Discussion Post 11

 Evolutionary ethics are based on the assumptions that moral and

ethical beliefs are merely a construct of evolutionary development derived

only to enhance survivability.[1]More or less, this ethical view is based on

the idea of survival of the fittest. In this case, the fittest being the one

who makes the best choice for increasing personal survivability or the

survivability of his or her bloodline. McQuilkin and Copan contend that this

ethical view infers that people do not really have any true ethical duties,

simply an impression of them based on genetic input.[2]They expound on

several compelling reasons for why a view of evolutionary ethics is

goodness. Something cannot come from nothing, and information can

only come from information. Therefore, it is inconsistent with scientific

reasoning to believe that goodness or value can be derived from anything

except that which is good and has value.[4]A third reason given is that if

moral beliefs are simply supplied by evolutionary processes bent on

survivability, then there is no sound reason to believe that those beliefs or

moral judgements are true or sound.[5]Evolutionary ethics based on

choices made to enhance survivability have no need to be moral or true to

achieve their purpose. McQuilkin and Copan affirm, “In fact, we may hold

manyfalsebeliefs that help us survive.”[6]Lastly, evolutionary ethics

weak, equal treatment for women, or any of the other ethical beliefs we

hold dear.”[8]

 Of these four reasons for rejecting evolutionary ethics, the first is

the simplest and most compelling. Regardless of attempts to do so,

evolution does not disprove the existence of God. Even if all the processes

and forces involved with the theory of evolution were proven to be

absolutely true, it would not prove that all of those things were not

intricately planned and programmed by an omniscient God. Evolutionary

ethics simply cannot contend with the idea that God would design His

creation to reveal His character. Attempting to remove God from the

disprove any support for evolutionary ethics. For example, homosexuality

is being promoted as a moral right and seen as ethically commendable.

However, such behavior does not promote choices made based upon the

need to enhance survivability or reproduction. McLaughlin contends that it

is necessary for humans to have a narrative that goes beyond what

science can provide. Otherwise, there is no grounds for why it is possible

to deem giving into natural impulses as wrong. For instance, from a purely

scientific and naturalistic standpoint, there is no grounds for deciding that

it is wrong for someone to give into sexual impulses by committing rape.

[9]With evolutionary ethics humans become nothing more than animals

programmed to reflect God’s character then how can it be explained why

there is so much unethical behavior? DNA does not have a choice in doing

what it is encoded to do. People have hair and eye color, height, body

shape, and even gender based on the formula encoded in their specific

DNA. If ethics were comprised of evolutionary processes reflected in

genetic coding then humans would not have any free will in ethical

matters. A belief in God grants free will and the ability to choose to reflect

His character in ethical behavior based on the intrinsic value of being

designed in His image.

[5]Ibid..

[6]Ibid..

[7]Ibid., 182.

[8]Rebecca McLaughlin,Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard

Questions for the World’s Largest Religion(Wheaton: Crossway, 2019),

122.

[9]Ibid., 123.