d d d d d d Evolutionary ethics are based on the assumptions that moral and ethical
beliefs are merely a construct of evolutionary development derived only to
enhance survivability.[1] More or less, this ethical view is based on the idea of
survival of the fittest. In this case, the fittest being the one who makes the best
choice for increasing personal survivability or the survivability of his or her
bloodline. McQuilkin and Copan contend that this ethical view infers that people
do not really have any true ethical duties, simply an impression of them based on
genetic input.[2] They expound on several compelling reasons for why a view of
evolutionary ethics is implausible.
d d d d d d d d d d First, the idea that moral and ethical thinking is a product of evolution
does not factor in the possibility that, if true, such an evolutionary product could
have been intentionally programmed by God.[3] A second reason to reject
evolutionary ethics comes from the fact that people generally assume every
human has some level of value and goodness. Something cannot come from
nothing, and information can only come from information. Therefore, it is
inconsistent with scientific reasoning to believe that goodness or value can be
derived from anything except that which is good and has value.[4] A third reason
given is that if moral beliefs are simply supplied by evolutionary processes bent
on survivability, then there is no sound reason to believe that those beliefs or
moral judgements are true or sound.[5] Evolutionary ethics based on choices
made to enhance survivability have no need to be moral or true to achieve their
purpose. McQuilkin and Copan affirm, “In fact, we may hold many false beliefs
that help us survive.”[6] Lastly, evolutionary ethics should be rejected because
they are only capable of describing how things are due to natural impulses. In
other words, evolutionary ethics cannot support the free will humans have to
choose what ought to be right or wrong.[7] McLaughlin argues, “If we are no more
than the features that can be described by science, and our only story is the
evolutionary story, we have no grounds for insisting on human equality, protection
of the weak, equal treatment for women, or any of the other ethical beliefs we
hold dear.”[8]
d d d d d d d d d d Of these four reasons for rejecting evolutionary ethics, the first is the
simplest and most compelling. Regardless of attempts to do so, evolution does
not disprove the existence of God. Even if all the processes and forces involved
with the theory of evolution were proven to be absolutely true, it would not prove
that all of those things were not intricately planned and programmed by an
omniscient God. Evolutionary ethics simply cannot contend with the idea that God
would design His creation to reveal His character. Attempting to remove God
from the picture and attributing everything to arbitrary natural processes does not
solve or simplify anything for the evolutionary ethicist. In fact, doing so only
serves to complicate their assertions because it removes any foundation for
moral reasoning.
d d d d d d d d d d McQuilkin and Copan actually understate the problems with evolutionary
ethics. There are numerous examples in today’s society that disprove any support
for evolutionary ethics. For example, homosexuality is being promoted as a moral
right and seen as ethically commendable. However, such behavior does not
promote choices made based upon the need to enhance survivability or
reproduction. McLaughlin contends that it is necessary for humans to have a
narrative that goes beyond what science can provide. Otherwise, there is no
grounds for why it is possible to deem giving into natural impulses as wrong. For
instance, from a purely scientific and naturalistic standpoint, there is no grounds
for deciding that it is wrong for someone to give into sexual impulses by
committing rape.[9] With evolutionary ethics humans become nothing more than
animals attempting to survive and reproduce. Anything goes in the pursuit of
those things without any ethical consequences.
d d d d d d d d d d Evolutionary ethics is incompatible with a belief in God as the foundation
for ethics. Even if one believed that God programmed ethical reasoning and
behavior into genetic code then he or she faces the problem of why we have
ethical dilemmas. If humans were genetically programmed to reflect God’s
character then how can it be explained why there is so much unethical behavior?
DNA does not have a choice in doing what it is encoded to do. People have hair
and eye color, height, body shape, and even gender based on the formula
encoded in their specific DNA. If ethics were comprised of evolutionary processes
reflected in genetic coding then humans would not have any free will in ethical
matters. A belief in God grants free will and the ability to choose to reflect His
character in ethical behavior based on the intrinsic value of being designed in His
image.
Word count: 844
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [1] Robertson McQuilkin, and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical
Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic,
2014), 180.
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [2] Ibid..
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [3] Ibid., 181.
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [4] Ibid..
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [5] Ibid..
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [6] Ibid..
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [7] Ibid., 182.
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [8] Rebecca McLaughlin, Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for
the World’s Largest Religion (Wheaton: Crossway, 2019), 122.
d d d d d d d d d d d d d d [9] Ibid., 123.
