Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has become, contrary to the Constitution, our nation’s de facto law-making body based on the moral relativism of evolution. A nation of 325 million people is now governed by the whims of four, soon to be five, unelected Supreme Court Justices.

It does not matter if a decision from the Supreme Court is contrary to the Constitution, because in the words of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.”

If the Constitution is what the judges say it is, how is it possible for there to be a safeguard on any moral or legal principle when the Constitution is said to be a “living” and evolving” document where liberty and property can be redefined?

In his book Constitutional Government (1908), former President Woodrow Wilson wrote that “government . . . is accountable to [Charles] Darwin. . . It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life.”

Dr. Gary North writes that Wilson adopted “theistic evolution, and then went beyond it academically: Darwinian evolution – no God, no purpose, no miracles. He then adopted Progressivism, which was the statist version of social Darwinism. (I discuss the transition from free market Darwinism to statist Darwinism in Appendix A of my book, Sovereignty and Dominion.) By 1900, it had replaced the free market social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer in the thinking of American intellectuals.”

Read related article: “Can Atheism Ever be a Defense Against Evil?"

Compare Wilson’s views with these comments by Antonin Scalia_,_ given at a conference sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life at the University of Chicago Divinity School in 2002:

“Before proceeding to discuss the morality of capital punishment, I want to make clear that my views on the subject have nothing to do with how I vote in capital cases that come before the Supreme Court. That statement would not be true if I subscribed to the conventional fallacy that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ — that is, a text that means from age to age whatever the society (or perhaps the Court) thinks it ought to mean.


“But the core of [Paul’s] message [in Romans 13:1–4] is that government — however you want to limit that concept — derives its moral authority from God. It is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to ‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword (which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty). Paul of course did not believe that the individual possessed any such powers. Only a few lines before this passage, he wrote, ‘Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.’ And in this world the Lord repaid — did justice — through His minister, the state. These passages from Romans represent the consensus of Western thought until very recent times.” ((Antonin Scalia, “God’s Justice and Ours, First Things 123 (May 2002), 17–21.))

Today, the majority of people would rather have the evolving moral worldview of Darwin than the fixed moral standards of God that limits personal retaliation (anarchy) and the unbridled power of the State (totalitarianism).

An evolving Constitution in the hands of justices who do not believe in a God-ordained higher law and have embraced the claim that the human race is “just a chemical scum” that evolved into “an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star,” as Stephen Hawking puts it, is judicial suicide.