Moral Implications of Darwinism

For the past two weeks we’ve discussed the relationship between faith and science. Let me progress today to that aspect of the discussion that deals with morality. Are there any moral implications or consequences to Darwinism? What actually gave rise to this discussion with my friend Robert was my suggestion that the mass murders perpetuated under Marxist regimes are a natural consequence of a Darwinist worldview. This charge greatly raised my friend’s hackles, understandably so. It suggests that Darwinism logically and necessarily leads to untold evils. Robert denies this charge. Before we consider my friend’s arguments, however, let me first refer you to an excellent article on this subject entitled “Why Darwinism Matters,” by Nancy R. Pearcey. You can view this at http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_dcpolicy0500.htm . It will put to rest any doubts regarding the moral, intellectual, educational, political, philosophical, social, and religious implications of Darwinism. Except for the teachings of Jesus, no philosophy or worldview has had as profound an effect on the world as Darwinism. I maintain that that effect has been wholly negative.

One does not have to be a genius to realize that Darwinism destroys any basis for morality, for purpose in life, for the value of human life, and even for the very existence of truth. If we are but animals, the result of chance mutations in a wholly material world, then human life has no real meaning, nor does it have any value beyond that of a worm or a slug. The theory of evolution is based on the idea that an individual organism’s only purpose is to pass on its genes for the survival of the species. Darwinists contend, by the way, that this even provides a biological justification for rape. They are correct, for if evolution is true there can be no such thing as right or wrong, only beneficial adaptation (see Pearcey’s article). One cannot declare the Holocaust either wrong or imprudent, but only an evolutionary adaptation. It is this very worldview that has given rise to the field of eugenics, as well as the impetus for abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.

Darwinists attempt to argue, however, that we have developed moral principles in order to benefit ourselves as a species (e.g., it is beneficial to raise “good” kids), but the argument is faulty in several ways. First, Darwinism teaches the survival of the most fit (the strongest), not the most congenial or most “good.” Those groups of humans who can obtain the most power would do better to do away with individuals or races that are weaker or more dependent (i.e., the competition). Second, even if one could argue that it is beneficial to be “good” to others, how could you define “good”? Is “good” based on some idea of morality, or simply on pragmatics (who wins out)? And even if one could define “good,” he wouldn’t be able to define “right” and “wrong.” Simply put, Hitler’s policies, from a Darwinist point of view, would have been “good” if only the Christian world would have let him carry them out. Stalin’s cleansing policies were likewise “good.” In the animal world, it is always good to cull the weaker individuals and out-compete the competition. But in the animal world there is no “right” or “wrong,” no “morality.” Since we are but animals, Hitler would have been right if he had succeeded. In Darwinism, “success” is the only measure of what is “right” or “good.”

Robert claims, however, that any 6^th grader knows that more people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other purpose. He says, “Anyone with even 6^th grade history background will understand that Christians and Muslims have been responsible for more torture, oppression, and genocide than any other groups in the last 2000 years. Have you heard of the Crusades or the Inquisition? In Hitler's Germany and in other European countries during World War II, the collection and murder of the Jews was made possible by many hundreds of years of Christian programming (sic) within the populace ('Hitlers Willing Executioners' by D.J. Goldhagen) against the Jews who murdered Christ.” Of course, if Darwinism is true, there is nothing wrong with that, for all that murder in the name of religion would only be another natural result of the evolutionary process, an adaptation of the human species. The reality is, however, that there is just no comparison between the “evil” (murder, killing, genocide, oppression) committed in the name of “Christ” versus that done in the name of Atheistic Darwinism. (I’ll not argue about what has been done in the name of “religion” in general, since I am not defending “religion,” only Christianity in its true, original form as taught in the Bible).Let’s compare the statistics of the murder/mayhem performed by Christians vs. that performed in the name of atheism.

The only significant amount of killing performed under the guise of Christianity occurred during the middle ages, with the Roman Catholic Crusades and Inquisitions, and carried on somewhat by the Reformationists (I’ll deal with Hitler’s motives shortly). Historians shows that the number of dead at the hands of “Christians” throughout history totals to about 264,000 (http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing,%20Christianity,%20and%20Atheism.pdf). And even at that, it is plainly obvious to anyone who has read the New Testament that these events were perversions of the teachings of Christ. Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies and pray for them, to bless those who persecute them, to go the extra mile and turn the other cheek, to do good unto all men. And this is what his followers have always done, the exceptional perversion notwithstanding. Further, the so-called Christian wars and killings occurred over a relatively short period of time, long after the time of Christ. For the vast majority of the 2000 years of Christianity, Christians have been characterized as peaceable people who go out and perform loving acts in emulation of their Master.

