Jump to content

Separation of Church and State: A Fallacy


Recommended Posts

I have a great deal to say on the subject at hand: Evolution vs Creation but will sum it up instead of rambling for pages. BTW, this idea was sparked by a short essay I read some time ago (the link to which I do not have) so you may have heard this:

I program for a living. When I write some specialized routine or set of routines that has pontential for use in other settings, I seperate it from the main program and package it so I can easily reuse that code. Sometimes it's simply stored as a snippet and sometimes it's compiled into a new library. Often, when I reuse these snippets or libraries, I find myself making small improvements; added funtionality, better optimization, whatever. In essence, my stored code slowly evolves. Regularly, once every year or two, my programming environment takes a major leap forward: New OS, new development platform, whatever. As a result my code all makes a major leap forward to adapt to what has happened. Despite all the changes, however, my code still functions (I hope) as it should and accomplishes all it needs to accomplish because I control the changes to my code. There are other changes made to my code as well. Programs crash, files get corrupted, libraries are replaced with incompatible ones, other such uncontrollable happenings. Such random and uncontrolled changes are not beneficial to the code I have so carefully preserved. Such random changes inevitably lead to instability and eventually, as the instabilities multiply, the system fails. See the law of entropy at work in the world of computers: Without outside control, complex systems inevitably grind to a halt.

Look at life, any form of it. Is there a common thread to it all? Yes, DNA. In short, DNA determines the life form. DNA is different from species to species. How different? The difference from species to species is extremely small but extremely significant. All the information needed to build a human is written in a miniscule strand of data, data which we are only beginning to learn to read.

Life, is it a complex system? Obviously. Has the core library been subjected to adaptive changes? Without doubt, the basic funtions are common to most DNA libraries but specific changes are clearly evident. The question then is this:

Have these changes in the highly complex system of life come about from random sources or a controlled source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Very well put neutral insight Tyrn.

Ok. What I've noticed (And something I've adressed once before) is that this is just degrading to a shouting match. Calling each other wrong isn't going to do any good.

NOW, to adress everyone points in a lengthy thread:

First, to everyone posting web links (And completely read what I'm about to say before you go jumping to conclusions)... don't believe everything you read. havn't I already stated that? There is "evidence" there, but it's surrounded, drowned, and buried in speculation and theorizing written as if it were fact, and many people take it jast as such without asking any questions; like sheep! Thats the basis of evolution scientific teaching, and thats what creationists have been arguing for years. You ALL (Both Creationists AND Evolutionists) need to look at all the information from a new synical perspective. More specifically:

The eye experiment: Essentially what these scientists did was disect the eyes of numerous animals and note all their individual characteristics. THEN, they organized them on a computer by differences in their characteristics and played it through just like a morphing program. Neat, but all I see is a catalogue of differences in eyes. I see nothing telling me how the creatures those eyes came from are linked together. It "proves" nothing except that different animals have different eyes.

Next, the lucy skull -- There are plenty of simple explanations. Much simpler that the complex unsuported assumptions that scientists attached to the physical evidence.

1) Mistaken identity - actually a gorilla, ape, chimpanze skull etc.

2) Previously undiscovered species of gorilla, ape, chimpanze, etc.

3) Deformed gorilla, ape, cimpanze, or even human child. Such deformations happen often in places like Congo and the Amazon, among tribal peoples. I could even go into WHY, but I don't think any of you are ready for that yet. And it's definately not evolution. Birth and malformation defects happen even in America.

The problem with both camps is that you do not understand your opposition. Creationists are usually more familiar with evolution than evolutionists are with creation. In truth, evolutionists have already written it off without studying, researching, or looking into it for themselves. They know NOTHING about creation other than what their evolutionist professors/teachers/parents/etc have told them, especially when those role models got all their views the same way. The truth is, you just not paying attention. Stop and consider that what we are telling you is merely our oppinion... and might be wrong. But consider that theres also a possibility thats parts of it may be true. Independantly do the research to attempt to separate the true parts from the fiction.

