Yes, A Supreme Court Justice Just Publicly Admitted To Being A Creationist

supreme-court-justicesWhen we think of our judicial system, in theory it’s supposed to be run by those who simply interpret the laws as defined by the Constitution. A judge, in an ideal setting, isn’t supposed to harbor personal feelings or opinions while presiding over a case – they’re simply supposed to interpret the law.


Though, as we all know, when it comes to many of our lower courts that’s sometimes not the case. Clearly, in a world of political parties and ideologies, politics has become ingrained within our court system. It shouldn’t have happened, but it did.

Then we have our Supreme Court which is basically the final word as it relates to the judicial process in our country. As most of us know, the Court’s nine justices are tasked with interpreting our Constitution. Sadly, they also sometimes behave as nothing more than political puppets for our nation’s two largest political parties.

To this day, I’ve never understood a “liberal” as opposed to a “conservative” justice. Aren’t they all supposed to be impartial? Shouldn’t the Supreme Court, at its core, be the one branch of government that’s not beholden to political parties?

Sadly, in today’s world, that’s not the case.

Well, in an admission that should terrify most Americans (even many conservatives), Justice Antonin Scalia essentially admitted that he’s a creationist during a commencement speech he was giving.

“Class of 2015, you should not leave Stone Ridge High School thinking that you face challenges that are at all, in any important sense, unprecedented,” Scalia said. “Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so, and I doubt that the basic challenges as confronted are any worse now, or alas even much different, from what they ever were.”

Yes, one of our nine Supreme Court justices – an individual who’s supposed to interpret laws, reality and facts – just said publicly that he believes humans have only been around for “5,000 years or so.”

Now, is this particularly surprising considering Scalia’s record as a justice? Not really. But it does give the American people an official confirmation that we have someone serving in one of the most powerful positions in this country who apparently looks at the theory of evolution as some kind of liberal hoax perpetuated by, well – science. 


To put into perspective just how crazy it is for anyone to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, even Pat Robertson – yes, this guy – thinks the creationist belief concerning the age of the Earth is ridiculous.

As long as people aren’t trying to force their views on me, I typically try to be as respectful as I can towards the religious beliefs of others. But when it comes to creationists, I really just don’t have a lot of patience. Because, in my opinion, I think there’s a huge difference in having a faith-based belief about why we’re all here and what happens to us after we die, and being so mentally delusional that you would ignore mountains of scientific evidence about our planet and evolution to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and humans have only been around for “5,000 years or so.”

To me, that’s not religion – that’s just bonafide crazy.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jeremy Wohlfart

    Sorry but I have to call bullshit, on his direct quote he says they’re AT LEAST 5000 years old

    • Sieben Stern

      dude, humans have been around for 200,000 years.
      5000 years ago there were sumerians building cities, farming, writing on clay tablets, and trading, etc…

      even if you add the ‘at least’ he’s still full of shit and stupidity.

      • WKDNess

        200,000 years? The oldest human fossil (if u can rely on carbon dating) is said to be 2.8 million years old!

        That’s 2,800,000 years…at least 😉

      • Shadow Diver

        That is not true, but whatever. The most commonly believed number is 250,000

      • Joanne
      • WKDNess

        Seeing as u were on the internet when u made the above mistake…

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150304-homo-habilis-evolution-fossil-jaw-ethiopia-olduvai-gorge/

        …it would have been so easy for u to check whether or not it was true yourself, then u wouldn’t feel like an idiot right now.

        Even before the aforementioned discovery the oldest fossil was 2.3 million years, but…whatever 😉

      • jerrystraut

        Homo sapiens sapiens (us) have been around for around 200,000 years. The article you reference is about a much older Hominid, Homo erectus.

      • WKDNess

        What’s your point? No one had differentiated between human species, It was simply “humans” or to quote the Judge, “humanity”.

        With both Homo erectus & Homo sapien being hominins then both are classed as of the human species, or belonging to humanity.

        2.8 million years at best estimate.

        Would anyone else like to try…?

