A Universal Acid Eroding the West

First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn’t mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest.1

Well, surprise—if you live in the West, you already do live in a culture that promotes this understanding of reality through the state-run education and media programs within it. All the while, this ideology is resting and being protected under the umbrella of so-called scientific credibility.

Now, that quotation is from the vociferous atheist and anti-creationist Professor P. Z. Myers. Myers, a self-avowed “godless liberal,” is a professor of biology at the University of Minnesota and also has a popular science blog, which is where this quotation was taken. Like many of the other influential people we’ve discussed, Myers is another who very purposefully attempts to impose his worldview into culture.

He is a rather vocal atheist, often attacks creationists of all sorts, and has been quoted as saying he has nothing but contempt for the concept of intelligent design or belief in God. This contempt is because of his commitment to the story of evolution as a supposed fact and science.

In this quotation, he has revealed what he logically believes about morality, ethics, murder not being “wrong” in any true sense, etc. based on that godless, evolutionary belief.

Before we move on, if you’re wondering how I could possibly have made such a provocative statement indicating that I believe we already live in a society that promotes Myers’ general beliefs, let me share a key 1995 statement from the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) in the US to tie it all together for you. This is an organization that carries considerable weight and influence, as their “About” section states.

Since its establishment in 1938, the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) has been the recognized “leader in life science education.”2

Understand that this teaching, quoted below, for the most part, establishes the way the majority of their educators will prepare students’ minds to understand one of life’s biggest questions: Where did everything come from? Their answer:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.3

OK, so let’s break that quotation down, because—coming from a science association—it’s supposed to be a scientific statement. However, if the diversity of life (including human beings) is the outcome of evolution (a process that is supposed to be purely natural, unsupervised, and impersonal), then God is not involved in any way whatsoever, which is exactly what an atheist like P. Z. Myers believes.

This has major theological implications because Myers (just like any thinking person) can deduce that moral laws require a moral lawgiver. However, if there is no God, then it would be exactly as he said, “There is no moral law.”

Of course, as we’ve been discussing throughout this series, Western civilization was once predicated on the belief in God’s moral law. This law is designated very clearly in Scripture, such as the sixth commandment: “You shall not murder.” So Myers’ statement is not only anti-God but anti-Western society at its core. Ultimately, the NABT’s statement is also anti-God and anti-Western society.

Free of belief in God and his commandments, Myers (and millions of others in the West now) says that you could go on a murder spree without it being morally wrong whatsoever—because there is no moral law because there is no God because the story of evolution has replaced the need for a creator. That’s the new narrative that has eroded the Western world.

If you’re wondering why things aren’t even worse in society, it’s because the vestiges of what originally made Western society great are still present in many of the laws, traditions, and psyche of much of Western culture. But they too are slipping away over time with each successive generation.

You see, what many people have missed is the understanding that teaching the story of evolution to generations of students has been synonymous with teaching atheism in our school systems. Why? Because atheists have to explain how everything that exists came about without a creator, and this is what the story of evolution claims—there are materialistic explanations for all of reality, so God doesn’t exist.

Atheists have to explain how everything that exists came about without a creator, and this is what the story of evolution claims.

Just like we saw in our last article about how Charles Lyell sold geology “snake oil,” certain leftist educators also sold the general public snake oil by insisting that religion be removed from public education and only nonreligious and “neutral” ideas be taught within their hallowed halls.

But far from that being the case, what they removed was Christianity and the Bible (the foundation of Western society) and replaced it with the religion of humanism, based on the foundation of the story of evolution as the explanation of life without the need of a Creator God.

Remember the quote from Orwell’s book 1984 that I’ve mentioned throughout the series? Those in control of the present are in control of the past, and those in control of the past control the future.

People need to understand that a key indicator of where society will be within a few generations can be determined by examining the content of what its influencers and educators are teaching to the masses of young minds today.

As those students absorb that understanding of reality and then later live out their lives accordingly, you will see those ideas being played out within culture in a very short time.

Let’s take the issue of abortion as an example of a cultural issue that has changed over time and compare it with Myers’ conclusions regarding murder and there being no absolute moral law to see how evolutionary teaching may have contributed to affecting people’s viewpoints.

At one time in the West, the idea of a woman willingly aborting her child was abhorrent to most, as it was understood the child was precious, valuable, and worthy of life—because the child is made in the image of God. Almost everyone understood it would be murder by definition. As the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary stated, murder would be “1. To kill a human being with premeditated malice.”4

Correspondingly, with the increased teaching of the story of evolution in the West, the acceptance of abortion within our culture has increased dramatically.

I know that many will jump in here at this point demanding that correlation doesn’t always imply causation (which is true, not always). However, oftentimes, there is a strong link between causation and correlation, so let’s just look at some facts, and you can decide for yourself if you think there’s a connection.

Initially, the idea promoted by abortionists (as a wedge tactic to get people to accept the idea as being somehow morally permissible) was that terminating a pregnancy early on would be acceptable because what was being destroyed was only a “clump of cells” not a human baby. That is, a clump of cells can’t be murdered.

As a matter of fact, many women were told false information based on fallacious evolutionary arguments such as the baby was only at the “worm” or “fish” stage of development and not truly human yet earlier on in a pregnancy.

