Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2006 Moral Implications of Darwinian Evolution for Human Reference Based in Christian Ethics: a Critical Analysis and Response to the "Moral Individualism" of James Rachels Stephen Bauer Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Christianity Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, Evolution Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Bauer, Stephen, "Moral Implications of Darwinian Evolution for Human Reference Based in Christian Ethics: a Critical Analysis and Response to the "Moral Individualism" of James Rachels" (2006). Dissertations. 16. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/16 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FOR HUMAN PREFERENCE BASED IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE TO THE “MORAL INDIVIDUALISM” OF JAMES RACHELS A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Stephen Bauer November 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3248152 Copyright 2006 by Bauer, Stephen All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3248152 Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © Copyright by Stephen Bauer 2006 All Rights Reserved Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FOR HUMAN PREFERENCE IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE TO THE “MORAL INDIVIDUALISM” OF JAMES RACHELS A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy by Stephen Bauer APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: } JbOTv&ljL*j H ' <?. Faculty Adviser, Director, Pn.D./Th.D. Program Miroslav M. Kis Loy E. Gane Professor o f Ethics :Z l 7 John T. Baldwin Dean, SDA Theojdgical Professor o f Theology John K. McVay R\c$K<JtrvSl YY\ - Richard M. Davidson J. N. Andrews Professor o f Old Testament LarryX. Lichtenwalter Adjunct Professor of Church Leadership ~ 7 Robert W. Evans Date approved President, Veritas Ministries International Castro Valley, CA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FOR HUMAN PREFERENCE BASED IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE TO THE “MORAL INDIVIDUALISM” OF JAMES RACHELS by Stephen Bauer Adviser: Miroslav Kis Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION FOR HUMAN PREFERENCE IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE TO THE “MORAL INDIVIDUALISM” OF JAMES RACHELS Name of researcher: Stephen Bauer Name and degree of faculty adviser: Miroslav Kis, Ph.D. Date completed: November 2006 The Topic This dissertation explores and analyzes James Rachels’s efforts to prove that Darwin’s theory of evolution has catastrophic implications for traditional Christian ethics. The Purpose The purpose of this dissertation is to explore and evaluate the question of whether or not protology affects ethics. In particular, I propose to distill the implications of evolutionary views of origins for ethics, mainly in reference to the issue of human preference over nature in ethics. I propose to disclose Rachels’s understanding of the implications of evolution on human preference (greater protections for human beings over Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. non-humans) in ethics (such as biblical-Christian ethics), and to evaluate his views on the basis of his internal consistency, and the accuracy of his use of Christian history and biblical data. The Sources In order to accomplish this purpose, many sources were consulted, starting with the works of Rachels himself. Some of the additional authors consulted include: J. V. Langmead Casserly, Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould, John F. Haught, Cornelius Hunter, Jerry Korsmeyer, Andrew Linzey, John Rawls, Tom Regan, Lewis Regenstein, Michael Ruse, Richard Ryder, Peter Singer, Gerhard von Rad, Stephen Webb, Lynn White, Jr., and Benjamin Wiker. Conclusions First, James Rachels is essentially correct in his analysis of the impact of Darwinian evolution on Christian Ethics. Second, possibly Rachels’s greatest contribution is identifying Darwin’s rejection of teleology as the philosophical nerve of Darwinism. Third, Rachels correctly identifies two key pillars of human preference in Christian ethics and shows how evolution undermines each pillar. Fourth, the work o f evolutionary theologians corroborate Rachels’s assertion that any kind of theism incorporating Darwin’s theory cannot sustain a traditional Christian view of morality. Fifth, the dependence of evolutionary theologians on Process Theology undermines the grounding of God’s moral authority by limiting His foreknowledge. Sixth, Wiker is correct in his assertion that cosmology affects morality, and that changing from a biblical cosmology to a materialist one will eventually undermine Christian ethics. Seventh, I conclude that in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Many things go into the making of a Ph.D. dissertation. This work was possible, in part, because of the upbringing I received from my parents. Father started, but did not finish college, while mother never advanced beyond highschool, yet both have been avid, life-long learners, and both placed great emphasis on education. They thoroughly infused those two characteristics in me, thus steering me in a path of discovery that has led to the pursuit of this degree. I have also been blessed with a wonderful family. My wife of twenty-five years has endured and sacrificed much so I could complete this program. My son and daughter have lived most of their lives under the shadow of "daddy's dissertation." Thus, this dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Leslie; to my children, Andrew and Heather; and to my parents, Richard and Arlyne Bauer, all of whom have given me such great support through this extended saga. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 Background to the Problem .............................................................................. 1 Historical Summary of Evolutionary E th ic s ............................................2 Christian Moral Foundations Challenged by the Third Stage of Evolutionary E th ics..............................................5 Christian Morals and Man’s Relationship to N ature...............................5 The General Issue ................................................................................5 The Imago Dei and Man’s Relationship to Nature ........................ 6 The Work of James Rachels ...............................................................7 Problem ............................................................................................................. 8 Purpose .............................................................................................................9 Significance of This Study ............................................................................ 10 Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................11 Methodology .................................................................................................12 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................13 Introduction ..................................................................................................