“Morality” is briefly described in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and evil behaviour”, and “ system of values and moral principles”. The Brazilian Portuguese dictionary compiled by Houaiss goes further by defining it as “a set of individual or collective values, universally considered to be the guide of social relations and human conduct”, and, philosophically, as “each of the variable systems of laws and values studied by ethics, characterized by organising the life of multiple human communities, differentiating and defining outlawed, discouraged, permitted or ideal behaviour.”
Seen through the obscure lenses of the theories of evolution, morality is a very difficult problem: there is no way to get to its origin in a logical form, although having to admit as reality the concept of “good” and “evil” which distinguishes human beings from all animals.
There is no plausible explanation for the origin of morality through evolution, no matter how many “zeros” are added to the time it might take. Let us see some arguments used by atheists:
“I believe in the distinction between what is right (good) and wrong (evil) and I also believe in evolution, so it is obvious that they are compatible.” But this does not make sense because it is possible, and often happens, to believe in what is false. It is necessary to know the reality, not just a belief, even it is of the majority. Morality cannot be justified by evolution.
“The standards of what is right or wrong may be adopted by people.” But if each person can create his own standards of what is right or wrong, then no one can accuse someone else of doing wrong, because he can devise his own morality code. For example, someone could set for himself a morality code in which it is legitimate to commit murder. It might disturb us, but how could we condemn him for doing evil when he murders someone, if morality is only a choice of a personal standard of behaviour? The same happens when the standard is the free choice of a group, society or nation. It would not be possible to judge the fairness of law, for example.
“Good is that which the majority is happy with.” This is a standard artificially adopted for an objective, contentment of the majority, and this in turn is something subjective, indefinable, which varies between people. If we are all the result of chemical accidents, as evolutionists claim, what makes us care for the well-being of others? It makes no sense to an atheist.
If human beings are just the unavoidable result of the laws of physics and chemistry over time, how can people have a real choice of over what they do? If decisions are simply determined by electrochemical reactions in the brain, which in turn would be only the result of billions of errors made randomly over time when copying DNA, how could we then blame anybody for their decisions?
After all, we do not blame the planet Venus for turning backwards. We are not indignant with sodium bicarbonate because it reacts with vinegar. This is only what necessarily happens in the universe in compliance with natural laws. Then why would an evolutionist be outraged at what a human being does to another, if all of us are no more than complex chemical reactions? After all, what an animal does to another is morally irrelevant.
Perhaps the atheist will say that morality is what the majority decides it should be. But this definition has the same defects as the above opinions. It transfers an unjustified view of a single person to a group, and so is arbitrary and may lead to absurd conclusions. For example, Hitler managed to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right; also Mussolini and Stalin chose a morality code in which mass murder was perfectly acceptable. According to their definition of morality, atheists and evolutionists are obliged to say that what they did was good.
Note that the dictionaries define morality as “a set of … values, universally considered to be the guide”. In an atheist evolutionist world, successive polls would be needed for each of these values throughout the world in order to reach a set to be used as a guide of social behaviour and human conduct. The concepts of what is right or wrong would not be more than the result of an evaluation of personal preferences of the majority of the population of the world - something which is unattainable, much less unanimity.
Outside biblical creation, morality has no justification. Although atheists will distinguish good actions from evil ones, they have no consistent basis for defining what is right or wrong.
Indeed, many evolutionists make it clear that evolution does not provide any basis for morality. The eminent evolutionist and professor of biology William Provine of Cornell University in U.S.A., when talking about the implications of Darwinism, stated that there is no fundamental basis for ethics, no fundamental significance for life, and freewill is a human myth. If evolution were true, there could not be a universal morality code acceptable to all people.
Also Steven Weinberg, evolutionist and professor of physics of the University of Texas, U.S.A., Nobel Prize laureate, said: I believe that the historic mission of science has been to teach us that we are not toys of supernatural intervention, that we can find our own way in the universe, and that we must find our own sense of morality. Again, if morality is determined by us, then it is not justified to compile a universal moral code that everybody must comply with.
The Bible not only explains morality, but also the reason why evolutionists behave so. Even those who have no grounds for it within their atheistic point of view believe in a morality code; this is because in the depth of their hearts they know that the God of creation really exists, despite their claims to the contrary. Scripture tells us that everyone knows the biblical God, but that they suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21).
In short, if there were not a creator God, Who inspired and gave us his Word, good and evil would be reduced to mere personal preferences, and this would be the origin of morality.
it is essential to consider Genesis literally, under a Christian point of view.
Although the majority of people do not admit it, the model of morality and the rules of justice outlined by humanity in general have their origin and basis in the Bible, specifically in the literal history of the book of Genesis. The Bible claims to be the only Word of God revealed to men (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, Galatians 1:8). The Bible tells us that God is the Creator of all things and, therefore, all things belong to Him (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 24:1). Thus, God as the Creator has the right to define absolute standards of behaviour.
Genesis not only justifies the existence of the morality code, but also explains the inability of people to fully comply with this code. The first violation of the morality code for humanity was the disobedience of Adam and Eve to God by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17; 3:6). The Bible teaches that rebellious (sinful) nature is inherited: parents pass it on to their descendants. Thus, everyone has in their nature a tendency to sin (a tendency to rebel against God) because all are descendants of Adam and Eve who committed the first sin (Romans 5:12; Galatians 5:17).
The sin of Adam resulted in the curse of all things and all creation began to suffer the effects of the curse since then (Romans 8:22-23). Thus, a literal understanding of Genesis explains why people are “immoral” to begin with, as well as the “natural evils” in our world. Regrettably the world prefers to stay in spiritual darkness rather than to have its evil actions exposed to light (John 3:19). As Adam tried to hide from the presence of God (Genesis 3:8), so also do his descendants. But the solution to sin is not suppression; it is confession and repentance (1 John 1:9). Christ is faithful to forgive whosoever shall call on His Name (Romans 10:13).
Nearly everybody believes that people should behave in a certain way: that there is a moral code. However, in order that morality might have any meaning, the Bible and a literal Genesis must be true. Since God created human beings, He determines what is right and wrong, and we are responsible to Him for our actions.
We must, therefore, conclude that the evolutionists are inconsistent (irrational) when they talk of morality. Like many other things we have in the world, the existence of morality confirms that creation is a biblical truth.