any particular religion. Well, aside from the fact that what is being taught is, itself, a religion... it is simply VERY unlikely. Also (Knowing that so much of the Cannon HAS been proven, and that none it has, or can be, disproven) if what the Cannon says is true, then that would make it history, not merely religion. In any case, at the moment, some ammount of relgious faith IS required for either viewpoint.

It's late and I'm not going to get in a pissing match about Creationism v Evolution. As a Christian and a scientist, the way i see it is this: there is enough, fossil, geological, Paeleobiological astronomical and astrophysical evidence to support evolution as we know it beyond the shadow of a doubt. However, I do believe there is a God which started everything rolling in the first place (ie the big bang). I think the classical creation theory was the ancient scholars 'best guess' as to how it all started in the absence of any better evidence. I don't want to get into a long debate about this, it's late and I need my sleep. Maybe tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eclipse:

quote:

Then by your own words you stand condemned. Because of unbelief in a higher Power, you can then create your own moral code, there are no absolutes of right and wrong.

Who is going to Condemn me? You? That is right I create my OWN Moral code. As do you. By your teachings and Life Experiences. I will not say that religion has had NO effect on my morals, because it obviously Does. My mother was a Lutheran, my father a Catholic. I attended Catholic school for several years. I attended the Lutheran Church(As well as Catholic) for several years. Up until the Point of my confirmation(and yes I attended the lutheran confirmation classes, I simply did not complete the ceremony). The point of this excessively long Rant, is WE ALL CREATE OUR OWN MORAL CODE BASED UPON OUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. Just look at the differences between say, Southern Baptists, and Lutherans. You will see GREAT differences in what is permitted and what isn't. People as individuals weigh the consequences of their actions and CHOOSE which Rules to follow.

There is NO Absolute in anything... All is relative. Not even right or wrong.

Steve:

quote:

But what if the school teacher gets in front of the class and says "Let's have a moment of silence for each of you to do with as you please?"

Why should a Teacher have to do this? Now I don't know how it was/is in your School. But when I was in High School riding the bus, I arrived a full Half hour before school started. That sounds to me like time to use as I please. If I choose at this point to hang out and BS with friends that is my right. If I choose to find some quiet out of the way place to Meditate, pray, Whatever... That is ALSO my right. Or is it simply that you are AFRAID that you/Your Children will NOT Pray if others are not around to hold your/their hand?

As to creation being taught in School as opposed to the Theory of Evolution. Yes the Theory of Evolution was Taught at my school. As a THEORY. Was the Theory of Creation taught? Nope... How do you teach this... here people, here is a Bible, today we are going to learn about the Theory of Creation. For today's lesson I want you to read Chapter 1 of Genesis.

As opposed to the Theory of Evolution:

There are LOGICAL Complete steps that they have taken to try to prove, and are Still trying to prove.

While we are at it... are we going to teach the Theory of Creation using the Old Norse Beliefs? Or Greek perhaps? EVERY religeon out there has some version of creation. How do we pick and choose?

Aramike: Thank you, That is what I have been trying to say. I just don't seem to be doing a very good job at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Who is going to Condemn me? You?

No, you have condemned yourself and are condemned by a Holy God. It is not my place to comdemn you.

quote:


That is right I create my OWN Moral code. As do you. By your teachings and Life Experiences.

I do not create my own moral code, I follow a moral code found in God's Word. Look at Percy Shelly, he created his own moral code and considered himself an honest person, yet when he ran into finantial trouble he forged his friends names on his bills and left them in crippling debt. If humans are left to make their own morals it is inevitable that they will constantly change to suit our needs. That is why we CANNOT create our own moral codes, and that is why there MUST be an ABSOLUTE code that will never and can never change.

quote:


There is NO Absolute in anything... All is relative. Not even right or wrong.


