Creationism and Morality, Part 4

Morality is a constant theme with creationists. Because they have no science, they often prattle about the evil consequences of science — especially evolution. Their claim is that only religion — their religion — can provide morality.

We’ve posted often about this — see Creationism and Morality, Part 3, which wrestled with the issue of whether creationists think scriptural morality is God’s personal, subjective preferences, or is based on an objective moral absolute. We never did get a straight answer. That post also links to parts 1 and 2 in the series.

We also wrote Ken Ham: The Sole Source of Morality, in which Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum — argued that secularists have no basis for deciding what is right or wrong. We were left with the notion that Hambo and his religious viewpoint are the only source of moral guidance.

Before that we wrote Klinghoffer: Creationism and Morality, about a chaotic Discoveroid post in which it was suggested that “an intelligent being designed life and accordingly provided a tradition describing transcendent standards of right and wrong.” A bit later we wrote Discoveroids: The Designer Gives Us Morality — they were complaining that Darwin’s theory is bad because it isn’t about morality.

Now we have another creationist article on the same old topic. This one is at the AIG website, and it’s by ol’ Hambo himself: Does Religion Make You Moral? Hambo doesn’t say anything new, but because he’s the world’s holiest man, and the only one who truly understands Christianity, his writings are always of supreme importance.

Hambo is complaining about an article he saw which “suggests that religious people are no more moral — or immoral — than non-religious people.” Predictably, ol’ Hambo is outraged. Here are some excerpts from what he says, with bold font added by us:

It’s important to understand that even though atheists and agnostics can be “moral,” they have no ultimate authoritative basis for their morality. When an atheist or agnostic calls something “right”or “wrong”or “good”or “evil,” they are borrowing from a biblical worldview in order to make that statement.

Uh huh. Right. How does Hambo come to that conclusion? He explains:

Think about it: If we are simply the by-product of evolution and no better than animals, then why should anyone behave morally? In that case, what or who defines right from wrong? … The only reason that anyone can be moral is because God’s law is stamped on their hearts: [scripture quote].

See? You can be moral, even if you’re a wretched evolutionist — but of course it’s gotta be difficult for you. Let’s read on:

This moral law is often masked or darkened because of our sin nature, but the remnant of God’s law is still visible on the hearts of all. Just as everyone knows — whether they admit it or not — that God exists [scripture reference], so do they also know God’s moral law. That’s why even those who reject God can lead “moral” lives — God’s law is written on their hearts.

Aha! Hambo’s religion is running the show even if you think it’s not. We assume that’s his solution to the ancient Virtuous pagan dilemma. Here’s our last excerpt:

So why do we have a concrete standard for morality? Because we have a Creator who made us and everything else. And, since He made us, He alone has the right to define good and evil. The basis for right and wrong is God and His Word.

That’s the “concrete standard for morality” — whatever God says it is. But you can’t figure it out unless you see things the way Hambo does. That’s all you need to know about morality.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article