Saturday, September 13, 2014

Here is the Latest Example of Evolution Undermining Law

A Falsification of Evolution Becomes a Legal Premise

Evolution is not merely a scientific mistake. It is not a theory gone wrong, started by a guy in 1859. Evolutionary thinking was alive and well when Charles Darwin codified it in the emerging life sciences, for it had been developed and promoted by theologians and philosophers since the seventeenth century. If you understand that history, then today’s world makes much more sense. It is often said that evolution is the most influential scientific theory, but that is because evolution isn’t just a scientific theory, it is a broader world view. So with the dominance of evolution comes a wide array of influences, in government and in society, and across the political spectrum. Another example of this came last week when the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that laws in Indiana and Wisconsin, defining marriage to be between a man and a woman, are unconstitutional.

While it is no secret that evolutionary premises now inform opinions across the political spectrum, this decision (written by a Reagan appointee) made those premises explicit as it cites evolutionary research and is based on the assumption that evolution is true. Its point is that homosexuality is a result of evolution so therefore gay marriage should be a legal right.

Should we point out that evolution is scientifically flawed? Or should we point out that homosexuality, the usual mental gymnastics of evolutionists notwithstanding, makes no sense under evolution? Remember that part about reproductive success?

It is all reminiscent of Judge John Jones—exalted as one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of the Year—hilariously revealing that he actually wanted to see Inherit the Wind a second time in preparation for the 2005 Dover case, over which he presided, because, after all, the film puts the origins debate into its proper “historical context.”

Proper historical context? You’ve got to be kidding.

What a classic mistrial. Jones had been so indoctrinated by the Warfare Thesis that he actually believed the evolutionary propaganda to be historically accurate. If the perfect crime is the one that is never discovered, the perfect propaganda is the one that is never understood. Jones later reminisced about the trial, unbelievably explaining that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”  Jones was not educated, he was brainwashed.

And unfortunately Jones is not simply a lone nut. Legal expert Andrew Cohen not only gave high praise to Inherit the Wind, but absurdly called it “one of the great trial movies of all time.” The movie is a fictional construct, based on the fictional Warfare Thesis erected by evolutionists, and long since discredited by historians. Are they showing it in law schools these days?

So the Seventh Circuit’s explicit premise of evolution is not surprising. It is simply a confirmation that dangerous ignorance pervades the highest levels of power.

27 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete


  2. anonymousSeptember 13, 2014 at 2:49 PM

    Any behavior can be justified as being a result of evolution even criminal behavior. I don't see why that should be cause to grant a legal right. Isn't that is why we still use the constitution to grant legal rights rather than The Origin of Species?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Such Were Some Of You" - video trailer
    https://vimeo.com/78285817
    A sneak peek at our upcoming documentary on people who have left the homosexual lifestyle to follow Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since you are so fond of quotes, this is from the US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit ruling quoted above:

      The American Psychological Association has said that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” APA, “Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality” 2 (2008), www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf (visited Sept. 2, 2014, as were the other websites cited in this opinion); see also Gregory M. Herek et al., “Demographic, Psychological, and Social Characteristics of Self- Identified Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in a US Probability Sample,” 7 Sexuality Research and Social Policy 176, 188 (2010) (“combining respondents who said they’d had a small amount of choice with those reporting no choice, 95% of gay men and 84% of lesbians could be characterized as perceiving that they had little or no choice about their sexual orientation”). That homosexual orientation is not a choice is further suggested by the absence of evidence (despite extensive efforts to find it) that psychotherapy is effective in altering sexual orientation in general and homosexual orientation in particular. APA, “Answers to Your Questions,” supra, at 3; Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation 35–41 (2009).

      Delete
    2. John 8:34-36
      Jesus answered them, “Verily, verily I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
      And the servant abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth ever.
      If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

      videos - Extended Interviews with 29 former homosexuals who were 'trapped' in their homosexuality
      http://suchweresomeofyou.org/

      Dr. Michael Brown - Answering the Tough Questions Asked by Homosexuals - video
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3Mtgj5R2Qk

      Delete
    3. The Good-O-Meter - The Christian Message in a nutshell - video
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrLzYw6ULYw

      Delete
    4. I don't believe gay people choose to feel gay. I used to believe that because it was self congratulatory. I got bonus points for not being gay without having to do anything. I don't really see what it has to do with the issue of it being immoral. Pretty much every instinct of man seems to be immoral when unleashed. I'm not sure that homosexuals can't change if they want to. I guess that depends on what they themselves say and do. But again, what does that have to do with whether it is wrong or right?

