Replies

In bringing up the issue of stare decisis, I did not argue why this position is wrong. There are many others who have done so. Likewise, there are others who have argued against evolution or at least random, unguided evolution. You are incorrect when you presume that I have not examined the evidence of mainstream scientists. I have also examined the position of mainstream Constitutional scholarship, FWIW. You have thus made an unsupported statement, as you accuse me of doing. As an evangelical Christian, I am compelled to reject naturalism, the philosophy that underlies mainstream science.

Here I stand. I can do no other.

In bringing up the issue of stare decisis, I did not argue why this position is wrong.

Am I to understand that you do not believe it is wrong? If so, I should warn you that you would be a pariah among many political conservatives and most libertarians.

Or is it the case that your doctrine and your examination of the evidence leads you to reject that authority? In which case, where is your examination of the scientific evidence required to reject the authority of scientists in this case?

You are incorrect when you presume that I have not examined the evidence of mainstream scientists.

I do not read minds - if you make no reference to such evidence, cite no such evidence, why should I believe you are aware of the evidence? Nevertheless, this would be a wonderful jumping-off point for you to undertake a thorough examination of the evidence supporting evolution, and explaining why the current interpretation is insufficient. That way, your analogy might stand up to a passing glance.

random, unguided evolution.

Evolution is not unguided. It is guided by selection, whether the changes are random, part of the Designer's computer program, or the result of direct divine intervention. Selection is the shaping cause. Selection is what Darwin discovered. Darwin had no clue as to how modification occurred or whether it was random.