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.” !It IS difficult to see how humanity[2]
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” !is true, [3]
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
