On the moral consequences of evolution

Every time a Christian claims that evolution has the disastrously fascistic ethical implications of eugenics and ethnic cleansing, they achieve nothing but to endorse and perpetuate the disastrous atheistic myth that science can, on its own, give us moral truths.

Science can do nothing of the sort, and that it can is a myth born out of a naturalistic worldview as it bends over backwards to try to explain morality in the universe.

From a mere scientific, historical description of the manners in which species, including humanity, came to be as they are, one cannot derive any notions of how the human species ought to be or behave. Any arguments to the contrary utilise not reason, but a poetic sophistry of wordplay, treating connotation as definition, and emotion as logic.

Evolution entails neither good nor bad moral consequences. To use such an argument against evolution, is like saving a sinking boat by throwing out the passengers. For we should be much less worried about evolution, than about scientism.

On True Christianity

“Tell me, what is your image of Christianity?

Is it old ladies in hats, perhaps? A sunday school of 6-year-olds singing “I am H-A-P-P-Y”? A couple of nervous pimply students offering you an invitation to a coffee party at the college Christian union?

Is that what puts you off Christianity? That it is all too wet and effeminate?

Or is it the showy professionalism of mass evangelism that antagonises you? That gleaming transatlantic smile that beams down at you from the video relay? The oily sincerity of the soloist as she croons her gospel entertainment? The unscrupulous emotionalism of the appeal, fanned by the humming choirs and tear-stained faces.

Is that what turns you off Christianity?

Maybe it’s the mass evangelistic spectacular, with its glossy advertising and its razzmatazz. Perhaps it is the respectable image of the church that you dislike. Those rows of new cars parked outside each sunday. Those terribly nice people in their frightfully chic outfits, you meet inside. The vicar who talks as if he’s got a plum in his mouth, and those delicate cucumber sandwiches his wife offers you at a tea party.

Is it all too conventional, too middle-class for you, maybe?


You know there’s plenty of so-called Christianity in this world that is pathetically fashionable, superficially showy, and boringly trite. It turns my stomach as well as it turns yours. And I don’t mind it the least if you tell me how much it turns yours.

But the existence of a thousand fakes does not mean there is no such thing as a genuine diamond.

And the Christianity I’m writing to you about is what Jesus talks about in the Bible, and that’s what interests me.”

– Anonymous British theologian, quoted by Ravi Zacharias.

Many atheists uphold scepticism as a virtue, believing that scepticism inherently leads to atheism, or that atheism is by nature a more sceptical position. But we must remember that scepticism, per se, is always scepticism of something.

Atheists are sceptical of theism.

Theists are sceptical of atheism.

It is agnostics who are truly sceptical, as will challenge anyone’s positive claims on the matter at all.

A note on atheist fantasies.

Many Christians, including myself, have made the argument against atheism that if you accept atheism, then you have to forget the idea that life has any meaning. More often than not, this is met with a sort of personal put-down. Something like, “you theists are so immature if you need a god to make life meaningful for you. We [superior] atheists are capable of finding meaning in ourselves.”

While this sentiment might sound smart, there is very little argumentation in it. It is certainly no-where near as rationally convincing as it is repulsively pretentious.

Here’s the problem. Many of these atheists have come to admit that, if there is no god, then life and the universe have no objective meaning; once we’re dead, that’s it – the universe won’t mourn us. But if that’s the case, why would you congratulate yourself for coming up with your own meaning in life?

See, atheists often make the claim against theists that we are living in a fantasy world, that we have invented a supreme deity to help us find purpose and feel better about life, and then they boast in their ability to find meaning without resorting to a god. But if an atheist has conceded that there is no objective meaning in the universe without God, how can he accuse the theist of fantasising by inventing a God for himself? Has not the atheist committed just as inordinate an intellectual transgression by making his own meaning? Must he not admit that his meaning is an outright fabrication that has no ground whatsoever in the real world? Aren’t atheists supposed to be obsessed with cold, hard, objective rationality, and with believing whatever the evidence says, regardless of how they feel? After all, either we exist for a reason, or we don’t. We cannot justly live under the impression that our existence matters for something if the brute fact is that it doesn’t.

The atheist who so proudly makes his own meaning has committed the very same felony he accuses the theist of: he has invented and believed a sentimental notion in order to get him through Monday to Sunday.

At least theists believe that their God actually exists outside of themselves.

It will probably then be argued asserted that there is no evidence for God!

That’s simply not true.

But if it is, then there’s certainly no evidence of meaning.

We must accept the consequences of the worldview we believe.

When I love you and you refuse to love me, I hurt because I have lost something.
When God loves you and you refuse to love God, God hurts because you have lost something.

Ravi Zacharias

James Stewart:

“It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’ The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to subserve his end, not theirs. They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet. They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne. They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in. They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy. They thought they had defeated God with His back the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down. He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”

Steve Turner – Humanist Creed

Who are we? What is our creed?

We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin.

We believe everything is okay as long as you don’t hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt, and the best of your definition of knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during and after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy is okay.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated and you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes, UFOs and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher although we think some of his good morals were basically bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least  the ones that we read were. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, Heaven, Hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the nothing because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.

If death is not the end and the dead have lied then it’s compulsory Heaven for all, excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson; what’s selected is average, what’s average is normal, what’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament, because we believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians will be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good; it’s only his behaviour that lets him down. This is the fault of society, society is the fault of conditions, and conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him and reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust, history will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth, except the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought.


If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky.

And when you hear “state of emergency,” “sniper kills ten,” “youths go looting,” “troops on rampage,” “bomb blasts school,”

It is but the sound of Man worshiping his maker.