Feeling humans and social animals: Theological considerations for an evolutionary account of human emotion.

In an overview of God and evolutionary theory in recent thought, Barbour (2000) categorizes various proponents as representing either a conflict, independence, dialogue, or integration approach. Using an evolutionary psychological (EP) model of the social function of human emotions, these approaches are considered in terms of how one could include EP within a theological ontology. The partnership of EP with dramatic scientific advances in cognitive neuroscience, the Human Genome Project, and proteonomics represent a powerful scientific hegemony in ultimately defining the human condition. The author's Hebraic model of integration proposes a robust framework for accommodating this hegemony within a theological ontology and eschatology, but without appealing to an apologetic of "intelligent design" or an "inner-agent" superseding the natural order. It is a holistic approach based on the core assumptions of physicalism and the power of an empirical epistemology in understanding and treating emotional brokenness. It also sees redemptive emotional healing as portent of the eschatological hope of the physical resurrection, deep social renewal, and the human place in ecological restoration in the Kingdom of God.

Barbour (2000, 2001) notes four major categories of engagement with God and evolutionary theory in recent thought: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Theorists, who Barbour classified in the "conflict" category, tended to take a more adversarial tone towards the need for a notion of God in understanding the origin and development of life in the world. Dawkins (1988) for example, in advocating evolutionary materialism, concluded that all forms of life, including humankind, are the result of physical forces and genetic replication as contained within evolutionary law, without the need to resort to creation, design (intelligent or otherwise), purpose, evil, or good. Likewise, Dennett (1995) viewed humankind as having emerged through a blend of chance and necessity within an impersonal process of genes exploring a "design space" by random mutation.

When framed within the cosmological boundaries of the origin and composition of the physical universe as we know it, the natural laws of chance, necessity, contingency, and deep time are sufficient to account for life and the eventual emergence of human life (Conway Morris, 1998; Dawkins, 1996; De Duve, 1996, 1998). In considering the origin of humankind, some proponents see life, including humankind, as having resulted from a cosmic imperative determined by natural laws according to the boundary conditions occurring at the "big bang," and not necessarily the result of an intervention by a supernatural God at any subsequent point in the process (Conway Morris, 1998; De Duve, 1996, 1998).

In opposition to this view stood such scientists as Michael Behe (1996), who pointed to the "irreducible complexity" of the biomolecular composition of organic life, and saw the necessity of "an intervention of information" at some point, perhaps many points, in order for the complexity in evolution to have fully emerged. In fact, the principles of "information" and "energy" are being increasingly viewed by such theorists as foundational to the "design" that most sensibly describes the emergence of life, and necessitating the notion of an intelligent designer (Dembski, 1998, 2001).

In considering the notion of intelligent design and other theological perspectives in the context of the neo-Darwinist movement of evolutionary psychology, I will explore the approaches used by representative theorists in the remaining categories of Barbour's "God and evolution in recent thought" (2001) overview, which are the categories of independence, dialogue, and integration. My focus throughout will be on the psychology of human emotion, especially as applied to the social and interpersonal dimensions of the human experience.

Emotion is a critical case study in considering evolutionary psychology and intelligent design because it is a vital dimension in making us more than information processing machines and it extends into every component of our lives as sentient beings (Damasio, 1999; Dennett, 1992). Furthermore, emotions is the one aspect of the human experience that has continued to mystify and elude those seeking to simulate human cognition through such means as artificial intelligence and robotics in order to understand human behavior (Barbour, 1999). As the psychology of human emotion is considered, I will try to use more recent cognitive neuroscientific findings and relevant theological perspectives in a critique of the adequacy of an evolutionary psychology approach and/or the necessity of the notion of intelligent design.

Evolutionary Psychology and Human Emotion in Heterosexual Relationships

Evolutionary psychology (EP) has gained increasing sway in American psychology over the past two decades in the immediate aftermath of the rise of E.O. Wilson's sociobiology (Buss, 1999; Pope, 2001; Wilson, 2000). Consistent with sociobiology, EP considers the purpose of human cognition and behavior within a biological framework that evaluates the adaptive utility and reproductive potential of these traits according to the principle of natural selection. For example, in considering the powerful negative emotions that often arise as a part of heterosexual relationships, gender conflict can be viewed as primarily the result of men and women having evolved different short-term and long-term mating strategies in order to optimize their reproductive potential (Symon, 1979, 1989). According to Buss (1999):

Men, far more than women, have evolved a deeper desire for sexual variety. This desire manifests itself in many forms, including seeking sexual access sooner, more persistently, and more aggressively than women typically desire. Conversely, women have evolved to be more discriminating in short-term mating, typically delaying sexual intercourse beyond what men usually desire. Clearly the sexes cannot simultaneously fulfill these conflicting sexual desires. This is an example of a phenomenon called strategic interference. (p. 313)

Women seek sexual intimacy with male partners who not only display signs of having resources to provide for their offspring, but who are also willing to commit those resources over the long-term to their reproductive investment. Such a strategy comes into clear conflict with the male desire for sexual variety amidst the opportunity to invest reproductively in multiple female partners, without necessarily having to commit his resources to any specific woman over the long-term in a manner that would preclude other reproductive opportunities. The fundamental incompatibility of these two different strategies between the genders form the basis of what EP theorists term the "strategic interference" theory of gender conflict and the negative emotions that ensue.

The negative emotions occurring as a part of gender conflicts are themselves predicted by interference theory and serve several purposes. First of all, emotions that arise out of gender conflict, such as jealousy or anger, capture our attention and compel lovers to focus on the source of the conflict in the hope of resolving it and, thus, maintaining the relationship intact. These emotions also help them be aware of similar situations in the future that may again give rise to the same negative emotions, which perhaps serve to help them avoid such social situations entirely and thereby avoiding the negative emotions that ensue. Thirdly, such negative emotions as jealousy, anger, disappointment, and despair compel partners to seek a course of action that will address the source of the strategic interference and resolve the conflict, allowing them to escape the negative emotions.

All three aspects of the negative emotions that stem from gender conflicts point to their adaptive reproductive advantage for the species. This is because such emotions provide the motivation for seeking resolution to relational conflicts that arises out of strategic interference. In doing so, negative emotions provide the motivation for social behavioral adjustments that can still keep the human pairbond together in maintaining their reproductive investment, when deeply rooted differences in optimal short-term mating strategies might otherwise tear them apart.

Levels of Causality in Human Emotion

Some Christian psychologists may not find the above EP account of the negative emotions in gender conflict to be very compelling. This is because the immediate social interaction out of which such emotions arise and the manner in which they are vividly experienced and compel behavior, seem to have little relevance to such deferred and dispassionate principles as "strategic interference" and "longterm optimization of reproductive potential." Furthermore, such accounts seem to disregard the full aesthetic richness, wonder, and drama that is such a vital part of human feelings in the midst of romantic relationships.

