Which of the problems McQuilken and Copan mention in Ch 11 are
most important—that is, which is the most compelling reason to
reject Evolutionary Ethics and why?
Evolutionary ethics, according to McQuilken and Copan, is defined as the
concept that “our ethical beliefs have developed through evolution to help
us survive and reproduce.”[1]"According to McQuilken and Copan, “there
are several problems with this way of thinking” based on this definition.
[2]"Even though there are multiple issues, the third one jumps out the
most. “Why trust our beliefs at all if we are just the product of those
material, valueless, mindless processes?”[3]"asks the third concern.
Because humans cannot trust their own thoughts and ideas, there must
be someone bigger than man in ultimate charge to solve this dilemma.
Consider whether McQuilken and Copan overstate the case or not.
The writers did an excellent job of addressing the issue. They did not
exaggerate their argument in any way. The authors said emphatically 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”
in this circumstance.[4]
Consider whether Evolutionary Ethics is compatible with belief in
God as the foundation for Ethics.
Based on the assigned readings and Genesis passages such as ““In the
beginning God"created the heaven and the earth”[5]; ”Then God said, “Let
us make man in our image, after our"likeness. And let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and
over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing
that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God he created him; male and female he created them.;[6]"then
the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”[7]"I do
not believe evolutionary ethics is compatible with a belief in God as the
foundation for ethics. I say this because individuals who believe in
evolutionary ethics tend to place their faith in science and biology ahead
of God as their source of life, rather than making God the source of all
things, including life and ethics. In the end, we must choose between two
options. Either we live in a universe where morality is a meaningless idea
and we are eternally forced to silence when it comes to moral issues, or
we live in a universe where moral norms exist, and we are bound by a
moral God who holds us accountable to his law. There are not any other
options. As Francis Schaeffer put it, “These are not probability answers;
[these] are the only answers. It is this or nothing.”[8]"If one is certainly
false, the other is certainly true."[9]"A moral atheist is like someone who
does not believe in farmers, ranchers, fisherman, or cooks when they sit
down to eat. She feels the food emerges out of nowhere, with no
explanation or adequate reason. This is ridiculous. Either her dinner was a
ruse, or someone gave it. Similarly, if morals really exist, as we have
shown, then a reason sufficient to account for the effect must account for
them.[10]"The most sensible solution is to believe in God.
"
[1]"McQuilkin, Robert, and Paul Copan. An Introduction to Biblical Ethics:
Walking in the Way of Wisdom. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016,
181.
[2]"Ibid., 181.
[3]"Ibid., 181.
[4]"Ibid., 182.
[5]"The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway
Bibles, 2016), Ge 1:1.
[6]"Ibid., Ge 1:26–27.
[7]"Ibid., Ge 2:7.
[8]"Francis Schaeffer,He Is There and He Is Not Silent, from"The Complete
Works of Francis Schaeffer, vol. 1 Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 303.
[9]"Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air,by Francis J. Beckwith and
Gregory Koukl Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2018.
[10]"Robert Wright,"The Moral Animal —"Why We Are the Way We Are: The
New Science of Evolutionary Psychology" New York: Pantheon Books, 23.
