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 c 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