However, to appreciate the explanatory power of the EP account, it is important to distinguish among various levels of causality in the human experience (Pope, 1998a, 1998b). Evolutionary theory describes how genotypes may be selected on the basis of their phenotypic outcomes in enhancing the survival of the organism and hence, the potential likelihood of passing on those genotypes. Human emotional experience in the context of interpersonal relationships is derived from a cluster of prepared learning mechanisms that guide what emotions arise, how they are consciously interpreted, and the behavioral propensities resulting from such feelings. However, all of these aspects of human emotions may on the surface seem to have little to do with the original reasons why the genotypic traits undergirding those propensities were incorporated into the gene pool and saturated it.

Furthermore, superseding the genotypic and phenotypic levels of causality in human emotion is the cultural level. Stephen Gould (2001) suggested that a distinctive aspect of the evolutionary process in humans was the manner in which genotypic selection ultimately gave rise to the organ of the human brain, which has the ability to be shaped in its function by the culture emerging out of the social order of the species.

Thus, culture may further harness, shape, and redirect the phenotypically based propensities in which humans are prepared to experience and respond to their emotions in the context of interpersonal relationships. One example is the manner in which governments or religious movements can politically exploit the human emotions of "duty," "social obligation," "honor," or "love" of God or country, to do something so phenorypically and genotypically irresponsible as to throw one's life away in assaulting a dangerous enemy military stronghold or launching a suicide bomb attack. Selfsacrificial behaviors inspired by passion of this sort perhaps make sense when done on behalf of one's immediate progeny. However, when done for the sake of an amorphous political entity, they are clearly the result of a cultural exploitation of emotional propensities that arose for other adaptive reasons.

EP is a comprehensive and robust enough paradigm to incorporate all three levels of causality into its explanatory models for a given aspect of the human experience: genotypic, phenotypic, and cultural. The common strand throughout these various conceptual levels is that they can be woven into a naturalistic account that do not need at any point to appeal to a supernatural cause or agent (either within or outside of the person) in attempting to explain any aspect of the "what" or "how" of human emotional experience. Furthermore, an EP account can provide an epistemologically consistent springboard for further scientific study as to the "how" of human emotional experience, as elucidated by contemporary cognitive neuroscientific research.

A Neuroscientific Perspective in Understanding Emotion in Human Experience

After decades of neglect, the neuroscience of feelings is gaining new respect as researchers probe the brain for the origins of emotions (Kaufman, 1999; Ledoux, 1995). To illustrate, Richard Davidson at the Laboratory for Affective Neuroscience at the University of Wisconsin in Madison has received major funding support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as part of a national mind-body research initiative to learn more about the biology of emotions. In particular, he is studying how the brain originates, processes, and is changed by the emotions that color and direct human behavior.

What has helped inspire this major initiative within brain/behavior research has been the power and potential that the new neuro-imaging techniques have had to offer, such as the Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and the functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) (Goodwin, 1997; Kennedy et al., 1997). Enhancements in the instrumentation available for these neuro-imaging technologies over the past decade have provided scientists with a more powerful window than ever before, into the brain substrates of cognitive and affective activity in normal and diseased brains (Andreason, 1997; Land, 2001). Furthermore, these technological advances have allowed MRI's to provide a dynamic as well as high resolution structural view of the brain within a technology accessible to hundreds of medical centers nationwide. This has resulted in numerous additional brain science labs having the opportunity to study brain/behavior/cognition/emotion interactions and, for example, how they respond to pharmaceutical intervention (Car ter, 1998; Maddox, 1999).

In using such imaging technology, Davidson has documented that the left prefrontal cortex is associated with positive goal attainment, whereas the right prefrontal cortex is associated with negative anxiety and withdrawal emotions (e.g., dysphoria) (Davidson, Abercrombie, Nitschke, & Putnam, 1999). Furthermore, in EEG studies of 10-month-olds who were briefly separated from their mothers, the most common response was to cry, which was accompanied by right prefrontal cortical activation. However, for those few infants that did respond to the separation by tentatively exploring their environments, the left prefrontal cortex was more active. It seems that specific patterns of brain activation differentiate infants who have different emotional tendencies in response to maternal separation, and that these tendencies may reflect predispositions that then become the foundation for later adult personality.

Such hardwired emotional tendencies may also precipitate vulnerability to the development of psychopathology in the context of interpersonal relationships. In fact, Davidson believes that emotional health may be most closely associated with the capacity to feel emotions deeply in the appropriate social context, and then rapidly recover (Kaufman, 1999). Davidson has concluded that the prefrontal cortex in both brain hemispheres is connected to important parts of the limbic system (i.e., the motivational system for survival). As such, the orchestration of neural activity between the prefrontal regions and such limbic structures as the amygdala and hippocampus is responsible for the integration of human memory and emotions. The relative balance of structural activity in the brain, which is biogenetically and developmentally determined during critical periods early in the person's life, may shape his or her temperament, and susceptibility to emotional pathology and dysfunction when under duress from interpersonal conflicts and crises (Bates & Wachs, 1994; Cohen, 1994; Goldsmith, Buss, & Lemery, 1997; Leckman & Cohen, 1999; Siegel, 1999).

Also, brain neurochemical models have recently been documented as undergirding the positive range of human emotions in the context of romantic relationships (Discovery Channel, 1997). For example, Damasio (2000) has implicated the action of the hormone oxytocin upon the brain as vital in the development of emotional bonding between mother and offspring as well as between romantic partners. The brain chemical phenylalanine has been implicated as well in the development of romantic pair-bonding, and it is related to the release of the neurotransmitter dopamine during times of sexual pleasure and reward. Enhancing serotonin levels in the brain through such medications as Prozac not only can make despondent and anxious individuals happier, but this can diminish the tendency towards angry aggressive outbursts in social settings for those prone to such and, thus, enhancing the likelihood for establishing positive social feelings and bonds (Julien, 1998; Kramer, 1993).

Evolutionary Psychology. Behavioral Cognitive Neuroscience, and The Human Genome Project: A Powerful Scientific Hegemony

At this time, the cognitive neuroscience research addressing the "what" of emotional experience seems somewhat disjointed from EP's attempts to scientifically explain the adaptive functions giving rise to the genotypic basis of such emotions. However, with the completion of the Genome Project, these two seeming disparate scientific fields will become increasingly integrated. According to Phil Andrews at the University of Michigan, one of the leading biochemists involved in genetics research,

With the genetic code deciphered, Andrews says, the truly meaningful work begins. The Genome Project 'will be thought of something like the invention of the Gutcnburg Press,' he says, 'It created all the literature that came after that. ... We'll spend the next ten generations of scientists trying to understand the organism: What makes an organism alive? What does it mean for an organism to get sick? Even, why does an organism act the way it does?' (Garber, 2000, p.3)

Andrews is one of the leading researchers in what is now the hottest scientific field of the 21st century, that of proteomics. Proteomics is the large-scale study of what specific proteins are coded by the genes and where they fit in the organism's life processes. With the completion of the Genome Project, scientists are no longer limited to the random study of individual protein sequences and functions, but they can systematically study thousands of proteins and their genetic constituents at once (Mortimer, 2001). This will allow much more rapid progress in the cataloguing of an estimated 20 million different proteins, which are to genes what buildings are to blueprints in terms of life processes in humans.

