Sunday, July 2, 2017

The Moral Argument Against Evolution

        Modern day atheists are prone to argue that human morality has developed as a result of the process called natural selection. It is claimed that our moral standards are simply genetic chemical compounds that are shaped according to evolutionary needs. In other words, the formation of human morality is supposedly prompted by the conditions of current physical surroundings, in the same sense that the physical components of the body adapt to environmental changes. The naturalistic worldview maintains that our morals have developed by mere chance. In short, evolutionists claim that continually changing behavioral patterns are what morality consists of. Adherents of this so-called new science called evolutionary psychology believe that everything regarding the human personality can be explained adequately by evolutionary forces.

        On the contrary, there is not a particle of reliable experimental evidence suggesting that our moral standards are nothing more than random molecule combinations. In fact, it is illogical to the highest degree to equate moral standards with physical adaptations that can evolve in response to environmental conditions. If our moral codes were determined individually by our chromosomal makeup, then how could we reward or condemn the actions of other people? If no distinction is made between mankind and the animal kingdom, then why should we be disgusted when people engage in acts of bestiality? Why not love our pets rather than friends and relatives? Why not act uncivilized as do wild animals? Why even wear clothing? How does one account for the existence of human reason and free will? Those two truths are regarded as self-evident. These so-called evolutionary explanations are simply imaginary, subjective, hypothetical constructs. It is not coherent philosophy because it is not consonant with the reality of our nature.

        Before moving on, we must we must ask ourselves what constitutes the principles of morality? How can we properly describe morality? First of all, we know that moral laws are not concrete objects, but rather are abstract realities that can only be grasped through mental perception. Moral rules are completely invisible, intangible entities. They are not chemical or biological. Moral laws are spiritual and intellectual propositions that are communicated from the mind of one individual to another. Moral laws have been internally inscribed into our hearts by God (whether a person has the mental capacity to understand those moral laws is another question). They make us capable of formulating rational distinctions between good and evil. Not only do human beings naturally feel obligated to obey these moral codes, but we also feel guilty when we choose to violate them. Lastly, it is important to note that exterior conduct in itself does not prescribe us with a pattern of sound morality to follow, but rather offers us a description of various moral patterns. Although external behaviors can reveal interior motives of the human heart, this objective standard of morality governs our behavior because it judges whether it is good or bad.

        The evolutionary worldview, by definition, fails to give account for the existence of transcendent moral laws. We must not adhere to the "survival of the fittest" worldview, for it is utterly selfish. The inherent self-centered design of the Evolutionary Theory opens the door to much persecution and discrimination of the so-called low classed, minority parties of our society. Not only does evolution leave absolutely no room for objective reasons for protecting the vulnerable, but the notion of natural selection is also totally indifferent to the suffering, weak people of this world. This negative mindset flatly collides with how we should be thinking and acting toward other people. This worldview gives no objective reason for us to do good. The fact that we are able to choose acting in a morally sound manner is irrelevant. Society can still adopt the abhorrent lifestyles logically contained within the dark confines of Darwinism. If there are no objective moral standard existing for us to abide by, then why should we not choose acting immorally? Why should we really care what other people think? If we are going to educate our children into believing that they are animals, then they will also behave in that fashion. And all the evidence of this is found in our modern society.

        If, on the other hand, there exists objective moral laws that are transcendent to the laws of nature, then it logically follows from the premise of the argument that there must also be a supernatural Law Giver. It follows that we can differentiate between the boundaries of good and evil. It follows that we actually have a purpose in life. It follows that life has value and meaning. It follows that we have rationality, intelligence, consciousness, and emotions. These things can only exist, if a supernatural Law Giver placed them into the innermost part of our being, the soul. But none of these significant features of human life can be accounted for, if the evolutionary worldview is correct. Morality is the foundation for all building blocks in life, truth establishes all principles which form the basis of morality, and only through God that we can have such things. If naturalistic evolution is true, then any concept of objective moral laws, meaning, love, and hope are empty illusions. If naturalists continue on chiseling the concept of personhood in accordance with their materialistic philosophy, then they will inevitably be rendering our unique characteristics to mere projections of the human mind. The deconstruction of reality is a dangerous thing.

No comments:

Post a Comment