The entire point of evolutionism to assert that the universe is entirely random and that all morality is ultimately situational.
God may exist, but he has completely abandoned the universe to its own devices.
The attitude that rejects divine creation necessarily rejects divine intervention in the world.
The entire point of evolutionism to assert that the universe is entirely random and that all morality is ultimately situational.
Interestingly, all morality is indeed "situational" in a sense; ie, it is morally wrong to kill when killing is forbidden by G-d, but it is immoral not to kill when killing is commanded by G-d. "Rationalists" object to this situation and call its advocates "religious nuts" on the supposed grounds that "reason" is actually more solid, more unchanging, and less arbitrary. But the fact is that any source of morality must, by the very nature of things, be in some sense "beyond good and evil." And in fact there is no exception to "the usual rules" on the authority of G-d that cannot be made on the authority of "reason" as well.
Atheists and "non-interventionist" Theists tell us that "you don't need G-d to have morality." What is this but an admission that reason can justify anything that G-d can? G-d or no G-d, it's still wrong to kill or steal, they tell us. This simply means that you don't need G-d to sit in judgement on others and sentence them to years of being caged like animals (and homosexually raped) or else fried in the electric chair (a form of capital punishment contrary to the decrees of the "cruel and primitive" Jewish G-d). In either case even the most libertarian non-Theist is justifying the loss of liberty or life by others. How is this any less arbitrary than the decrees of G-d that say when a person may not be killed and when he must be? (BTW, the "primitive" G-d also deals with theft via restitution rather than caging people like animals for years of homosexual rape).
Honestly, you'd think these rationalists believe that as someone is about to be fried in the chair the thought that the world is a closed system of causes and effects somehow makes it all better.
Similarly, whether or not G-d exists human nature is human nature. There will still be wars--both wars of aggression based on the evil inclination and defensive wars. Either way thousands will be killed, property will be destroyed, and whole civilizations will suffer. And "reason" is quite capable of justifying both sides. This being the case, how is getting rid of G-d going to create a world without war? I thought Randians weren't mealy-headed believers in the malleability of human nature?
Perhaps the best example of how reason can justify anything that G-d can (for people who insist that morality exists regardless) is the issue of torture. In our own days we have had "civil libertarians" like Alan Dershowitz (a card-carrying ACLU-nik, no less) explaining that sometimes torture is sadly justifiable when it can save countless lives. There was a time when the "torture" card was the trump card of rationalism, but it seems that the source of morality, whether G-d or reason, can justify anything. (Ironically, the "primitive, bloodthirsty" G-d of Israel forbids torture for the simple reason that confessions are inadmissable as evidence even when voluntary, and I [FR's most notorious "religious nut"] was practically alone among FReepers in rejecting this rationale advocated by the "good Zionist" Dershowitz.)
In short, "religious people are nuts" and "you don't need G-d to have morality" are mutually exclusive statements, since morality will always be determined by something beyond morality and will be able to justify anything, no matter how contrary to "usual procedure." In this sense, all people who believe in morality are "nuts," so the carping of the anti-Theists and deists dissolves into self-contradiction.
God may exist, but he has completely abandoned the universe to its own devices.
The attitude that rejects divine creation necessarily rejects divine intervention in the world.
The fantastic thing is that people will accept this idea while nevertheless maintaining that the "non-interfering" G-d spoke at Sinai or became incarnate and worked miracles, and they absolutely refuse to see the illogic in their reasoning.
And I thought us rednecks were supposed to be the dumb ones?