Then by your own logic, Hitler was following what he believed was right since his was the master race. What right did we have to condemn and vilify him? The terrorists were following what they believed to be right. Why are they condemned for their actions? If I wish to break the laws of this country because I feel they are wrong what place do the police have arresting me? We have light and we have the absense of light called darkness neither can exist in the same place at the same time. That is absolute.

quote:


As opposed to the Theory of Evolution:

There are LOGICAL Complete steps that they have taken to try to prove, and are Still trying to prove.


And all of those LOGICAL steps to prove evolution have FAILED. People have even resorted to making fabrications to prove evolution and they have FAILED. Have you ever considered that it is possible that has NEVER happened and could NEVER happen?

Aaron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

No, you have condemned yourself and are condemned by a Holy God. It is not my place to comdemn you.

Meaningless Babble. Oooh I am condemned by a holy god... Which one? Allah? The Christian God? Apollo? The truth is YOU Condemn me, Not any one of them.

quote:

Hitler was following what he believed was right since his was the master race. What right did we have to condemn and vilify him?

I myself do not believe that what Hitler did was right. Do I think that Hitler was doing what he believed to be right? YES. He did what he did because he BELIEVED that was the RIGHT way to accomplish his goals.

quote:

If I wish to break the laws of this country because I feel they are wrong what place do the police have arresting me?

So, You follow all Laws at All times? What happens when a law gets passed that might conflict with your religion? Which do you follow then?

As I said, it is Not an Absolute... Example: Speeding in a Car to get help for a dying man. Against the Law? Yes. For a Good reason? Yes. Is a Police officer still FULLY Justified in giving you a Ticket? YES.

quote:

And
all
of those LOGICAL steps to prove evolution have FAILED

Show me. Identify your source. and Please note, You said ALL. Oh, and please bear in mind at the same time, that it is still a Theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we get off the holy god will condemn you and all that garbage please. This was a political discusion involving religion, not about religion itself.

I really don't care what you believe as far as religion, I do not think that separation of church and state is what the constitution says.

Now, CAN WE GET BACK ON THE SUBJECT and quit Prostletising please!!

And if you guys want to debate evolution, start another thread, I wish you would, because I would actually be siding with Paddy...and if you want to debate religion, please do that as well, although I'm not sure if the SC would approve.

Nothing like politics and religion to start a major brawl!!

[ 10-22-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaguar, I am not prostletising as you put it. He asked a question and I answered him.

Melcar:

quote:


Meaningless Babble. Oooh I am condemned by a holy [God]... Which one? Allah? The Christian God? Apollo? The truth is YOU Condemn me, Not any one of them.

Reread what I posted, I do not condemn you. You say you speak the truth, yet to you truth is not absolute. You are creating for yourself what you want to be truth.

quote:


Show me. Identify your source. and Please note, You said ALL. Oh, and please bear in mind at the same time, that it is still a Theory.

No, you first show me ONE method that CONCLUSIVELY shows evolution existed. You tell me there are complete steps taken to prove it, yet show me nothing and then demand sources from me. It is not good to demand what you have not shown yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true evolution has not been proven, but the reason it is still a theory it has not been disproven. All it would take is the skeletal remains of a complex creature from a certain era to disprove the theory of evolution.

I did a paper on it once and compared it with religion.

Personally, I think religion has the upper hand because of our basic fundamental desires and wants.

What naturally could create such intelligence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Paddy, Eclipse, and Melcar: What you are doing is insulting one anothers fundamental beliefs, NOT debating. If you would like to contribute to the debate, then add logic and evidence to your argument that either supports your own argument or helps to debunk the other persons. You should also anticipate any counter-arguments your opponent might have and add supplements to prevent them before they happen.

Now, Paddy. You quoted: "As a Christian and a scientist, the way i see it is this: there is enough, fossil, geological, Paeleobiological astronomical and astrophysical evidence to support evolution as we know it beyond the shadow of a doubt." The first thing I wonder is what you mean by "as we know it." The term evolution can mean a number of things. Some more true than others.

