Evolutionists say morality is just a mechanism of natural selection to get our species to get along and survive. However, when someone is wronged personally, he or she tends to become much more absolute with morality, appealing to what is “right” or “wrong.” To be sure, ultimate right and wrong do exist, but not according to evolution. Therefore, evolution contradicts our common sense, especially when we have been personally wronged.
For instance, social darwinism has used evolution to justify acts of rape and infanticide. 1
As Christians, the character of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible is our ultimate foundation for morality. Everyone will ultimately have to answer to the Judge of all the world. Are you ready?
Debate
Evolutionist: Evolutionists can be moral people.
Response: Evolution itself provides no foundation for morality. Whatever morality evolutionists have is because they, too, are created in the image of God (though they deny it), not because of their belief in evolution.
Evolutionist: For social animals (like man), evolution promotes altruism (kindness) because it helps our species survive. Therefore, evolution does promote morality.
Response: If evolution is responsible for altruism (kindness), it is also responsible for the worst immoral actions. Worse, it provides no foundation for morality because our behavior is the result of genetics. If evolution is true, we cannot say that anything is truly “wrong.”
Evolutionist: Some immoral things have been done in the name of evolution (e.g., the Holocaust. abortion, or euthanasia), even though evolution doesn’t endorse them. They are misunderstandings of what evolution teaches.
Response: First, evolution can be used to endorse these actions. Evolutionists explain infanticide and other immoral actions in animal behavior, and if humans are evolved animals, it should (logically) be used to explain human behavior, too. Evolution does allow for these immoral actions.
Evolutionist: Evolution merely describes how life works. Like any science, such as chemistry or physics, evolution is neither moral nor immoral.
Response: Define evolution. As normally understood, evolution tries to explain the origin of man. It teaches that we are evolved from chemicals by undirected natural forces—that there is nothing left for God to do. This does imply that there is no ultimate foundation for morality.
Evolutionist: Evolution teaches about the way things are. This does not mean that it should be this way.
Response: Evolution has no basis for saying that life “should” be anything. If we are merely the result of natural forces (without God), then there is no ultimate Judge and no ultimate standard. There is no such thing as “should” or “right” in evolution.
Evolutionist: The Bible has some immoral teachings.
Response: First, evolutionists cannot logically use words like “moral” and “immoral” because their framework doesn’t have any ultimate foundation for ethics. Second, the Bible does not teach immorality.
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Sources
ReMine, W. J. (1993). The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory. Saint Paul, Minn.: St. Paul Science.
Notes
- ReMine, 1993, p. 154 ↩