Evolution – science influencing government
In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Since then, the terms Evolution and Darwinism have been almost interchangeable. Unfortunately, the book influenced more than the pseudoscience it promoted. (For instance, it actually gave scientific plausibility to racism.) I call it pseudoscience because the concept did not rely on the scientific method. That method includes observation, repeatability, falsification, and prediction. Evolution only looked scientific in nature.
Evolution and morality
The impact of Evolution on morality is more easily understood than its impact on government. But in both instances evolution has proved an agent of change. In morality, evolution implies that either God doesn’t exist or His Word is erroneous. This leaves moral decisions to one’s own determination about what is good and what is right.
Previously, whether someone believed in God or not, universally accepted moral standards were based on biblical principles. As Evolution rose in popularity, relying on the standards of an arcane book seemed backward and unsophisticated. This mindset of an evolved man quickly impacted the principles of government – especially the notion that our rights come from God and not from government. It is logical to come to this assumption if you believe that the whole idea of God is nothing more than an uneducated notion that restricts behavioral choices and acts as a crutch for the unenlightened.
The moral destruction caused by the concept of Evolution is not new to the human race. The Greeks believed in a form of evolution. The ancient Israelites were no strangers to doing what was right in their own eyes.
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. [Judges 21:25]
Evolution and a “Living” Constitution
The US Constitution. Photo: National Archives of the United States
Aside from not attributing our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to an all-knowing and sovereign God, Evolution has impacted our government in other ways as well. The notion that a document written in 1787, and ratified with its Bill of Rights in 1791, is somehow relevant to our modern lives becomes absurd if we believe that life evolves. Therefore, our judges and public servants who are charged with preserving and protecting our Constitution feel perfectly entitled to change it at will – which is exactly what they have been doing. After all, if truth isn’t universal and absolute for all times and all generations, then a document that establishes a system of law for all times and all generations can’t be and shouldn’t be relied on in this enlightened age.
The disregard for our system of government represents the evolution of a Republic that has proven to be regressive instead of progressive and unenlightened instead of enlightened. As this once great nation seems to be on a path of self-destruction, the words of the Bible once again ring true.
There is a way which seems right to a man. But its end is the way of death. [Proverbs 14:12]
I love this article, Thanks Roseann. I believe in intelligent design because I spent so much time studying the evoulutionary model but I was never convinced by their science. Too many problems, missing links etc. Now with creation scince making great strides it has become obvious that this is pseudoscience and academic postulation as you said.
Thanks,
Rev MB
“Since then, the terms Evolution and Darwinism have been almost interchangeable.”
Not among scientists.
“The notion that a document written in 1787, and ratified with its Bill of Rights in 1791, is somehow relevant to our modern lives becomes absurd if we believe that life evolves.”
Actually it’s absurd anyway. The US Constitution is a great basis for a system of government, but not if it’s set in stone. The world changes and, sooner or later, the Constitution has to change with it. Otherwise it will become irrelevant. How many times has it been amended now? How many of those amendments do you agree with? I bet there are several.
Amendments I-X to start with. And XXVII, the delayed-salary amendment.
Then, let’s see:
XI: A good protection of federalism.
XII: Bad. It enshrined the major-party systems, with their slates of elector-candidates. Better to let the States know that if they didn’t want to go through another Election of 1800, then they would better serve themselves by nominating electors under their own names.
XIV: Much of that text was an act of cynical revenge.
XVI: Not only bad, but not properly ratified, according to many sources I have seen. The aptly-named Philander Knox finagled the ratification by Ohio.
XVII: Bad. It insulated Senators from the States they were supposed to represent, and completed the reduction of States to the level of provinces.
XVIII: Bad. That should never have been a federal matter. So bad, they had to repeal it (XXI).
But the real point is that we have seen the Constitution amended informally, by erroneous Supreme Court precedent, Presidential overreach, Congressional carelessness, party practices, and custom that just happens to ignore the text. We don’t have a Constitution anymore; we have whatever lie the government agrees upon at the moment.