Furthermore, the implications of the technology emerging from proteomics are huge in terms of the ability to custom design much more specific and effective pharmaceutical and biogenetic treatments for psychiatric disorders, including those related to emotionally-based psychopathologies (e.g., mood disorders). Proteomics, along with structural biology and the newly emerging field of bioinformatics, will eventually fill in the huge gulf of ignorance between the evolutionary history of higher species and their cognitive neuroscience of adaptation.

What this means is that the potential explanatory power of evolutionary psychology will be markedly enhanced as it obtains the ability to empirically test its theoretical hypotheses. At present, all that EP can do is provide a plausible yet speculative ad hoc account as to how certain universal phenotypic features relevant to emotions in humankind were in time co-opted, preserved, and enhanced within human brain structure. EP can assert that the evolutionary development of human emotions relevant to, for example, pair-bonding was fostered precisely because of the ability of neurostructural orchestration of brain chemicals, such as oxytocin, phenylalanine, serotonin, and dopamine, within the limbic system of the brain to emotionally enhance greater social cohesion and co-operation in human couples engaged in offspring bearing and caring.

However, the science of proteomics will allow scientists to actually test theories related to the manner in which genotypic mutations originally gave rise to the biomolecular manufacturing of emotionally vital neurochemicals (e.g., oxytocin, serotonin, dopamine, and phenylalanine) in precursors to the mammalian brain. Furthermore, it will allow them to explore in what other species in the evolutionary tree have such neurochemical dynamics. In doing so, scientists can begin to map how these neurochemicals, which are within the phylogenetic chain, biogenetically emerged and gave rise to the behavioral propensity of pair-bonding emotions in brain structures so as to predispose those species to subsequent nurturing behaviors.

Finally, the integration of EP with proteomics will allow evolutionary psychologists to better understand the manner in which such processes have been subverted or twisted in segments of the human population within our evolutionary history and, thus, gave rise to warfare, senseless violence, cruelty, aggression, social fracture, neglect, and disintegration at all levels of the human family and social unit. Using proteomics as the bridge to understand the origination and genotypic mechanism of the epidemiological incidence of such warping of the human brain, psychiatrists and helping professionals will be able to identify and more effectively treat individuals who are heavily predisposed to the above destructive emotional tendencies. This technology will help avoid the terrible human cost when such tendencies go undetected and are allowed to be expressed unchecked.

What Room for Theology in the Face of a Scientific Hegemony?

Given the scientific developments that are on the horizon, the ability of an evolutionary psychology model to provided a cohesive and reasonable account as to the origin and function of human emotions in the context of interpersonal relationships should not be minimized by Christian psychologists. Furthermore, as a scientific understanding of the brain and neurochemical structures undergirding human emotions have begun to be better understood (Servan-Schreiber et al., 1998), a technology has emerged that has revolutionized the means by which debilitating dysphorias can be treated (Robbins, 1998). One noteworthy example is that as a result of an entirely naturalistic account of human emotion in biomedical and pharmaceutical research, psychiatric medicine is now able to use such drugs as Prozac and Zoloft to treat dysphorias like depression and anxiety more effectively than ever before in human history (Boivin, in press). Furthermore, millions of Americans irrespective of religious faith and commitment have bee n the beneficiaries of these pharmaceutical advances (Colvard & Wilson, 1995; Elfenbein, 1995; Kramer, 1993). This fact should not be too easily dismissed, nor the philosophical implications be too easily overlooked in regards to the power and potential of a naturalistic and reductionistic materialistic account (Barshinger, LaRowe, & Tapia, 1995).

Yet, despite all of the recent scientific advances as to the "how" of human emotions, psychologists holding to a theological dimension of personhood still consider EP limited in its ability to adequately account for the "why" of human emotions in interpersonal experiences. Such theorists believe that if the significance of the human experience, including the most profound and enriching of human emotions, amount to little more than the requisites for adaptation and survival as a species, than it is indeed an existentially futile and hollow existence.

Other theorists, irrespective of the existential need for a theological dimension to undergird the significance and endurance of the human experience beyond one's mortal life, point to the failure of any reductionist materialistic account, including EP, to adequately account for the universal human feelings of moral sensitivity, conscience, awareness of the transcendent (i.e., God), and aesthetic wonder or beauty (Murphy, 1998). These aspects of the human experience do not readily lend themselves to a purely naturalistic account, and they evidence an intelligent design by a creator who endeavored to endow a crowning aspect of His creation with the ability to know, love, and serve Him.

There are prominent scientists who do not question the legitimacy of theological considerations about the human condition, but they consider these as part of an entirely separate domain that is independent of evolutionary science. Barbour referred to those holding to this approach as illustrative of his category of "independence" in terms of God and evolution in recent thought. One example is Gould's (2001) notion of non-overlapping Magesteria (NOMA), in which he considered attempts to derive philosophical, theological, or ethical conclusions from science, such as those in the intelligent design movement, as essentially bankrupt. This is simply because religion and science are entirely separate and mutually exclusive realms of human consideration. Hence, the attempt to find evidence of intelligent design in a psychological understanding of any aspect of the human experience, including human emotions in the context of relationships, will be scientifically illegitimate and invalid.

Seeking a Faith/Science Integration in Understanding Human Emotion

How then do we reconcile a paradigm that considers human emotions in the context of God the creator (i.e., ontogeny of emotions within a theological view of what ought to be), and a paradigm that considers human emotion apart from God and solely within the EP context of the survival of the species and the selfish gene (e.g., Dawkins, 1976/1989)? At first glance, these two approaches do seem to stand as opposing frameworks for understanding the human condition. Consequently, the approach of a theologically driven psychology might too simply deem the EP approach as antithetical to a Christian approach, and/or phenomenologically unacceptable given one's own personal view about the adequacy of evolutionary theory in accounting for the fullness and richness of such human experiences as romantic love, morality, creativity, and aesthetic wonder.

Perhaps, however, there is a broader perspective that we can adopt that can allow us to integrate these two paradigms in such a way as to provide a fuller and richer understanding of the human condition in a complementary manner. An evolutionary psychological view can provide a dimension to a theological understanding of the human condition that is a fertile basis for new theoretical considerations in understanding and treating broken relationships and painful emotions within a scientific psychology. Such an approach would be illustrative of Barbour's third category in the God and evolution debate, that of "dialogue," where the concept of design lends itself at some level to the scientific account of the human condition.

One example of this approach would be that of Paul Davies (1983), where the trajectories of the evolution of the universe towards greater complexity, the origin of carbon-based life forms, greater complexity and diversification of such life forms, and ultimately, the human brain and human consciousness - can be described at one level as products of the laws of nature. However, they are also suggestive at another level of design and purpose both ontologically and eschatologically. This approach provides for both the theological perspective of emotions as an integral part of humankind-the crowning act of physical creation-and the biological dimension--human emotion as a feature of the human animal struggling for survival across the millennia within a harsh ecosystem.

It is dangerous to make man see his equality with the brutes without showing him his greatness. It is also dangerous to make him see his greatness too clearly, apart from his vileness. It is still more dangerous to leave him ignorant of both. But it is very advantageous to show him both. (Pascal, 1940, P. 69)

As an exercise in Barbour's notion of this type of science and theology dialogue, the Genesis account of the creation and fall of humankind is revisited below with a special focus on the origin of negative emotions in human relationship. In considering this account, an ontology of human emotions within creation is emphasized as well as the biological dimension of the fall of the human species and the subsequent pervasive struggle for survival. The creation account is a story that captures existentially the purpose behind the ensuing struggle for survival after being driven from the Garden into a cursed and fallen ecosystem, which persists to the present as a universal feature of the human condition. It is also this feature that provides an central point of interface between a theological understanding of humankind and a more biological approach such as that provided by evolutionary psychology.