If you would like to acquaint yourselves better with the concept of creation, I would recommend the book "A Case for Creation" by Wayne Friar. When you've read that, then come back and start over telling me how wrong I am. Change dosn't happen over night, but that book's a good start.

Eclipse, that was the WRONG thing to say. If you can't support your beliefs, they are unfounded and you following a blind faith. I recommend you read that book as well. I have others you may also be interested in, just let me know.

All of you, don't believe a WORD those books say without holding it up to insense personal scrutiny. Follow their leads, look at their evidence, make phone calls, take trips, whatever you have to do. If you are TRUELY devoted to finding the unbiased truth, you'll eventually start finding it.

Just keep an open mind and you won't end up like H.P. Lovecrafts heros =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, where did Paddy go?

This is too funny, the case for Creationism? Where, how, what is he talking about?

Sorry there is NO proof for creationism, never has been never will be, mot unless god comes down from on high and says "yep, I did it that way." will I believe it.

You all continue to say how debunked Evolution is, well, if evolution is SO debunked, it would not be a theory at all, it would have been thrown away and science would have started over. And since that has NOT occurred, it tells me that you all love to practice wishful thinking. There is plenty of proof, plenty of transitionals, and plenty of fossils to show evolution.

The eye thing is just a mystery yet to be solved, does not toss evolution out the window at all. I think that it just adds a new piece that will be figured out if given enough time.

And the big bang theory, if it were debunked, science would have started over with it as well, but they have not, tells me that it has a lot more going for it then against it. Also, new mass is being found all the time, dark matter, anti-matter, giant black holes, all yet to be proven conclusively, but they fit right in, they probably DO exist.

Well, since it seems that if evolution is proven that it will destroy your faith, I am going to get out of this discussion now. All it will do is upset those people whose faith is built on the creationist story, and without it thier faith comes to pieces.

I always hate debating Evolution, because it is not a totally proven theory yet, but in time it will be, most of the facts that exist fit right in there, no matter how you like to ignore them.

Well, Like I said we are going to go nowhere except to really upset some creationists, and I consider you my friends, therefore I will stop now. Believe what you want, but let's not discuss it anymore.

This thread was originally the separation of Church and State, shall we take it back in that direction?

It is indeed a falacy, the state cannot declare an official religon and everyone is free to worship in any way they choose, within reason, but it does not mean that it must be separated from the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh* Jaguar, I've read extensively on many contradictory topics. The difference between a person like me (Of which there are very few, indeed) and someone like Eclipse or yourself, is that I don't give a damn about either side of the debate. I read EVERYTHING, consider EVERYTHING, and my stance on issues changes as my knowledge grows. I'm willing to concede to any hard-held belief to adequate proof. Books like the one I mentioned help break up the arguments into camps. I've read books like Darwin's "Origin of Species", "The Voyage of the Beagle". I've read "Alien Encounters" and "The Case for Creation." I've just started a book called "Darwin's God" which is excellent reading so far (Another book I'd recommend you look into). Stop choosing sides and discover the world for yourself.

I point out a resource and you say "Bah! I do not even need to look at it, because it is OBVIOUSLY wrong." You point out a resource and I absorb it, assimilate it into my own knowledge and ideals. Science is a quest for truth and you cannot pick and choose which truths and evidences apply to you and which do not. I ask only that you read the book.

The point of all this was:

1) To point out that niether argument can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are true.

2) Both Creationism and Evolutionism are religious faiths.

3) Evolution is a mathematical, biological, and geneological impossibility.

4) Evolution is based COMPLETELY on theory and guess with no evidence in support of it that cannot be explained from a Creationists POV as well.

5) Absolutely NO PART of the Cannon has been proved false or errant; and has been, in fact, used to locate historical locations, artifacts, and perephenelia. If all this is true, then perhaps the whole Cannon could be.

Again, READ THE BOOK. Ignoring this request would simply be stubborness, an attitude which contributes nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag, Just because the EXISTING evidence doesn't support a theory, there is no stopping people from searching for REAL evidence. Evolution will never be confirmed nor will it ever be completely tossed aside. Just as creationism can not be proved nor will it be tossed aside.

