How Evolution Fails to Explain Ethics & Morality

• "If it hurts the other organism, then it's wrong. Millions of years of evolution has taught us that."
• "It's wrong if God says it's wrong."

Which answer best explains the origin of ethics and morality? Well, let's look deeper into both statements.

Evolution claims that we humans learned over the eons that if it hurts the other person, then it's wrong. So basically, you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. However, since people live in different places, people develop different views on what is "moral". Therefore, what one person sees as "moral" may not be "moral" to another. This is relative morality, which may also be known as subjective morality.

Special creation states that God decides what is "moral" and "immoral". Since He created us, He has the right to make the rules for us. What God decides as "right", it is so.

Atheists like to argue, "Well, God ordered the death of entire city populations." They argue this without knowledge of the context. They do not read why God ordered their deaths; they cut that part out and highlight the part that says "God ordered their deaths". But really, why did God order peoples' deaths? Because they were so evil, they needed to be blotted out of the face of the earth. Take the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example. They were so immoral, and they were so stubborn not to repent, that God decided to wipe them out of existence. The argument that God ordered the deaths of many people is nullified. Also, note how this argument doesn't have to do anything with morality, only that God ordered deaths. Therefore, this argument is invalid.

Now back to relative morality. Relative morality basically says that each society makes their own rules. But if relative morality were true, then what Hitler did to the Jews was not subjectively wrong. It may be wrong to us, but he gets to make the rules for his society, right? If relative morality were true, then we shouldn't have tried to stop Hitler. We shouldn't have stopped the Japanese from invading Nanking and raping and murdering 300,000 people. Because what they did was not wrong according to their society. So why bother?

But objective morality, or the belief that there are objective moral absolutes, says that there is an ultimate standard for what is right and what is wrong. And it's God who does that. It was Him who said that murder was wrong. It was Him who said that thievery was wrong. It was Him who said that lying is wrong and obeying your parents is right. If we made up our own rules, we would do whatever we want, including murder, steal, lie, and disobey your parents (and liberals what you to "break free of prescription", the prescription they gave you, and "set your own rules"). We'd end up like Sodom and Gomorrah, for crying out loud!

So in the end, the evolutionary explanation for ethics and morality is wrong because it tells us that morality is decided by society, but that would mean that we should have left Hitler alone. On the other hand, the creation explanation for the origin of ethics and morality is right because it tells us that there is an ultimate standard for right and wrong, which applies to everyone.

See Can evolution determine right and wrong?, Why is Scripture the Ultimate Standard for Morality and Ethics?, Ethics and Justice, and The creation basis for morality.

Tune in tomorrow for the final blog of the week: My Thoughts on the Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate!