Source: http://jesuscreated.org/Biblical/Evolution_and_Law.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 06:21:05+00:00

Document:
What do the Tulsa zoo and Supreme Court have in common? Both are plagued by a damaging philosophy. Most don’t know its insidious seeds have been systematically sown in America’s law schools for over a century. This devastating doctrine has been eroding the Biblical foundation of our constitutional legal system by sparking an explosion of liberal judicial activism. It has created a crisis manifesting itself in Supreme Court cases since the 1960s. The next Supreme Court nominee will either exacerbate the problem or help cure it. The problem? Humanistic evolution.
What does evolution have to do with law? More than you realize. I will expose the problem by first showing America’s Fathers firmly founded our law and government on immutable Biblical principles. They knew the fixed laws of God would provide a lasting foundation for freedom, a foundation being eroded by evolutionary judicial activism.
When King John ignored the law, those whose rights were threatened compelled him to sign the Magna Charta in 1215. The Magna Charta reflects the Biblical character of common law. Its central message: “the supremacy of God and the law over all human beings.” It boldly declared “rights of liberty and property” are fixed and inviolable because they come from God.
The first Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Jay, who later served as President of the American Bible Society, proclaimed: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Justice Story, teaching law at Harvard, emphasized that Christianity is the foundation of common law, that “Christianity is indispensable to the true interests & solid foundations of all free governments,” and government promotion of Christianity is lawful if one sect is not favored. Even liberal Justices Stevens and Ginsburg conceded last month that “for nearly a century after the Founding, [the Supreme Court] accepted the idea that America was not just a religious nation, but ‘a Christian nation.’” It thus permitted in schools prayer until the 1960s and the Ten Commandments until the 1980s. The erosion of our Christian foundation the past 50 years is worsening. Last month’s McCreary County case declared it unlawful to encourage religious morality by displaying the Decalogue in any public place.
Evolutionary judicial activism taught in America’s law schools since the late 1800s is precipitously eroding the Christian foundation of our nation. We must petition President Bush to nominate and lobby our Senators to approve Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges who reject evolutionary law and will protect our God-given Constitutional liberties.
We shouldn’t be “stunned” the Supreme Court expanded eminent domain power at the expense of Constitutional property rights (Eminent domain case mocks our rights, July 14). Nor should we be surprised it stripped prayer, creationism, and the Decalogue from public forums, while permitting evolution to monopolize it under a false shroud of “science.” We’re reaping what we’ve allowed to be sown (Gal. 6:7). Previously, I showed the Founders anchored our Republic to Biblical principles, and the Supreme Court considered America “Christian” until the 20th century. I claimed evolutionary legal education sparked an explosion of liberal judicial activism, eroding America’s Biblical foundation. I will now show how Darwin’s disciples displaced Biblically-based legal study with evolution and why we should care.
As June’s eminent domain case proves, evolutionary judicial activism threatens us all. It takes law and liberty captive to the “shifting sand” of man’s whimsical opinions. One moment, power to take private property is tightly limited. Law then evolves when activist judges expand that power. One moment, we’re a Christian nation where prayer in school is encouraged. Law then evolves when activist judges erect a mythical “wall of separation” and outlaw school prayer.
Evolutionary law perverts law and liberty. One moment, the Constitution doesn’t address abortion. It then evolves and is grossly perverted when activist judges decide the Constitution permits and protects abortion.
The impact of Blackstone’s Biblical approach is exemplified in the life Charles Finney. Finney began studying law in 1818. Noting Blackstone’s repeated reliance on scripture, Finney bought his first Bible. Convinced of its authority, Finney repented and left law to preach. Revival erupted in over 1,500 cities. In Rochester, New York, “all the leading lawyers, physicians, and businessmen were saved ... and the whole character of the town was changed,” thanks to one person impacted by a Biblical legal education.
While many reject Finney’s beliefs, my point is irrefutable: education has ramifications. The Founders knew Biblically-based education is essential to “the safety and well being of civil government.” Evolutionary humanists also knew our destiny hinged on education and purposed to destroy America’s Biblical foundation by working tirelessly to replace Christian education with evolutionary humanism. After a century of evolutionary legal education, combined with evolution’s court-sanctioned monopoly on public education, evolutionists are clearly prevailing.
By allowing evolution to monopolize public spheres to the exclusion of competing views, we violate Jesus’ command to be “salt” and “light” and become guilty accomplices to tragic social and spiritual consequences. Blackstone ignited revival by pointing one person to God’s Word. We, too, must be tactfully active in public arenas to point people to God’s Word. That’s why it’s vital to erect the Genesis creation account by the evolution display at the Tulsa Zoo. That’s why it’s critical for individuals and groups to challenge evolution’s monopoly of public arenas. That’s why we must lobby senators to approve Biblically minded, “strict constructionist” judges. Most importantly, we must equip ourselves to answer the tough issues of our day (1 Pet. 3:15).
 John C.H. Wu, Fountain of Justice 65 (1959) [hereinafter, “Wu”].
 Id. at 65-70; see also www.magnacharta.com.
 Wu, supra note 1, at 65-70.
 Magna Charta, ch. I, ch. XXIX (1215).
Id. (emphasis added). Defining law itself, Bracton wrote: “Also God is the Author of Justice, because justice is in the Creator. And accordingly, rightness and law (ius et lex) signify the same thing ….” Id.
 Thomas Jefferson, Works 311-19 (1884).
 Herbert W. Titus, God, Man and Law: The Biblical Principles at 4-5 (1994).
 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 712 (1997).
 Declaration of Independence (1776) (penned by Thomas Jefferson).
 McCreary County v. ACLU, 2005 U.S. Lexis 5211 at **74-76 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
 John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.
 The Legal Mind in America at 178 (P. Miller, ed., 1962).
 Van Orden v. Perry, 2005 U.S. Lexis 5215 at *84 n.29.
 School Dist. Of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
 Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980).
 McCreary County v. ACLU, 2005 U.S. Lexis 5211 (Souter, J.).
 Van Orden v. Perry, 2005 U.S. Lexis 5215 at *84.
 Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 712 (1997) (Thomas, J.).
 Herbert W. Titus, God, Man and Law: The Biblical Principles at 5 (1994) [hereinafter, “Titus”].
 Id. Upon the same Blackstonian Biblical legal reasoning, Martin Luther King, Jr. declared: “There comes a time when a moral man can't obey a law which his conscience tells him is unjust (the unjust law being any ‘positive law’ that contradicts ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God) ….’ It is important to see that there are times when a man made law is out of harmony with the moral law of the universe.” Coretta Scott King, The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Pocket ed. 1964).
 McCreary County v. ACLU, 2005 U.S. Lexis 5211 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
 See, e.g., http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm#one (providing a stinging critique of Finney’s “heretical” beliefs).
I shall proceed in the next place, to inquire, what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper institution of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments…. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament…. My only business is to declare, that all its doctrines and precepts are calculated to promote the happiness of society, and the safety and well being of civil government. A Christian cannot fail of being a republican. The history of the creation of man, and of the relation of our species to each other by birth, which is recorded in the Old Testament, is the best refutation that can be given to the divine right of kings, and the strongest argument that can be used in favor of the original and natural equality of all mankind. A Christian, I say again, cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humanity, self-denial, and brotherly kindness, which are directly opposed to the pride of monarchy and the pageantry of a court. A Christian cannot fail of being useful to the republic, for his religion teacheth him, that no man "livith to himself." And lastly, a Christian cannot fail of being wholly inoffensive, for his religion teacheth him, in all things do to others what he would wish, in like circumstances, thy should do to him.
Id.; see also McCreary County, 2005 U.S. Lexis 5211 at **74-77 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting President George Washington, who emphasized that “reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.