A Biblical Perspective in the Origins of Negative Emotion in Human Relationship

In considering the problem of pain and suffering within a Christian world view, it was C.S. Lewis (1940) who introduced the notion of pain as the megaphone of God. Sometimes murmuring, sometimes shouting, suffering is a rumor of transcendence that the entire human condition is out of whack (Lewis, 1940; Yancey, 1977). Within the Biblical account in Genesis of creation and the fall of humankind (Chapters 2 and 3), we see the awakening of the negative human emotions that sound a clear warning that there has been a critical breach in the intimate and wholesome social order of the Garden of Eden (Suchocki, 1994a). Adam's initial response of favor and oneness, perhaps even amazement and joy, when gazing upon woman was to exclaim that, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh!" (Genesis 2:23). The commentator observes that "the man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame" (Genesis 2:25). Yet, the first emotion noted following their act of disobedience by taking and eating the forbidden fruit was that "...the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves" (Genesis 3:7).

They now knew the meaning of shame and separation from each other as a result of fear and the accompanying blame to justify their actions (Gen. 3:10-13). The dawn of shame, guilt, and fear clearly denoted that the human relationship had fallen from a perfect order of harmony and love, both with respect to the horizontal dimension of true human intimacy, and the vertical dimension of the capacity to walk and talk with God in the garden in the cool of the day (Suchocki, 1994a). Furthermore, He was compelled to drive them from the garden and into a world of struggle and toil at every level.

No longer would man and woman have the deepest intimacy and oneness, but instead they had clear roles and hierarchy in their relationship that God ordained and defined (Bilezikian, 1987). This was presumably to impose cohesion and structure to a family unit in order to enhance its survival within a fallen ecosystem. No longer would the fruits of the Garden be readily available in abundance (Genesis 1:29-30), but instead:

... Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field; by the swear of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. (Genesis 3:17-19, NASB)

Before the fall, gender-based hierarchy or division of labor within the family unit or clan was not needed because the resources for survival were abundant. In addition, their was full and complete complementarity between man and woman (Genesis 2:23-25) and communion with God (Genesis 2:19). However, after the fall, He said to the woman "... I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Genesis 3:16, NASB). The pain and conflict arising from reproduction, hierarchy, and dominance that was introduced into the human condition would be both physical and emotional, and they would extend into all aspects of the human social experience. It would be most critical, however, between men and women as pairbonds -- needing each other, but having conflicting interests and priorities (Suchocki, 1994b). It would also be most potent between parents and children, needing each other and yet needing to be independent o f each other at times amidst conflicting strategies for optimizing their opportunities for garnering the resources that they needed for their personal survival, ultimate reproductive opportunities, and success (Campbell, 1975).

Such emotional pain (and joy) have been a universal feature of the human family experience ever since. These emotions lend themselves readily to the evolutionary psychological interpretation in the context of adaptation and survival of the human social unit within a fallen ecosystem and a broader social order in turmoil (Smulders, 1971). True, natural, and complete oneness in loving intimacy among people would no longer be fully possible, and yet a social glue must still remain within the human genotype to maintain some level of social cohesion. This is simply because humankind, despite having all the psychological and brain/behavior prerequisites to be distinct autonomous agents, independent, and apart of all that surrounds them, must at the same time remain within communities in order to survive (Suchocki, 1994a).

Thus, the range of human emotions occurring within the social context, both positive and negative emotions, became of vital importance in providing the social glue necessary across the millennia for human co-operation, adaptation, and survival within a hostile ecosystem where viruses, micro-organisms, snakes, sabertooth tigers, inclimate weather, natural disasters, and competing hostile groups of other humans threaten at every turn. Yet, our emotional needs provide a strong counterbalance to the inherent conflicts and divisions that drove individuals apart (Suchocki, 1994a). Emotional need for one another, in particular, became foundational for the fundamental human adaptive advantage--that of social co-operation in order to assert dominion over creation (Bilezikian, 1987). From an evolutionary psychological perspective, this development might even be seen as the beginning of the process of strategic interference; when differing gender roles in the struggle for survival as social units also gave rise to confl icting strategies for optimal reproductive advantage between the genders.

Irrespective, the subsequent chapters account the natural consequences of this critical breach, ranging from the jealousy and murderous anger of Cain against Abel (Gen. 4:5-8), to the prideful arrogance of Lamech (Gen. 4:23-24). From then until now, the shame, loneliness, fear, rejection, anger, depression, pride, and arrogance all cry out to us that we live as broken beings in broken relationship to each other and God amidst a fallen order groaning for full redemption and restoration in Christ (Suchocki, 1994a). This genotypic cauldron of divisiveness, anger, violence, and social brokenness continued a downward spiral within humankind to the point where "... the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence" (Genesis 6:11, NASB). After a catastrophic genotypic culling of humankind, a new beginning was made through the line of a select family group (i.e., Noah's family). The genotypic basis to all that emotionally arises within the human brain to draw us together as a gregariou s species overshadowed the emotions that drove us apart, to the point of a need for one more dramatic point of divine intervention to redirect the course of human history.

Now the whole earth used the same language and the same words. And it came about as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there, And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly." And they used brick for stone, and they used tar for mortar. And they said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, "Behold, they are one people and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth, and they stopped building the city. (Genesis 11: 1-8,NASB)

God dispersed humankind once more by touching that within the human genotype that is fundamental to human social life and co-operation-language. And with that dispersion, the struggle for survival and thus, the human conflict and emotions that are an integral part of that struggle, have been the mainstay of human history, both within and between social groups and ethnicities at all levels (Suchocki, 1994a).

There are models that recognize the destructive maladaptiveness and brokenness of human emotions, and these models try to account for it from a predominantly evolutionary standpoint (e.g., Korsmeyer, 1998; Weiner, 1995). However, the above historical biblical narrative sees the unfolding of human emotions and the biological structures that undergird them as an expression of the brokenness in a fallen social order, as well as at times necessary and adaptive when viewed within the context of a fallen ecosystem (Korsmeyer, 1998). In short, the biblical narrative provides an ontological framework of the ultimate origin, meaning, and purpose of the emotional biological mechanisms that EP, cognitive neuroscience, and proteomics are scientifically describing and understanding.

As such, a vital adaptive purpose (both biologically and theologically) of human emotional pain within relationships is that it compels us to try as best we can to respond to the breach in human relationships, which give rise to the anger, fear, isolation and loneliness, shame, and despair. As physical pain warns of injury or disease within our bodies to which we must respond in order to protect and heal, so emotional pain warns of disease within social organisms of which we are a part. This emotional pain compels us to redress the damage or long somehow to transcend it.

