The Moral Consequence of the Theory of Evolution

Posted on May 18, 2010 by
Filed Under Evolution/Creation, What I'm Studying... | Leave a Comment |

The debate about human origins has raged since before the time of Charles Darwin.  In modern times, the battle lines have been drawn between evolution and creationism.  Much can certainly be written on those subjects, but this article will focus on the moral consequences of accepting the theory of evolution to be true.

While many may come to the conclusion that evolution is true based on an examination of the evidence, there are many others that come to believe in evolution because they like the moral implications of the theory. There are only two possibilities for the origin of our universe, and consequently the origin of mankind.  Either evolution is correct, and all that we see came from non-living sources, or creation is correct and there is an all powerful being that brought what we see into being.  The moral consequences of these two theories are drastically different.  If there is a creative being, then there is an obligation placed upon the creation to seek out His will and be obedient to Him.  His will defines a standard of morality for us.  If there is no creative being, then there is no standard of morality.

Many people probably have never thought about the moral consequences of the theory of evolution.  The theory has been taught as fact for many years, and has been taught as a solely scientific theory, without concern for how the theory affects the lives of people.  But, if we consider the decline of morality in the world around us, it is not a great leap to conclude that there is a connection with the prevalence of the teaching of evolution.  If mankind came from nothing, then he answers to no one.  This conclusion has been acknowledged by some evolutionists.  Aldous Huxley, in his book Confessions of a Professed Atheist, wrote:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption…The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do…for myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation.  The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.  We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.” (1966, as quoted in Creation Compromises, 2nd Edition, by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.)

The point, made by Huxley, is that a world that has evolved is a world without meaning.  It is a world of chance, of happenstance.  If that be the case, then there is no one who can impose a standard of morality upon anyone else.  In fact, if evolution is true, then most of the laws governing morality today are completely contrary to the theory itself!  How did mankind come to the point of instituting any form of morality, especially one that contradicts the very method of preservation according to evolution?

On the other hand, society is constantly moving toward developing laws that reflect a belief that there is no absolute standard of morality.  These laws seem to coincide with the acceptance evolution as factual, rather than as a theory.  The acceptance of sexual promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality and many other practices show an acceptance of the concept that there is no standard of morality.  If it is taught that all men came from the evolutionary process, then why should it be surprising that society has begun the process of codifying the belief system into the penal code?

Considering the fact that evolution is taught in school systems from the time children are very young, it is not surprising to see that there is a moral decline among school age children.  The number of violent atrocities enacted by young people today is most distressing.  Why do students now seem to strike out against others so much more frequently than 40 or 50 years ago?  Most likely, it is because they have learned the lesson that has been taught so often:  there is no God, and therefore no morality.  If they believe that they are a cosmic accident, then what is the problem with either harming others or harming one’s self?  This is the foundation of the humanistic belief that one can (and perhaps should) do whatever pleases himself.  If man is only the end result of an evolutionary process, then why should any one individual care about the welfare of another?

Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” would lead men to compete for superiority, and reject any concept of “care” for another person.  Power and might are the most important characteristics, and exercising them proves that superiority.  Add to that the teaching that procreation is vital to the strength of the most fit of the species, and sexual promiscuity runs rampant.  Is it any wonder that teen pregnancy is out of control?

Darwin’s evolutionary theory bears far more significance than just the scientific doctrine would imply.  There are most definitely moral implications to the theory.  It removes any moral responsibility, and sense of obligation to others.  It makes it so that a person answers to no one except others in the society, and forces the general populace towards a “situation ethics” mentality.  As long as society approves of a practice, that is all that matters.  There is no absolute truth, no definite right or wrong.  If there is no God, there can be no absolute standard of morality, and if evolution is true, there is no God.  The propagation of the theory of evolution has succeeded in removing not only God from most of our society, but has removed morality!

Popularity: 2% [?]

Related Posts:

Comments

Leave a Reply