I've never presented a case for creationism. I've simply shown that with what we currently know, evolution cannot be proved and must be taken on faith just like creation. And that was the whole point of this side trip.

BTW, I'm not upset in the least. In fact I found several of your responces quite humorous.

Aaron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, Eclipse, I was wondering where you got your sources... National Geographic online does not go back that far with their Archives, and I have not had time to get to the Library to read the article. As far as the Dr. Niles Eldredge Quote, perhaps you would read this.

Secondly for those who are Interested another site. They seem to have some good FAQ's on the site. And no Scrivener I have not Read all of it, or I admit even a majority of it. Thank you for the book Suggestions, I might look into them at some point. While I do not support Creationism, and quite frankly cannot see anything that will cause me to change that opinion, I am usually willing to read about the others opinions. Will I read the whole thing? Perhaps, if it is well written and easy to read. Unless of course it is obviously biased on the subject example.

Anyways, as others have been saying, it is probably about time to let this thread die. As such, this will be my last post on it. Of course, if you have some Books/Websites you think I might be interested in feel free to email them to me at [email protected]

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Melcar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

It is indeed a falacy,

nope, wait a momoent

quote:

the state cannot declare an official religon

Undeniable. I agree with that.

quote:

and everyone is free to worship in any way they choose, within reason,

of course.

quote:

but it does not mean that it must be separated from the state.

This is where is gets sticky. Of course it does. Congress may make no law regarding the establishment of religion. My belief is that it should not also tacitly approve one religion over another. Congress condones it, it must be law. ????

I approve of a certain neutrality towards religion by the government.

I disapprove of the banning of prayer and such. Prayer can be allowed without the government condoning it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I disapprove of the banning of prayer and such. Prayer can be allowed without the government condoning it.


Agreed, it is a state and local issue, the feds need to stay out of it!! Just like a lot of other things!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


This is where is gets sticky. Of course it does. Congress may make no law regarding the establishment of religion. My belief is that it should not also tacitly approve one religion over another. Congress condones it, it must be law. ????

It's not at all that separation of church and state does not exist in a sense, it's that it doesn't exist in the way that many people today take it to exist (see my first post in this thread). Congress cannot make a law ordering the establishment of religion, banning the establishment of religion, or as appeasement to AN establishment of religion (eg, a church).

In fact, that seems to PROHIBIT congress from making a law that BANS prayer, ANYWHERE. Such would be interfering with religion (which is expressly against the 1st ammendment).

At any rate, church and state sep does NOT mean that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed; it does NOT mean that religion and discussion of such is not allowed in public forum, etc. CHURCH and RELIGION do not mean INDIVIDUAL, and individuals can practice in any way they please, regardless of government activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, has this thread evolved again? Sorry I wasn't around Jag, had an enormous migraine yesterday and felt like shit.

Anyway, this will (hopefully) be my last take on the matter.

You know, before Darwin, Creation had been taken as fact by most people. Only after he had made his observations and started to develop his theory did the concept of evolution start to make headway. Do you think he did it to be a pain in the arse to the church, or because he made an observation and formulated a theory to explain that observation? He was subsequently ridiculed, just because he had dared to question the religious dogma at the time. No, you're right, no-one has conclusively proven evolution, but there is ample evidence to support the theory; whether it be classic gradualism, puntuated equilibrium, or a mixture of the two (my personal favourite). However, I have seen NO evidence to support a 'Creation theory'. Yes, I've looked at 'Creation Science' literature and web sites and all they do is attempt to debunk classical research and evidence, without providing a single shred of evidence towards a meaningful alternative. The term 'Creation Science' itself is a contradiction in terms; Creation is a religious doctrine, which requires the faith to believe in it; science is the objective measurement and observation of data, leading to the proof or disproof of a theory. The two should never be uttered together. Creation does not fulfil the criteria for a science in any way, shape or form.