The despair of a spurned lover; the isolation and loneliness of one away from one's tribe, clan, or family; the anxious cries of an abandoned child; the jealous anger of a betrayed friend; the guilt and shame of a betrayal before God-all cry out that our place in the social organism, the larger body of which we are a part, is injured and bleeding. The pain of emotions serves as a megaphone of God within the horizontal (i.e., others) and vertical (i.e., God) dimensions, warning us of how we are disconnected to those we need (Suchocki, 1994a,b).

In the "soul-making" cauldron of human existence, Christ is preparing for Himself not a redeemed collection of individuals, but a "body" (i.e., Church) groomed to become His bride in an eschatology that betrays the ultimate purpose of the social and relational underpinnings of human emotions. That is, to provide the foundation for a far more cohesive covenant community (i.e., Body of Christ) that can ever be possible through natural evolutionary processes alone. Even the best of human emotions, as we know them now in the context of family and friends, are but a dim foretaste of the redemptive emotional healing, even ecstasy, of being truly unified with each other and with Him in the Kingdom community. God is preparing for Himself a people, and theological perspectives have to offer naturalistic perspectives some framework as to the teleology (i.e., completed design) of human emotions and relationships as we can best know and study them in the present (Suchocki, 1988).

The Integration of Evolutionary Psychology with a Theological Ontology

Barbour's (2001) fourth category for categorizing approaches to God and evolution in recent thought is that of "integration." The major feature of this approach that distinguishes it from the dialogue approach seems to be the conjecture of some means by which the theology undergirds or drives natural processes without violating or necessarily superseding them. As such, "integration" moves beyond "dialogue" in that it posits some direct point of interface between the natural order and supernatural one without intentionally undermining the explanatory power of either.

One example of this approach would be recent attempts to characterize God as the determiner of indeterminacies, perhaps at the quantum level of particle physics (Russell, Murphy, & Peacocke, 1995). In describing this approach, Barbour notes that the doctrine of divine sovereignty could be maintained at an eschatological level if, for example, God providentially controls all quantum events at the level of indeterminacy. This would allow for seemingly small differences at the quantum level to become amplified and orchestrated into large-scale phenomena (e.g., genetic mutations culminating in neural systems giving rise to human consciousness and emotions), which can effectively be described as having arisen as a result of natural physical laws (i.e., EP's account). As such, God can be seen as influencing only certain quantum events without violating what appear to be at a more global level, lawful statistical processes that might seem to randomly give rise to biogenetic variation within an evolutionary model (Ru ssell, Stoeger, & Ayala, 1996). This level of "bottom-up causality" was seen by Barbour as perhaps necessitating some sort of ultimate "top-down" causation as well in its attempts to integrate a theological ontology with a naturalistic account of the origin and development of humankind.

One theorist exemplifying a more directly topdown causation model of integration is Authur Peacocke (2001), who concluded that greater complexity in higher forms of life eventually culminated in human consciousness through evolutionary processes. The extent to which such boundary conditions necessitated a highly improbable "finely tuned" set of cosmic parameters at the inception of the universe (i.e., "big bang") is the extent to which such an approach to integration lends itself to an "intelligent design" aspect (Pockinghorne, 1994, 2000; Polkinghorne & Welker, 2000).

In terms of evolutionary psychology and intelligent design, perhaps the most relevant recent example of the integration approach that does not remove the causality of God to either the very bottorn or the very top of the causal chain is that of John Haught (2000). He attempted to fully engage Darwinian theory on its own terms as he considered the manner in which evolutionary theory might give rise to a theology of nature that corroborates a Christian theology based on the character of Jesus. Haught asked the question, "What type of universe might we expect as witnessed by the character of Jesus in the biblical narrative?"

In answering that question, Haught noted that the humility of God might be apparent (i.e., the notion of Kenosis or self emptying, Philipians 2:5-11) in a creative process that is not dramatic, overpowering, dictating, or overbearing, but subtle and patient in its emergent properties. It would be a creative process that would be allowed to come about, each step of the way, in its own time and manner with a lawfulness and consistency, which might reflect the enduring and stable attributes of the character of God including His fidelity (or faithfulness).

It would also be a universe "full gifted" in the sense of the built-in capacity to expand and explore its full potentiality (i.e., biogenetically) in, at times, a freeform, creative, and unpredictable manner. As such, it is a universe seeded with the notion of promise rather than reflecting a rigidly structured design at its inception (Van Till, 1999a, 1999b). It would also have to be a universe that could accommodate the infinite into the finite in a gradual assimilation over deep time.

Finally, it could not be a universe of chaos, but one of contingency, lawfulness, and order. Yet, this universe could still accommodate enough ambiguity to allow for suffering and pain as the universe is given the freedom to unfold according to divine providence. Hence, it would have to be a universe that could not only accommodate the process of cell mutation for the emergence of new forms of life, but the cancerous mutation of cells that bring about human suffering and death as a part of that order.

In all, it is an unfinished universe that contains the "vision" of God in its potentiality at its inception, but not the entire and complete plan fully realized all at once. Nature is a story, not a state. Likewise, God is more omega than alpha in the origin and destiny of humankind (Teilhard de Chardin, 1999). This is reflected in the non-intrusive manner in which He coaxed or drew the unfolding of creation towards him in a restless and dynamic way. Drawing forth patiently over deep time, the evolutionary emergence of life, including humankind, the development of human consciousness, and the development of the emotional life undergirding relationships with one another and with Him--culminating in God embracing the natural order fully as Christ, the obedient one who came in the flesh and submitted to the limitations thereof.

Will Theology and EP Continue to Live Together, or Do They Need Intelligent Design to Perform the Marriage?

Evolutionary psychology suggests that human emotions can be adequately understood within the framework of their adaptive value in human motivation and survival, especially within the social context. As such, the scientific approach in exploring the genotypic and subsequent phenotypic expression of these traits, including the brain/behavior systems mediating them, provides the best means of understanding human emotions in a manner that will allow for effective psychotherapeutic intervention. EP, however, does not help us much with the issues of what ought to be within the human condition (i.e., ontological or teleological considerations from a theological standpoint). These considerations best take place when viewing humankind within a broader context of creator and creation without simply casting aside natural order in a capricious or theologically expedient manner. Haught's approach as described above, for example, is one that earnestly considers both the science and the theology in a model whereby they mutu ally inform one another. Science is not simply relegated to the handmaiden of a hermeneutically restricted theology. In order for any scientific theory or model of human emotion to be able to complement a theological view, the proponents and advocates for a theological perspective must be appreciative of what science has to offer paradigmatically, and not just technologically.

The following are four propositions that I consider vital in understanding how Christian religious doctrinal views (both historically and presently) will respond to scientific models that attempt a naturalistic account of the human condition, including the purpose and function of human emotions. These propositions can also be used to gauge the extent to which a religious group will demand a strong intelligent design apologetic within whatever science deems admissible in the understanding of creation and the human condition (Grizzle, 1995; Van Till, 1995).

1. A religious view that tends to see the physical realm as an imperfect representation of a metaphysical reality of greater and more enduring value, will b less likely to value or integrate scientific advances into its understanding human emotions and its perspective for achieving healing or change. Conversely a faith perspective that sees its commission as being more than "saving souls," and values psychological, interpersonal, family, cultural, ecological, economic and political renewal as part of the building of the Kingdom of God, is more likely to integrate scientific advances into its doctrine of how a church might encourage healing amidst human brokenness.