Now if, by saying "evolution", you mean that man or any other living "thing" evolved from another form, then we really have two options: Gradual evolution and punctuated equilibrium. Gradual evolution is pretty much a moot point due to the complete and utter lack of transitional species. So these days almost no self-respecting scientist supports the notion. So might you be refering to punctuated equilibrium?

Since it's almost midnight and I have a huge paper to write before school in six hours, I'll give you some time to further elaborate, and we can continure from there if you'd like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If gradual evolution had occured, the land would be littered with transitory/transitional forms. We have yet to find a single one. The truth is, we have nothing that has been or can be considered a transitory form/fossil/etc. That's why they came up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, which states that there are no transitory forms because species just jump from one to the next.

BTW, what is this supposed to mean? wink.gif

quote:

And where did you hear this?

News to me!!

[ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Scrivener ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez...talk about off topic

Separation of church and state turns into creation vs evolution? I suppose they both have to do with religion but geeeeez....

Since we are now on the topic of Evolution vs Creation, I will state my views. I am NOT a scientist and have very little in the way of evidence to support anything. However, here's my take:

I think they're both right! A deity of some sort created the Universe ala big bang. It set up the intrisic physics that caused our eventual creation via evolution. This is my Belief! I have only one piece of evidence to support it. Recently, using the Hubble telescope, NASA found a source of light that is so completely ancient it must be from right after the big bang. To further support this theory, they have been unable to find any source of light that is more ancient. This source, also came from the direction they have more or less calculated to be where the bang took place due to plotting the courses of all the known galaxies (they all converge on one point). However, considering that it is an on-going process, this supporting factor may be broken.

This evidence was discovered probably 3-4 years ago. Check the NASA site, it's probably in their archives somewhere.

Evolution itself is difficult to prove, since it takes such an extremely long time for anything to evolve. Though, I'm not sure I agree with the statement about a lack of inbetween forms. What about Neanderthals, Australopithicus, Cro-Magnon, etc? Are these not predecessors to homo sapiens? And many of the inbetweens are currently living for animal species. A frog, for example, lives part of it's life as a fish, the rest as an amphibian. Seems to me that this is a sign of being an inbetween form. Perhaps it's an evolved inbetween, but the early frogs were probably so similar in shape to the current frogs, it's difficult to discern the difference. Just an example. Not a shred of evidence I am aware of.

Anyway, that's my view. Take it or leave it. I don't care which as long as you accept that I will leave yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scrivener, just pick up and issue of Nature or Science and you will see findings of fossils of 'transitionary species' as you call them. Just a couple of weeks ago I saw a paper on the discovery of an ancestor to a whale, which had skeletal features similar to modern day baline species, but also had articulated limbs, like a land-dwelling mammal.

Also, why do you think we have DNA and protein sequences similar to other, even non-mammalian species? Pure coincidence, or evidence for a gradual evolution from a common source?

Hell, even the protein I'm doing my thesis on has over 80% homology between mouse human and bovine species. It also has significant homology to sequences of entirely functionally non-related proteins.

I'm a scientist, I base my conclusions on the evidence placed before me.

Another evolutionary aspect is that this thread has put myself and Jaguar in agreement.

That HAS to be progress!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schriv: I've not insulted anyone, if they are so hyper sensitive to take any of my comments as insults it is not my fault.

And yes I do have a point behind this that relates to separation of church and state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Jaguar:

And where did you hear this?

News to me!!


Not news at all. Or, at least, it's old news. Evolution is also dang near a mathematical impossibility on a macro level. Micro-evolution is factual, but speciation has never been shown as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gomez, what you pointed out, about the ancient light source is VERY interesting to me. I will definately look into it further. But here are my immediate responses to this information.

IMO, this adds to the logical arguments against the Big Bang theory.

