The Myth Of Separation Of Church & State

BeanCounterGrad'03 · June 3, 2009

I guess the difference would be that when I drop an apple I see it fall. The same cannot be said of evolution. We can see where we think that species have adapted and evolved, but the ability to watch it unfold before you is not the same between the two.

What about the increase in the average height of humans? I don't have the stats in front of me, but hasn't the average height of men increased a couple inches over the last 200-300 years?

I also remember reading a while back about a few AIDS cases in Africa, where it appeared that the infected were immune to the effects of the disease and were able to continue living out their life (i.e. had a natural resistence). I believe the subjects had been born with the virus.

Could these two cases be seen as evolution "unfolding" before our eyes?

hickoryhouse · June 3, 2009

While I agree that religion should not be taught in schools, neither should evolution. I think that one could make a case that forcing a contrary view also violates the free exercise of religion. The only compromise in my opinion is to teach neither.

Why does one have to exclude the other? Where does it say that God did not design the world in such a way that evolution would occur and we would end up where we are now?

BeanCounterGrad'03 · June 3, 2009

Why does one have to exclude the other? Where does it say that God did not design the world in such a way that evolution would occur and we would end up where we are now?

Those are the questions I've been asking since I became conscience of the creation vs. evolution debate. I think those firmly on either side are too close minded.

KingDL1 · June 3, 2009

What about the increase in the average height of humans? I don't have the stats in front of me, but hasn't the average height of men increased a couple inches over the last 200-300 years?
I also remember reading a while back about a few AIDS cases in Africa, where it appeared that the infected were immune to the effects of the disease and were able to continue living out their life (i.e. had a natural resistence). I believe the subjects had been born with the virus.
Could these two cases be seen as evolution "unfolding" before our eyes?

Well the answer to increased height that has been stated is we have had better nutrition then ever as far a getting the basic requirements not to stunt growth. Is picking taller people to bread with the complete tail of evolution, or even the shrinking number of blond people due to a recessive blond gene? Is that the same as making the leap to from apes?

Edited June 3, 2009 by KingDL1

meangreendork · June 3, 2009

Why does one have to exclude the other? Where does it say that God did not design the world in such a way that evolution would occur and we would end up where we are now?

I've often thought the same thing. Evolution of course, would depend on a stimulus to respond and develop changes to the environment. But what programmed DNA with the ability to adapt over long spans of time? My religious side tells me that it's God. My less than religious side still tells me that it's not by chance, and that there's intelligent design in it.

meangreenbob · June 3, 2009

Isn't there somewhere in the Bible that it says God created man in His image and likeness? Doesn't sound like evolution to me.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · June 3, 2009

Well the answer to increased height that has been stated is we have had better nutrition then ever as far a getting the basic requirements not to stunt growth. Is picking taller people to bread with the complete tail of evolution, or even the shrinking number of blond people due to a recessive blond gene? Is that the same as making the leap to from apes?

I don't believe that "selective breeding" could be considered evolution, so maybe the height example wasn't a good one. I don't think it was necessarily a "leap" from a less evolved being to humans, but more like a "slow crawl".

Maybe another good example would be differences in skin color between races. Humans living closer to the equator developed darker skin tones to better adapt to the greater exposure to the sun. Don't think this has been proven, but only a theory. (Apologies if I offend anyone...not my intention)

UNTflyer · June 3, 2009

Isn't there somewhere in the Bible that it says God created man in His image and likeness? Doesn't sound like evolution to me.

You're right... it sounds more like a fairy tale.

KingDL1 · June 3, 2009

I don't believe that "selective breeding" could be considered evolution, so maybe the height example wasn't a good one. I don't think it was necessarily a "leap" from a less evolved being to humans, but more like a "slow crawl".
Maybe another good example would be differences in skin color between races. Humans living closer to the equator developed darker skin tones to better adapt to the greater exposure to the sun. Don't think this has been proven, but only a theory. (Apologies if I offend anyone...not my intention)

It is OK with me I believe that evolution happened with God's hand at work, just the shear length of a DNA strand strengthens my belief in God, as with so many wonderful miracles of nature I don't think were an accident. To me it is a real proof of God existence.

hickoryhouse · June 4, 2009

It is OK with me I believe that evolution happened with God's hand at work, just the shear length of a DNA strand strengthens my belief in God, as with so many wonderful miracles of nature I don't think were an accident. To me it is a real proof of God existence.

I am gonna go with a big Ditto on this one.

There is nothing wrong with tthe theory of evolution, and nothing wrong with believing that God had his hand in every part of it. I think that the two ideas can conexist with out any real issues.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · June 4, 2009

It is OK with me I believe that evolution happened with God's hand at work, just the shear length of a DNA strand strengthens my belief in God, as with so many wonderful miracles of nature I don't think were an accident. To me it is a real proof of God existence.

Not to get too mushy, but I feel the same way about music, football (American and soccer), beer, and beautiful women :thumbsup:

Censored by Laurie · June 4, 2009

You're right... it sounds more like a fairy tale.

