Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of Species that “presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution.” Darwin essentially denied that humans were unique and not related to lower life forms. Thus, the discussion is between Genesis Chapters One and Two which explains creation and an evolutionary process that attempts to explain creation. While evolution has many problems pertaining to creation for humans from non-life which somehow magically gained life, there is one aspect of evolution that is seldom discussed, much less mentioned. It is the moral component of life which is the foundation of a stable society.

Evolutionists cannot answer the simple question for the origin of morals. Inanimate objects are neither moral nor immoral; they are amoral. So the question remains for the origin of morality. Suppose for a moment that evolution is fact and was able to cause inanimate objects to progress to a higher state, at what point did morals enter the evolutionary process? Suppose that evolution was able to achieve and perfect the higher state known as humans, then what is the reason that morality has not achieved that higher state? What is the reason that morality does not match the higher state of the evolutionary progression? The obvious answer is that evolution cannot create morality because it has no standard by which behavior can be determined as right or wrong. Such determinations must be left to imperfect humans and that is where the trouble lies in society. Whenever humans are the sole determinates of right and wrong, then there is no standard since each human or group of humans will make the rules that benefit them to the exclusion of other individuals or groups who also want to make rules. The ultimate consequence is a fractured society in which there are no rules of substance that are necessary to help society remain stable, much less prosper.

At the outset of the founding of the Republic of the United States, the founders knew that a foundation created outside of the human experience was needed. They looked to God for their guidance and put in place the principles that the Bible contains. The founders also knew that those principles did no harm to anyone; God’s way rewarded good and punished evil. That is diametrically opposed to evolution because immorality and sin does not exist in the evolutionary system. Since that is true for that system, humans are free to behave in any manner they might choose.  The founders categorically rejected such a system. Evolution and humanism aside, that system is properly called a democracy where the majority determine right and wrong whether it is such or not. The majority makes the final determination for all things through voting on any and all matters. Thus, humans become the sole determinates of what is allowed or not allowed in a society. That effectively shuts out God from having little or no role in what society will do. Rather than society following God’s principles and asking Him what should be done, humans decide for themselves what should be done, and if history tells us anything at all, that which is decided is usually wrong. When that happens, as it has been done throughout the republic’s history, agony for society as a whole is the inevitable result. Yet there will be more than a few who will enjoy the humanistic path, but that is usually those on the dole and government officials.

© 05-17-2013 DEC

                              Next Ungodly Government Part III