Follow our tweets
Join our facebook page
Feed yourself
So let us very briefly jump onto an unbelieving philosophy or worldview. If we accept the evolutionary view of the world we must immediately realise that there are no absolutes. Well, sort of. There are usually two types of assumed absolutes. Firstly, there are absolutely no absolutes. Notice that this assertion is an absolute decree, spiraling down the funnel of vicious circular argumentation. Secondly, as asserted by the Atheist Foundation of Australia; the “scientific method…[is]…the only rational means toward understanding reality.”[2] Again, do you see how the unbeliever asserts that the “scientific method” is the “only rational” tool to be used in understanding reality? This argument simply begs the question; in other words, “show me the empirical evidence for the assertion!” All philosophies come with their baggage. The skeletons that the unbelieving/atheistic worldviews bury in their cupboard are no small piece to their view of reality. Now, atheism uses the theory of evolution as it’s scientific henchman. Anything that does not agree with the theory is unscientific and can’t possibly be rational! We will ignore this fallacious argumentation for another day. What we need to explore is the linkage between unbelief, evolution and violence.
If we accept the theory of evolution as the standard for all scientific verification there are astounding consequences. Christopher Hitchens, in his debate with Pastor Douglas Wilson, asserts that human morality is innate and over time it has evolved to what we have today. By the very nature of the case this argument precludes the idea of an absolute truth to which we are held accountable. But what Hitchens cannot see is that it therefore must also preclude the idea of evil or unethical behaviour. This is the very heart of the problem for the unbeliever. If there is no Law above the law then anything conceivable to the human mind could be judged subjectively good, wholesome and truthful. This position is simply absurd. But it is consistent with every unbelieving worldview that stands upon the sand of evolutionary theory.
Constable Blegg has framed his assertion incorrectly. What happened to him is truly terrible, upon the Christian world and life view. What happened to him is shameful and disgusting, within Biblical morality. But what happened to him is perfectly consistent within an unbelieving evolutionary framework. If we continue to teach our children that we are simply evolved animals, the highest evolved sack of atoms out of the primordial soup, then what do we expect them to grow up to be like? Ideas or theories, over the long run, produce actions. Well, by God’s common grace most people do not live out the full potential of their unbelieving worldview. They are restrained from living consistently with the linchpin evolutionary principle “survival of the fittest.”
As believers we must recognise the nature of the debate. The argument is not that X is terrible and Y is wonderful. We need to become more child like; asking why (on your worldview) is X terrible and Y wonderful? Do not allow the unbeliever the assumption of moral absolutes when their life philosophy does not allow for them. Dig under their thin veneer of morality to find out the basis for their moral assumptions. If evolution is true then the bashing of this policeman was simply the “fit” thumping the “unfit.” If we assume we are animals then what happened to this man is an example of animal pack mentality, the powerful banding together to prey on a threat to their dominance. The only logical answer to the morality question is found in the pages of Scripture. The Gospel is powerful. Christianity lived consistently transforms not only individuals but also families, societies and nations to the glory of God and the good of mankind. Unbelief does not. Just count the stats of last century's communist/socialist murders. These ideologies are simply unbelief lived to its logical conclusions. Thank God for His restraining common grace. The world would truly be an absolute ugly place without it.
So, what form of morality does teaching evolution in our schools produce in society? And why would any Christian parent send their child to be trained at our Government (and "Christian") schools in an unbelieving philosophy? I'll let you answer these questions.
End Notes
[1] See The Mercury, Bashed cop speaks out, 24 May 2010, http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/05/24/148025_todays-news.html.
[2] See Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, About Us, http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/about-us.
