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? c How did humans “learn” to become moral and
what justification process determined this? c Ruse leads that our genetics were
behind this, yet, genetics copies information of hereditary traits that are
biological. c 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? c What defects were not allowed? c If
someone broke their hand or foot, has this an offense to the group's greater
good? c What about one who is blind, deaf, or mute? c 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. c Do they
conclude that rational thoughts should determine the outcome? But then, what
determines something to be rational versus something to be irrational? c
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? c 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
c c c c c c c c c c c [1] Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical
Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2014), 180.
c c c c c c c c c c c [2] Ibid., 181.
c c c c c c c c c c c [3] Ibid., 181-2.
c c c c c c c c c c c [4] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical referenced are in the King
James Version.