      • WKDNess

        By the way, hominids are primates, hominins are humans.

      • Shadow Diver

        Hey if you want to believe there is a human fossil @ 2.3 million years, go ahead. The entire scientific community besides loons thinks otherwise. You ignorant fkheads are as bad as the creationists.

      • WKDNess

        What an idiot.

      • John Rogness

        The jawbone just found was 2.8 mil years old. The first examples of homo sapiens in a city are about 100,000 years ago. A long way from 5000 years or so. The migration hit India about 70k and Europe about 50K and North America about 20k and the great Ice Age ended about 10k years ago. There is a lot of history that our great judge is ignoring just like he ignores all other opinions except his own.

    • Michael Drzyzga

      Yeah, I spotted that too. Could just as easily be about appeasing creationists rather than supporting them.

    • Shadow Diver

      Except the number is 250,000 years. So either he is a creationist or he is an idiot or both.

      • WKDNess

        That’s quite an ironic comment in retrospect 😛 haha

  • electrobento

    Dumb thing to say, but this hardly makes him necessarily a creationist. Not your best post, Allen.

    • WKDNess

      If u believe the earth is only 5000-6000 years old then you’re a creationist. You believe God created the Earth with Adam & Eve.

      • electrobento

        He didn’t say he believes the Earth is only 5000 years old. He made a bad joke and it was taken out of context.

  • Joanne
  • WordSmith

    Hammurabi’s Code is a good example…not to mention there are civilizations much older, as in more than 10,000 years old.

  • Keith

    How sad can it get? We have anti-science, anti-common sense folks leading out nation. If your belief in the unseen and unknowable controls the way you act in the real world you have no business being in charge of anything.

  • amersham46

    If your position is undefensible ,,,,,, denounce you opposition

  • TruthBtold

    Eh, I think this is a little questionable, in that, most archeologists consider “modern humanity” (civilization) as being 5,000 years old. I think that’s what he was referring to.

    Scalia is a horrible SCJ, and I don’t need to give you evidence of that, just look at his decisions, wherein he literally uses Fox News talking points that have no basis in reality. But, this is twisting his words just a bit.

    • John Rogness

      Truthbtold, please name “one” archaeologist who believes civilization is only 5000 years old as there are no civilizations that young. Egypt, Greek, middle east, China even Native American are older.

      • TruthBtold

        Pretty much every mainstream archeologist.
        If you notice, we call everything from the moment we began writing “history” and everything from the moment before it, “pre-history”. The reason is we only have scant evidence of civilization prior to that, around 3,000 BC, with the rise of the Mesopotamian civilization, and the Egyptian civilization shortly after. Some of that scant evidence is Gobekli Tepe in turkey, which dates back to 9,000 BC, however, we (meaning humanity) only assume civilization as being around as far back as 3,000 BC. Prior to that, we assume humans were hunter/gatherers and nomads, who couldn’t write, and therefore could only pass on information via verbal stories they told their children, meaning, they never had the knowledge to develop into a modern civilization.

        Every archeologist admits that modern humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, and possibly earlier, but they all think “modern civilization” has only been around for 5,000-7,000 years.

        Egypt, mid-east, China, and native magician civilizations may be older than 5,000 years old, but there is no evidence of it. Or at least scant evidence of it, and even that scant evidence archeologist assume is a mistake.

  • Jillz

    Maybe it’s time to make a change in the rules for appointing Supreme Court judges. Perhaps American citizens would be better served by having a rule stating that Democrat Presidents may only appoint Republican-affiliated judges; and Republicans may only appoint Democrat-affiliated judges. You can bet your bottom dollar if that were the case, they would only be appointing “moderates” on both sides!

    It really shouldn’t matter what Justice Scalia’s religious views are. The only reason it does [matter] is that he has shown himself unwilling (on too many occasions) to be unbiased, as a judge should be.

    Does anyone know what the required grounds are to commence impeachment proceedings against a Supreme Court judge? Is it possible to do so? Because someone needs to do something about this SCOTUS.