Atheists like Michael Ruse promote the idea that each of us is inherently
incorporated with “genes” that instructs us on our morality right and wrongs.[1]
McQuilkin expounds on four different objections to Ruse’s theory. Among these,
the two objections that appear to be most profound are the third objection, “why
trust our beliefs at all if we are just the product of a material, valueless, mindless
process?”[2] How can something that originates as irrational become rational, and
by what means? d How did humans “learn” to become moral and what justification
process determined this? d Ruse leads that our genetics were behind this, yet,
genetics copies information of hereditary traits that are biological. d To the best of
my understanding, I understand genetics has nothing to do with emotional,
rational, or psychological characteristics unique to that individual. Ethics and
morals are taught. They can be changed over someone’s life, either by
diminishing or improving. Because these can change, it does not warrant one to
conclude morals or ethics are evolutionary. Instead, a standard is developed by
which society lives and practices.
A second important objection is the fourth, “where did the duties or “oughts”
come from in a universe of electrons and self-replicating genes?”[3] Not only this
but also how would an unintelligent universe be able to construct the complexity
of a person who would also be indwelled with and know morals and ethics?
Evolutionary ethics on the surface appears to have some strength, especially if
you believe humans are in a constant state of adoption, transition, progression, or
any other form of “evolving” from a primitive state to one that is more complex
and higher. Those of this mindset appears to hold to the thought that they are on
the cutting edge of humanity, that they are going to led people to their ideas even
if it means doing so by ‘kicking and screaming.’” This theory lacks in
contemplating why morals and ethics are evolutionary. Can ethics and morals
change? Yes, of course. They change with the times of history. Sacrificing
children to the gods in certain cultures was a social norm, yet it is not practiced
today (at least not formally). In evolution, it is all about survival. To what ethical
standards did they determine if and when one should die or live if they “inhibited”
the clan or society? d What defects were not allowed? If someone broke their
hand or foot, has this an offense to the group's greater good? What about one
who is blind, deaf, or mute? d Why wasn’t this “evolutionary process” adopted by
all societies? If one community practiced this, would they be seen as more or less
advanced than another society that cared for those with these disabilities?
Those that promote evolutionary ethics stand on a narrow beam. d Do they
conclude that rational thoughts should determine the outcome? But then, what
determines something to be rational versus something to be irrational? d Suppose
a narcissist who is also a great orator is able to sway enough followers to abolish
a segment of the population by whatever means decided. Does this now become
a rational thought and behavior? Or is it still irrational from the very beginning? d
God instructs us to lean on his understandings (Proverbs 3:5)[4] and for us not to
trust our own heart because it is wicked (Genesis 6:5). Lastly, if ethics and
morals are evolutionary, why does it appear society is becoming more
questionable in its moral and ethical standards than improving as one would
believe would be the outcome in an evolutionary process?
Word count: 639
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 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2014), 180.
d d d d d d d d d d d d [2] Ibid., 181.
d d d d d d d d d d d d [3] Ibid., 181-2.
d d d d d d d d d d d d [4] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical referenced are in the King James
Version.
