Evolution or Creation?
Evolution and morals
By studying how the process of natural selection shaped the mind, evolutionary psychologists say it is "natural" for both men and women" at some times, under some circumstances" to commit adultery or to sour on a mate, to suddenly find a spouse unattractive, irritating, wholly unreasonable. They say the human mind, like any other organ, was designed for the purpose of transmitting genes to the next generation, so feelings of lust, no less than the sex organs, are here because they aided reproduction directly. ... According to evolutionary psychologists, our everyday, ever shifting attitudes toward a mate or prospective mate are the handiwork of natural selection that remain with us today because in the past they led to behaviors that helped spread genes.[30]
While both sexes are prone under the right circumstances to infidelity, men seem much more deeply inclined to actually acquire a second or third mate. A woman, regardless of how many sex partners she has, can generally have only one offspring a year. According to evolutionary psychologists, for a man, each new mate offers a real chance for pumping genes into the future. Therefore, lifelong monogamous devotion just isn't natural.[30] This is opposite to what the Bible teaches.
The big issue in Darwinism is the value of human life. Darwinism leaves us with fewer resources from which to construct an account of the value of life.[30]
Formerly, a right to life was inalienable because it was bestowed upon man by a creator who had established that right superior to intrusion by government. Currently, Humanism declares that the right to life is subject to the discretion of government. As a result, not only has abortion become acceptable but so has infanticide. And academicians are now advocating not only euthanasia, but also the termination of those lives considered to be below "normal."[30]
Once the proposition that man, rather than a creator, has the right to determine the outcome of life for humans is accepted, then a distinction is made between "humans" and "persons." In other words, although someone may be human, that does not mean he is a "person" and only persons, rather than humans, should have a right to life. As a common example, the fact that a human fetus or a human embryo is acknowledged to be a human is not pertinent to the decision of whether it should be destroyed, for in the eyes of the law, it is not a "person."[30]
If we are cosmic accidents and nature alone is the reason for our existence, naturalism in science then becomes the basis for liberalism in morality: If there is no God, then children should be taught to make up their own minds about moral questions. Is it surprising that some of them choose to do drugs, cheat, fight, and run amok, killing teachers and their fellow students? The Bible and the Ten Commandments in schools have been replaced by metal detectors. Thanks to Secular Humanism America's schools are becoming battlegrounds.[19]