      Delete
  4. Not only is the gay marriage decision immoral but its unreasonable by any human standard of a society now and in the past deciding its marriage laws.
    First the court denying the option that God did not create homosexuality and its not natural is iTSELF a assertion of anti-religion opinion.
    The court is saying what is true and not. christianity etc is NOT true according to the court. Its not a option that homosexuality is not natural or evolved etc.

    if god did not decide about marriage then its man.
    If man, in his society, says gay marriage is wrong and bad and not to be THEN how can there be a greater law trumping the peoples will?
    Saying Americans could never prohibit gay marriage while having their great ideas of rights demands they prove it.
    There is much wrong with North American jurisprudence.
    However on these great issues about the freedom of a people to govern themselves there must be no tolerance for judges to rule illegal the great historic right of God and man to decide who gets married in the eyes of society.
    These courts are rejecting the people and God.
    You can beat them on this aggression.
    Submission is complicity with the rejection of gods will.
    if no God then the people.
    Submission to is complicity with the rejection of mankind to rule on these matters.
    Gay sex and marriage is not a natural right. Society's rule on all matters not covered by Gods law/natural laws.
    These rebellious and arrogant judges are imposing their own will on the great issues of mankind.
    Its tyranny .
    How can people have a right to marriage, naturally, when society''s/God are the origin for having marriage at all?
    This is a chance to show why courts have no right to overthrow the people and governments on these matters.
    Social conservatives must do a better job of lawyering.
    Rejecting mankinds right to decide who gets married is a absurdity.
    Who is the boss.
    The people must demand control over their nation once again.
    Human/God institutions are not natural institutions. Marriage laws are from God/man and not nature

    ReplyDelete
  5. Evolution eliminates non reproducing human variants very effectively. So how did gays make it? They gayvolved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because evolutionism had nothing to do with humans nor any other organism.

      Delete
    2. Nuns? It is part of their job description not to reproduce. On the other hand, homos are trying hard. Sadly for them, there is no ovum attached to uvula. Nature says : "bye bye, you go extinct".

      Delete
    3. Eugen:
      Nuns? It is part of their job description not to reproduce.
      O

      So even though they don't reproduce evolution has not eliminated nuns.

      On the other hand, homos are trying hard

      You realize that is a derogatory term Eugen?

      Sadly for them, there is no ovum attached to uvula. Nature says : "bye bye, you go extinct".

      Apparently not, perhaps you can inform us exactly the biological causes of same sex preference that led you to this obviously incorrect logic? Then you might explain how straight parents have gay children.

      What is the Design explanation for the gays?

      Delete
    4. Becoming a nun is a choice made by some women after considering the pros and cons (however throughly). Your career field isnt genetically determined like contemporary wisdom dictates homosexual is. The comparison is stupid and nonsensical. You should be ashamed of it.

      Delete
    5. V:
      What is the Design explanation for the gays?

      Darwinian evolution messing up a once good design.

      Delete
    6. No more joking.

      Mind boggling situation. There’s a statistically insignificant group but their activists are demanding and getting unfairly big chunk of attention. There is an extreme politically correct brainwashing orgy performed by government bureaucrats and their propaganda machine: the main stream media. It is incredible how easy is to see the same tricks communists used to do. Difference is that these days government has more communication channels and they became very refined and sophisticated in their brainwashing programs. Well-spent tax money.

      I doubt that many people who come here are aware of how bad statistics are for gays. Let me give you a clue, it is never, ever, never, ever, ever, never talked about in main stream media. What are they hiding from general population?

      Few clicks online reveal a really sad situation. Statistics regarding numbers of the same gender households, same gender child rearing, their marriages, rates of abuse, adoption numbers are tragic. It is so bad that I would never tell these statistics to a wonderful, respectful ladies couple I happen to meet. I will not post any links, let the reader do a little homework.

      Delete
  6. Cornelius Hunter: While it is no secret that evolutionary premises now inform opinions across the political spectrum, this decision (written by a Reagan appointee) made those premises explicit as it cites evolutionary research and is based on the assumption that evolution is true.

    The decision merely notes that it is the consensus scientific opinion.

    Cornelius Hunter: Or should we point out that homosexuality, the usual mental gymnastics of evolutionists notwithstanding, makes no sense under evolution?

    Apparently, you didn't read the citations. The hypothesis is that homosexuality is retained due to kin selection. Then again, it might just be a spandrel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science is NOT done via consensus

      Delete
    2. No, but judicial decision are often based on scholarly consensus, such as the extensive use of forensic science in criminal investigation.

      Delete
    3. Science doesn't care about judicial decisions.

      Delete
    4. Joe G: Science doesn't care about judicial decisions

      The original post concerned a judicial decision. It is entirely appropriate for courts to rely upon expert opinion.


      Delete
    5. Umm Judge Jones ignored the expert testimony. For some reason he thought that ID's detractors on an agenda knew better than the ID experts.

      To this day it is a safe bet that Jones doesn't understand science nor does he understand ID nor does he understand what evolutionism entails. His was an "opinion" based on willful ignorance.

      Delete
    6. Joe G: Umm Judge Jones ignored the expert testimony.

      Clearly not as he quoted expert opinion extensively in his opinion.

      Delete
    7. He misrepresented the ID experts and he quoted the anti-ID liars

      Delete
    8. Heck Jones was fooled by the anti-ID literature bluff

      Delete
  7. ch,
    . Jones later reminisced about the trial, unbelievably explaining that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”


    Right, there is no validity about the warfare thesis, you just repeatedly use a misleading quote for the fun out it

    Jones was not educated, he was brainwashed.

    Nothing worse that being brainwashed by the existing case law. If it was a travesty of the legal system why no appeal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What misleading quote?

      Why no appeal? The school board members were different. And no, Jones was NOT brainwashed by any existing case law.

      Delete