December 15, 2015

WHEN Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, some prominent people expressed concern about its impact. Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle and Cambridge geologist Professor Adam Sedgwick both feared that humanity would be brutalized and degraded. Sedgwick described The Origin as ‘a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up…to make us independent of a Creator.”1


It is beyond dispute that the widespread acceptance of evolution has caused multitudes of people to reject belief in God. Yet how many people would really like to live in a world that was run on Darwinian lines? Most people have not considered the logical outcome of evolution, but the rot has already set in, and Judaeo-Christian moral principles have been seriously undermined. Evolutionist Dr Will Durrant summed it up perfectly: “By offering evolution in place of God as a cause of history, Darwin removed the theological basis of the moral code of Christendom. And the moral code that has no fear of God is very shaky. That’s the condition we’re in.”2


 Well-known Christian philosopher and writer Dr Francis Schaeffer warned:  “If man is not made in the image of God, nothing then stands in the way of inhumanity. There is no good reason why mankind should be perceived as special. Human life is cheapened.”3 Whatever “theistic evolutionists” say, if we evolved from ape-like ancestors then we can’t also be made in God’s image, and the implications of this have not been lost to many people.

  Dr. Peter Singer (who believes that great apes should be granted human rights), argues that the boundary between human and "animal" is completely arbitrary and that the notion of the sanctity of life ought to be discarded as outdated, unscientific, and irrelevant..4   Singer also believes that "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."5  When asked what a woman should do if her unborn baby had Down’s Syndrome, well-known evolutionist Professor Richard Dawkins advised: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” After a backlash, Dawkins said he would not apologise “for approaching moral philosophic questions in a logical way”. 6


On what basis do Professor Dawkins and other atheists judge what is moral, without an external reference point?  Darwin, who thought it was a mistake to help the poor, weak and sick, wrote, “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”7 What a wonderful excuse for all rapists, adulterers, paedophiles, criminals, despots and tyrants!

  Yet even Professor Dawkins doesn’t want to live in a Darwinian society (see box). He wants to have his cake and eat it — evolution without its consequences! Whether he admits it or not, he really wants us to be governed by those Judaeo-Christian moral principles which his own beloved theory denies.

 Evolution is incompatible with the teaching of Jesus, who told us to care for the weak and helpless. He said, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7: 18). The fruit of evolution is rotten, and this “tree” needs uprooting!

  1. Ronald Clark, The Survival of Charles Darwin,

    Random House, New York, 1984, p. 139.

  1. Chicago Tribune, April 1980.
  2. Whatever Happened to the Human Race. 1979. p. 153.
  3. Practical Ethics, 1993.
  4. Wikipedia article, accessed 10/11/2015.
  5. The Guardian 21st. August 2014
  6. Life and Letters, 1887

Recommended reading:

“The Extinction of Evolution”

by Darek Isaacs

Copyright © 2023 | Website built by Worldwide Webdesign | All right reserved