A Question I Was Asked:



Has Darwinism Really Led to An Immoral Society?

After-Birth "Abortions" Should be Considered Say Oxford "Experts"






As time goes by, atheistic evolutionary 'ethics' and psychology gets more and more bold. Just a few days ago a panel attached to Oxford University advocated extending abortion to include newborn babies. Their reasoning (although they never used the precise words) was something like, 'well, since abortion is to kill a child, why not extend it to newborns in some cases.' Don't forget: this was not a group of mindless terrorists who stated this, but a panel of highly respectable (or, so we are told), 'serious' university-associated 'experts.'

The Question:

You wrote somewhere that modern society is 'inherently immoral because of the acceptance of Darwinism.' Can you broaden that out? What examples are there? I doubt that your argument can be sustained.


UK Apologetics Reply:

Wow, where does one start? Examples absolutely abound! If one goes back to the days in which children were taught Sunday School, and even many older people who were not churchgoers would readily agree that 'men and women were created in God's image,' you start to see how things have changed. Within British society, especially, the reason for the demise in the moral fibre of the British people can be substantially placed at two doors:

1. The rise and influence of atheistic Darwinism.

2. The failure of the church to stand up for its beliefs.

The Church (established and non-comformist alike), has not valiantly stood up for Christian beliefs. No case has been persuasively made for the positive and moral influence of Christianity upon society. No case has been presented for how those who are influenced by Christianity tend to lead better, more fulfilling, lives. That is, how crime is less, how peace of mind is greater. How unselfish Christian principles of outgoing love and concern for others makes everybody feel more secure. A strong case could have been made for all of this, but the church - and too many Christian-professing people - have shrunk back, strangely losing confidence in their beliefs.

I am not saying that - in this present world and society - a wholehearted support for Christian teaching coming from national leaders would make a perfect society. It would not, these things take time, but - in general - our society would improve, with less greed, less suicide, less work for "personal counsellors," psychologists and psychiatrists alike, less cheating on tax, less sexual immorality, more contentment and peace of mind. But the effect would be cumulative - things would not dramatically change overnight. Exactly the same way in which the descent in terms of morals, character and what one might call 'moral fibre' was gradual, from the moment that Christianity was replaced as the great British worldview and paradigm by Darwinism. It was a slippery slope. Things could only get worse.

Darwinism had already been taught in schools for perhaps 30-50 years when Britain legalized abortion. It did not happen in a vacuum; in a former Christianized society, abortionists were probably close to being the most hated group of all people. I well recall my parent's response to a TV feature about 'backstreet abortionists' back in the 1950s: they were utterly scathing that such people could even exist. For my parents, the very idea that one could decide to destroy a child in the womb was evil beyond belief. My parents were not churchgoers but strongly influenced by a society which (at that time) supported Christian values. But - bring in Darwinism - and things start to change: suddenly we are not made in the image of God, rather, the human family only exists as a result of numerous random chemical processes - no mind, design or creation behind any of it, just millions of random, godless, blind, meaningless processes. Is anybody seriously going to tell me that the acceptance of such a thing makes no difference to the reasonings and motivations of evil men? Hitler, Marx and Mao Tse Tung all pointed to the teaching of evolution as a justification for their (failed) philosophies and the mayhem which their followers caused in the 20th century! After all, if man is not made in the image of God, why not just round up your enemies and kill them? There is no God to judge you! Just as long as your enemies are weaker than you, just go ahead and kill them, indeed, is this not simply "the survival of the fittest"? Does not evolution teach that the strong deserve to survive? Does it not teach that it is good when weaker elements are eliminated?

if man is not made in the image of God, why not just round up your enemies and kill them? There is no God to judge you! Just as long as your enemies are weaker than you, just go ahead and kill them, indeed, is this not simply 'the survival of the fittest'? Does not evolution teach that the strong deserve to survive? Does it not teach that it is good when weaker elements are eliminated?

I have said it before and I will say it again: Darwinism directly led to the wholesale human slaughter of the 20th century. Never forget the willingness of some of the most evil tyrants of the century to quote Darwin!

Victorian society was not perfect and I will not pretend that it was, but the widespread Victorian acceptance that Christian principles were the best ordering factor of human life, protected society from numerous evils, and they were great reformers - Christian reformers - and started to strive for a fairer, more just society. Their hunger for social reform was driven - not by deluded and atheistic liberal 'principles' - but by pure Christianity in action. Today we tend not to give the great Victorian reformers any credit at all; we should.

A survey of the attitudes of young unmarried British women was conducted something like two years ago. It revealed that the typical young British woman now views sexual intercourse as a 'recreational' thing; that is, one of several ways in which one might spend an entertaining evening, on the level of such things as going to watch a movie, listening to a few DVDs, going for a jog, or attending a dinner party. But I have no doubt that if asked the question about 75 years ago, most young women would have stated that the only place for sexual love was as an expression of true love, ideally within marriage. Why the change? A recent newspaper report might give a clue. It stated that parents no longer teach their children good moral values at home but tend to leave any such teaching to the schools; this is an abdication of responsibility! Bearing in mind that most all schools teach mindless Darwinism (not carefully, not with great discernment, but wholeheartedly - teachers can get into big trouble if they challenge evolution in the classroom), we start to see where the problems are coming from, for Darwinism has effectively replaced Christian morals and ethical standards. Why? Because although claiming itself to be "science," Darwinism has come to pervade everything; it is accepted at a society-wide level. Where there is no God, morals become pretty much meaningless, just a sort of device to get people do what you may want them to. But - we are told - all things are relative. What is good for one man will be bad for another. The concept of 'Truth' as an eternally consistent value is now laughed at! It is considered very old-fashioned reasoning. For some men, to cheat may be bad, but for others, it is good; stealing may be bad, but for some it is entirely justified! This sort of reasoning would have been condemned by all just 50 years ago, now it is seriously proposed - not just by fraudsters, charlatans and gangsters - but by 'serious' middle-class educators!

As time goes by, atheistic evolutionary "ethics" and psychology gets more and more bold. Just a few days ago a panel attached to Oxford University advocated extending abortion to include newborn babies. Their reasoning (although they never used the precise words) was something like, 'well since abortion is to kill a child, why not extend it to newborns in some cases.' Don't forget: this was not a group of mindless terrorists who stated this, but a panel of highly respectable (or, so we are told), 'serious' university-associated "experts." If I gave out Christian leaflets during a 'gay' meeting, I could be arrested and taken in for questioning, as I could be for giving out Christian leaflets outside a mosque, but I guarantee that those Oxford "experts" will not be visited by the police for suggesting that, in certain cases, it would be fine to end the life of a newborn baby.
It was said a long time ago that the mark of a truly great and civilised society is how it protects its weakest people: unborn babies in the womb are just that, the weakest, and they need protection, but our "enlightened" modern societies think they are unimportant, it's a 'mother's right to choose,' whether to let her child live. It's not convenient? Well, just extinguish the child, don't worry about it, after all, there is no God to bring one into judgment (strangely, it's not a father's right to choose and babies are now often aborted against the father's wishes).

So you put together Modernism (man has all abilities, science has all the answers), its evil child of Darwinism (which always was much more of an anti-God, naturalistic philosophy than anything else, for its "science" is shot through with holes), the failure of the church (at all levels) to stand up for Christian values, and now Post-modernism as well (words can mean anything you want them to - it's up to the individual) and you see where we currently are. We are in a mess, let us be honest about this.
Robin A. Brace. March 10th, 2012.


UK APOLOGETICS HOME