2. A religious view that places a strong emphasis on repeated, dramatic, and capricious intervention by God in the human condition in a manner that supersedes and overshadows a natural order will be less likely to value or integrate scientific advances apart from an intelligent design apologetic into its perspective about human emotional needs. It will tend to initially seek a dramatic or miraculous intervention by God, originating in a spiritual realm, as the principal and perhaps only legitimate means of achieving human healing and change in the face of significant psychological brokenness.

3. A religious view that tends to impose a false dichotomy in operationalizing a world view, by emphasizing a need for its adherents to choose between a metaphysical order and a natural one in understanding the world of human experience, will be more likely to view scientific advances in treating mood disorders as a threat to a Christian view of the person.

4. A religious view that tends to view itself as a bulwark of Christian values against a hostile culture (i.e., Christ against culture or anti-culture) will tend to distrust and resist scientific advances in psychopharmacology and psychiatry in providing tools to enhance redemptive human change. Religious views that either assimilate the positive features of culture (i.e., the Christ of Culture or accommodation) or view the Church as a transformer of culture (i.e., Christ the transformer of culture or conversionist) will more readily incorporate the technology and insights arising out of brain/behavior scientific advances into its practical theology pertaining to the healing of human brokenness. This is irrespective of the extent to which such advances incorporate an "intelligent design" component. A religious view that considers itself a transforming or redeeming agent of culture, including contemporary scientific advance and pharmaceutical technology in American culture, can also more readily incorporate th e beneficial aspects of behavioral neuroscience advance into a Christian view of the person (Drury, 1998; Niebuhr, 1951).

I contend that it is possible to formulate an understanding of human emotion within a Biblical and theological framework that can readily accommodate such paradigms as that of evolutionary psychology. Not only that, but Christian movements and churches that do this will be more effective in initiating redemptive change and healing amidst human brokenness when they incorporate and redemptively exploit the best of what such models have to offer in terms of the lawful processes that undergird the human condition.

If scientific advances in information theory develop compelling evidence for a model of intelligent design within the ecological and human order, then so much the better. However, some sort of theory or model of "intelligent design" need not be conjectured without scientific warrant, or contrived principally on the basis of an apologetic need to support special creation (Grizzle, 1995; Van Till, 1995), in order for an effective and valid integration to take place between a theological and scientific understanding of human emotion.

The Hebraic Model of the Person: A Framework for Integrating a Scientific and Theological Account of Human Emotion

A Hebraic model of science and theology integration, as originally proposed by the author (Boivin, 1991), posited that the pharmaceutical/psychiatric healing of emotions can be framed within the context of a theologically-based understanding of who and what that person was meant to be as a valued part of God's physical creation and order. As such, this approach emphasized a distinction between human biological nature and brain biochemical processes in its fallen or maladaptive state, and the same processes in their completed and incorruptible state in God's Kingdom on a renewed earth. The principal propositions of Boivin's Hebraic model are summarized below as they pertain to an understanding of human emotions:

1. The Hebraic model of persons is unitary, as opposed to the Platonic Greek dualistic emphasis. As such, the Hebraic model is a holistic one and considers the interactive continuum among the bio-genetic, physiological, psychological (i.e., cognitive and emotional), familial, social, economic, and cultural domains as it develops theory and treatment strategies to redemptively address human brokenness. What a person is emotionally is largely shaped by the social context, both in the history of the individual and in the broader biogenetic history of that tribe or people group as it adapts ecologically through selection processes operating at the genotypic, phenotypic, and cultural levels.

This is abundantly clear with even a "plain sense" reading of the Bible with regards to its emphasis on family lineage and tribal identity (biogenetic domain), family order and structure (in the mosaic law and in the NT church), physical healing as a vital part of the ministry of Christ (and the OT prophets), a repeated call to social and economic justice (curses and blessings upon the land pronounced by God), and cultural renewal and integrity as exemplified by the covenants between God and a chosen people (as witnessed by both the Old and New Covenants).

2. According to Old Testament thought, persons do not "have" bodies but are bodies, such that all the important theological dimensions of personhood (i.e., soul, spirit, will, conscience, mind, and heart), including human emotion and feelings, emerge or emanate from our physical beings. Despite the more recent attempts by Moreland and Rae (2000) to suggest otherwise, the mainstream of respected biblical scholarship has consistently emphasized the physicalistic and holistic emphasis on persons within Hebraic anthropology as reflected in both the Old and New Testaments. To quote Gundry's (1987) comprehensive review of the concept of soma (i.e., body) in biblical theology,

Beyond the meaning and usage of Hebrew words for the body, we confront a current understanding of OT (Old Testament) anthropology by now so common that its maxims need no quotation marks. Is it that in the OT body and soul do not contrast. Man is an animated body rather than an incarnated soul. (p. 119)

As a result of humankind being a social organism immersed within a natural order, there is no need to conjecture aspects of human cognition or emotion (i.e., free will) that somehow supersedes the natural order as "intelligent agent."

3. God created humankind essentially as biological in nature, yet these natural processes are no less theologically significant in terms of what it means to be created in the image of God. As such, the Hebraic model vouches for the adequacy of the philosophical assumptions of an empirical epistemology within science to understand even the most profound aspects of the human experience.

4. The continued existence of a human person beyond death depends not on the existence of an incorporeal soul, but on the resurrection of the physical body into an incorruptible physical state. Whether this resurrected state takes place at the moment of death in a multidimensional reality outside the boundaries of chronological time, the physics of entropy, and three-dimensional space as we know it is simply a matter of speculation at this point. The key issue is that an intermediate soul state is not posited simply in order for a person to persist as a distinct individual beyond death, and such constructs have no place in a Christian psychology of emotion that attempts to be scientific at any level (Brown, Murphy, & Malony, 1998). Furthermore, the created physical order is also redeemed and restored such that we await a physical resurrection within a deeply integrated and cohesive social unity (i.e., Body/Bride of Christ) within a City of God and as part of a restored ecosystem within which God will be physi cally present.

To summarize, not only is our physical resurrection at the core of our destiny in Christ, but our resurrection within a restored physical creation (i.e., a new heaven and a new earth and the City of God). Our environment (i.e, ecological, architectural, social, political, and economic) and its restoration is an important part of our lives now and in the fullness of the Kingdom of God. These dimensions influence and interact in vital ways with what we are and will become in both our present fallen state and in our fully restored state in the Kingdom of God. This is consistent with a holistic emphasis in terms of what is means to restore human brokenness, including emotional and psychological brokenness and all the factors that can contribute to it (i.e., genetic, physiological, familial, social, cultural, and economic).

Restoring the Human Species through the Physical Resurrection?

