Evolutionary Nature

The pentagon representing Evolutionary Nature consists of an Ammonite fossil, plentiful in oceans for 400 million years from the Devonian through the Cretaceous periods. The foreground image is a familiar reminder of the modern synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, which posited a genetic mechanism for evolutionary inheritance.

The evolutionary vision of nature is the predominant contemporary scientific means of addressing questions of the origin and diversity of life, with important parallels to scientific theories of the origin and development of the universe. It links biophysical and human nature in a common naturalistic explanatory framework. Though its supposed challenges to traditional religious belief are well-known, it may pose new theological insights for spirituality. It may also help us reflect on, and reevaluate, some of science’s basic metaphysical assumptions.

Evolution is an ancient idea; but the evolutionary vision of nature derives primarily from one of the most far-reaching and influential works in the history of science: Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859). Beginning with the publication of Darwin’s work in the mid-19th century, continuing through the 20th-century modern synthesis with population genetics, and running all the way up to contemporary research, the evolutionary vision of nature has played a powerful integrative role among life scientists.

Evolutionary theory is far from settled, which is understandable given its considerable power and breadth of explanation. One of its most celebrated recent interpreters, Stephen Jay Gould, released soon before his death a magnum opus on evolutionary theory, reconsidering the basic questions of whether (a) natural selection is the primary mechanism of adaptation, (b) natural selection operates at the genetic, organism, and/or group level, and (c) changes induced by evolutionary mechanisms are incremental or sudden (Gould 2002). Yet Gould’s take on evolution stands in sharp contrast to that of Richard Dawkins, for whom genetic selection is paramount and the lessons of evolution apply equally to humans and nonhumans (Sterelny 2001). Dawkins’ strident position on genetic selection is opposed by more scientists than just Gould, however; the long-celebrated biologist Ernst Mayr has also recently rejected implications of genetic reductionism (Mayr 2001).

The discussion is equally vigorous when evolution is applied to human nature. UCSB psychologist Leda Cosmides and anthropologist John Tooby have pioneered a new field called evolutionary psychology, an approach in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology are put to use in research on the structure of the human mind (Barkow, Cosmides, and Tooby 1992). Cosmides and Tooby have derived results for behaviors as wide-ranging as cooperation, love, incest, and racism. Yet in a recent work, biologist Paul Ehrlich (a staunch defender of evolutionary theory) argues that it is primarily cultural evolution rather than biological evolution, environment rather than genes, that is responsible for human behavior (Ehrlich 2002). These contrasting positions have been somewhat reconciled in the integrationist account of biologist Jeffrey Schloss, who brings evolutionary nature into dialogue with culture in order to explain human altruism (Schloss 2002).

There are strong philosophical parallels in accounts of the evolution of life and the evolution of the universe. Both are answers to fundamental “origins” questions. Both have traditionally involved recourse to a deity, whether as a Prime Mover or an involved God; yet scientific theories have been advanced by some to suggest that the notion of a deity is unnecessary, perhaps even impossible. It is this thoroughgoing naturalism (or, rather, anti-supernaturalism) that has united certain proponents (cf. Stone 2003). Thus, for instance, Steven Weinberg has linked evolutionary and cosmological theory as part of an historical process of scientific “demystification” which ultimately suggests “…a chilling impersonality in the laws of nature” (Weinberg 1992, 245).

It is a popular assumption that the evolutionary vision of nature poses a direct threat to religion; and debates over evolution versus creation (or intelligent design) have persisted to the present (Ruse 2000; Pennock 2001). There has also been considerable attention directed to resolving this perceived conflict, generally by reassessing the theological underpinnings of religion and the philosophical underpinnings of science (Ayala, Russell, and Stoeger 1998; Griffin 2000).

Yet evolutionary nature has been seen as a threat by some scholars in the social sciences and humanities as well. As one example, E. O. Wilson’s Consilience (1998) argues for a unity of knowledge based largely on the natural sciences, in particular a model of human nature based on biological evolution; this model predictably finds mixed support in the scholarly community (Berry 2000; Damasio 2001).

In summary, evolutionary nature is a powerful, sweeping vision of biophysical and human nature with significant implications for the relationship between science and religion, and the sciences and the humanities. These implications are far from resolved. Evolutionary nature will thus likely play a lead role in reconfiguring science and theology in future.

Ayala, Francisco José, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger. 1998. Evolutionary and molecular biology: Scientific perspectives on divine action. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory.
Barkow, Jerome H., Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby. 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berry, Wendell. 2000. Life is a miracle: An essay against modern superstition. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.
Damasio, Antonio R., ed. 2001. Unity of knowledge: The convergence of natural and human science. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray.
Ehrlich, Paul R. 2002. Human natures: Genes, cultures, and the human prospect. New York: Penguin Books.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Griffin, David Ray. 2000. Religion and scientific naturalism: Overcoming the conflicts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Mayr, Ernst. 2001. What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.
Pennock, Robert T. 2001. Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Ruse, Michael. 2000. The evolution wars: A guide to the debates. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO.
Schloss, Jeffrey P. 2002. Emerging accounts of altruism: "Love creation's final law"? In Altruism & altruistic love: Science, philosophy, & religion in dialogue, edited by S. G. Post, L. G. Underwood, J. P. Schloss and W. B. Hurlbut, 212-242. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sterelny, Kim. 2001. Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the fittest. Cambridge: Icon.
Stone, Jerome A. 2003. Varieties of religious naturalism. Zygon 38 (1):89-93.
Weinberg, Steven. 1992. Dreams of a final theory. New York: Pantheon Books.
Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.