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 e 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