What about atheism and Darwinism? This worldview (in this form at least) has existed for only a little over 150 years, and less than that as a dominant worldview. What has been the result? To find the answer, we need only look to those political/economic/social systems that have been founded upon atheistic Darwinism: Marxism/Lennism and the former Soviet Union (more than 43,000 million murdered), communist China (38 million murdered), Cuba, smaller communist regimes, and Hitler’s “Third Reich” (6-10 million murdered). I must add here that Robert categorizes Hitler’s murders as being done in the name of religion, even Christianity, but Hitler’s eugenics was based on Darwin’s principles of Survival of the Most Fit, and at best Hitler greatly discouraged religion. Even if Hitler based his policies on “religion,” any 6^th grader who has read the Bible knows it has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ (regardless of what the public schools teach). On the other hand, no one can argue that the aforementioned atheistic social systems were in any way a perversion of Darwinism. They were only doing what Darwin himself recognized was the natural result of his teaching (again, see Pearcey’s article). So what is the score of atheism vs. Christianity?

A perverted, so-called Christianity: 264,000 killed over a period of 2000 years.
Consistent atheistic Darwinism: 141 million killed in less than 100 years (almost 50% of all people killed in all of recorded history!) (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)

Darwin wins 534:1! And Darwinism has barely gotten started! Nor have we even mentioned the roughly 50 million aborted babies in American alone since Roe vs. Wade, nor the one billion in atheist China, all a result of a naturalistic, Darwinistic worldview (the Bible opposes abortion, Darwinism supports it).

On the other side of the coin, how much good has been done in the name of atheism as opposed to that done in the name of religion (specifically “Christianity”)? How many hospitals, medical missionary programs, food distribution programs, poverty relief programs, addiction recovery programs, outreach missions for the homeless, orphan homes, etc. have been established by atheist organizations? You find these in every town and city in the world, and almost always established by Christians. Jesus taught his followers to go out and do good, visit those in prison, help those who are sick, lift up those who are weak, defend the orphan and widow and helpless. Billions of dollars are donated every year by average (often poor) Christians to help others they do not even know. Are there any atheist organizations doing these things? Perhaps helping the fur seals and laboratory rats (think of PITA), but not humans.

Further, how many lives have been transformed for good by Darwinism? How many drug addicts and alcoholics have recovered by turning to Darwin? How many selfish or violent or prideful individuals have been turned into selfless, peaceable, gentle, humble, loving individuals by Darwin? Does Darwinism teach its followers to “love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5.22f)? Does Darwinism teach its adherents to “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (Eph 4.32)? Millions upon millions of people have dramatically changed their lives after turning to Christ. Can the same be said of people who have turned away from Christ to Darwin? (I must qualify here that I know there are professing Christians that are intolerable, selfish, prideful, hateful bigots, but I am talking about those who have truly turned to Christ and the Bible, not to “Christianity” – there’s a difference.)

Now, all this is not to suggest that all Darwinists are evil, murderous, oppressors of the weak. There are many in this country who are fine human beings, my good friend Robert being one of them. To Robert’s credit, he donates thousands of dollars and his own time to charitable works. But I suggest that Robert is not living according to the principles of Darwin, but rather living on the shirt-tails of the Christian worldview that has dominated the society in which he was raised. Since America is historically a nation founded by Christians and for most of our history our culture has been based on a Biblical worldview, even atheists in this country will have morals similar to those of Christians. That is simply because most people adopt the morals of the society in which they live. My friend Robert , without realizing it, may simply be a “Christian” in his morals, even if he is a Darwinist in his faith. But for how many generations will that continue? The further any society progresses into atheism, the more immoral it becomes (see comment posted by Gardner Hall, March 27th). And as America has become increasingly secular, postmodern, and Darwinist, the daily news testifies to the results.

On a sidenote, Ben Stein (lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author, social commentator, and general all-around smart guy who happens to have a home in Sandpoint) is releasing a movie entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which blows the whistle on the suppression of views critical of Darwinism. You can see a trailer at http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ . It will be opening in CDA at the Riverstone on April 18th.