I contend that the most vital dimension that a theological perspective can offer to a naturalistic account, such as evolutionary psychology, is not the conjecture of some ingredient of intelligent design as an apologetic for God's impact upon or relevance to the apparent natural order in an act of special creation. Instead, the most vital dimension that a theological ontology can offer to a naturalistic account of the human condition is an eschatology of hope, of ultimate purpose and promise to an evolutionary process, which otherwise would amount to little more in the end than "a tale told full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing." In I Corinthians 15:13-19, Paul argues for the centrality of the physical resurrection in authenticating the Christian faith, concluding that "... if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless" (v. 14). Later in this chapter, Paul expounds on the nature of the physical resurrection, stating that "... the corruptible shall put on the incorruptible ... the mortal, imm ortality" (I Corinthians 15:51-54). The sense one gets from I Cor. 15:35-50 is that a corruptible body is sown, much like a seed, and sprouts forth at the resurrection as a physical being, but of an essentially different nature in that it is no longer subject to the corruption of this present fallen physical order (Gundry, 1987).

I propose that the naturalization of soul, along with a renewed theological emphasis on the centrality of the physical resurrection in a restored social order and ecosystem, will allow the body to once again assume its rightful place in the theology of personhood. As the body assumes its rightful place in all aspects of the human experience, including emotions, a scientific approach to understanding the human condition as encompassed in, for example, evolutionary psychology, can be more readily integrated with a Christian view of the person.

Consider, for example, the first part of I Corinthians where Paul alludes to Jesus as the model of our physically resurrected state (I Corinthians 15:20). Luke (the physician) details the physical attributes and activities of the resurrected Jesus more than the authors of the other three gospels. In Luke's account, we see a Jesus who is unbounded by time and space in the immediate sense, appearing to his disciples in a room in Jerusalem to show them the wounds in his hands and feet, asking for a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb to eat to reassure them that he was not a ghost (Luke 24:39-43) (Gundry, 1987).

Furthermore, this restored physical order may well reflect an ecological balance and harmony absent since the fall as the lion will eat straw like the ox. And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the vipers den (Isaiah 11:4-10; Isaiah 65:17-25). One can imagine how the underlying brain processes linked to emotion and aggression would need to be dramatically altered in order for these types of behavioral interactions to take place!

A Renewed Physicalism and Holistic Approach to Integrating Science and Faith Perspectives

The above Hebraic model of integration, therefore, views the core aspects of our humanity, including our emotions, within a more naturalistic context, while at the same time, holding to God as Creator of this physical order of which we are a part. Such an approach, therefore, is amenable to the epistemology that guides a scientific approach to understanding any aspect of the human condition, including emotions as they relate to our social lives. Yet, a Christian world view allows a theological ontology for all core brain/behavior aspects relevant to the social dimension of the human condition, including cognition, language, emotion, social behavior, personality, and learning functions. It also allows a science of human emotions to be framed within an eschatology of hope. This is because the ultimate destiny of humankind in Christ is to be physically resurrected in a restored and incorruptible physical order. As biological creatures of thought and passion created by God, human thoughts and emotions are a vital part of who we are, of how we relate to each other and God, and not incidental to those critical aspects of our humanity. Human cognition and emotion will blossom forth fully into what they were intended to be by God in a resurrected state within a restored community and ecosystem. Also, the fact that our biological aspect of our personhood was created by God, embraced fully by Jesus Christ in the flesh, and redeemed (along with the rest of creation) through his atoning death, and promised a physical resurrection in a restored and perfected state should indicate to us that the physical dimension of who we are is central and vital, and aspects of this are amenable to scientific study here and now.

With our brain/behavior science and our breakthrough drugs, we are seeing through a glass darkly (I Corinthians 13:12) in the attempt to achieve emotional restoration, where child or beast does not fear or lash out in anger, and where hope and joy displace despair (Revelation 21:4). Granted, our technology for effecting therapeutic change still has its limitations in achieving such full and enduring restoration to emotional life "in the garden," completely free of fear, shame, anger, and despair. Yet, the therapeutic means we have for effecting what change we can in emotional healing do not entirely miss a core aspect of the hope that awaits us as fully restored emotional and psychobiological beings in God's Kingdom.

I propose that to whatever extent that science/faith can provide the means of inducing changes in the emotional balance of the brain that make us better able to pass the dysfunction that constrains us, and to love each other and God is the extent to which we can glimpse at the ecological restoration and harmony that awaits us as resurrected physical beings (Isaiah 11:4-10; Isaiah 65:17-25). With this theological perspective in mind, we see God's handiwork in creating humans who are social animals able to long for and experience the transcendent in relationship to one another. Yet, humans expressing, as a core part of their lives, the emotions ultimately serving as a whisper of God in a biological world that is groaning and travailing for its social and ecological redemption, and consequently, restoration for those individuals in Christ to emotional wholeness and harmony once more.

AUTHOR

BOIVIN, MICHAEL J. Address: Indiana Wesleyan University, 44201 S. Washington St., Marion, IN 46953. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degrees: BA, Spring Arbor College; MA and PhD, Western Michigan University; MPH, University of Michigan. Specializations: Health issues, the neurological development of children, cross-cultural developmental psychology.

REFERENCES

Andreasen, N. C. (1997, March). Linking mind and brain in the study of mental illnesses: A project for a scientific psychopathology. Science, 14, 1586-1593.

Barbour, I. G. (1999). Neuroscienee, artificial intelligence, and human nature: Theological and philosophical reflections. In R. J. Russell, N. Murphy, T. C. Meyering, & M. A. Arbid (Eds.), Neuroscience and the person, (pp. 249-280). Rome: Vatican Observatory Publications.

Barbour, I. G. (2000). When science meets religion. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.

Barbour, I. G. (2001, August). God and evolution in recent thought. Paper presented at the Templeton/Oxford Seminars on the History of Science and Christianity, Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, England.

Barshinger, C. E., LaRowe, L. E., & Tapia, A. (1995, August 14). The gospel according to Prozac: Can a pill do what the Holy Spirit could not? Christianity Today, 34-37.

Bates, J. E., & Wachs, T. D. (Eds.). (1994). Temperament: Individual differences at the interface of biology and behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Behe, M. (1996). Darwin's black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York Free Press.

Bilezikian, G. (1987). Hierarchist and egalitarian inculturations, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 30. 421-426.

Boivin, M.J. (1991). The Hebraic model of the person: Towards a unified psychological science among Christian helping professionals. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 157-165.

Boivin, M.J. (in press). Finding god in Prozac or finding Prozac in God: Preserving a Christian view of the person amidst a biopsychological revolution. Christian Scholars Review

Brown, W. S., Murphy, N., & Malony, H. N. (1998). Whatever happened to the soul? Scientific and theological portraits of human nature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Campbell, D. T. (1975). The conflict between social and biological evolution and the concept of original sin. Zygon, 10,234-249.

Carter, R. (1998). Mapping the mind. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohen, D. B. (1994). Out of the blue: Depression and human nature. New York W.W. Norton and Company.

Colvard, D. F., & Wilson, W. P. (1995, Fall). On a pill and a prayer: Medication for depression. Christian Counseling Today 14-19.

Conway Morris, S. (1998). The crucible of creation: The Burgess Shale and the rise of animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York Harcourt Brace.

Davidson, R. J., Abercrombie, H., Nitschke, J.B., & Putnam, K. (1999). Regional brain function, emotion, and disorders of emotion. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9, 228-234.

Davies, P. C. W (1983). God and the new physics. London: Dent.

