Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
The question of whether man is inherently “good” or “evil” has inspired many poets and philosophers to produce a plethora of theater plays, poems, and tales. Human nature is by no means described by the Bible as good.
Atheists tell us that we should be good for goodness sake, that people can be good without God. But they don’t tell us how they know or how they measure what is “good.”
Many evolutionists are quite clear that evolution does not provide a basis for morality. If evolution is true, then there can be no universal moral code that all people should adhere to.
God’s moral standard flows from His unchanging nature. Because God’s nature is perfect and holy, He cannot sin, so His standard is objective. It is impossible for God to contradict Himself or act inconsistently with His own nature.
During a roundtable discussion in the White House, US President Donald Trump referred to members of the violent gang MS–13 as “animals.”
Why should we be good? Without God, is there any reason why anyone should be good? And who defines what is right or good, anyway?
“We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever.”
There are consequences to the unquestioned evolutionary belief of humans as mere products of survival of the fittest, rather than beings made in God’s image.
Over the decades, evolutionists have often mocked me for tying evolution to morality. They claim that evolution has to do with “science,” not morality.
Even atheists admit that people who err about origins aren’t necessarily “ignorant, stupid, or insane.” There is a fourth option.
Genesis 1:27 says God made them “male and female.” People can’t wish away this fundamental physical reality—and that’s a good thing.
Man’s sense of the supernatural and morality, coupled with the fact that there is organized religion, all point to something special about humankind.
Morality in the secular worldview changes with each generation, but Christians have an unchanging standard and can consistently call actions right or wrong.
Evolutionists are correct in one thing: understanding where people came from is essential to understanding morality and answering the problems in our society.
The problem of establishing an ontological basis for morality has troubled materialistic philosophers since Darwin.PDF Download
On July 22, 2011, some readers of the Daily Mail UK were stunned by news that “Scientists have created more than 150 human-animal embryos in British laboratories.”PDF Download
Morality has always been a problem for secular humanism and its various forms. In recent times some have tried to address this major problem, but their attempts fail miserably.
The Bible is the only source to properly understand our need for government and its real nature.
Is human morality a product of evolution? It seems that priest-turned-evolutionary scientist Francisco Ayala presumes the answer is “yes.”
If any newspaper was to take a lead in propagating the godless morality of naturalistic evolution, in all its fullness, it would have to be The Guardian.
Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview since they have no rational reason for the concept of right and wrong.PDF Download
Only God’s Word, the Bible, establishes the rock-solid basis for goodness.
It’s not our inner, inherent goodness that leads to morality and good deeds.
Many evolutionists have claimed that no one can deny evolution and be a good doctor. Tommy Mitchell, MD, wonders why a consistent evolutionist would even want to practice medicine.
To most of America’s founding fathers, the Bible was true from beginning to end, and it was the only source upon which to establish the new, independent nation.
Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. The problem is that evolutionists have no logical reason to believe in right and wrong within their own worldview.
What does a math test tell us about the power of materialistic beliefs to impact behavior? Quite a bit, as it turns out.
What can the story of Barry Bonds tell us about the creation/evolution controversy?