The most compelling reason to reject evolutionary ethics, in the opinion of
the present writer, is McQuilkin and Copan’s argument that it fails to
account for human virtue. In other words, the authors of the text contend
that humans generally recognize that other humans have worth and
value, and they believe that this recognition is inadequately explained by
evolution (McQuilkin and Copan, 181). The present writer agrees. While
evolutionary theories regarding adaptation and survival may provide
plausible explanations for human inclination to do certain good acts, they
fail to account for any sustainable reason why all human beings would
inherently have worth and value. This appears to be incredibly
inconsistent with the beliefs of many who adopt this position, yet strive to
achieve human rights for all. While I do not believe that the authors have
overstated their case per se, I would not argue that their conclusions are
inevitable. I would rather describe their conclusions as valid, possible, and
persuasive. I would further content that the Christian understand offers a
much more persuasive understanding of ethics.
Some would contend that evolutionary ethics are not incompatible with
creation as described in the Bible. However, the present writer believes
that there are other issues that present logical inconsistencies in the
evolutionary position that make it incompatible with God as the
foundation for ethics. For example, evolutionary ethics contends that our
moral beliefs are illusory and simply developed as a result of a need to
survive. However, humans created in the image of a Holy God would
certainly have His nature imprinted on them and have a sense of right and
wrong that explains their moral understanding. These two things do not
appear to be compatible. Furthermore, the evolutionary position fails to
provide true moral reasoning for an action in the way that God does,
making the two positions difficult to reconcile. For example, as pointed out
by our authors, science can only tells us what we do rather than what we
should do (McQuilkin and Copan, 181). This is wildly inconsistent with our
daily experience, where we regularly describe things that people should
and should not do. On the other hand, Christianity is built on many
commands and prescriptions from God. This is another area where the
two appear not to be compatible. It appears to the present author that it
would be far more consistent to adopt one view or the other, and that the
view with God as the foundation is less problematic and more persuasive.
