It's Just Natural
Why Evolutionary Morality Doesn't Work

by Ben Cheek

There is a growing “evolutionary justification” for previously scandalous behavior. Take for instance the sexual revolution. It has, to a certain extent, declared exclusive monogamy as an artificial social boundary set up by prudish religious elitists. Multiple sex partners is sometimes justified by evolutionary evidence: mainly that advanced primates, our closest evolutionary relatives, have multiple sex partners. The justification hints that it is only natural and, therefore, should be morally permissible.

The evolutionary argument breaks down, however, when fully applied. For example, some pacifists condemn violence with the statement, “human beings are the only species that intentionally eradicates its own kind.” Close examination of other species proves this to be untrue. For example: ant colonies of certain species will raid other colonies of the same species, killing adults and stealing larva and eggs to raise as slaves. In higher species, male mammals will sometimes kill offspring of another male, which is genocide or ethnic cleansing on a smaller scale. This hints that war is in our evolutionary blood, and that such crimes as genocide and terrorism may be “natural.” Evolution, if given a chance to set morals, will, according to the behaviors of our close evolutionary relatives, approve violence against rivals simply to prove dominance, theft, physical abuse of mates, rape, destruction of other's property, cannibalism, and many more questionable behaviors.

This hints that war is in our evolutionary blood, and that such crimes as genocide and terrorism may be “natural.”

In fact, from a certain perspective, evolutionary morality will approve almost anything that people do as “natural.” Primates studies have discovered the development of the ability to use simple tools. This means that technological and behavioral advancements are evolutionary. Under the evolutionary concept of natural selection, the development of survival technology and behavior is natural and healthy. Nuclear weapons are tools for survival, so they are evolutionarily moral. In the same way, overcoming one's conscience with brain-washing, hatred, or rationalization is also a behavioral advancement for survival in certain situations. Therefore, terrorism, since it is a survival skill for militant leaders, is evolutionarily moral. Racism is moral since it promotes the survival and prosperity of one's own offspring over the offspring of others.

It is a purely Western idea that animal behavior is more natural than human behavior. Western culture separates humans from nature. We say that something in its natural state is untouched by humans. This is highly artificial to see humans as evolutionarily advanced animals, but not every human behavior as an evolutionary development. If we are animals, we are nature, and whatever we do is natural. Therefore “evolutionary morality” isn't any kind of morality at all. In fact, it is a contradiction. Setting limits of any kind on behavior is merely an evolved behavior to dominate others, and they, for the sake of survival, should resist that control and prove themselves the fittest.

What's missing from current evolutionary morality is the concept of transcendence: the idea that our advancements are or should be guided by a higher power or design. I'm not excited about the idea of us all acting like apes. I've watched enough Discovery Channel documentaries to know I don't want to be part of that world. I hope that we can evolve into a much more advanced creature, not merely accepting our evolutionary heritage.

Morality and ethics must begin with a basic assumption: Either evolution is a chance process and all behaviors are natural and permissible, or evolution is a guided process and we should be actively seeking out evolutionary direction.

Science has yet to explain why we evolve up. The laws of thermodynamics state that matter moves from more complex to less complex states. Why then did humans evolve from very simple one-celled organisms? Why did those organisms evolve from organic molecules? That would have required very high levels of order in matter – a contradiction in a universe that is slowing down and decaying. This problem has led many to see the evolution of the universe as a guided process. Is there is something or someone causing order in matter and energy?

If we make the assumption that evolution is a guided process, it changes the way we view our process of evolving morals. Since we, unlike many animals, are highly conscious of many of our advancements, wouldn't it make sense that an evolutionary guide must be involved in that conscious process? We evolve through complex behaviors: behavior 1) we imagine a new behavior; behavior 2) we apply what we've imagined; behavior 3) we communicate that behavior to others; behavior 4) they accept that behavior and apply it based on our results. Therefore, where an evolutionary guide just unconsciously influences lower animals, it would be involved in the conscious processes of behavior development in humans.

Morality and ethics must begin with a basic assumption: Either evolution is a chance process and all behaviors are natural and permissible, or evolution is a guided process and we should be actively seeking out evolutionary direction. If the later is true, this gives new meaning to the concepts of divine revelation. Specifically, the Christian worldview would see Jesus as the evolutionary ideal, God as evolutionary guide, and the Kingdom of God as our active search for evolutionary direction. Amazingly, the Christian system seems to display a natural and symbiotic pattern: God working with us to give direction and empowerment to our development, but also using unhealthy behavioral developments to eventually produce healthy behavior.