“The Bible teaches that God is the Creator of all things (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3). All things belong to God (Ps. 24:1), and thus God has the right to make the rules. So an absolute moral code makes sense in a biblical creation worldview. But if the Bible were not true, if human beings were merely the outworking of millions of years of mindless chemical processes, then why should we hold to a universal code of behavior? Could there really be such concepts as right and wrong if evolution were true?
Now some people might say, “That’s true. Morality is just relative. There’s no such thing as absolute morality, and therefore you should not try to enforce your person moral code on other people!” But when they say “you should not…” they are doing just what they are telling us not to do: enforcing their personal moral code on other people. If there is no absolute moral code, then nothing is actually fundamentally wrong: not lying, not stealing, not even rape or murder. And yet people cannot live consistently by such an amoral standard.
Some might respond, “Well, I do believe in right and wrong, and I also believe in evolution, so obviously they can go together.” But this does not follow. People can be irrational; they can profess to believe in things that are contrary to each other. The question is not about what people believe to be the case, but rather what actually is the case. Can the concepts of right and wrong really be meaningful apart from the biblical God? Is morality justified in an evolutionary worldview?
In response to this, an evolutionist might say, “Of course. People can create their own moral code apart from God. They can adopt their own standards of right and wrong.” However, this kind of thinking is arbitrary and will lead to absurd consequences. If everyone can create his or her own morality, then no one could argue that what other people do is actually wrong since other people can also invent their own personal moral code. For example, a person might choose for himself a moral code in which murder is perfectly acceptable. This might seem upsetting to us, but how could we argue that it is wrong for others to murder if morality is nothing but a personal standard? If morality is a subjective personal choice, then Hitler cannot be denounced for his actions since he was acting in accord with his chosen standard. Clearly this is an unacceptable position.
Some evolutionists argue that there is an absolute standard; they say, “Right is what brings the most happiness to the most people.” But this is also arbitrary. Why should that be the selected standard as opposed to some other views? Also, notice that this view borrows from the Christian position. In the Christian worldview, we should indeed be concerned about the happiness of others since they are made in God’s image. But if other people are simply chemical accidents, why should we care about their happiness at all? Concern about others does not make sense in an evolutionary universe.
Perhaps the evolutionist will claim that morality is what the majority decides it to be. But this views has the same defects as the others. It merely shifts an unjustified opinion from one person to a group of people. It is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions. Again, we find that we would not be able to denounce certain actions that we know to be wrong. After all, Hitler was able to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right, but that doesn’t really make them right.
Without the biblical God, right and wrong are reduced to mere personal preferences. In an evolutionary universe, the statement “murder is wrong” is nothing more than a personal opinion on the same level as “blue is my favorite color.” And if others have a different opinion, we would have no basis for arguing with them. Thus when evolutionists talk about morality as if it is a real standard that other people should follow, they are being inconsistent with their professed worldview.”
(Lisle, Ultimate Proof of Creation, 48-50)