|| JOURNAL OF CREATION 31( 2) 2017 PAPERS
The reason Coyne and others believe there is no free will
is because to them all reality consists of matter only; neither
God nor a soul exists, only the material world. Furthermore,
all biological creatures are merely
“… collections of molecules that must obey the laws
of physics. … Those molecules, of course, also make
up your brain — the organ that does the ‘choosing.’
And the neurons and molecules in your brain are the
product of both your genes and your environment
… . Memories, for example, are nothing more than
structural and chemical changes in your brain cells.
Everything that you think, say, or do, must come down
to molecules and physics.” 51
Coyne concluded that the evidence against free will
In Darwin’s universe there exists no good or evil
is now unequivocal, writing that the
“… debate about free will, long the purview
of philosophers alone, has been given new life by
scientists, especially neuroscientists studying how the
brain works. And what they;re finding supports the
idea that free will is a complete illusion.” 51
A purely materialistic universe excludes metaphysical
realities, such as good and evil. In a ;cientific American
article, Dawkins related in blunt, raw language his honest and
candid expression of his atheistic existential view of reality:
“The universe that we observe has precisely the
properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no
design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but
pitiless indifference.” 65
He added that in
“; a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind
physical forces and genetic replication, some people
are going to get hurt, other people are going to get
lucky, and you won;t find any rhyme or reason in it,
nor any justice.” 65
“… maximization of DNA survival is not a recipe
for happiness. So long as DNA is passed on, it does
not matter who or what gets hurt in the process. Genes
don’t care about suffering, because they don’t care
about anything.” 65
Coyne agrees with this conclusion, noting that the
question of whether humans have
“… free will is not an arcane academic debate
about philosophy, but a critical question whose
answer affects us in many ways: how we assign moral
responsibility, how we punish criminals, how we feel
about our religion, and, most important, how we see
ourselves—as autonomous or automatons.” 51
As Professor Wiker concluded, “a whole host of moral
horrors … came packaged with Darwinism” and we have
explored only a very few of them. 66 In conclusion, to “insist
on strict Darwinism is to be a philosophical materialist”
“… mechanistic or reductionist idea of our origins
leads straight to a mechanistic or reductionist view
of ourselves. There is something of self-hate in the
materialist approach. It depreciates the life of the mind
and works of imagination and character. It demeans
the richness and wonder of nature. It seems to make
unnecessary further thinking about the mysteries of
existence, of life and the universe. If one is gripped by
the idea that we were made by chance (an unlovable
deity) and are not intrinsically superior to amoebas
(which by the same logic are not superior to bacteria
or grains of sand), one is not prepared to cope with the
responsibility of intelligence and power.” 67
The Darwinian view is in stark contrast to the Christian
worldview, which teaches a set of values and goals that has,
historically, motivated the establishment of a wide variety
of humanitarian programs, from universities to hospitals. 68
As the late atheist philosopher J.L. Mackie concluded, if
there are “intrinsically prescriptive objective values” (for
which one would point to the moral values that created the
humanitarian programs created by Christianity) “we have a
defensible inductive argument from morality to the existence
of a god”. 69 In the end, consistent with his atheism, Mackie
rejected the existence of such objective values. He thus implied
that we do not “have a defensible inductive argument from
morality to the existence of a god”.
1. Douglas, K., Homo virtuous? New Scientist 216(2890): 42–45, 10 November
2012; p. 45.
2. De Tavernier, J., Morality and nature: evolutionary challenges to Christian
ethics, Zygon 49( 1):171–189, March 2014.
3. Coyne, J., Why Evolution is True, Viking, New York, p. 192, 2009.
4. Coyne, ref. 3, p. 193.
5. De Tavernier, ref. 2, p. 171.
6. Tontonoz, M., The Scopes trial revisited: Social Darwinism versus social
gospel, Science as Culture 17( 2):121–143, June 2008.
7. Fisher, H., The Sex Contract: The evolution of human behavior, Morrow, New
York, p. 15, 1982.
8. Greiling, H. and Buss, D.M., Women;s sexual strategies: the hidden
dimension of extra-pair mating, Personality and Individual Differences 28:
929–963, 2000; p. 929.
9. Cloud, J., The origin of cougar sex drives: a new evolutionary theory on why
women’s libidos ramp up premenopause, Time, p. 49, 2 August 2010.
10. Bellamy, L. and Pomiankowski, A., Why promiscuity pays, Nature 479:
184–185, 10 November 2011; p. 184.
11. Easton, J.A., Confer, J.C., Goetz, C.D., and Buss, D.M., Personality and
individual differences, Personality and Individual Differences 49:516–520,
2010; p. 516.