These were based on fraudulent arguments from embryology that had already been debunked even within the evolutionary community itself but were still used to coerce women into destroying their children. But today, late-term abortions are accepted as morally permissible by many in Western society, and everyone knows they aren’t just random clumps of cells and are viable human beings.

So how did we get to where we are today? Well, once abortion as a concept was declared legal (which in the West would by definition be deemed something morally acceptable by most; that is, if it’s legal, it’s OK to do), the arguments as to “why” they should be legal began to change and the reality of exactly what an abortion is began to be emphasized less and less.

Although often couched in terms like “reproductive freedom,” “women’s rights,” or “the right to choose,” what isn’t said out loud very often by pro-abortion groups is the admission as to exactly what “choice” is being decided upon. And that is the choice as to whether you will willingly destroy an innocent human being or not (i.e., whether you should have the choice to murder someone).

Of course, today, modern science has demonstrated that you are a human being from the moment of fertilization. All your DNA is there from the beginning, your personhood is intrinsic, and it’s just a matter of time and development—not some increasing quality of substance—before we clearly see this new human being.

Of course, today, modern science has demonstrated that you are a human being from the moment of fertilization.

For all the pro-abortionist’s insistence in calling this new life a “fetus” to make “the procedure” they support more clinical and impersonal, the understanding of that Latin word as simply meaning “little one” begs the question—a “little” what? The answer, of course, is a “little” one of us! A human being—a baby. A precious person worthy of protection and life.

However, what’s disgustingly phenomenal is how once some people accept the concept that destroying a baby is legal (due to a culture’s laws deeming it so), then apparently these old incrementalist “clump of cell” arguments can be done away with altogether.

An example of one such pro-abortion activist who (like Myers) will say the “hard parts” out loud is a senior writer for the online magazine Salon, Mary Williams.

She is more than willing to call out her fellow abortionists who claim unborn babies are “just a clump of cells” by admitting life begins at conception and understands the baby is fully alive and fully human at every stage.

I believe that life starts at conception . . . I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice. So what if abortion ends a life? . . . All life is not equal. . . . If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant, you bet your [expletive deleted] I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion. . . . I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.5

As you can clearly see, Mary obviously doesn’t believe in an absolute moral law. In her worldview, mothers should have the right to murder their children. Of course, she is justified in doing so by the laws of her own country (and countries throughout the West), whether anyone likes it or not.

But again, how did the principal idea that abortion should be permissible get established? The “clump of cells” argument. This was the “snake oil” sold to the so-called women’s rights movement that paved the way for where we are today, where it’s estimated that 1 in 3 women in the US will have abortions.

The line in the sand continues to be redrawn. Infanticide (the murder of children already born) is being promoted by many in the West by logically extending the argument that there is no real difference in the autonomy of a child before or after being born. As one so-called ethicist said, “I don’t think infanticide is always unjustifiable. I don’t think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal.”6

Indeed, how could there be a moral change if there is no absolute morality to begin with? Mary (quoted earlier), like so many other non-absolute moralists today, makes it clear that she thinks the age of assigning life to a child is an open conversation that culture can discuss and (assumably) change over time.

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have.7

And these are the truly horrific consequences brought about by the abandonment of God’s Word as the foundation of Western society. But again, even many Christians haven’t been able to draw the conclusion that teaching the story of evolution—founded on the concept of uniformitarian deep time—is the root cause for the downgrade of Western culture and the church.

The fact is, having taught the story of evolution to generations is hitting home in culture now in powerful ways, as it was what provided atheistic Bible skeptics and naturalists with a way to undermine the foundation of all Christian doctrines (the book of Genesis) while simultaneously building up a powerful and aggressive materialistic platform from which to launch humanistic teachings and beliefs into Western society.

They have taken advantage of this for decades now. Ultimately, undergirding all the utter nonsense we see (regarding so-called identity issues, lack of ethical standards, censorship of God’s Word, attack on family values, and the increasing moral decay) is simply the resultant abandonment of the idea of created norms based on the authority of God’s Word being instituted everywhere.

The universal acid of Darwinism has corroded the fabric of Western culture for years now, and things are indeed looking threadbare. Our political institutions, educational systems, and mainstream media are so corrupted against biblical teaching at a fundamental level that it’s likely they’re beyond repair and may need replacement rather than an overhaul. There’s not enough structure to sew another patch on to try to fix things up anymore.

And what we’re currently living in, this hybrid manifestation of neo-Western culture mixed with Marxist values and twisted reasoning will not be able to last forever and if it is not turned around soon, will inevitably collapse.

As I said from the very beginning of our series, Christians need to understand exactly how this was done if they wish to change the future trajectory of our world and fight back against it long-term.

Here I would like to speak to those believers who have adopted the ideas of deep time and/or the story of evolution into their Christian worldview and somehow try to reconcile them as copacetic, perhaps believing this is the way forward and back to a better society.

The mainline churches adopted evolutionary ideas long ago, and neither they nor our culture have prospered because of it—just the opposite.

I would just like to remind you that what you are attempting has already been tried, and it has failed miserably. The mainline churches adopted evolutionary ideas long ago, and neither they nor our culture have prospered because of it—just the opposite. Both are in a free fall right now, with many churches closing down and the culture becoming less Christian all the time.

So join us for Part 10. We will discuss why it is vitally important for Christians not to adopt the world’s explanation of origins and attempt to add it to Scripture, demonstrating that those who’ve done so have only contributed to the downfall of Western society.