According to McQuilkin and Copan, evolutionary ethics believes that, “our ethical
beliefs have developed through evolution to help us survive and reproduce.”[1]
McQuilkin and Copan write this theory off for several reasons, all based on the
premise that belief in a good God is a better explanation for human morality than
evolutionary ethics. While I agree with their conclusion, I found most of their
arguments somewhat weak. Their strongest argument is their final one:
“Naturalism can only describe how humans actually do function or behave, not
prescribe how they ought to act.”[2] It IS difficult to see how humanity could have
evolved from “is” to “ought,” particularly since no other “lower” creature has the
same mindset. Being created in the image of a logical, moral God does answer
this question.
While their statement, “a Godless universe simply does not have the resources to
account for important components required for the moral life—human dignity and
rights, free will, reason, conscience, duty”[3] is true, it is not a convincing
argument for someone who does not necessarily believe in a moral God. It is not
a provable statement. Obviously, morality does exist on an instinctive level, even
for those who seek to reject or transform it in one way or another. But to claim
that it could not possibly have happened without God (which is basically what all
their other arguments come down to), seems rather simplistic. g In the same way,
their argument that, “The fact that we trust that our minds are not systematically
deceiving us makes better sense if we have been designed by a truthful, rational
God”[4] makes assumptions that are, at best unprovable and, at worst, wrong.
Many people’s minds are systematically deceiving them. One could argue that the
people who fully believe in evolutionary ethics’s minds are being deceived. This is
McQuilkin and Copan’s weakest point and, like for most of their others, they seem
to be so focused on their conclusion that they do not truly think through their
points. They overstate their case with blanket statements that, while they lead to
an accurate conclusion, take a rather weak path based on instinct rather than
logic.
Evolutionary ethic’s strength is that it gives ethics a purpose: it helps us survive.
And while their origin story is flawed, it is true that when we act in ways that
follow God’s priorities and morals we are more likely to survive and even thrive.
Evolutionary ethics is right about that part of their theory. While using the theory
to make God unnecessary is wrong, the theory itself does have a certain
practicality that can be compatible with Christianity. Obviously, God’s standard of
ethics trumps anything humanity can devise. But because of the free will and
reason God Himself has given us, even the most godless philosopher can develop
theories that have some truth mixed in with all the flawed thinking.
[1] Robert McQuilkin and Paul Copan,
An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in
the Way of Wisdom,
(Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 180.
[2] Ibid., 181.
[3] Ibid., 182.
[4] Ibid., 181
