Response to Van Leeuwen's essay on evolutionary psychology.

Prof. Van Leeuwen's article on evolutionary psychology (EP) provides a thought-provoking discussion of the complex nature of human behavior. She convincingly demonstrates that the claim by the proponents of evolutionary psychology to provide a rather comprehensive explanation of all human behaviors on the basis of evolutionary genetics involves many ad hoc, non-scientific, and contradictory concepts. The objections made specifically from a Christian worldview (but also from an honest observance of human history) are also valid: (a) EP has no basis for distinguishing the created from the fallen in human behavior, (b) there is more to human life than "naturalistic" ends of animal life, and (c) the sacrificial love demonstrated infinitely in Christ is clearly recognized as a superior norm for human life than the "the selfish-gene reductionism" of EP. She also rightly notes the devastating effect of a genetically determined behavior on morality: "You cannot get ethics from mechanics, so the obvious evolutionary d efault setting is simply that might makes right" (p. 107).

From a theological perspective, what is most interesting in this discussion is the mysterious nature of the human person that emerges from the inadequacies of EP to describe the phenomena of human existence. The failure of EP to recognize the fallen state of humans, noted by Van Leeuwen, results in its total inability to explain the "unnaturalness" of many human feelings. If our behavior is simply the product of naturalistic genetic evolution, why do we so often have the sense that "things are not the way they are supposed to be." Why does the human heart long for something better and almost universally posit its reality in hope of a future life, even as the physically sick have a sense of health and long for it? Why do human beings long for meaning and purpose and suffer when they are absent? Why is human vitality drained by pangs of guilt for not living up to a "should"? Why do these and other experiences exist if human behavior is simply determined by genetic inclinations in harmony with "what should be" in the interest of specie-survival and gene-replication?

EP's reductionism also does nothing to mitigate Noam Chomsky's comments made some years ago in connection with human linguistic competence:

The processes by which the human mind achieved its present stage of complexity and its particular form of innate organization are a total mystery, as much so as the analogous questions about the physical or mental organization of any other complex organism. It is perfectly safe to attribute this development to "natural selection," so long as we realize that there is no substance to this assertion, that it amounts to nothing more than a belief that there is some naturalistic explanation for these phenomena. (Chomsky, 1981, p.251)

Perhaps most counter-intuitively, EP, flies in the face of the dignity of the human person, which although often violated in the treatment of others, is validated in universal self-application. No human is happily content to be treated as a non-person. In this regard, EP is not simply false science, but logically and inherently dangerous. For as Authur Koestler noted, when personal responsibility for deviant behavior is explained away as in communism by deterministic faulty social or economic conditions, the result is inhumanity: "Before long it began to become clear that those whom we do not blame we do not regard as responsible. Those whom we do not regard as responsible we do not see as fully human. And those whom we do not see as fully human we are willing to twist and manipulate to suit our own convenience" (Muehl, 1986, p. 65).

Van Leeuwen's critique of EP clearly reveals not only the factual groundlessness, but also the hopelessness of EP to ever provide the full explanation for all of human behavior. It does, however, call attention to the significant question of how and why we behave as we do. It is probably safe to say from a theological perspective that a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of human behavior is beyond the grasp of the finite human mind, at least in this life. Nevertheless, the comprehensive biblical portrayal of the human person provides for the genuine data from genetic studies as well as a framework for the answers to EP's inadequate explanations for the human situation.

Some of the key elements in the biblical-theological portrait that are especially related to the issues raised by EP may be briefly noted. First, human beings are unique among all of nature in that their created nature consists of a physical material dimension like other animal creatures ("the dust from the ground") and a spiritual element directly from God ("the breath of life" breathed from God, Gen. 2:7). This two-sided constitution provides the fabric for understanding the two-sided behavioral characteristics of the human person. Human life is part of material creation with its biological and genetic structures and limitations. But alive with the breath of life from a personal Creator, human life is also personal, lived in relation to a personal Creator and other human persons. This composite is concisely captured in the words of Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4; citing Deut. 8:3).

The capacity, unique to humans, to objectify the world around us in distinction from self indicates that human personhood has a transcendent dimension that, contrary to EP, cannot be explained from an examination of the natural world itself. For that which is transcendent cannot be explained by what is transcended. The human being and the phenomena of his behavior, thus, require explanation from both sources of his created being--the realm of nature and the personal realm of the transcendent Creator.

This combination of material and spiritual elements suggests secondly that the behavioral traits of humans will display characteristics related to both sources. Coming from the natural, material creation, the material side of our human nature necessarily shares aspects of the structure and order of the material world around us. It is therefore not surprising that we share many of the appetites and instinctual traits that belong to other creatures dependent on the same natural order for life. In contrast to animals, however, humans are not deterministically controlled by behavioral dispositions as are animals, who essentially live in a closed functional circle of perception and instinct. The much weaker instinctual structure of human nature allows for the operation of the personal spiritual capacities enabling humans to transcend their previous conditions as the history of culture demonstrates.

The human capacity of a transcendent openness toward the world and freedom from instinctual determinism, however, do not imply a random orderlessness in the non-material realm. For even as the material dimension is designed to live in accord with the nourishment of physical food, so, the spiritual dimension lives "by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." As there are orders or "laws" in nature, so there are moral and spiritual "laws" in the spiritual realm. Written in all human hearts, these personal or spiritual "laws" provide impulses that influence human behavior in addition to those from the natural realm (cf. Rom. 2:14-15).

Thus the person's behavior, according to the scriptural picture, is influenced from multiple sources. At the physical level we are genetic creatures with corresponding drives and appetites. More significantly the openness to the world around us at the personal level allows us to be influenced by our environment either being enriched or damaged. This is particularly true in our openness with other persons where relationships can influence us either in the enhancement or destruction of the patterns for true human existence. The human capacity for openness also means that our behavior is shaped nor only by our past, as EP would suggest, but equally, if not more, by the future--our goals, visions, and hopes.

The biblical concept of sin provides a third factor that figures significantly in the discussion of human behavior. Whereas animals know little about the freedom to choose against their own life, humans know this all too well. The apostle's experience of knowing and wanting to do one thing only to do another under the influence of sin's power of destructive disorder (cf. Rom. 7:15-21) is the universal experience of all humans.

In sum, the Scriptures portray a complexity of influences on human behavior corresponding to the complexity and rich texture of human nature in the image of God. While genetics are part of our nature and thus influence our behavior, according to Scripture (and human experience), as human persons we are not reducible to genetics. Without denying our genetic dimension, the focus of Scripture is on our personhood with its openness to the transcendent. In this dimension we are not only called live according to life's created structures, but as evidenced by many examples in Scripture and history, we can change and be transformed by God's grace by choosing to cultivate certain behavioral influences and denying others.

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1981). Language and mind, In L. Stevenson (Ed.), The study of human nature. New York: Oxford University Press.

Muchl, W. (1986), Why preach? Why listen. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

AUTHOR

SAUCY, R. L. Address: Talbot School of Theology, 13800 Biola Aye, LaMirada, CA 90639. Title: Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology. Degrees: BA, Westmont College; ThM, ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary. Specialization: Ecclesiology, Eschatology, and Kingdom Theology.

Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to R. L Saucy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, 13800 Biola Ave, La Mirada, CA 90639.