If you look at the Buddhist theory on the Creation of the Universe, they believe in a cyclical chain of events, whereby the universe is created, lasts for several billion years, contracts and the whole thing starts again. This is more akin to the big bang theory than biblical creation. Whos religion is correct?

I grew up in a Christian household, my father is a retired Church of England minister, yet he is also a pragmatist. Yes, the story of creation was preached (and was taught at school as part of religious education classes), yet it was never put forward as dogma, but more as an attempt by the scholars at the time to explain the hitherto inexplicable.

I'm simply a Biochemist, not an evolutionary biologist or paeleobiologist, it's not my speciality, but I look at the geological, astronomical and biological evidence put before me and weigh that up against a few chapters in a religious text. For me it's clear.

What I find disconcerting is that people try and turn Creation into a science in an attempt to get it taught in schools as an alternative to evolution theory. Creation is purely a religious concept. Therefore, is it a devious plan to introduce religion into the curriculum disguised as a science? Which brings us back full circle to the initial topic I suppose.

We must all be Buddhists then

I'm sorry, I'm not the best debater in the world, I tend to ramble. Jaguar's post always read much better than mine. But then he is a salesman after all (aren't you Jag?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


I've looked at 'Creation Science' literature and web sites and all they do is attempt to debunk classical research and evidence, without providing a single shred of evidence towards a meaningful alternative. The term 'Creation Science' itself is a contradiction in terms; Creation is a religious doctrine, which requires the faith to believe in it; science is the objective measurement and observation of data, leading to the proof or disproof of a theory.

I agree with you in part that most creation-based sites seem to spend all their time debunking evolution.

However, you must keep in mind that creation, by nature, is metaphysical. It's NOT something that can be scientifically determined at this time. Metaphysical versus physical and all that noise. So, while we may not have physical evidence of the EVENT of creation, we DO have physical evidence of creation itself -- that would be everything that exists. The problem then comes in as tying creation to everything that exists. Combining metaphysical and physical. No dice.

We can, however, use some logic in determining such things. First instance: how would something come from nothing? Secondly, if the biological foundations that made life possible via evolution existed, where did THEY come from? Third, you've got to look at mathematical probability. Life is very environmentally-dependant. Fourth, you've got to look at the principle of "Natural Guiding". Evolution is firmly BASED upon the assertion that all life has a will to survive. The question I pose is, where does that will come from? Why would life, especially in its initial stages (devoid of any semblance of sentience or {gasp}, intelligence) have a will to survive?

And finally, assuming that there is a will to survive, why is that adaptive survival species-oriented and NOT individualistic?

All of those questions have not been answered by science yet they are PIVOTAL to the theory itself. Scientific theories should not have so many holes in them, I don't think. And, even moreso, scientific theories should not make so many assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What I find disconcerting is that people try and turn Creation into a science in an attempt to get it taught in schools as an alternative to evolution theory. Creation is purely a religious concept. Therefore, is it a devious plan to introduce religion into the curriculum disguised as a science?

Actually, my point earlier (Before I got sidetracked, hehehe) was that Evolutionism is no less a religion than Creationism. Evolution was introduced to the school system under the argument that either possibility was equally likely. Either viewpoint requires faith to believe, because, currently niether can be conclusively proven. So why, then, has creationism been selectively removed?

Evolutionary science, as it stands today, dosn't work. It's impossible. Creationism, though, still stands as unproven. While, according to todays infinitesimal understanding of the universe, Creation seems illogical; it nevertheless has no damning evidence against it: Mathematical or otherwise. The Cannon, however (Upon which doctrine creation is based), has been an astoundingly reliable tool for historical research. There's really no reason not to trust what it claims (At least untill/unless some part of it can be disproven). And IF so much of it is true, it's history just as much as it is religion.

If that dosn't give creation the advantage, it at least sets both beliefs on equal grounds of possibility. Again, both require faith, and both are religions. One suggests a supreme being as god, the other suggests chance as god. Why should both not be taught?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You continue to ignore the fact that there are some pretty good FACTS to back up evolution. If Evolution had been debunked it would not be a theory. If Scientists had to take evolution on faith, it would NOT BE a scientific theory. So until Evolution is kicked out of ALL science circles as a total and complete failure, then you CANNOT say that it MUST be taken on FAITH. As long as scientists hold on to the theory, it has FACTS they feel back it up!!

