One of today’s cover stories for The
Mercury, a Hobart newspaper, is entitled “Bashed
cop speaks out.” The off duty constable went to the aid of a lady who had
been hit and kicked by a thug. Three men then proceeded to beat the police
officer until they were informed whom they were beating. It is the third time
in eighteen months that this officer has been attacked. It is a shameful act of
cowardice on behalf of the assailants. Constable Blegg commented that; “so many
excuses are made for people. Blame this or that but it's the individual who has
got to be accountable.”[1]
He is correct; we live in a society wherein individual responsibility is almost
a thing of the past. This should force us to ask why that is. For what reason
do people in our “peaceful” city/state believe that is ok to bash someone? As
Christians we need to jump onto the unbelieving worldview for a moment. It is
important to realise that ideas have consequences. Ideologies lead to a
conclusion.
So let us very briefly jump onto an
unbelieving philosophy or worldview. If we accept the evolutionary view of the
world we must immediately realise that there are no absolutes. Well, sort of.
There are usually two types of assumed absolutes. Firstly, there are absolutely
no absolutes. Notice that this assertion is an absolute decree, spiralling down
the funnel of vicious circular argumentation. Secondly, as asserted by the Atheist
Foundation of Australia; the “scientific method…[is]…the only rational means
toward understanding reality.”[2]
Again, do you see how the unbeliever asserts that the “scientific method” is
the “only rational” tool to be used in understanding reality? This argument
simply begs the question; in other words, “show me the empirical evidence for the assertion!”
All philosophies come with their baggage. The skeletons that the
unbelieving/atheistic worldviews bury in their cupboard are no small piece to
their view of reality. Now, atheism uses the theory of evolution as it’s
scientific henchman. Anything that does not agree with the theory is
unscientific and can’t possibly be rational! We will ignore this fallacious
argumentation for another day. What we need to explore is the linkage between
unbelief, evolution and violence.
If we accept the theory of evolution as the standard for all scientific
verification there are astounding consequences. Christopher Hitchens, in
his debate with Pastor Douglas Wilson, asserts that human morality is
innate and over time it has evolved to what we have today. By the very nature
of the case this argument precludes the idea of an absolute truth to which we are held accountable. But what Hitchens
cannot see is that it therefore must also preclude the idea of evil or
unethical behaviour. This is the very heart of the problem for the unbeliever.
If there is no Law above the law then anything conceivable to the human mind
could be judged subjetively good, wholesome and truthful. This position is simply absurd. But it
is consistent with every unbelieving worldview that stands upon the sand of
evolutionary theory.
Constable Blegg has framed his assertion incorrectly. What happened to him is
truly terrible, upon the Christian world and life view. What happened to him is
shameful and disgusting, within Biblical morality. But what happened to him is
perfectly consistent within an unbelieving evolutionary framework. If we
continue to teach our children that we are simply evolved animals, the highest
evolved sack of atoms out of the primordial soup, then what do we expect them
to grow up to be like? Ideas or theories, over the long run, produce actions. Well, by God’s common grace most people do not live out
the full potential of their unbelieving worldview. They are restrained from
living consistently with the lynchpin evolutionary principle “survival of the
fittest.”
As believers we must recognise the nature of the debate. The argument is not
that X is terrible and Y is wonderful. We need to become more child like;
asking why (on your worldview) is X terrible and Y wonderful? Do not allow the
unbeliever the assumption of moral absolutes when their life philosophy does not
allow for them. Dig under their thin veneer of morality to find out the basis
for their moral assumptions. If evolution is true then the bashing of this
policeman was simply the “fit” thumping the “unfit.” If we assume we are
animals then what happened to this man is an example of animal pack mentality,
the powerful banding together to prey on a threat to their dominance. The only logical answer to the morality question is found in the pages of Scripture. The Gospel is powerful. Christianity lived consistently transforms not only individuals but also families, societies and nations to the glory of God and the good of mankind. Unbelief does not. Just count the stats of last century's communist/socialist murders. These ideologies are simply unbelief lived to its logical conclusions. Thank God for His restraining common grace. The world would truly be an absolute ugly place without it.
So, what form of morality does teaching evolution in our schools produce in society? And why would any Christian parent send their child to be trained at our Government (and "Christian") schools in an unbelieving philosophy? I'll let you answer these questions.
One of today’s cover stories for The
Mercury, a Hobart newspaper, is entitled “Bashed
cop speaks out.” The off duty constable went to the aid of a lady who had
been hit and kicked by a thug. Three men then proceeded to beat the police
officer until they were informed whom they were beating. It is the third time
in eighteen months that this officer has been attacked. It is a shameful act of
cowardice on behalf of the assailants. Constable Blegg commented that; “so many
excuses are made for people. Blame this or that but it's the individual who has
got to be accountable.”[1]
He is correct; we live in a society wherein individual responsibility is almost
a thing of the past. This should force us to ask why that is. For what reason
do people in our “peaceful” city/state believe that is ok to bash someone? As
Christians we need to jump onto the unbelieving worldview for a moment. It is
important to realise that ideas have consequences. Ideologies lead to a
conclusion.
