In this section of The Problem of God, Mark Clark raises a common apologetic question aimed at naturalistic worldviews: If morality is simply the product of evolution, how can we trust it?
He’s not alone in asking. Christian apologists from C.S. Lewis to William Lane Craig have long argued that if moral values are not grounded in a transcendent source (i.e., God), then they are arbitrary at best and illusory at worst.
But let’s slow down and examine what Clark is really claiming—and where his argument fails to account for what science, psychology, and philosophy have already uncovered.
1. The Straw Man: Evolution Equals Relativism
Clark begins by suggesting that if morality evolved naturally—i.e., as a byproduct of survival-based behaviors—then we have no reason to consider those moral instincts true or binding. They’re merely “useful” for survival, not grounded in ultimate right or wrong.
But this misrepresents how moral reasoning is understood in an evolutionary context.
Yes, evolution may have shaped our emotional and cognitive responses—empathy, fairness, disgust, loyalty, etc.—because those traits helped humans live together cooperatively. But from these building blocks, humans developed moral systems, reflective traditions, and philosophies that transcend mere utility.
In other words: Evolution gave us the capacity for morality. Culture, reasoning, and reflection shaped the content of our ethics.
To claim that evolved traits can’t produce “real” morality is to misunderstand what morality even is. It’s not about divine commands. It’s about flourishing, suffering, justice, and harm—all things humans are wired to care about deeply.
2. The False Dilemma: Objective Morality Requires God
Clark, like many apologists, presents a false choice:
Either morality comes from God, or it’s meaningless and subjective.
But this ignores a third—and widely accepted—option: objective morality as a natural phenomenon.
- Morality can be objective without being supernatural.
- Suffering is objectively real.
- Human flourishing is objectively measurable.
- Actions that cause widespread harm—genocide, rape, torture—can be judged objectively wrong because they reliably cause suffering and degrade human dignity.
We don’t need a cosmic lawgiver to know this. We need only empathy, reason, and a commitment to minimizing suffering.
3. Evolution Doesn’t Undermine Morality—It Explains It
Instead of seeing evolution as a threat to morality, many philosophers see it as a powerful explanatory framework:
- Why do we feel empathy when others are in pain? Because social cooperation enhanced survival.
- Why do we punish cheaters or value fairness? Because groups that punished freeloaders thrived.
- Why do we instinctively recoil from murder, even when no one is watching? Because deeply ingrained social norms keep groups stable.
None of this makes morality unreal. It makes it natural—and all the more remarkable for being grounded in our shared humanity, not imposed from outside.
4. The God Hypothesis Doesn’t Help
Clark wants to assert that without God, we can’t call things truly right or wrong. But invoking God doesn’t solve the problem—it merely pushes it back a step.
- If something is good because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary—God could command genocide, and we’d have to call it good.
- If God commands it because it is good, then goodness exists independently of God.
This is known as the Euthyphro dilemma, and it still dismantles the claim that morality must be grounded in a deity.
Ironically, when the Bible itself condones slavery, commands genocide, and treats women and children as property, it’s hard to argue that this God is the source of a perfect moral law.
5. We Are the Moral Beings We’ve Been Waiting For
Clark dismisses evolutionary ethics as insufficient. But the truth is: the evolution of morality is one of humanity’s most awe-inspiring achievements.
- We’ve built systems of justice.
- We’ve outlawed slavery.
- We’ve expanded human rights.
- We’ve even reformed religious moral codes themselves.
This progress didn’t come from religion—it often came in spite of it.
We no longer burn heretics, stone adulterers, or shun menstruating women—not because God changed, but because we did.
Conclusion: Morality Doesn’t Require the Divine
Mark Clark’s insistence that morality must come from God is a theological assertion, not a philosophical necessity.
In reality:
- We can explain moral emotions through evolution.
- We can build ethical systems through reason and reflection.
- We can ground our values in shared goals: reducing harm, protecting rights, and promoting well-being.
None of that requires belief in God. And none of it is diminished by understanding where it came from.
To the contrary, it affirms something beautiful: that we are moral not because we were commanded to be, but because we care.
God or Delusion? 