The first problem with the Big Bang theory is that thing's just don't explode without some kind trigger/catalyst/etc. Things don't just explode for no reason. SO, if there was a Big Bang, then your view that a diety (Or other outside source) MUST have triggered it. IMO, it is much more likely an argument that the universe always was. That also dosn't work, though, thanks to the understood laws of physics (BTW, we havn't even begun to scratch the surface of physics). The universe must eventually run itself out. SO, if it's been around forever, it would have burnt out and run down forever ago (If you get that meaning). SO, it must have had a beginning.

Now think in what dimensions things may have exploded as well as how far they may have been flung. NOW, we are saying that this light is OLDER than any other light, because of the distance that light has to travel. It is also farther away than any other. How is it that this older, farther star had the same origin as other newer, closer stars? Ugh! My head is hurting!

Think also about reality. I, personally, can identify four dimensions by name: Length, width, height, and time. Scientists have identified at least eleven. What did those dimensions do? Where did they come from? How do they work? Did that merely happen? They are structures, foundations... architecture! This is a slowly broadening field that intrigues me (Largely due to other interests) and I try to stay up-to-date.

Paddy-

On the subject of the whale. First, I should like to read the material referred to for myself. Second, I would suggest that you look further into the events, persons, and objects referred to in the paper.

Articles assume, suggest, and claim things that are mere speculation. For all I know they may have found such a creature. That tells me we have found the remains of a new creature that noone has yet discovered. I have some more issues I will adress in a moment.

Gomez, you asked "What about Neanderthals, Australopithicus, Cro-Magnon, etc?" And I ask "What about them?" Do we have any evidence such things exsisted? I've seen fossil skulls of creatures that fairly respectable people have claimed come from such primitive humans. The thing is, it looks exactly like the skull of a gorilla! Every instance to date where scientists have found a "missing link", it has turned up to be the remains of some other creature entirely.

Heres the can of worms: Evolution.

You used frogs as an example for your argument for evolution. Perhaps you could also use mice, butterflys/caterpillars, dogs, platypus... etc. To first understand what I'm talking about, let me define a species (Something Darwin was unable to do at the time of his death): A species is a category of living thing that is able to procreate.

My first example. There is a mouse with the ability to produce eight different types of glucose. BUT, the one type of glucose the mouse is able to produce its entire life is determined before birth based on altitude and other, more minor, environmental factors. If you took a mouse born at sea level and moved her to 14,000 feet, she would have a much more difficult time than if she were back at her own altitude. However, if that mouse had a baby mouse at 14,000 feet, she would produce the proper glucose for that elevation. She has adapted. Now, if you took her down to sea level, she would have a hard time. But if she had a baby mouse there, that mouse would produce the exact same glucose as the first I mentioned. Even though they have adapted, they can still procreate to produce another mouse which can procreate. That is a species, and what it is capeable of is defined in its DNA genetic makeup. It is able to adapt only so far. And if you move it out of its range of versatility, regardless of how gradually (Thousands or Millions of generations) it will die out, because its "blueprint" will NEVER change.

Dogs are another good example. We have so many types of dogs that its almost obscene. And yet, they can still mate and produce offspring with any dog of another type. Dogs are bred accordng to traits. The more you breed a certain trait the stronger it becomes. Again, its genetics. It's a versatile thing, but regardless of traits, a dog will still be a dog. Now, not considering sterility, if a dog could not mate with another dog-like creature, they would be different species entirely. Species cannot intermingle, because then they would be the same species.

Back to frogs: It is in a frogs genetic makeup (It's "blueprints") that is grow from a tadpole into a frog. Frogs are very fickle about their environment too. Rather than adapt, many will simply die out. In any case, frogs are only capeable of what their genetics say they are capeable of. And they are "programmed" and built just perfectly to transform so.

What I encourage you all to do is:

1) Never accept anything as correct.

2) Examine the evidence provided, look at the arguments for and against the information provided.

3) Compare the new information against what you already [think you] know.

