Abstract

Evolution is one of those rare words that illicit strong and often contrary emotional reactions among people who usually share similar worldviews. Within the academic community, the Darwinian definition of the word is practically worshipped and thought by some to be the greatest theory ever posited, but certainly not by all. While evolutionists like E.O. Wilson or Richard Dawkins believe they have answers to the questions of ultimate meaning (and sound almost as they speak or write about evolution), others are much more skeptical. Among the lay population, and especially among those who identify themselves as very religious, Darwinian evolution is mostly scorned, but again, not by all. Among Christian academicians, some are calling for a (necessary) clarification of terms (e.g., Johnson, 1997), while others are pointing to the flaws in the theory (e.g., Behe, 1996; Johnson, 1991), and still others are proposing opposing theories (Dembski, 1999). The responses among the majority vary from strong su pport (e.g., the theistic evolutionists) to strong criticism (e.g., creationists). An argument could be made that just a few decades ago the word elicited similar disparate reactions (at least in some Christian circles). Hence, it comes as no surprise that the new field of is generating powerful and conflicting opinions. Within some academic circles, evolutionary psychology (EP) is being hailed as the most powerful theoretical tool available for explaining human behavior (e.g., Buss, 1995; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). According to Buss (1995) the goal of EP is to explain the human mind by discovering and describing our evolved psychological mechanisms or mental organs. Believing in a universal human nature, and believing that millions of years of evolution was the main designer of our minds, supporters of EP believe that their approach will revolutionize all of the social sciences, including psychology, in the process. Others are highly skeptical of such claims, especially among certain evolutionary biologists, feminists, and philosophers of science, re ferring to EP as a mistaken, even dangerous myth (Gould, 2000; Rose & Rose, 2000). Many critics have a difficult time distinguishing EP from sociobiology, and hence they have a grave distrust of the field, believing it reinforces old gender stereotypes and biology-as-destiny views. Since it is a fairly recent movement, responses to EP from within Christian and other religious groups are still formulating. There are some who believe that EP and religion are highly compatible (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1999), though these appear to be a minority opinion. Although other Christians critical of EP have registered brief responses, the field is new enough to have escaped more sustained reflection. Within Christian academic disciplines, and among psychologists in particular, there seems to be a wait-and--see attitude, with few thus far commenting on the field. …

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call