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. d 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