When Evolution is tossed out on it's can, then I will believe that ALL the facts that back it up were false, but until then, SORRY!!

And if a school district wants to teach creationism, it's up to them. The feds should have nothing to do with the curriculum of a local school district. I myself would make sure that evolution was taught right alongside it, and then the kids could come to thier own conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


You continue to ignore the fact that there are some pretty good FACTS to back up evolution. If Evolution had been debunked it would not be a theory. If Scientists had to take evolution on faith, it would NOT BE a scientific theory. So until Evolution is kicked out of ALL science circles as a total and complete failure, then you CANNOT say that it MUST be taken on FAITH. As long as scientists hold on to the theory, it has FACTS they feel back it up!!

1: You're assuming that scientists are infallible and therefore are the authorities on facts.

2: The facts that evolution is based on could mean any NUMBER of things not relating to evolution itself.

3: There are NO, ZERO, NADDA, facts that supports evolution exclusively.

Just because scientists feel a theory is a good thing to follow, doesn't make it so. Such is the reason the Earth was supposedly flat for thousands of years.

quote:


When Evolution is tossed out on it's can, then I will believe that ALL the facts that back it up were false, but until then, SORRY!!

You default your own statement. If those facts are indeed facts, then they, by nature, cannot be false. The facts that support evolution are not exclusive to evolution. They are FACTS, but they do not necessarily lead to evolution, or more to the point, speciation. For the record, the only facts that support evolution are the FACTS that we reproduce, we live, we die, and we survive. All of those facts are indeed facts.

But facts do not necessarily mean EVIDENCE.

What it looks like you're doing is taking those facts and making them mean that macro-evolution itself is a fact. "Facts" and "evidence" are two distinctly separate things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Sunanta,

The Constitution was meant to be taken word for word, it is NOT a living breathing document. It's meaning is clear, it's meaning was meant to be clear. There can be NO mistaking what the constitution says.

Also, the constitution is the SUPREMEME law of the land, what it says goes in all 50 states. The states cannot intrude on the bill of rights just as the federal government cannot infringe on those rights.

If a state creates a law that goes against the constitution, that law is NULL AND VOID!!

Unfortunately languages ARE living, breathing entities and so the interpretation of such documents will always lead to ambiguities

null

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the interpretation of the Constitution changes over time. The problem that I have is when the interpretation changes back to an earlier form (away from a liberal interpretation and back to a more conservative one) and people are unwilling to accept it (after gleefully celebrating the original change in interpretation), labeling the forces for change as racist, sexist, homophobic, uncompassionate, elderly starvers, schoolchildren starvers, disenfranchisers, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

I agree with you in part that most creation-based sites seem to spend all their time debunking evolution.

However, you must keep in mind that creation, by nature, is metaphysical. It's NOT something that can be scientifically determined at this time. Metaphysical versus physical and all that noise. So, while we may not have physical evidence of the EVENT of creation, we DO have physical evidence of creation itself -- that would be everything that exists. The problem then comes in as tying creation to everything that exists. Combining metaphysical and physical. No dice.

We can, however, use some logic in determining such things. First instance: how would something come from nothing? Secondly, if the biological foundations that made life possible via evolution existed, where did THEY come from? Third, you've got to look at mathematical probability. Life is very environmentally-dependant. Fourth, you've got to look at the principle of "Natural Guiding". Evolution is firmly BASED upon the assertion that all life has a will to survive. The question I pose is, where does that will come from? Why would life, especially in its initial stages (devoid of any semblance of sentience or {gasp}, intelligence) have a will to survive?

And finally, assuming that there is a will to survive, why is that adaptive survival species-oriented and NOT individualistic?

