We've all heard about the difference between absolute truth and it's polar opposite, subjective truth. The manner in which we determine the significance of truth has a bearing on how we perceive our past, present, and future. Many would agree there are laws, which are immutable – the sun will set and rise again, gravity will have an affect on every object and premeditated murder is wrong.

However, if evolutionary theory is to be considered factual, then we can only conclude that subjective truth is the new standard and absolute truth no longer has a place in enlightened society.

Why?

Evolutionary theory, in a nutshell, states that life began and evolved WITH NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN behind the process. In this theory life began as purely random natural forces developed into a complex earth and inhabitants. These random forces had no purpose or design specifications. If this theory is true, logically one can only assume there is no purpose to life - no real reason for our existence and, in the end, no reason to follow any particular sense of moral law.

Morality comes from the belief that there is a transcendent being, a higher intelligence that set the standards for mankind to live by. These standards are recognized as absolute truths that civilized society has traditionally recognized as 'moral law'.

If someone were to stop you on the street and force you at gunpoint to give up your car, you would likely agree with the nation's courts that a law has been violated.

If someone were to walk into your house today and brutally attack and rape members of your family, then proceed to murder each one of them you would likely demand justice. You would recognize and accept the complete disregard the individual had in relation to a set of laws enforced by the government and common sense. You would be outraged.

Adolf Hitler, a Nazi dictator, endorsed a program in Germany that subscribed to a belief of racial superiority. Hitler attempted to breed a superior race while conquering undesirable peoples and nations – sentencing them to either gruesome scientific experiments or an equally cruel death. The rationality Hitler used was based on a horrific evolutionary theory known as "eugenics" propagated by Francis Galton, a cousin to the 'father' of evolutionary thought, Charles Darwin. This idea of genetic superiority was enacted in a misguided effort to improve the human race. The ultimate mechanism Hitler used as justification for genocide was the theory of evolution.

Adolf Hitler was responsible for the death of millions of innocent men, women, and children during the holocaust. Do you consider his actions wrong?

Horrible acts continue to be committed because people, like Hitler, believed evolutionary theory is true.

Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [1]

Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. Charles Darwin's Origin of Species mesmerized Trotsky who is quoted as saying, "Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe." [2] Trotsky further indicated that Darwin's ideas 'intoxicated' him. He could not understand how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.

Trotsky was not alone. Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin (1879–1953), was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he took an interest Darwin's works. A friend later indicated that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist.

If you consider the death of millions to be wrong, ask yourself why you've come to this conclusion? After all, if there are no absolute standards of right and wrong, as evolution suggests, then everyone is justified in doing whatever pleases them most. If there is no god, no morals, no afterlife, and no judgment to worry about how does denying our inner impulses hold any significant meaning? If there is no right and wrong our lives serve no purpose other than satisfying ourselves in whatever way seems convenient. In this line of thought, no one, yet everyone has personally defined rights.

Let's see if we can clarify this concept.

If one individual holds that it is perfectly rational to take the neighbor's newspaper each morning. They hold this point of view as a personally defined right that is sacrosanct. However if someone takes the newspaper from them they have violated a personally directed law. In essence what is acceptable in one instance is not acceptable in another.

In this line of thinking a personally held belief is cherished until someone challenges the belief or insists they should have similar rights. Traditionally accepted views of right and wrong are vilified as archaic, misguided and unenlightened while mankind argues over the reality of personal conviction as pertains to subjective truth.

Why were Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin able to justify the extermination of millions? It is simple; they believed in survival of the fittest. The strongest of the human species survive while the weaker die. This is the foundational principle of 'natural selection'. These men believed they were simply doing what evolution has always done, weeding out humans who were less fit as a means of creating a better race. They considered themselves activists in helping evolution along.

However, at the core of our being each of us knows the horrible acts mentioned above are wrong. We know this because there is something deep within each human being that tells us there is absolute right and wrong.

The very presence of our legal system is a testament to the fact that we believe there is absolute truth in our world. Why do we have a judicial system if there is no such thing as right and wrong? Why should we erect prisons if right and wrong can no longer be defined? Would there really be any need for consequences for bad behavior?

If there is no creator, then absolute moral standards do not exist. If you believe there is no creator, then the next time you or someone you love is a victim of a crime, don't complain or seek justice. Logically, you have no right to justice if we all operate on our own internal compass to act as guide. If there is no creator, then no one has any rights beyond what they find personally acceptable.

Maybe the presence of morality is an indication that an intelligent designer gave us absolute moral standards created for our safety and well-being.

Perhaps morality indicates
design because we are designed.

References:

[1] Keith, A., Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947.
[2] http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/tyrants.html