Showing posts with the label Law

Effects of Evolutionary Thinking on Law and History

Regular readers have seen how the distraction of, "Evolution is just biology" is completely false. We recently saw how evolutionism can be a religion in its own right , and how it is a worldview through which people interpret data and make choices. Christopher Langdell portrait by Frederick Porter Vinton , modified Secular geologists "know" that the world is billions of years old. That's what the Bearded Buddha wants, that's what he gets — evidence for the young earth is suppressed or ignored. Social Darwinism was the application of his biological ideas to produce eugenics and a drastic increase in abortions , scientific racism , women as inferior , and much more. William Blackstone wrote his commentaries on the law, and those were foundational for a long time. Christopher Langell was influenced by Darwin, and decided that since evolution was true, then everything evolves. The US Constitution is something that needs to evolve as well; judges are more importa

Worldviews and the Bad Legal Judgment at Dover

The Kitzmiller v. Dover legal decision was one of the worst miscarriages of justice and violations of American freedom of our time. Atheists and other anti-creationists have celebrated it for years — which is both ironic and instructive for us. The ironic part is people having Atheism Spectrum Disorder cheer the ruling, saying that the judge was wise in declaring Intelligent Design a religious movement (and other words to that effect). Darwin's handmaidens will also tell creationists that we have no business discussing flaws in evolution if we are not scientists — but Judge Jones was not a scientist. Two standards, no waiting. Let me make this worse for them: they  have no business promoting evolution because they are not scientists themselves, nor can they criticize the Bible because they are not theologians. They get shot with their own guns that way. This decision was not binding outside of the school district, but anti-creationists have acted like it was a Supreme Court ruling.

Punishing Deniers of Global Climate Change

A few decades ago, the big scare from climate experts was of a coming ice age. Then they changed their tune to the heavily politicized and alarmist "global warming". Although there is  a form of global warming , it is not  anthropogenic, and it is insignificant for over fifteen years . But to keep the pseudoscience and grand money rolling in, the variations on the theme have moved to "global climate change". Since scientific evidence has failed the long-age, evolution-based viewpoint on climate change, the sidewinders promoting it have used emotional appeals, such as labeling those of us who disagree with the hysterics as "science deniers". (Some are so radical, they want to save the planet by exterminating huge numbers of humans !) The most outrageous label was to compare climate change deniers with Nazis . These ad hominem  attacks in their propaganda are signs of desperation. A few years ago, Heidi Cullen of "The Weather Channel" wanted

Evolution and the Zimmerman Trial

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Now, don't get ahead of me and anticipate I'm going to say. And I'm going to assume that many people have heard enough about the Zimmerman trial , so I'm only planning one article. This is not an analysis of the night of the shooting, nor is it going to place blame on evolution for the events of that night. In-depth political ramifications of the trial will be left to others to discuss. Instead, I'm going to make comparisons and contrasts about the way people analyze evidence. In the George Zimmerman trial, like any other, evidence was obtained and examined. Witnesses were interrogated and then they testified. The jury deliberated and, in Zimmerman's case, returned a "not guilty" verdict. In American trials, a guilty verdict is supposed to be rendered " beyond a reasonable doubt "; people do not have to be proved innocent. stock.xchng/creationc I heard and read about George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayv

Legal Hypocrisy from the Darwinists

Do you ever watch "The People's Court" or similar television programs? (They are popular on American television, airing during business hours on weekdays. People have the small claims court cases settled before television judges who tend to be quirky or even abusive.) Afterward, the parties of the case talk to the interviewer. The winner says, "Yes, I am happy with the decision. The judge is intelligent and justice was served". Well, of course! "Justice was served" because things went your way. Naturally, the loser of the case tends to disagree with the decision. There is a problem when court cases are settled and then misquoted. One fellow kept badgering me, insisting, "How many more times must the courts rule that ID isn't science before it sinks in?" (His claim was based on a ruling about a school district in Dover .) And yet, when I point out how the high courts have ruled that atheism and secular humanism are religions, I&#

Darwinism and the Law

Your worldview (philosophy of life) influences your perceptions, beliefs and actions. That should be a "given". Darwinism has influenced many areas of society and culture, including our perceptions of the law. How one defines law depends greatly on what one believes. The definition of law varies from culture to culture, religion to religion, and from philosophy to philosophy. It is important therefore to consider how different worldviews affect the way people think about law. Darwin’s theory of evolution is said to have generated a materialistic worldview that has had a significant impact on Western conceptions of law. Under the direct influence of Darwinism a profound transformation of legal studies took place in the nineteenth century. It is the main purpose of this article to reveal some of the philosophical implications of Darwinism and to explore how this particular worldview affected the general perception of law in Western societies. In so doing, this

Darwin and the Nazi Legal System

This article is focused on the Darwinian roots of the Nazi legal system. It contends that Darwinism underpinned the most basic features of Nazi legal order and theory. The Nazis developed a ‘progressive’ theory of law in which ‘law’ was interpreted as a result of force and social struggle. According to the Nazi legal theory, the legal system should not contain fixed rules of law but evolve in continuous flow as a ‘living law’. Because the Nazis were Darwinists who believed that human beings were descended from the animal kingdom, they did not accept the idea of God-ordained human rights, but rather that the ‘stronger’ would have the ‘right’ to dispossess and destroy the ‘weaker’. During that time, most German judges and lawyers were legal positivists who rejected the concept of God-given rights as defined by the Holy Scriptures and classical natural-law theory. As a result, a ‘master morality’ w