Intelligent Design

Here is the Latest Example of Evolution Undermining Law

Spread the love

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.  Read more

22 Replies to “Here is the Latest Example of Evolution Undermining Law

  1. 1
    awstar says:

    From C Hunters post:

    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.

    As long as judges are going to judge laws based on their faith, why not base them on the faith of the majority, as our founding fathers envisioned, and served us so well for 200 plus years?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    “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.

  3. 3
    Mung says:

    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.

    I fear for our nation, I really do. And not because of homosexuals.

    Even if homosexuality is a result of evolution, it doesn’t follow that gay marriage should be a legal right. Let’s even go so far as to allow that marriage itself is a result of evolution (debatable), it still does not follow that gay marriage ought to be a legal right.

    But what if marriage itself is not a result of evolution? Then by what reasoning ought gay marriage be a legal right based on any result of evolution?

    I will leave it to others to show by reductio ad absurdam other flaws in this idea of basing legal rights on what is found to be a result of evolution. It should not be difficult.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    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

  5. 5
    ppolish says:

    Homosexuality & Abortion are strict no-no’s under Darwinian Fundamentalism. Taken to an extreme, both would drive a species extinct within a generation.

    Would it be that hard to give Darwinism “credit” every now and then?

  6. 6
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Ppolish: “Homosexuality & Abortion are strict no-no’s under Darwinian Fundamentalism. Taken to an extreme, both would drive a species extinct within a generation.”

    The fact that they are not strict no-no’s under evolutionary theory, I am interested in how you think they would lead us to extinction. This should be interesting.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    Let’s try to clarify the thoughts presented by A_b.

    Neither abortion nor homosexuality is a no-no under evolutionary theory because both abortion and homosexuality exist, even though under evolutionary theory neither homosexuality nor abortion ought to exist.

    Consider that abortion and homosexuality are “evolutionary experiments.”

    If homosexuals leave more offspring than non-homosexuals, and homosexuals eventually replace non-homosexuals in the population, then this is what was predicted by evolutionary theory.

    On the other hand, if homosexuals leave fewer offspring than non-homosexuals, and homosexuals are eventually replaced by non-homosexuals in the population, then this is what was predicted by evolutionary theory.

    If by aborting one’s offspring one can increase the number of offspring exhibiting this trait, then this trait will be favored by evolution.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    Notice how Arcatia_bogart fails to address the substantive issues raised.

    Is marriage the result of evolution?

  9. 9
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Mung, I will admit that abortion is uniquely human, but the killing of infants is not. It is seen in everything from shrimp to fish to birds to apes to humans. I am not making a moral judgement on this, just an observation. And all of these groups have survived.

    Similarly, homosexuality is not unique to humans. It is seen in almost every mammal and bird species. Is it natural? Yes. Is it sustainable if it becomes fixated in a species? No. But, that is not possible. The same evolution that you despise would not allow it.

    But I don’t understand the category that this post has been placed in (intelligent design). What does same sex marriage have to do with ID, a scientific theory that claims not to be religious. SSM is a social issue that has nothing to do with ID or evolution.

  10. 10
    ppolish says:

    Ab, “taken to an extreme” (ie abort every baby & everyone homosexual), sapiens would go extinct in a generation. Same would be true of most critters.

    A world with no abortions or homosexuality is a world completely consistent with Darwinism. A better world if you are a strict “Darwin spoke a Book” type of fella.

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    Arcatia_bogart:

    Mung, I will admit that abortion is uniquely human, but the killing of infants is not. It is seen in everything from shrimp to fish to birds to apes to humans. I am not making a moral judgement on this, just an observation. And all of these groups have survived.

    Therefore the killing of infants ought to be a legal right.

  12. 12
    Mung says:

    Arcatia_bogart:

    Similarly, homosexuality is not unique to humans. It is seen in almost every mammal and bird species. Is it natural? Yes. Is it sustainable if it becomes fixated in a species? No. But, that is not possible. The same evolution that you despise would not allow it.

    Therefore homosexuality ought to be a legal right.

    And therefore homosexual marriage ought to be a legal right.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

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

  14. 14
    Mung says:

    Arcatia_bogart:

    But I don’t understand the category that this post has been placed in (intelligent design).

    So?

    Arcatia_bogart:

    What does same sex marriage have to do with ID, a scientific theory that claims not to be religious. SSM is a social issue that has nothing to do with ID or evolution.

    If only this was true. The OP offers evidence to the contrary. The OP asserts that some judge ruled that same sex marriage is a legal right based upon evolution.

  15. 15
    Acartia_bogart says:

    Mung: “Therefore the killing of infants ought to be a legal right.”

    What about not making a moral judgement don’t you understand?

    Mung: “Therefore homosexuality ought to be a legal right.
    And therefore homosexual marriage ought to be a legal right.”

    Again, what about not making a moral judgment don’t you understand?

