InAn Introduction to Biblical Ethics,McQuikin and Copan advance four
primary arguments against evolutionary ethics.[1]First, they claim that
evolutionary influences on ethics are not an argument against theism
because God can influence ethics through evolutionary processes.
Second, they claim that human dignity is best explained by God rather
than evolution. Third, they claim that people cannot trust their beliefs if
their beliefs are simply the product “mindless, valueless
processes.”[2]Finally, they claim evolutionary processes can only
descriptive and cannot give people a sense of moral obligation.
Their first argument is the claim that evolutionary ethics does not
truly account for whether or not God is involved in the process. This
argument is their strongest, and almost unassailable, unless one is biased
against theism as a concept. While they frame it more as an argument
against atheism than evolutionary ethics as a whole, it serves as a
reminder that evolutionary processes and God are not by necessity
mutually exclusive. It is also a potent reminder that metaphysics and
science do not have the same objectives and often do not answer the
same questions.[3]
The remaining three arguments assume that God is not involved
in the process of evolutionary ethics, which is a frustrating contradiction
from their first argument. If the cornerstone of their argument is that God
can be involved in the process, McQuikin and Copan would be better
served not to undercut their argument by arguing against being able to
trust these beliefs or have a sense of obligation if ethics are evolved.
Paul’s assertion that God writes his law on each person’s heart and gives
them their consciences as a guide is certainly something that could be
accomplished evolutionarily (Rom. 2:14-15).
The fact that other primates engage in social values and behavior
similar to humans could also seem to undercut McQuikin and Copan’s
arguments about human dignity and the ability to trust evolutionary
processes.[4]However, these facts have also led occasional theologians,
like John Wesley,theorize in the opposite direction and postulate that
animals have souls.[5]If one does not assume that evolutionary ethics
automatically dismisses theism, the presence of moral and social norms in
other primates could be considered evidence that God evolved animals to
have higher and higher moral consciousness, with man having the most
highly evolved of all animals. It also must be noted here that the causality
of a thought and the merit of a thought are completely unrelated, and it is
difficult to make a cogent argument that evolutionary processes cannot
produce meaningful morality, especially if the first argument of God’s
involvement in the process is granted.[6]
McQuiken and Copan’s fourth argument, “naturalism can
onlydescribe howhumans actually do function or behave,
notprescribehow they ought to act,” is a much more powerful argument
against evolutionary ethics than their second and third arguments.[7]The
intentionality and self-evaluation of morality are two key aspects in which
human morality seems to differ from that of other primates.[8]
Ultimately, the problem with arguments for or against evolutionary
ethics are that they purport to be about science and not worldview. The
naturalist often refuses to accept any evidence other than scientific
evidence as valid. All other forms of evidence are simply ruled out “by
fiat.”[9]When a theologian appeals to God, then the theologian is
appealing to a different form of evidence than the evidence that a
naturalist accepts as valid. While arguments against evolutionary ethics
may aid Christians, who are questioning these areas, they will rarely win
the naturalist. Christians, instead, would do better by helping the
naturalist either see that evolutionary ethics does not rule out theism or
that their own worldview rests upon preconceptions and beliefs that are
not necessarily governed by the scientific method.
Bibliography
Field, David N. “But Could They Tell Right From Wrong? Evolution, Moral
Responsibility, and Human Distinctiveness.”HSE Teologiese
Studies/Theological Studies(June 26, 2017): https://doi.org/
10.4102/hts.v73i3.4505.
McQuikin, Robertson and Paul Copan.An Introduction to Biblical Ethics:
Walking the Way of Wisdom.Third edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2014.
Rozema, David. “Naturalism: Metaphysics, Mandate, or Myth?”Theology
Today75, no. 3 (2018): 330-346.
[1]The discussion in this paragraph is drawn from Robertson McQuikin and
Paul Copan,An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of
Wisdom, 3rded. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 180-183.
[2]Ibid., 181.
[3]David Rozema, “Naturalism: Metaphysics, Mandate, or Myth?”Theology
Today75, no. 3 (2018): 339.
[4]David N. Field, “But Could They Tell Right from Wrong? Evolution, Moral
Responsibility, and Human Distinctiveness,”HSE Teologiese
Studies/Thological Studies(Jun 26, 2017): https://doi.org/
10.4102/hts.v73i3.4505, 2-3.
[5]Ibid., 5.
[6]Rozema, “Metaphysics, Mandate or Myth,” 332.
[7]McQuikin and Copan,Introduction to Biblical Ethics,182.
[8]Field, “Tell Right from Wrong,” 3.
[9]Rozema, “Metaphysics, Mandate or Myth,” 338.