4) Keep an open mind, realizing that we know nothing for certain but weigh the liklihoods.

5) Look at the big picture. The big picture is infinite and impossible to grasp. Nevertheless, strive to look at every issue from the greatest possible perspective, comparing to EVERYTHING equally (Methematical, biological, physical, logical, etc, etc, etc). Knowledge is an ever-growing puzzle that can never be finished -- you never have all the pieces and some are from other puzzles.

*Sigh* Time to do something productive, like play some more Ultima 9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


The first problem with the Big Bang theory is that thing's just don't explode without some kind trigger/catalyst/etc.

Heh, that's the only necessary problem with the theory to debunk it. Oh, and where did that "super-duper-compressed-matter" come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe did indeed have a beginning, and no we don't know when that was, some say about 10 billion years, others say 50 billion years and some say 4000 years. I think that we are just one of many beginnings and endings.

The matter of the universe will expand, and then it will contract in on itself again, when this occurs we will end up with a huge globe of matter that will contract until it cannot contract anymore, and then like a nova it will explode releasing a huge amount of energy, the big bang, and the universe will again begin expanding. It's matter scattered about and creating galaxies, star systems etc. all over again.

Now, when this occurs, planets will again form around stars that have begun the Fusion process from a cloud of debris rotating around itself. The planets will form and the amino acids etc that are needed for life will form and the planet will slowly begin to evolve life.

Now on earth, I believe evolution has many facts to back it up. Creationism was a story by ancient man to explain something that they did not fully understand. As we get closer to understanding, the creationists who take this story literally will fight it, just as the flat earth people fought the fact that the earth was round. But, as more facts come to light, I believe that the evolution theory will hold up.

The creationists will yell and scream about how it isn't right, but you cannot argue with scientific proof. Also there is NO reason that the 2 have to fight at all.

If you do not take the creationist stories literally as in 7 days etc, and realize that indeed a day to god may be to us a billion years, then things might settle in. Since when does god have to abide by man's laws?

And since when is god not able to experiment and evolve his creatures? He has to make them perfect from the very beginning? Come on, everything that I create evolves, geez look at BC3000AD and look at how it ihas evolved.

I believe that evolution is a natural state of everything, everything tries to better itself, to adapt to it's environment, everything has a need and instinct to survive, and I believe that evolution is part of this instinct at a molecular and DNA level.

When a climate changes gradually, the animals that live there will either adapt or die, this is evolution at work, the polar bear has evolved to live in the arctic, the blacks adapted to survive the heat and sun of africa, the arabs adapted to survive the desert environment that they live in, this is evolution, this is why we have different races, each adapted to the environment in which they lived. THIS IS EVOLUTION!!!

Our modern society has allowed us tools to survive such environments, you will see us adapt less and less.

But there are now people that are born without an appendix, there are now people that are born without wisdom teeth, why? Because we don't need them anymore, and they are being phased out. This is evolution!!

Evolution is still at work, it takes MANY generations to change a species, but when a species has changed to such a point that it no longer looks like the original species, then that species becomes it's own species. They become cousins, related but unable to procreate together, because they have evolved so far apart.

Look at us and Monkeys, geez, 98% of our DNA matches chimpanzees, a little playing and we could concievably turn a chimpanzee egg into a human being, with the right genetic manipulation. I say that nature manipulates this DNA all the time, but on a much smaller and longer scale. THIS IS EVOLUTION!!!

Evolution is based on speculation, scientific investigation and facts.

Creationism is based on stories told in ancient times by men who had no clue what DNA was, that the earth was round and that the earth is on the edge of a galaxy that is part of an even bigger universe.

Why do creationists not understand this? Oh, that's right because it is supposedly god's word. Well, I believe otherwise. I believe that god isn't going to tell anyone how or why he created this universe, he gave us free will and brains, and I think he expects us to figure it out. Which is exactly what we are doing.

If he doesn't like it, then he can stop it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...