One day I heard a squeaking sound above my head and looked up. A hawk had a mouse in her talons and was flying away for a meal while the poor mouse cried out for help. The hawk did not feel any sympathy for the mouse. Was the hawk doing something wrong?

We have all watched on television as a lioness runs down a beautiful gazelle and kills it. We always hope the gazelle will escape, but it seldom does. Is the lioness doing wrong?
There has been at least one case where a large python constricted and killed its owner. Was the python doing wrong?

We have recently heard the news of the large chimpanzee, that for no apparent reason, brutally attacked a woman. Was the chimpanzee doing wrong?

It is not unusual to hear of a vicious dog attacking someone. Are these dogs doing wrong?
The answer to all of the above questions is "No." Although we, as humans, may be offended by their actions, none of the above animals were doing wrong. Animals do not follow a code of conduct, they only do what their built in instinct tells them. Animals are amoral, that is, they are neither moral nor immoral.

Immoral is believing something is wrong, but doing it anyway. Amoral is not knowing anything is wrong, like an animal.
We are being led down the primrose path from immorality to amorality. Maybe it isn't a path, it is more like a slippery slope.
I graduated from high school over 50 years ago. When I was in junior high school I was taught in history and science classes that evolution was a fact. We are now on our third generation since then that have been taught we are only animals. If you believe you are an animal, you have every right to behave like an animal, which is not a moral or immoral creature, but amoral.

If evolution is true and I am just an animal, who has the right to tell me something is right or wrong?
Have you ever wondered why it is illegal to disturb some turtle eggs but legal to kill unborn babies? Here is the reasoning: turtles are animals and humans are animals. Therefore turtles should have as many rights as humans. Since there are more humans than turtles and turtles may be endangered, turtles have more rights than humans.

Was Hitler wrong in killing so many Jews? (He killed a lot more than just Jews.) To Hitler, who believed in evolution, those he killed were just animals and it is not wrong for one animal to kill another. What he was doing was helping evolution by getting rid of the inferior animals to keep them from breeding. After all, if you were raising thoroughbred dogs, you would not allow any inferior dogs to produce offspring. You would destroy the weak, sickly, or deformed animals. If Hitler was only an animal, who has the right to say he was wrong or wicked or evil?

Can Joseph Stalin be considered wicked or bad or sinful for killing millions of people? It was no more or less than one animal killing other animals for survival and that cannot be considered evil or even wrong. The same is true of Mao Tse-Tung who killed tens of thousands.

Have you ever wondered how a doctor, who takes an oath to preserve life, could hold a baby's squirming body in one hand while he inserts scissors through the back of the neck into the brain to make a hole through which he literally sucks out the baby's brains? (Called partial birth abortion.) (If you can stomach it, you can see this illustrated at:

Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures performed in the United States each year. More than 40% of all women will end a pregnancy by abortion at some time in their reproductive lives. There are about 1.2 million abortions performed each year in the United States. Worldwide, some 20-30 million legal abortions are performed each year, with another 10-20 million abortions performed illegally. How could between 30 and 50 million unborn babies be killed each year with little or no feelings of guilt or remorse? Easy. Since humans are only animals, it is not wrong to kill unborn animals, unless, of course, that animal happens to be of an endangered species.

But, don't evolutionists believe in right and wrong? Of course, but not in absolute right and wrong. Right and wrong to an evolutionist are the accepted standards of a community. If the community feels it is right to steal, then stealing is not wrong. These standards are always in a state of change. What is right today may be wrong next year. What is wrong today may be right next year. There cannot be an absolute standard. If it is legal, it is right.

If the evolutionist is right, then humans have no real purpose on earth. The purpose many of the evolutionists have adopted is to watch over "mother earth" and protect the other animals.
If humans simply evolved over eons, then there is no God and since there is no God, there can be no absolute right or wrong.
Ever wonder how we got into the mess we are in today? Seems pretty simple to me. We have just convinced three generations (by the way of education, movies and TV) that they are no more than animals, so they act like animals. I'm not surprised at the consequences, are you?

As I see it, the problem today is not that the world accepts evolution with all its trappings. The real problem today is that far too many "Christians" have been influenced by the evolutionist's way of thinking instead of the world being influenced by the Christians. Christians are buying into the idea that there cannot be any absolute right and wrong. We have left the idea that because God said it is wrong it is wrong, whether I like it or not. Many think "It may be wrong for me but how can I say it is wrong for you?"

Have you noticed how little we hear the word "sin," even from pastors? (Let's be careful not to offend anyone.) Sin indicates we are breaking God's law and if there is no God there can be no sin.

When I was a young preacher there was a thing called "separation." That meant I didn't go to movies, I didn't dance, boys and girls didn't swim together, ladies didn't wear immodest clothing, I didn't drink, I didn't smoke, etc. To me it was personal conviction and not just a bunch of rules I had to follow. It was not about me being more righteous than someone else, it was about my testimony before the world. You hear very little preaching on those subjects today.

    My great-grandfather, King Solomon Crowder, was a godly Methodist. (He would not listen to the Grand Ole Opry on the radio because he considered it worldly.) Everyone who knew "Grandpa" Crowder knew he was a Christian. Outside of my parents, Grandpa had more influence on my life than any other person in the world. By the time I was six, I knew I wanted to be like Grandpa. He died when I was twelve. He never had a talk with me about anything religious. His influence on my life was not because of what he said, or did or did not do. His influence on me was because of what he was, a real, genuine, sincere Christian. Although I haven't lived up to my image of Grandpa, the path I have traveled in my life has been, in a large part, due to Grandpa.

   It seems to me that Christians have blended in with the world so much that the world can't tell the difference.

by Raymond McAlister
May 2009