All of those questions have not been answered by science yet they are PIVOTAL to the theory itself. Scientific theories should not have so many holes in them, I don't think. And, even moreso, scientific theories should not make so many assumptions.

must reply to some of your arguments.

quote:

First instance: how would something come from nothing? Secondly, if the biological foundations that made life possible via evolution existed, where did THEY come from?

The foundations of life are biochemical, or more simply put - chemical. Chemistry, I think you will agree requires no input of will or desire, merely the requisite conditions and reactants.Evolution begins when certain chemical reactions become favoured over other types and thus proliferate. THIS is the most fundamental basis for evolution.

quote:

Third, you've got to look at mathematical probability. Life is very environmentally-dependant

Life is NOT dependant on environment, it is sculpted by its environment. The organisms alive in today's environment are here BECAUSE they can survive in this current environment. Should it change, only those lifeforms able to adapt and survive would remain.There is also evidence that life in fact transorms the environment in a feedback mechanism, giving rise to further evolution (See Gaia theory - James Lovelock)

quote:

Fourth, you've got to look at the principle of "Natural Guiding". Evolution is firmly BASED upon the assertion that all life has a will to survive. The question I pose is, where does that will come from? Why would life, especially in its initial stages (devoid of any semblance of sentience or {gasp}, intelligence) have a will to survive?

Evolution requires NO involvement of will whatsoever.Succesful life endures because its ancesters endured. Simple premise: Succesful reproduction leads to increased offspring. All other aspects of evolution are simply consequences of this action.

quote:

why is that adaptive survival species-oriented and NOT individualistic?

Adaptive speciation is species oriented since adaptation involves changes in DNA which can only be passed on via offspring. Thus,inherited DNA mutations do NOT affect the individual in which they occur. Mutations which did affect the individual have no consequence for the species.

Some would argue ( and I would tend to agree) that the survival of the individual is not important but rather the survival of the DNA. We are all consequences of hideously complicated strategies for survival and proliferation. This does NOT negate the huge sum of human achievement, it merely happens on a different level of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


The foundations of life are biochemical, or more simply put - chemical. Chemistry, I think you will agree requires no input of will or desire, merely the requisite conditions and reactants.Evolution begins when certain chemical reactions become favoured over other types and thus proliferate. THIS is the most fundamental basis for evolution.

Yes, sure -- but still, what causes those chemicals to want to survive in the state of life?

quote:


Life is NOT dependant on environment, it is sculpted by its environment. The organisms alive in today's environment are here BECAUSE they can survive in this current environment. Should it change, only those lifeforms able to adapt and survive would remain.There is also evidence that life in fact transorms the environment in a feedback mechanism, giving rise to further evolution (See Gaia theory - James Lovelock)

...and such life is dependant upon that environment.

quote:


Evolution requires NO involvement of will whatsoever.Succesful life endures because its ancesters endured. Simple premise: Succesful reproduction leads to increased offspring. All other aspects of evolution are simply consequences of this action.

Untrue. The very basis of evolution is dependant upon species surviving. Otherwise you're saying that "life just reproduces" without answering WHY. And WHY is the question.

quote:


Adaptive speciation is species oriented since adaptation involves changes in DNA which can only be passed on via offspring. Thus,inherited DNA mutations do NOT affect the individual in which they occur. Mutations which did affect the individual have no consequence for the species.

So why are evolutionary changes species-wide? What guides the need for changes? The answer to the latter is SURVIVAL. Then, you again miss the main question: WHY does life want to survive?

That's the question that needs to be answered and has NOT been answer by science. What you're saying is "it just does".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Chemicals DO NOT want to survive. Chemicals are inert,non living.

That's why, at the end of the sentence, I said "in the state of life".

quote:


YUP, It just does, we should just enjoy the ride!!

There's the problem. Saying that something "just does" lends it no more credibility than someone saying that "God-did-it".

Although that statement reminds me of a LIVE song called "The Ride".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Individual organisms have no choice about their genomes. They merely have to make do with what they're given.

I believe I stated this earlier... you would do well to go back and read that entire post as well! I think I'll withdraw from this thread. Nothing is being mentioned that either aramike or myself has not already covered here in reasonable depth.

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...