Dawkins argues that creation should not be taught since he believes it is false. Now, this begs the question, since the truth or falsity of creation is the issue. But the truly absurd thing about such evolutionary arguments is that they are contrary to evolution! That is, in an evolutionary worldview why is it wrong to lie? particularly if it benefits our survival value? why should people tell the truth?
Even though most people do not acknowledge it, the morality and rules that most humans adhere to have their basis in the Bible, specifically in the literal history of Genesis.
Apart from biblical creation, morality has no justification. 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.
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.” Again, if morality is determined by our own sense, then a universal moral code that all people should follow cannot be justified.
So you might say that standards of right and wrong can be created apart from God. However, this thinking is arbitrary and will lead to absurd conclusions. If everyone can create his or her own morality, then no one can judge the morality of others. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin chose a moral code in which murder was perfectly acceptable.
How can you argue that it is wrong for others to murder if morality is determined by our “own sense” and “no ultimate foundation for ethics” exists? Moral outrage simply does not make sense in an evolutionary universe. Bahnsen states, “Such indignation requires recourse to the absolute, unchanging, and good character of God in order to make philosophical sense.”
Another evolutionist agruement is 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 wholeheartedly 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 something) is correct. Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right, but that does not really make them right.
Without the biblical God and literal Genesis, right and wrong become personal preferences such that “murder is wrong” is equivalent to “blue is my favorite color.” Both are personal opinions and provide no basis for arguing with someone who has a different opinion.
Thus, when evolutionists talk about morality as if it is a real standard, they are being inconsistent with their own worldview.
