Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Creation, Intellegent Design, Evolution & The Constitution
First off let's eliminate on issue right off - Creation and Intellegent Design are the same thing.
Good, that was easy. I will discuss the three issues now. Evolution has a certain amount, substancial, proof that supports it. Does the Theory of Evolution as it exists right now explain the whole of the Evolutionary process, NO. But it is flexible enough to be able to be adapted as new information is revealed.
Creationism is a different approach, generally that a Supreme Being (SB) created the world in some form close to what it is today.
For what ever reason many people see these as being mutually exclusive. I do not, but I also don't support the teaching of 'intelligent design' or 'creationist' ideas in school. If I want my children to be educated in the basis of the religious doctrine I will send them to a parocial school that will teach them what we believe in.
My personal opinion is that what is commonly called evolution is actually the process of creation. I really have never been comfortable with the concept of creation being a minutia creation. I really think that evolution, and therefore creation, is an ongoing process. An example of this is from a familial explination. The most likely next step in human development is the elimination of the third molar's we have. (Commonly called wisdom teeth.) My mother never developed her third molar set, and it is becoming more common that people are not developing the third molars. My father, to the best of my knowledge, developed a full set of 3rd molars. I developed only two 3rd molars. This would tend to lead to the idea that our jaws are becoming less pronounced, and that our heads are continuing to change.
Do I believe that the SB is 'meddling' in our genetic structure, I really don't have the answer. I do know that we continue to evolve.
The Constitutional issue involved in this discussion is the commonly called "Separation of Church and State." First off this is not really what the constitution is taking about, it only prevents the establishment of a state religion. (Commonly called the establishment clause.) This is not the same thing as a total separation of church and state. Having said that, I do believe that the two are, or at least should be, mutually exclusive. A likely reason that the Constitution doesn't say Separation of Church and State is that it was probably thought likely that a religious person would be using there religious philosophy as a basis of the decision making basis automatically, but not to a point of it being unconstitition.
The Dover Area School District, where the most recently tried case on 'intellegent design' was concluded with the judges decision. The Judge has decided that the forced teaching of intellegent design was unConstitutional.
I guess the Ayotollah Patrick ibn Roberts (hence forth Ayotollah Pat) will be threating a judge who was appointed by President Bush with some act of G-D, just as he did the people of Dover after they replaced 8/9ths of the on election day.
Good, that was easy. I will discuss the three issues now. Evolution has a certain amount, substancial, proof that supports it. Does the Theory of Evolution as it exists right now explain the whole of the Evolutionary process, NO. But it is flexible enough to be able to be adapted as new information is revealed.
Creationism is a different approach, generally that a Supreme Being (SB) created the world in some form close to what it is today.
For what ever reason many people see these as being mutually exclusive. I do not, but I also don't support the teaching of 'intelligent design' or 'creationist' ideas in school. If I want my children to be educated in the basis of the religious doctrine I will send them to a parocial school that will teach them what we believe in.
My personal opinion is that what is commonly called evolution is actually the process of creation. I really have never been comfortable with the concept of creation being a minutia creation. I really think that evolution, and therefore creation, is an ongoing process. An example of this is from a familial explination. The most likely next step in human development is the elimination of the third molar's we have. (Commonly called wisdom teeth.) My mother never developed her third molar set, and it is becoming more common that people are not developing the third molars. My father, to the best of my knowledge, developed a full set of 3rd molars. I developed only two 3rd molars. This would tend to lead to the idea that our jaws are becoming less pronounced, and that our heads are continuing to change.
Do I believe that the SB is 'meddling' in our genetic structure, I really don't have the answer. I do know that we continue to evolve.
The Constitutional issue involved in this discussion is the commonly called "Separation of Church and State." First off this is not really what the constitution is taking about, it only prevents the establishment of a state religion. (Commonly called the establishment clause.) This is not the same thing as a total separation of church and state. Having said that, I do believe that the two are, or at least should be, mutually exclusive. A likely reason that the Constitution doesn't say Separation of Church and State is that it was probably thought likely that a religious person would be using there religious philosophy as a basis of the decision making basis automatically, but not to a point of it being unconstitition.
The Dover Area School District, where the most recently tried case on 'intellegent design' was concluded with the judges decision. The Judge has decided that the forced teaching of intellegent design was unConstitutional.
I guess the Ayotollah Patrick ibn Roberts (hence forth Ayotollah Pat) will be threating a judge who was appointed by President Bush with some act of G-D, just as he did the people of Dover after they replaced 8/9ths of the on election day.
// posted by Little Wolf @ Tuesday, December 20, 2005 
