A popular view of ethics that I have heard from my father-in-law who is an
outspoken atheist is that evolutionist ethics. He believes that ethics has
only arisen because mankind would have killed itself off without them. His
belief is that ethics arose out of a necessity to prolong the continued
evolution of the species.
While Michael Ruse might argue that one’s sense of right and wrong are
only an illusion and that “we don’t have any real duties, only the illusion
of them”,1many would disagree. Again, my in-laws believe we all have a
duty to help the species progress and become better and more
progressive with each generation. One’s duty therefore is not to God, self,
or family but to the betterment of mankind.
McQuilkin and Copan bring up several arguments against this type of
ethics which include first the argument that the existence of an evolution
of ethics does not rule out God as the source of ethics. I do not believe
ethics evolved however given the biblical account. Adam and Eve knew
they had sinned and hid from God. Cain knew that he sinned and told God
he was not his brother’s keeper. Both of these accounts are found early in
man’s history and yet they already seem to have a well established sense
of ethics. I believe this to be the strongest evidence against evolution
ethics but acknowledge that it only holds up to those who believe the
Bible to be true.
A second argument that they make is that this type of ethics only makes
sense if mankind has some value beyond that granted to simple biological
factors.2This value must come from a source outside of ourselves; God.
This argument however, seems circular in logic. While we know that we
have value that is derived from being made in the image of God and
because God has deemed us to be valuable many who would prescribe to
this type of ethical theology would say we have value because we are
linked in the human chain of evolution and we matter because we are
progressing the species. I believe that their third effort also falls flat
because it has spiraled into a philosophical quagmire. They state that we
can not trust evolutionary ethics if we ourselves are just matter that
happened to come into being. We can not trust ourselves as this random
matter just as we can not trust any other that we java no direct control
over. It creates a moving target that can no longer be nailed down when
taken to the next level. Such as how can we knowwe truly existand are
not part of someone's dream? We could be imagining that God makes the
most sense because we are really just dreaming if we take this logic
further.
Finally they insist that without God there can be no way of knowing which
behaviors are actually how man should behave. This is true for God has
placed certain levels of knowledge about Him and His laws in the hearts of
all men through common grace. Paul says that “since the creation of the
world His invisible attributes , his eternal power and divine nature, have
beenclearlyseen, beingunderstoodthrough what has been made, so that
they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 emphasis mine).
I do not believe that evolutionary ethics are compatible with Biblical
teachings. The reason for this is that many beliefs make remarkable
turnarounds in their ethical beliefs once the Spirit begins to change them
from the inside out. God places a new heart in them; His heart and this
changes everything. Believers who once saw no issue with put themselves
first now put God and others before them. It is counter to the human
nature that once existed in them. It is the opposite of the ethics evolving
which would be small changes over time and is a whole new paradigm
shift. It is not improving on an old thing but creating a new thing as Paul
says “if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come; the old has gone,
the new is here” (2 Cor. 5:17)!
1. Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan,An Introduction to Biblical Ethics;
Walking in the Way of Wisdom,(Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2014),
180.
2. Ibid, 181
