A popular view of ethics that I have heard from my father-in-law who is an
outspoken atheist is that evolutionist ethics. He believes that ethics has only
arisen because mankind would have killed itself off without them. His belief is
that ethics arose out of a necessity to prolong the continued evolution of the
species.
While Michael Ruse might argue that one’s sense of right and wrong are only an
illusion and that “we don’t have any real duties, only the illusion of them”,1 many
would disagree. Again, my in-laws believe we all have a duty to help the species
progress and become better and more progressive with each generation. One’s
duty therefore is not to God, self, or family but to the betterment of mankind.
McQuilkin and Copan bring up several arguments against this type of ethics which
include first the argument that the existence of an evolution of ethics does not
rule out God as the source of ethics. I do not believe ethics evolved however given
the biblical account. Adam and Eve knew they had sinned and hid from God. Cain
knew that he sinned and told God he was not his brother’s keeper. Both of these
accounts are found early in man’s history and yet they already seem to have a
well established sense of ethics. I believe this to be the strongest evidence
against evolution ethics but acknowledge that it only holds up to those who
believe the Bible to be true.
A second argument that they make is that this type of ethics only makes sense if
mankind has some value beyond that granted to simple biological factors.2 This
value must come from a source outside of ourselves; God. This argument
however, seems circular in logic. While we know that we have value that is derived
from being made in the image of God and because God has deemed us to be
valuable many who would prescribe to this type of ethical theology would say we
have value because we are linked in the human chain of evolution and we matter
because we are progressing the species. I believe that their third effort also falls
flat because it has spiraled into a philosophical quagmire. They state that we can
not trust evolutionary ethics if we ourselves are just matter that happened to
come into being. We can not trust ourselves as this random matter just as we can
not trust any other that we java no direct control over. e It creates a moving target
that can no longer be nailed down when taken to the next level. Such as how can
we know we truly exist and are not part of someone's dream? We could be
imagining that God makes the most sense because we are really just dreaming if
we take this logic further.
Finally they insist that without God there can be no way of knowing which
behaviors are actually how man should behave. This is true for God has placed
certain levels of knowledge about Him and His laws in the hearts of all men
through common grace. Paul says that “since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes , his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen,
being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse”
(Romans 1:20 emphasis mine).
I do not believe that evolutionary ethics are compatible with Biblical teachings.
The reason for this is that many beliefs make remarkable turnarounds in their
ethical beliefs once the Spirit begins to change them from the inside out. God
places a new heart in them; His heart and this changes everything. Believers who
once saw no issue with put themselves first now put God and others before them.
It is counter to the human nature that once existed in them. It is the opposite of
the ethics evolving which would be small changes over time and is a whole new
paradigm shift. It is not improving on an old thing but creating a new thing as
Paul says “if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come; the old has gone, the
new is here” (2 Cor. 5:17)!
1. Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics; Walking
in the Way of Wisdom, (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2014), 180.
2. Ibid, 181
