Evolution and Moral Relativism

When someone claims to not have a philosophy of life (worldview from presuppositions and axioms), just ask a few questions. You'll find out that yes, they do have a worldview. Everybody has one, even if they haven't written it down in a journal or something. A big part of that worldview is the question of right and wrong. An atheist or evolutionist cannot give a coherent reason for saying that torturing children for fun is wrong, but the Bible-believing Christian has a consistent foundation to oppose it. The atheopath who goes haywire with trolling and bullying biblical creationists on teh interwebs because creationists are "evil" and "liars" — that ornery cuss cannot say why his actions are "good" and creationists are bad, except for his opinion, culture, and relativism — a justification for "morality" that goes up in smoke.

Image generated at fodey.com

Secular scientists and their sycophantic press make proclamations about right and wrong, but contradict themselves with moral relativism. Notice that the secularists are trying to justify homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, and so on are using a leftist perspective? No room for the Creator who gave us the final source for morality in their paradigm! Trying to give a basis for morality from evolution, culture, societal trends, and so forth is ridiculous.

If morality evolves, then why do some scientists cast judgment?

Science reporters occasionally make the case for moral relativism: the idea that moral judgments can vary from culture to culture, depending on what the people in a culture were taught is right or wrong. Live Science, for instance, teaches that “Right or Wrong: How You Judge Others Depends on Your Culture.” But in other articles, they will promote abortion rights, gay rights and other moral questions in an absolutist manner. . .

To read the rest of this insightful but relatively short article, click on "Science Cannot Defend Moral Relativism".