Atheists like Michael Ruse promote the idea that each of us is inherently
incorporated with “genes” that instructs us on our morality right and
wrongs.[1]McQuilkin expounds on four different objections to Ruse’s
theory. Among these, the two objections that appear to be most profound
are the third objection, “why trust our beliefs at all if we are just the
product of a material, valueless, mindless process?”[2]How can
something that originates as irrational become rational, and by what
means? How did humans “learn” to become moral and what justification
process determined this? Ruse leads that our genetics were behind this,
yet, genetics copies information of hereditary traits that are biological. To
the best of my understanding, I understand genetics has nothing to do
with emotional, rational, or psychological characteristics unique to that
individual. Ethics and morals are taught. They can be changed over
someone’s life, either by diminishing or improving. Because these can
change, it does not warrant one to conclude morals or ethics are
evolutionary. Instead, a standard is developed by which society lives and
practices.
A second important objection is the fourth, “where did the duties or
“oughts” come from in a universe of electrons and self-replicating
genes?”[3]Not only this but also how would an unintelligent universe be
able to construct the complexity of a person who would also be indwelled
with and know morals and ethics?
Evolutionary ethics on the surface appears to have some strength,
especially if you believe humans are in a constant state of adoption,
transition, progression, or any other form of “evolving” from a primitive
state to one that is more complex and higher. Those of this mindset
appears to hold to the thought that they are on the cutting edge of
humanity, that they are going to led people to their ideas even if it means
doing so by ‘kicking and screaming.’” This theory lacks in contemplating
why morals and ethics are evolutionary. Can ethics and morals change?
Yes, of course. They change with the times of history. Sacrificing children
to the gods in certain cultures was a social norm, yet it is not practiced
today (at least not formally). In evolution, it is all about survival. To what
ethical standards did they determine if and when one should die or live if
they “inhibited” the clan or society? What defects were not allowed? If
someone broke their hand or foot, has this an offense to the group's
greater good? What about one who is blind, deaf, or mute? Why wasn’t
this “evolutionary process” adopted by all societies? If one community
practiced this, would they be seen as more or less advanced than another
society that cared for those with these disabilities?
Those that promote evolutionary ethics stand on a narrow beam. Do they
conclude that rational thoughts should determine the outcome? But then,
what determines something to be rational versus something to be
irrational? Suppose a narcissist who is also a great orator is able to sway
enough followers to abolish a segment of the population by whatever
means decided. Does this now become a rational thought and behavior?
Or is it still irrational from the very beginning? God instructs us to lean on
his understandings (Proverbs 3:5)[4]and for us not to trust our own heart
because it is wicked (Genesis 6:5). Lastly, if ethics and morals are
evolutionary, why does it appear society is becoming more questionable
in its moral and ethical standards than improving as one would believe
would be the outcome in an evolutionary process?
Word count: 639
[1]Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan,An Introduction to
Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom(Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2014), 180.
[2]Ibid., 181.
[3]Ibid., 181-2.
[4]Unless otherwise noted, all biblical referenced are in theKing
James Version.
