in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.” 2 Thus, if
evolution is true, then there can be no universal moral code
that all people should adhere to.
And Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, evolutionist
and physics professor at the University of Texas, states, “I
think that part of the historical mission of science has been
to teach us that we are not the playthings of supernatural
intervention, that we can make our own way in the universe
and that we have to find our own sense of morality.” 3 Again,
if morality is determined by our own sense, then a universal
moral code that all people should follow cannot be justified.
Majority Rule or God’s Rules?
Some evolutionists have claimed that morality is what the
majority decides it to be. This shifts an unjustified opinion
from one person to a group of people; it is arbitrary and
leads to absurd conclusions.
Bahnsen writes: Perhaps the unbeliever takes “good” to
be whatever evokes public approval. However, on that basis
the statement, “The vast majority of the community heartily
approved of and willingly joined in the evil deed,” could
never make sense. The fact that a large number of people feel
a certain way does not (or should not rationally) convince
anybody that this feeling (about the goodness or evil of
Why Murder is Wrong
something) is correct. 5
Murder is an obvious example of immoral behavior. The
Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that
basis for this comes from Genesis 1:27 which states that
his actions were right, but that does not make them right.
human beings are made in God’s image and are different
Without the biblical God and literal Genesis, right and
from the animals. Murder is condemned in Genesis 4 where
wrong become personal preferences such that “murder is
God punishes the first murderer, Cain, for killing his brother
wrong” is equivalent to “blue is my favorite color.” Both
Abel. God’s condemna-
are personal opinions and
tion of murder is further
provide no basis for argu-
established in the Ten
ing with someone who has
"If everyone can create
Commandments (Exodus
a different opinion.
his or her own morality,
20:13). Death and suffer-
But the question, logi-
ing were not part of God’s
then no one can judge the
cally speaking, is how
original creation as exhib-
the unbeliever can make
morality of others."
ited by God’s command
sense of taking evil seri-
to Adam and Eve and the
ously—not simply as
animals to eat only plants
something inconvenient,
(Genesis 1:29–30). God
or unpleasant, or contrary
states in Genesis 1:31 that His creation was “very good.” This
to his or her desires. What philosophy of value or morality
terminology is meaningless if it includes death and suffering.
can the unbeliever offer which will render it meaningful
Evolutionists might say that standards of right and wrong
to condemn some atrocity as objectively evil? The moral
can be created apart from God. However, this thinking is
indignation which is expressed by unbelievers when they
arbitrary and will lead to absurd conclusions. If everyone
encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world
can create his or her own morality, then no one can judge
does not comport with theories of ethics which unbelievers
the morality of others. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler,
espouse, theories which prove to be arbitrary or subjec-
Mussolini, and Stalin chose a moral code in which murder
tive or merely utilitarian or relativistic in character. In the
was perfectly acceptable.
unbeliever’s worldview, there is no good reason for saying
This might seem upsetting to us, but how could we argue
that anything is evil in nature, but only by personal choice
that it is wrong for others to murder if morality is deter-
or feeling. 6
mined by our “own sense” and “no ultimate foundation for
Thus, when evolutionists talk about morality as if it is a
ethics” exists?
real standard, they are being inconsistent with their own
Moral outrage simply does not make sense in an evolu-
worldview.
tionary universe. Bahnsen states, “Such indignation requires
Genesis not only justifies the existence of the moral code,
recourse to the absolute, unchanging, and good character of
but also explains people’s inability to fully live up to that
God in order to make philosophical sense.” 4
same code. The first violation of the moral code by humanity
17