
The problem, of course, is this claim fails to account for the source of these moral concepts; it confuses moral utility with moral creation. Let me give you a comparative example. Imagine an ancient people group who, following a lightning storm, come upon a burning tree branch. Appreciating the heat generated from the small fire, they learn to control and maintain the flames for future use. As a result, they increase their survivability dramatically. They can now cook their food, increasing the variety and availability of certain nutrients. They can stay warm in cold weather and live comfortably in cold climates. They can keep nocturnal predators at bay. As other groups learn from their example, the controlled use of fire becomes a common feature of humanity. Can we accurately say fire emerged through a process of sociocultural evolution? No. At best we can simply say that humans discovered fire and learned to apply its benefits to their specific situation. The common recognition and use of fire does nothing to account for its transcendent nature and existence. There is an objective, transcendent chemistry related to fire (commonly called the “fire tetrahedron”), and while humans can discover this chemical relationship (and even apply what they discover), they are not the “source” of it. In fact, the objective reality of fire is human-independent; there would still be fires, even if there wasn’t a single human being on the planet. Even if I accepted the idea that humans evolved over time and embraced certain moral principles beneficial to their survival, I’d still be looking for the transcendent source of these moral concepts. Share on X
So, even if I accepted the idea that humans evolved over time and embraced certain moral principles beneficial to their survival, I’d still be looking for the transcendent source of these moral concepts. Transcendent, objective moral truths (like “It’s never OK to torture babies for the fun of it”) were true even before humans were able to comprehend or acknowledge them. Ancient groups may have discovered and employed rules to aid their survival, but they didn’t create them. Moral laws such as these didn’t come from ancient human law givers, they pre-existed ancient law users (as fire pre-existed ancient fire users). The overarching nature of the moral law transcends the finite nature of humans; transcendent, objective moral laws require a Transcendent Moral Law Giver.

J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured Cold-Case Detective, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Adj. Professor of Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, author of Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, and creator of the Case Makers Academy for kids.
Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

















Pingback: Did a Concern for the Species Influence Our Moral Development? | Cold Case Christianity
Pingback: Unnecessarily bloating our ontic with “moral facts” | from synapse to byte
Pingback: Bloating ontology with “moral facts” | from synapse to byte
Pingback: The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview | Apologetics ForumApologetics Forum
Pingback: The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview | Cold Case Christianity
Pingback: crossexas WordPress | The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview
Pingback: The Inevitable Consequence of An Atheistic Worldview | CrossExamined.org
Pingback: My reading list for June 4-10, 2017 | Clay on the Wheel