Welcome to Apologists for Christ
Articles: Morality from What?

Home | Debates | Classic Quotes | Rodney's Reflections | Controversial Issues | Cults | insights | Movie and Game Reviews | Music Reviews | Articles | Why Greasy Theologian? | Links | Yo Nick!

Nick P.

Why is it that so many who hold to the evolutionist view believe that an amoral process resulting in immoral creatures led to a moral law?

I don't know how many times now I have heard a skeptic say to me that September 11th is proof that God doesn't exist. A thought occurs to me though. The first thing is that a problem of evil is being admitted right away.

Ravi Zacharias tells of a student who stood up in a lecture he was given and shouted "There's too much evil in the world! God can't exist!" Ravi asked him to stay standing for a little while. This would only take a moment.

He said "When you are saying that evil exists are you not admitting such a thing as good?" The student thought and said he guessed so. Ravi continued, "And are you not then saying there is a moral law on which to differentiate the two?"

He reminded him of the debate between Frederick Copleston and the atheistic philosopher Bertrand Russell. At one point Mr. Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and bad. Russell said, "Of course I do."

Copleston asked him how he told the difference and Russell replied, "The same way I know yellow from blue." Copleston said "You know the difference between those by seeing. How do you know the difference between good and bad?" Russell said "By my feelings. Ravi goes on to say Copleston was gentler than most. The logical kill for the moment would be "Mr. Russell. In some cultures they love their neighbors. In others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. To which do you have a preference?"

Returning to his student he said, "So if there is a moral law aren't you saying there is a moral law giver? If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no recognizable good. If there is no recognizable good, there is no recognizable evil. Thus, you are using evil to disprove that which you are trying to prove. What was your question?"

The student stammered for awhile and said, "What then, was I asking you?"

Evil is clearly the problem Copleston, Russell, Zacharias, and this student all had to deal with. In some cultures, they will deny evil exists and say it is an illusion. If so, then there is nothing to complain about and you might as well have evil than good because good would be an illusion also.

The atheistic side will take an event like September 11th and say, if there is a good God, how could such evil happen? I would like to look at that point from the ground perspective though.

I would like to bring us back to the collapse of the first building where afterwards the firemen rushed into the second one. They surely knew they were heading for certain death. Now let me ask the question, if there is no God, how do you explain so much good?

Is this the result of evolution? How can this be. Evolution teaches Survival of the Fittest. Thus, it's everyone for himself and only the fittest survive. The order goes as follows. Self first. Offspring next. Then the rest of the world.

However, these men were willing to sacrifice themselves, no doubt having families behind, because strangers they didn't even know were in need of their assistance. How can such a thing be explained by evolutionary standards?

In fact, self-sacrifice goes totally against evolutionary standards but it fits in perfectly with the Christian worldview. In fact, in Christianity, our God made his own self-sacrifice. The order is reversed for us and fits what happened.

For the Christian, the world comes first. Saving that which is lost is of utmost importance. Then, we care for our own families. Finally, our own selves come last. We are to consider others greater than ourselves. No greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

The evolutionary system has no guiding moral agent but somehow claims to have produced morality. The evolutionary system says the strongest outlast the weakest and overpowers them but they say murder and rape are wrong. Wouldn't these be natural?

But the evolutionary view contradicts itsself. There is no good standard by which the evolutionary view can base it's standards. When they say something is evil, we can say "Who says?"

Are they saying society? Who says your society is right? Who gives it that authority? Do you believe right and wrong are subjective? Fine. Next time the police officer pulls you over for speeding tell him you think you weren't doing anything wrong and that's your standard and see how well that works.

But society does have standards, and we all know it rather we choose to admit it or not. We know we shouldn't lie. We know we shouldn't murder. We know we shouldn't steal. Why? Because God has placed these on our conscience.

Yes. Every worldview has its problems and Christianity has numerous ways of explaining the problem of evil as I have shown. How can the other side explain the paradox of good?

Comments? Suggestions? Questions? (Insults were due yesterday.)

God bless.

Email the author