Evolution and Morality
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Although misotheists are divided on many things, some pretend that they are unified and it is the fault of Christians and creationists for not understanding them. Some time ago, I made a disparaging remark about an atheist's claim that people get morality from evolution. When I mentioned it later, another told me I was being ridiculous because they do not believe such a thing. The telegraph lines must have been down because one or the other did not get the correct message.
Atheists frequently get on the prod and seem compelled to contradict anything the st00pid dujmb theist will say — even at the point of denying their own mythology or actual scientific facts for the sake of being disputatious. Trying to have a rational discussion with the average internet atheist is often like trying to teach a pig to sing (it wastes your time and irritates the pig). As a student of presuppositional apologetics, I've learned that the apologists needs to show that the unbelieving worldview is futile, and reality is only found in the biblical worldview — beginning at Genesis 1:1.
Not too long ago, some angry atheopaths were accusing me of lying about evolution. (It happens a lot.) I asked one if what he was saying was true, why would it be wrong according to his atheistic worldview for me to lie? He refused to answer any of my questions, and I believe that he knew full well (Rom. 1:18-23) that he could not give a coherent response.
By saying that something is evil or wrong, the unbeliever is tacitly appealing to God, the ultimate standard-maker! But in an atheistic view, we're just responding to our electrochemical impulses. Don't whine about creationists, we were born this way, just like you were born as unbelievers. They are not consistent, and continually prove what God says in his Word about them.
Ironically, misotheists hate presuppositional apologetics and apologists because this method involves holding up a mirror and showing them that their worldview is incoherent and impossible to live consistently — but they are hardcore presuppositionalists themselves! They presume atheistic naturalism, and by extension, even the possibility that miracles or evidence supporting creation science cannot exist. Because atheism.
How is morality displayed in a scoffer? We can see them doing good to others, serving in their communities, and so on. While many atheists have a sense of morality and ethics, those are often based on societal standards. There is a great deal of personal expediency in their choices.
We know that the internet provides anonymity on social(ist) media as well as the safety of saying things with a keyboard that one would not dare say in person (Luke 6:45). I have been threatened with physical violence, and have seen atheists rejoicing at the deaths of Christians. Misotheists use these things quite freely and show what is in their hearts. Voting down creationist material because they hate Christians. Mockery of Christians (especially creationists), being vindictive when their errors in science and logic are revealed, redefining terms to escape facing the failings of their worldviews, lying about creationists, and more are displayed.
Some tinhorns demand evidence for creation science, and when it is shown, they refuse to read it. Then they claim that we do not provide what they want! Is this rational behavior? (Like René Descartes said before he vanished, "I think not!") For that matter, subjective morality is irrational, inconsistent, and unlivable. An example of this is discussed in "When an Atheist Says it's OK to Rape Her Sister."
Evolution is supposed to be blind and purposeless. It is based on time, random processes, time, natural selection, time, accumulated mutations, and especially time. If evolution provides morality, it would all be subjective, nothing ultimate. I'll do whatever I see fit because it helps me survive. Besides, evolution is constantly changing, so morality and ethics must change along with us as we evolve. Makes perfect sense in corrupted minds.
Earlier, I mentioned atheists rejoicing at the deaths of Christians. How can their worldview make provision for that? Further, where is any form of joy or rejoicing if evolution is foundational? How is respect for another person, or even admiration, found in that muddy worldview?
The following article discusses in more detail why it is absurd to think that evolution can be the source of morality. It also has a section on how atheists misrepresent the true meaning of faith.
Many atheists believe that morality came about through an evolutionary process. We have previously examined this view and shown it to be mistaken, but were prompted to analyze the claim further thanks to a question from Gregory C. in the U.S. He also asks us to respond to a professor’s bold assertions about the concept of ‘faith’. Gregory’s message is reproduced below, followed by a response from Keaton Halley.
I'd be much obliged if you would read the material over at "Evolution cannot take credit for morality." Interestingly, a few hours before this article was set to publish, something additional came to my attention. I would also like to suggest "The Moral Argument – Revealer of Hypocrites."