Which of the problems McQuilken and Copan mention in Ch 11 are most
important—that is, which is the most compelling reason to reject Evolutionary
Ethics and why?
Evolutionary ethics, according to McQuilken and Copan, is defined as the concept
that “our ethical beliefs have developed through evolution to help us survive and
reproduce.”[1] According to McQuilken and Copan, “there are several problems
with this way of thinking” based on this definition.[2] Even though there are
multiple issues, the third one jumps out the most. “Why trust our beliefs at all if
we are just the product of those material, valueless, mindless processes?”[3] asks
the third concern. Because humans cannot trust their own thoughts and ideas,
there must be someone bigger than man in ultimate charge to solve this dilemma.
Consider whether McQuilken and Copan overstate the case or not.
The writers did an excellent job of addressing the issue. They did not exaggerate
their argument in any way. The authors said emphatically that “the fact that we
trust that our minds are not systematically deceiving us makes better sense if we
have been designed by a truthful, rational God” in this circumstance.[4]
Consider whether Evolutionary Ethics is compatible with belief in God as the
foundation for Ethics.
Based on the assigned readings and Genesis passages such as ““In the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth”[5]; ”Then God said, “Let us make man in our
image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and
over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his
own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them.;[6] then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”[7] I do not
believe evolutionary ethics is compatible with a belief in God as the foundation for
ethics. I say this because individuals who believe in evolutionary ethics tend to
place their faith in science and biology ahead of God as their source of life, rather
than making God the source of all things, including life and ethics. In the end, we
must choose between two options. Either we live in a universe where morality is a
meaningless idea and we are eternally forced to silence when it comes to moral
issues, or we live in a universe where moral norms exist, and we are bound by a
moral God who holds us accountable to his law. There are not any other options.
As Francis Schaeffer put it, “These are not probability answers; [these] are the only
answers. It is this or nothing.”[8] If one is certainly false, the other is certainly true.
[9] A moral atheist is like someone who does not believe in farmers, ranchers,
fisherman, or cooks when they sit down to eat. She feels the food emerges out of
nowhere, with no explanation or adequate reason. This is ridiculous. Either her
dinner was a ruse, or someone gave it. Similarly, if morals really exist, as we have
shown, then a reason sufficient to account for the effect must account for
them.[10] The most sensible solution is to believe in God.
[1] McQuilkin, Robert, and Paul Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking
in the Way of Wisdom. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016, 181.
[2] Ibid., 181.
[3] Ibid., 181.
[4] Ibid., 182.
[5] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016),
Ge 1:1.
[6] Ibid., Ge 1:26–27.
[7] Ibid., Ge 2:7.
[8] Francis Schaeffer, He Is There and He Is Not Silent, from The Complete Works of
Francis Schaeffer, vol. 1 Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 303.
[9] Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory
Koukl Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2018.
[10] Robert Wright, The Moral Animal — Why We Are the Way We Are: The New
Science of Evolutionary Psychology e New York: Pantheon Books, 23.
