<p>Is there really any reason to believe that there has been “puctuated equilibrium”? Suppose a velociraptor starts developing feathers. Why do all the required mutations happen all at once, and then stop happening? What would seem much more reasonable to me (given a trait-producing mechanism) would be that a velociraptor would star developing feathers… Oops, he died. Then another velociraptor would start… And last a few generations… Or a few hundred generations… Oops, they died too. It takes a LOT of piled up mutations to make a feather, and until they produce something useful, like Archaeopteryx, there’s no reason for them to stay around.</p>
<p>How many generations do you think it takes to turn proto-raptor into archaeopterx?</p>
<p>And also, that still doesn’t address the issue of creature like the cleanerfish. Can you think of any way that that could develop randomly and say it with a straight face?</p>
<p>Baelor at this point you don’t even know what you’re talking about anymore. There IS an establishment clause in the Constitution that states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
That sounds like separation of church and state to me. And that is where all PRECEDENT has come from.
Do you honestly think Thomas Jefferson would have wanted the nation to have religion play an influential part on government/law making???HE WAS A DEIST!!!WHile he respected Judeo-Christain values he fought AGAINST the idea of government supporting religion. Sure one could argue TJ wasn’t even at the constituional convention, but at the same time one can not doubt he had a HUGE influence upon the document in philosophical terms (see his bromance with James Madison as proof) </p>
<p>Oh and also, there ARE PLENTY of people who deny concrete orgiginalism as a legitmite way of interpreting the Constitution. BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADAPT ALL THE IDEAS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS AS OUR OWN. aka: slavery, women’s inferiority,racial superiority,etc. BROWN V. BOARD WOULDn’T HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO GO THROUGH ON THE FOUNDING FATHER’S WATCH!!!
Not even Scalia is a strict enough originalist to believe that. But apparently, if you aren’t that strict you’re being “stupid”</p>
<p>You reveal your own ignorance in that statement.</p>
<p>The clause is NOT separation of Church and State – it is simply stating that the government may institute a national religion or prefer one over the other, etc.</p>
<p>It does NOT claim that religious leaders cannot make political statements, nor that religion cannot be the basis for political decisions, etc. – all things that would fall under the aforementioned separation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hence its limitations. But one would have the make the argument that we should dismiss the founders’ intentions in this scenario.</p>
<p>The supreme court has interpreted that statement to apply to separation of church and state since…well forever. Well, not forever. But a very long time
Of course there is also the free exercise clause which adds to this…
But just look at engele v. vitale and tell me the constitution doesn’t support the idea of separation of church and state.
Oh and going back to my boy TJ, even HE didn’t follow the exact words of the constitution//original intent (ie the Louisiana Purchase) and everything worked out okay.
The founding fathers INTENDED for the Constitution to be an organic document that would change over time , not something stuck in 1786</p>
<p>Sure, allopatric speciation, the founder effect, morphological reasons…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…There’s no reason for them to disappear… Even with punctuated equilibrium you’re talking about a very long time…</p>
<p>How many mutations do you think it takes to make difference?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really care about cleaner fish. I’m not a biology major. I am curious though what your alternative hypothesis is. Does evolution not happen? Or are you only challenging natural selection?</p>
<p>Key word: interpreted. Which is, as you say, not canon. In other words, the Constitution does not explicitly contain a separation clause, and that separation is therefore open to constitutional interpretation.</p>
<p>Anyway, this conversation is not really relevant to the bigger picture – politicians are legally allowed to make decisions based on religion.</p>