    Do I have to define moral judgment for you? I would do this but legal council has declared that you requesting this would indicate that you have a weak argument. And I wouldn’t want to put you in this position.

  16. 16
    Mung says:

    Mung: Therefore the killing of infants ought to be a legal right.

    Acartia_bogart: What about not making a moral judgement don’t you understand?

    Why one ought not make a moral judgement.

  17. 17
    DavidD says:

    A_B – “Similarly, homosexuality is not unique to humans. It is seen in almost every mammal and bird species. Is it natural? Yes. Is it sustainable if it becomes fixated in a species? No. But, that is not possible. The same evolution that you despise would not allow it”

    Yes, the misuse and abuse of industrial science for Profit has ensured that this become a truth in our times. This same crap has been parroted ever since 2009 and refuses to die. It has more to do with resentment over definitions of morality than it has to do with any truth found out in Nature.

    http://vimeo.com/15346778

    (The Disappearing Male was shown in 2009)

    Interestingly, in 2009[same time documentary was shown, the Media worldwide and Evolutionists were championing just how normal homosexuality was in Nature and cited as example two gay male seagulls sitting on a nest together at the Berlin Zoo. Yes, they cited this as a prime example of evolutionary proof of just how normal homosexuality was because it was everywhere in Nature. But there was also an earlier documentary warning about this man made disaster in the making way back in 1993 from BBC Horizon which showed certain aquatic species going extinct because of this abnormal homosexuality which rendered animals incapable of reproducing because of man made chemicals from the plastics industry who to this day refuses to accept any blame.

    That documentary was the BBC Horizon “Assault On The Male” (1993), but you’ll have to google it.

    Many researchers were actually warning about this as far back as the 1970s, But oh no, these evolutionists who have traditionally been at the forefront of the Environmental Activism Movement are suddenly now abandoning Nature and saying this behavior is natural and caused by Mother Nature, when clearly it is human caused. The term Mother Nature is a nebulous term and one they actually prefer over any real truth about the Natural World.

  18. 18
    anthropic says:

    There is a terrific new book about the history of how we got here re homosexual behavior, Making Gay Okay, by Robert Reilly. He goes back to Aristotle and forward to recent court cases in the US, plus analyzes the drive to make the Boy Scouts and military endorse homosexuality.

    Reilly points out that the term “homosexual” was invented in the late 1800s to create the impression that it was a legit alternate to heterosexuality. It also gave cover to sodomy, since now it was not a perversion but merely a different sexual orientation.

    Reilly also goes into great detail how the Am Psychological Association was pressured into abandoning its long-held designation of homosexual behavior as a mental illness. In fact, the original DSM listed it as a “sociopathic personality disturbance.” DSM II dropped the sociopathic label but still called it a mental illness.

    Of course, the APA abandoned the notion that homosexual behavior was deviant in 1973, not because new research studies showed that it was fine, but because homosexual activists pressured them. And because, as with the Catholic bishops who turned a blind eye to child abuse because they themselves were involved in homosexuality, some APA members were themselves homosexual.

    Fascinating read. Reilly doesn’t hate gays, in fact he worked with them extensively in the field of the arts. But he does find current trends deeply disturbing, precisely because we must lie to ourselves that anal sex is just as normal as vaginal sex. It’s not, but the attempt to force everyone affirm the lie is doing great damage.

  19. 19
    awstar says:

    A-B said:

    What does same sex marriage have to do with ID, a scientific theory that claims not to be religious. SSM is a social issue that has nothing to do with ID or evolution.

    When judges make their decision based on science (i.e. “this decision … 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.” Then views from all of the science community should be voiced — that is how democracy works.

    The reason this topic is being discussed in an ID forum is because there is a different point of view (i.e. evolution) that claims to be science and not to be religious which is actually deceiving the public and needs to be outed as being only religious and not supported by any science. And by religious I mean the fourth form of definition found in Webster’s dictionary: ” a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”. And by science I mean the first form of definition found in Webster’s dictionary” “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation”

  20. 20
    smilodon1 says:

    awstarSeptember 13, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    From C Hunters post:

    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.

    As long as judges are going to judge laws based on their faith, why not base them on the faith of the majority, as our founding fathers envisioned, and served us so well for 200 plus years?

    You are referring to the founding of our nation as a secular nation, right? If you’re confused, check out the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11. This treaty ended the war with the Barbary Pirates and was unanimously approved by congress and signed by the president (who happened to be one of our Founding Fathers).

  21. 21
    Enda_Stead says:

    Based on acclaimed articles from Junior Skeptic (Skeptic magazine’s science insert for kids) Evolution is a gorgeous hardcover with dust jacket, packed throughout with dazzling full-color art.

  22. 22
    Joe says:

    smilodon1:

    ou are referring to the founding of our nation as a secular nation, right?

    You are conflating not wanting to push any religion with being secular.

Leave a Reply