First, I find the concept of "evolutionary ethics" to be very weak way to
disagree with actual ethical requirements. To simply state that our ethical
premise and responsibility is nothing more than a "by chance" naturalistic
development that is out of a persons control is the largest misinformation
statement that can be made about ethics. McQuilkin points out that one of
the arguments for such an ethical stance comes from an idea that ethical
beliefs are developed simply to help the species survive. 1 There are so
many examples in nature that actually point to the complete opposite of
this concept. Take the sea turtle as an example. They come onto the
beach once each year to dig a nesting area, lay eggs, bury them and then
proceed to leave them there, defenseless, to hatch and find their way to
the water on their own. This "proposed evolutionary" developed practice
has led to more lost sea turtle eggs than nearly any other process they
could have developed. The question would be, is it ethical for the mother
turtle to leave her eggs?%
This is where evolutionary ethics, ethics in general, runs into major
philosophical problems. If we define "ethics" in the most basic way; it
means moral code, moral standard, principles that define right and wrong.
In the case of the turtle it is not making a moral decision, if it were then
we would have to contend that it is an immoral decision or that it is
wrong. Why? Because of the great amount of loss suffered by the
innocent. Instead we chalk this up to either natural selection (an
evolutionary term) or a simple reproductive process. In other words the
turtle isn't making a cognitive decision they are simply doing what they
were created to do. The turtle obviously doesn't contend personally about
whether it is right or wrong to lay its eggs, it simply does it on instinct.
Biologically the turtle goes through this mundane motion each time it lays
eggs. Biology does not have a factor in the ethics (moral decision) of the
turtle.%
Ethics, or moral principles that guide right and wrong behavior, is a
cognitive function. We as humans, created in the likeness and image of
God (Gen. 1:26-27), make conscience decisions about the value and
importance of something based on a litany of reasons. Personal
experiences, personal biases, biblical belief system, world views,
environmental conditioning, and parental influences. These help us
develop and guide our decisions about right and wrong. Giving us each a
unique ability to understand% what is "ethical" and what is not. It is this
decision making process that I found most interesting in McQuilkin's book.
He states that having a "God makes better sense of human dignity, which
we typically take for granted". 2 In other words most people, (who have
not been overtly corrupted by sin and evil) understand human life to have
intrinsic value. Our genes do not give the ability to understand. That has
been provided by a God who desires for us to choose to do the "right"
thing. Our ability to make such a decision is because God has also set the
absolute standard and given us the necessary information to do so.%
1. Robertson McQuilkin & P. Copan.%An Introduction to Biblical Ethics:
Walking in the Way of Wisdom.%(Downers Grove, IL: IV Press) 2014
2. Ibid, 180