Dawkins, R. (1976/1989). The selfish gene. (New ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dawkins, R. (1988). The blind watchmaker. London: Penguin.

Dawkins, R. (1996). Climbing mount improbable. London: Viking.

De Duve, C. (1995). Vital dust: Life as a cosmic imperative. New York Basic Books.

De Duve, C. (1998). Constraints on the origin and evolution of life. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 142, 525-532.

Dembski, W. (1998). The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dembski, W. (2001). No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dennert, D. C. (1992). Consciousness explained. London: Allen Lane.

Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York Simon & Schuster.

Discovery Channel (Producer). (1997). The brain: Our universe within--matter over mind. Bethesda, MD: Discovery Communications, Inc.

Drury, K. (1998). A critique of Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr (1951). Web document at http:www.indwes.edu/tuesday/c&cnieb.htm. A copy may be obtained by contacting [e-mail].

Elfenbein, D. (1995). Living with Prozac and other serotoninreuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.

Garber, K. (2000, Summer). The protein pro: Phil Andrews is pioneering the "the hottest field of the 21st century." Michigan Today 32, pp.3,5.

Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, K. A., & Lemery, K. S. (1997). Toddler and childhood temperament Expanded content, stronger genetic evidence, new evidence for the importance of environment. Developmental Psychology 33,891-905.

Goodwin, G. M. (1997). Neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence for the involvement of the frontal lobes in depression. Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford), 11, 115-122.

Gould, S. J. (2001). Rock of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. London: Jonathan Cape.

Grizzle, R. E. (1995). A few suggestions for the proponents of intelligent design. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 47, 186-189.

Gundry, R. H. (1987). Soma in Biblical theology: With emphasis on Pauline anthropology. Grand Rapids: Academie/Zondervan.

Haught,J. F. (2000). God after Darwin: A theology of evolution. Boulder, Colorado: Colorado University Press.

Julien, R. M. (1998). A primer of drug action: A concise, nontechnical guide to the actions, uses, and side effects of psychoactive drugs (8th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Kaufman, M. (1999, November 2). After decades of neglect, the neuroscience of feelings is gaining new respect as researchers probe the brain for the origin of emotions. The Washington Post, p. Z12. Reprinted in The Brain in the News, November 12, 1999 (Vol. 6, No. 19). Washington, D.C.: The Dana Press.

Kennedy, S. H. et al. (1997). A review of functional neutroimaging in mood disorders: positron emission tomography and depression. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42, 467-475.

Korsmeyer, J. D. (1998). Evolution and Eden: Balancing original sin and contemporary science. New York/Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press.

Kramer, P. D. (1993). Listening to Prozac: A psychiatrist explores antidepressant drugs and the remaking of the self. New York: Viking.

Land, D. J. (2001, July/August). Scientists meet with Dalai Lama to study meditation. Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology 1, 2-3.

Leckman, J. F., & Cohen, D.J. (1998). Evolving models of pathogenesis. In J.F. Leckman, D.J. Cohen, et al. (Eds.) Tourettes syndrome--Tics, obsessions, compulsions: Developmental psychopathology and clinical care(pp. 155-176). New York:John Wiley&Sons.

Ledoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster Press.

Lewis, C. S. (1940). The problem of pain. London: Centenary Press.

Maddox, R. J. (1999). The retrosplenial cortex and emotion: new insights from functional neuroimaging of the human brain. Trends in Neuroscience, 22,310-360.

Moreland, J. P. & Rae, S. B. (2000). Body & soul: Human nature & crisis in ethics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Mortimer, J. (2001, Spring). Beyond the genome. Medicine at Michigan. 38-41.

Murphy, N. (1998). Nonreductive physicalism: Philosophical issues. In W. S. Brown, N. Murphy, and H. N. Malony (Eds.), Whatever happened to the soul? Scientific and theological portraits of human nature(pp. 127-148). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

New American Standard Bible: Reference Edition (1973), Philadelphia and New York: A.J. Holman Company, division of J.B. Lippincott Company.

Niebuhr, H. R. (1951). Christ and culture. New York: Harper & Row.

Pascal, B. (1940). Pensees de Blaise Pascal. New York: Nelson.

Peacocke, A. K. (2001). Paths from science towards God: The end of all our exploring. Oxford: Oneworld.

Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Polkinghorne, J. (1994). Science and Christian belief: The faith of a physicist. Minneapolis: SPCK/Fortress Press.

Polkinghorne, J. (2000). Faith, science, and understanding. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Polkinghorne, J., & Welker, M. (Eds.). (2000). The end of world and the ends of God. Chicago: Trinity Press International/SCM Press.

Pope, S. (1998a). Sociobiology and human nature: A perspective from Catholic theology. Zygon. 33,275-291.

Pope, S. (1998b, November 4). A scientist's search for comprehensive knowledge: A review of E. 0. Wilson, Consilience: The unity of knowledge. Christian Century, 1027-1029.

Pope, S. (2001). Engaging E. 0. Wilson: Twenty-five years of sociobiology. Zygon, 36,233-240.

Robbins, T. (1998). The pharmacology of thought and emotion. In S. Rose (Ed.), From brains to consciousness: Essays on the new sciences of the mind (pp. 33-52). London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Russell, R. J., Murphy, N. & Peacocke, A. R. (1995). Chaos and complexity: Scientific perspectives on divine action. Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vaticaan Centre for Theology and the Natural Sciences.

Russell, R. J., Stoeger, W R., & Ayala, FJ. (Eds.). (1998). Evolutionary and molecular biology: Scientific perspectives on divine action. Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.

Servan-Schreiber, D., et al. (1998). Selective pharmacological activation of limbic structures in human volunteers: A positron emission tomography study. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 10. 148-159.

Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of Interpersonal experience. New York: The Guilford Press.

Smulders, P. (1971). Evolution and original sin. In P. Smulders (Ed.), The mystery of sin and forgiveness (pp. 233-241). New York: Alba House.

Suchocki, M. H. (1988). The end of evil: Process eschatology in historical context. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Suchocki, M. H. (1994a). The fall to violence: Original sin in relational theology. New York: Continuum Publishing Co.

Suchocki, M. H. (1994b). God, sexism, and transformation. In R. S. Chopp and M. L. Taylor (Eds.), Reconstructing Christian theology Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Symon, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford.

Symon, D. (1989). The psychology of human mate preferences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 34-45.

Teilhard de Chardin, P. (1999). The human phenomenon. Brighton: Sussex Academic.

The Holy Bible: New International Version (1978). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers.

Van Till, H.J. (1995). Special creationism in designer clothing: A response to The Creation Hypothesis. Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, 47, 123-131.

Van Till, H. J. (1999a). The fully gifted creation: Theistic evolution. In J. P. Moreland (Ed.), Three views on creation and evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Van Till, H. J. (1999b). Intelligent design: The celebration of gifts withheld? In P. E. Johnson, D. O. Lamoureux, & J. J. Packer (Eds.), Darwinsim Defeated? Regent College Publishing.

Weiner, D. L (199s). Brain tricks: Coping with your defective brain. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Wilson, E. O. (2000). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,

Yancey, P. (1977). Where is God when it hurts? Grand Rapids: Zondervan.