When explaining what evolutionary ethics is Robert McQuilkin and Paul
Copan concluded, “Another dominant view—sometimes connected to
utilitarianism—is the view of evolutionary ethics: our ethical beliefs have
developed through evolution to help us survive and reproduce.”
(McQuilkin and Copan, 2013, 181). In this view humans evolved without
God’s creation. They evolved from another creature into a human and
throughout the ages humans have learned ethics through evolution and
time. Such examples would be not to cause one another harm, not to
steal, do what is right for the group, etc. The problem with this is it does
not make sense because creation cannot be a mere coincidence of
particles colliding to create life. There has to be a higher being to create
such complex things such as DNA.
With that being said, McQuilkin and Copan offered a similar point when
they concluded, “For one thing, even if our fundamental moral
understanding were influenced by biological evolution, this still doesn’t
discount God as the source of morality.” (McQuilkin and Copan, 2013,
180). McQuilkin and Copan are concluding that the world is too complex
for evolutionary ethics to make sense. Reason being is that evolutionary
ethics still leaves room for a higher being for creation. The theory does
not exclude the fact that creation is possible because of God, and with
evolutionary ethics being a naturalistic theory this then makes the theory
flawed.
Another point is offered by Gordon S. Mikoski when Mikoski concluded,
“Cultures developed on the basis of collective intentionality and, morally
speaking, this always involved negotiating conflicts between four sets of
evolutionarily cumulative, but now commensurately legitimate, issues:
me-concern, you-concern, we-concern, and equality concern.” (Mikoski,
2017, 391). This can be explained as herd mentality. In other words, do
what is good for the group so that the group survives. In a way this
mentality somewhat makes sense when you think back to the humans
being hunters and gatherers. For one’s survival during this dangerous
time it made sense to stick together and to seek the groups survival. So, it
makes sense that a member of said group would want the group to
survive. However, this logic is still flawed because it is not thinking,
explaining, on a deeper level of creation.
Herd mentality is still a naturalistic theory viewpoint. As it was pointed out
it makes sense somewhat that a member would want the herd to survive
so that they would thence survive. However, it does not answer the
question on how that herd came into being. Naturalistic theory points
toward creation as mere coincidence, but when one starts asking tough
questions this theory begins to fail. One question can simply be, what is
survival, and the meaning of life? A naturalist would say to live and seek
that a group of people lives in cohesion and thrives. However, a Christian
would then counter this logic with, How then did this group come into
existence, and why does it matter that the group survives if there is no
afterlife?
Word Count: 502
Bibliography
McQuilkin, Robert and Paul Copan.?An Introduction to Biblical Ethics:
Walking in the Way of Wisdom. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013.
ISBN: 9780830828180.
Mikoski, Gordon S. “Reimagining Our Future in Light of Changing Views of
the Evolutionary Past.”?Theology Today. 73 no. 4. (2017): 388-395.
Accessed April 8, 2021. https://web-b-ebscohost-
com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=f9e38c9f-
d1bf-48a0-bbe4-d5ec6cd3a95f%40pdc-v-sessmgr03
