The Renewanation Review Volume 6, Issue 2 - Page 16

in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.” 2 Thus, if evolution is true, then there can be no universal moral code that all people should adhere to.   And Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, evolutionist and physics professor at the University of Texas, states, “I think that part of the historical mission of science has been to teach us that we are not the playthings of supernatural intervention, that we can make our own way in the universe and that we have to find our own sense of morality.” 3 Again, if morality is determined by our own sense, then a universal moral code that all people should follow cannot be justified. MORALITY By Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Jason Lisle and the irrationality of an evolutionary worldview Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. This is not to say that evolutionists are somehow less moral than biblical creationists—or anyone else. Most evolutionists adhere to a moral code and believe in the concept of right and wrong. But evolutionists have no rational reason for this position. Thus, only creationists have a rational, logical, and consistent reason for morality. The Foundation of Morality Even though most people do not acknowledge it, the morality and rules that most humans adhere to have their basis in the Bible, specifically in the literal history of Genesis. The Bible claims to be the revealed Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) and that the biblical God is the ultimate authority and foundation for knowledge (Hebrews 6:13; Proverbs 1:7, 2:6; Colossians 2:3). The Bible tells us that God is the Creator of all things and, therefore, all things belong to Him (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 24:1). Thus, God as the Creator has the right to define absolute standards of behavior.   Apart from biblical creation, morality has no justification. Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen (1948–95) 16 states, “What does the unbeliever [person who rejects the biblical God] mean by ‘good,’ or by what standard does the unbeliever determine what counts as ‘good’ (so that ‘evil’ is accordingly defined or identified)? What are the presuppositions in terms of which the unbeliever makes any moral judgments whatsoever?” 1 Although unbelievers may classify actions as good or evil, they do not have an ultimate foundation for defining what is good and evil.   In fact, many evolutionists are quite clear that evolution does not provide a basis for morality. William Provine, evolutionist and biology professor at Cornell University, states in referring to the implications of Darwinism, “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning Majority Rule or God’s Rules? Some evolutionists have claimed that morality is what the majority decides it to be. This shifts an unjustified opinion from one person to a group of people; it is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions.   Bahnsen writes: Perhaps the unbeliever takes “good” to be whatever evokes public approval. However, on that basis the statement, “The vast majority of the community heartily approved of and willingly joined in the evil deed,” could never make sense. The fact that a large number of people feel a certain way does not (or should not rationally) convince anybody that this feeling (about the goodness or evil of Why Murder is Wrong something) is correct. 5 Murder is an obvious example of immoral behavior. The   Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that basis for this comes from Genesis 1:27 which states that his actions were right, but that does not make them right. human beings are made in God’s image and are different   Without the biblical God and literal Genesis, right and from the animals. Murder is condemned in Genesis 4 where wrong become personal preferences such that “murder is God punishes the first murderer, Cain, for killing his brother wrong” is equivalent to “blue is my favorite color.” Both Abel. God’s condemnaare personal opinions and tion of murder is further provide no basis for arguestablished in the Ten ing with someone who has "If everyone can create Commandments (Exodus a different opinion. his or her own morality, 20:13). Death and suffer  But the question, logiing were not part of God’s then no one can judge the cally speaking, is how original creation as exhibthe unbeliever can make morality of others." ited by God’s command sense of taking evil serito Adam and Eve and the ously—not simply as animals to eat only plants something inconvenient, (Genesis 1:29–30). God or unpleasant, or contrary states in Genesis 1:31 that His creation was “very good.” This to his or her desires. What philosophy of value or morality terminology is meaningless if it includes death and suffering. can the unbeliever offer whi