Long before Darwin was born, humanity was ruled by superstition. Men need not search for their origin because their religion provided them with the answers. It told them that they came to be because a supernatural Being or supernatural Conciousness brought them to existence. Jews and Christians say it was God, Muslims say it was Allah, Hindus and Buddhist say it was a Divine Energy, Traditionalists say it was some higher Deity. The belief that man was manufactured by another super Being also informed how they interacted with each other. Most if not all claim that they recieved laws that guided them from this super Being. A case in point is the Judeo-Christian ten commandments which still is the bedrock of all western constitutions.

But Darwin came along with his theory, that men evolved from other species. This theory seems to have been accepted by a wider audience. Some Religionist who couldn't stomach the idea of God being relegated to the background came up with the Intelligent Design theory. Still there is no way for them among the Darwinist. Suddenly Darwin is the real thing. A friend of the enlightened, the progressive, the independent, etc. This group not only want Darwin taught in schools, they also wanted him applied in society. And they are tremendously suceeding. Now Faith is shying away from public places and is being replaced with a form of Darwinist relativism. Something akin to a radicalization of the 'survival of the fittest' theory. But the constitution is there.

The irony is that the basis of the constitution is superstition and that is what Darwin had been trying to defeat all these years. Now, can the constitution which embodied superstitious concepts be used to interprete Darwin's evolutionary propensity? I see all the time as modern judges try to achieve this feat. But the result is that the constitution is fast becoming a whore. Meaning one thing and the other at the same time. A toy in the hands of judges. A concept every smart lawyer can argue to his side; no matter the facts, just by concentrating on the letters.

There's always the talk in sociological context about ''Spirit''. It makes me understand that everything functions by virtue of the spirit behind it. Spirit of love, spirit of unity, spirit of hardwork, so many spirits. But with Darwin, there's no place for spirits. And so we can't talk about the spirit of the constitution. The underlying fact is that those who drafted those constitutions; being superstitious, placed more emphasis on the spirit than on the letter. Without the spirit, the costitution is nothing other than ''a goddamn piece of paper''. If Darwin only is the new guy, then I think it is time to EVOLVE a new constitution.

Technorati Tags: