Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,427
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution]]ary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref>
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as "the man [[atheism|atheists]] fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.<ref>[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref><ref>[http://simpleapologetics.com/thegreatdebate.html The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein]</ref>]]
Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. [[Jason Lisle]] wrote in an article entitled ''Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview'':
{{Cquote|Christian philosopher Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] (1948–95) 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?” 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 in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.” Thus, if evolution is true, then there can be no universal moral code that all people should adhere to.
If human beings are merely the inevitable result of the laws of physics and chemistry acting over time, then how can people have any genuine choice in what they do? If the decisions people make are simply the deterministic outworking of electrochemical reactions in a brain—which is itself allegedly the mindless outworking of billions of random chance copying errors in our DNA—then how would it make sense to hold people responsible for their “decisions”?
After all, we do not attempt to punish the planet [[Venus]] for spinning backwards. And we do not get angry at baking soda for reacting with vinegar. This is just what necessarily happens in the universe given the laws of nature. So why would an evolutionist be angry at anything one human being does to another (such as [[creationism|creationists]] supposedly “lying” to children), if we are all nothing more than complex chemical reactions? If we are simply evolved animals, why should we hold to a code of conduct in this “dog-eat-dog” world? After all, what one animal does to another is morally irrelevant.
When evolutionists attempt to be moral, they are “borrowing” from the Christian worldview.
The Christian worldview accounts not only for morality but also for why evolutionists behave the way they do. Even those who have no basis for morality within their own professed worldview nonetheless hold to a moral code; this is because in their heart of hearts they really do know the God of [[creation]], despite their profession to the contrary. Scripture tells us that everyone knows the biblical God, but that they suppress the truth about God (Romans 1:18-21).<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2012/02/16/do-atheists-have-a-foundation-for-morality/ ''Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview'']
by Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Jason Lisle on May 13, 2009</ref>}}
Atheism, evolution and morality (view source)
Revision as of 22:56, November 21, 2016
, 22:56, November 21, 2016Created page with " Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists an..."
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution]]ary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref>
[[Image:Bahnsen.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] became known as "the man [[atheism|atheists]] fear most" due to [[Michael Martin]]'s cancellation of their scheduled debate.<ref>[http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/Bahnsen.htm Bahsen at the Stein debate] by John Frame</ref><ref>[http://simpleapologetics.com/thegreatdebate.html The Great Debate: Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein]</ref>]]
Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. [[Jason Lisle]] wrote in an article entitled ''Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview'':
{{Cquote|Christian philosopher Dr. [[Greg Bahnsen]] (1948–95) 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?” 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 in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.” Thus, if evolution is true, then there can be no universal moral code that all people should adhere to.
If human beings are merely the inevitable result of the laws of physics and chemistry acting over time, then how can people have any genuine choice in what they do? If the decisions people make are simply the deterministic outworking of electrochemical reactions in a brain—which is itself allegedly the mindless outworking of billions of random chance copying errors in our DNA—then how would it make sense to hold people responsible for their “decisions”?
After all, we do not attempt to punish the planet [[Venus]] for spinning backwards. And we do not get angry at baking soda for reacting with vinegar. This is just what necessarily happens in the universe given the laws of nature. So why would an evolutionist be angry at anything one human being does to another (such as [[creationism|creationists]] supposedly “lying” to children), if we are all nothing more than complex chemical reactions? If we are simply evolved animals, why should we hold to a code of conduct in this “dog-eat-dog” world? After all, what one animal does to another is morally irrelevant.
When evolutionists attempt to be moral, they are “borrowing” from the Christian worldview.
The Christian worldview accounts not only for morality but also for why evolutionists behave the way they do. Even those who have no basis for morality within their own professed worldview nonetheless hold to a moral code; this is because in their heart of hearts they really do know the God of [[creation]], despite their profession to the contrary. Scripture tells us that everyone knows the biblical God, but that they suppress the truth about God (Romans 1:18-21).<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/georgia-purdom/2012/02/16/do-atheists-have-a-foundation-for-morality/ ''Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview'']
by Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Jason Lisle on May 13, 2009</ref>}}