There are times that I really love you.

eulessismore · June 4, 2009

The Supreme Court announcement from the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education was the "first" occasion on which the Court declared there to be a separation of church and state in the First Amendment. Following that "1947" announcement, the Court began unraveling the fabric of American life by reversing long-standing national traditions.
The Constitution was and is still the same; yet, somehow , it's meaning now appers to be different after that announcement! This is because the 1947 Everson Court used an unprecedented legal maneuver, a maneuver no previous Court had ever dared to make. This Court took the Fourteenth Amendment as a tool to apply the First Amendment against the states. Never before had the Fourteenth Amendment been used to forbid religious practices from the public affairs and public institutions of the individual states. This action by the 1947 Court was without precedent.
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 to guarantee that recently emancipated slaves would have civil rights in all states. It is a strange interpretation that takes an Amendment providing citizenship to former slaves and uses it to prohibit religious activity in the schools or public affairs of and state.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in our Constitution or Bill of Rights but studies show that over 2/3 of the nation believes it does.
Why weren't displays of Christian activity declared unconstitutional prior to 1947?
This was a successful Coup de Tat.

I'm not really sure what you're driving at here, closer ties between the U.S. Government and churches? I can't think of a better way of causing churches not to thrive. Germany has been known to have a "church tax", and such a declining rate of church membership that many churches are closing and congregations merging. I first heard about this from a woman speaking at our church who is originally from Germany. You can click on the following link, scroll down, and read the part about the "Church tax".

The Church Tax in Germany.

If you think about the result of what the founding fathers did, which was to cause religious establishments to thrive by forbidding laws "respecting an establishment of religion", it makes me wonder why anyone who professes to being a Christian or practioner of any organized religion would want to change that.

keith · June 4, 2009

When you state evolution is fact, are you referring to evolution as humans evolving from apes, etc..., or evolution/adaption to environmental change in a species?
Where are the transitional fossils that support a change from ape to human or fish to land creature, etc..?

Well, there's this.....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...link-found.html

It's had a lot of media coverage over the last few weeks.

Keith

keith · June 4, 2009

What about the increase in the average height of humans? I don't have the stats in front of me, but hasn't the average height of men increased a couple inches over the last 200-300 years?

Not counting North Korea, of course.

Keith

Mean Green 93-98 · June 4, 2009

We know evolution is a fact because it has been observed, and predictions made about future observations (fossils that would be found, changes in genetic code) have been verified.

This is as false as false could be--why say it?

We all agree that there is limited change within kinds. This is not what Darwinian evolution is, and this is not what the debate is regarding. (Actually, no one advocates true Darwinian evolution anymore anyway, but that's beside the point.) No one has ever observed a non-human giving birth to a human being.

UNTFan23 · June 4, 2009

No one has ever observed a non-human giving birth to a human being.

No one has seen another person appear out of thin air either.

Edited June 4, 2009 by UNTFan23

Mean Green 93-98 · June 4, 2009

No one has seen another person appear out of thin air either.

No one ever did.

CMJ · June 4, 2009

This is as false as false could be--why say it?
We all agree that there is limited change within kinds. This is not what Darwinian evolution is, and this is not what the debate is regarding. (Actually, no one advocates true Darwinian evolution anymore anyway, but that's beside the point.) No one has ever observed a non-human giving birth to a human being.

That's not what biologists believe either tho?

The thinking isn't that one day some ancestor of humans popped out a human magically. It's that over thousands of years "limited change within kinds" equaled a big fucking change. The hypothesis is usually that a segement of a species population is cut off from the rest, making evolution occur at a faster rate. However, there is some thought that evolutionary change might happen faster when the whole species lives interconnectedly.

I read a pretty fascinating story on the current scholarship of evolutionary thought a year or so ago in Time or Newsweek.

Mean Green 93-98 · June 4, 2009

That's not what biologists believe either tho?

If you never have a non-human giving birth to a human being, then we're all in agreement. Let's go home.

CMJ · June 4, 2009

If you never have a non-human giving birth to a human being, then we're all in agreement. Let's go home.

It's as if you didn't read all of what I said.

UNTFan23 · June 4, 2009

No one ever did.

Since no one has observed evolution nor humans appearing out of thin air, how did humans come about on Earth?

oldguystudent · June 4, 2009

Since no one has observed evolution nor humans appearing out of thin air, how did humans come about on Earth?

It was a brilliant real estate marketing scheme. They came in droves on housing speculation.

June 4, 2009

I don't believe that "selective breeding" could be considered evolution, so maybe the height example wasn't a good one. I don't think it was necessarily a "leap" from a less evolved being to humans, but more like a "slow crawl".
Maybe another good example would be differences in skin color between races. Humans living closer to the equator developed darker skin tones to better adapt to the greater exposure to the sun. Don't think this has been proven, but only a theory. (Apologies if I offend anyone...not my intention)

Technically, I'd say that changes in height, skin color, etc. are a form of evolution but a person does not evolve into another form of living being such as a bird, lizard, or elephant.

There is no evidence that has been dug up in our history to support Darwin's theory. If anyone wants to believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution...fine. Just don't purport it to be scientific evidence because it's not.

oldguystudent · June 4, 2009

There is no evidence that has been dug up in our history to support Darwin's theory. If anyone wants to believe Darwin's Theory of Evolution...fine. Just don't purport it to be scientific evidence because it's not.

I've not studied Darwin much because I simply don't care about the whole creation/evolution debate. However, I looked up a summary of his theory on wiki, and it basically says that inherited traits over time can lead to new species. It goes Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, right? New species to me says a change from a wolf to a husky, not a squid to a howler monkey.

Honest question since I've never read The Origin of the Species. Does Darwin explicitly theorize that single celled organisms evolved into humans?