Views: 1<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Brief Articles 1<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Charles Darwin was born 2 centuries ago (1809). Even those who reject his premises cannot deny the impact of them on mankind. Along with the \u201csea change\u201d Darwinian evolution has wrought in science, its effect upon religion and morals has perhaps been even more incalculable.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The acceptance of Darwin\u2019s theories required abandonment of faith in God and in the Creation account of Genesis (the claims of \u201ctheistic evolutionists\u201d notwithstanding). It was natural to assume that, if the Bible\u2019s opening words are suspect, the rest of it (including its moral laws) might also be faulty (which assumption atheists and humanists have warmly welcomed). In the Darwinian domain, men are soulless critters\u2014freak \u201caccidents of history,\u201d common in origin with everything from maggots to monkeys to mules. Men therefore have no uniqueness that makes us superior in worth or authority to their environment or to other life forms. Moreover, there is no Heaven to seek nor Hell to avoid upon the basis of one\u2019s behavior.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The broad acceptance of Darwinism has gradually\u2014but undeniably\u2014eroded Biblical moral values, the cohesive social force of Western Europe and North America until the early-to-mid 20th<\/sup> century. Several generations of children have been propagandized with Darwin\u2019s dogma by a humanistic public education system, and with predictable effect. A large percentage of these generations have been convinced that we are mere animals. Why should anyone be surprised at the corresponding increases in sexual promiscuity, illegitimate births, destroyed families, and acceptance of sexual perversions as \u201cnormal\u201d? The \u201cright\u201d of a woman to murder the baby in her womb could never have been imagined or sought, much less \u201cfound,\u201d had not Darwinism done its fiendish work of devaluing life.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 After all, we\u2019re first cousins to alley cats and stray dogs (some of which would not stoop to the behavior of some of our kind). If we are mere animals, \u201cmorals\u201d are merely what we decide they are. This being so, \u201cmorals\u201d are wholly subjective and situational; my idea of \u201cmorality\u201d is as good as anyone else\u2019s. Each person should have the right to be a law unto himself. Why should there be any laws against assault, murder, theft, rape, or incest? Four-legged dogs and cats are amoral, so why shouldn\u2019t the two-legged varieties be, also?<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darwinists had their counterparts in the ancient world: \u201cFor the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse\u2026 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools\u201d (Rom. 1:20\u201322).<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0[Note:<\/strong> I wrote this article for and it appeared in the Denton Record-Chronicle, <\/em>Denton, TX, March 6, 2009.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 1[Note:\u00a0 This MS is available in larger font on our Brief Articles 1\u00a0 page.] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Charles Darwin was born 2 centuries ago (1809). Even those who reject his premises cannot deny the impact of them on mankind. Along with the \u201csea change\u201d Darwinian evolution…<\/p>\n