Just when we Christians were enjoying the fact that the ‘house of cards’ which make up evolutionary theory were coming under increasing stress with attacks from within its own community (Michael Denton for instance), as well from reputable scientists outside of the evolutionary establishment (Michael Behe, for instance), it becomes necessary to warn about an increasingly influential new threat, that of ‘Evolutionary Psychology’

Evolutionary Psychologists are interested in human behaviour and they have a passion to interpret everything which people might do in a purely Naturalistic light. That is, they set out with a determination to reject any concept that there is any higher moral authority. Earlier schools of psychology certainly did not necessarily promote religious belief, indeed, much of the influence was Freudian and Freud happened to be an atheist, yet there was no interest in promoting a decidedly anti-supernaturalistic worldview.

But the new psychology is different. Like all areas of evolution, the underlying assumption is always that God does not exist, therefore everything which we see on this planet which suggests design or morality must have a purely Naturalistic explanation provided for it. The particular discipline of evolutionary psychology now surges ahead, blithely unconcerned that its under-girding paradigm is now – in the opinion of many astute observers – no more than a hollow shell of a theory. Indeed, macro-evolution seems to be a theory that would have to fall were it not for the fact that atheistic scientism (we speak of that branch of “science” which is actually an anti-God philosophy, not of reputable empirical science) needs another anti-supernaturalistic worldview before that can be allowed to happen.

Evolutionary psychologists are determined to interpret human behaviour in terms of what has been called the ‘selfish gene’. The basic idea is that everything which we humans do which may appear to be loving and caring is entirely selfish. There is simply no concept of unselfishness within this new discipline. We do what we do only in order to advance the likelihood of our own genetic make-up perpetuating itself. In other words, we want to survive and we want to reproduce and everything we do is all about that or about advancing the particular gene pool which produced us. Unselfishness does not exist although we may deceive ourselves that it does! To people like Richard Dawkins, perhaps the chief populist propagandist of evolution, we are simply ‘survival machines’.

However, the assertion that if we can clearly show that unselfishness does not exist, that love is a mere delusion and that we are all just machines fitted for survival of our own gene pool, then we can proudly proclaim atheism from the rooftops, appears to be logically inconsistent; the very best conclusion one might ever draw from all this would not be to question the existence of God, but to question His benevolence!

Evolutionists just love the concept of ‘blind irrational forces’ driving evolution forward, but could such forces really be that “blind” or “irrational” to have accomplished so much? Moreover, while much of what they set out to do is to disprove the concept of intelligence and design, surely – if evolution were true – there would be powerful evidence for intelligence, purpose and design within their own theory??!! Please don’t forget that the evolutionist must start off his or her theories with life already existing and with an universe behaving in a more or less dependable and predictable way and according to various physical laws! This would already comprise what a Christian would call ‘Creation’.

Evolutionary psychologists have made several suggestions as to how people who are simply guided by the ‘selfish gene’ have some sense of morality and decency. Within this schema, morality must – in some way or other – serve this principle. The sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson sees all human behaviour as :

“…the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact. Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function.”

(Source: ‘The Unmoral Prophets’, Philip Yancey, Christianity Today, October 5th, 1998, p77).

Some see human lust as an ally which comes to the rescue of evolutionary psychology. Why? Because lust is utterly selfish and only wants self gratification and satisfaction. In the process, lust serves to advance ones own genes and ones own ‘gene pool’. For evolutionary psychologists, lust evolved as nature’s own way of getting us to behave in a way which would produce lots of offspring (again, there would be intelligence, purpose and design here which this branch of psychology is apparently blind to!).

But many concede the moral problem and doubt whether evolutionary psychology has yet found an explanation which would be widely acceptable. After all, if a man deeply loves his wife and children and wishes to protect them, he has already embraced a morality which he must see as meaningful. If, as an evolutionary psychologist, he says that that morality is no more than an illusion, he not only denies the validity of family love but all the core values of any civilized society. One of the logical outcomes of his position means that even his career and, therefore, his work as an evolutionary psychologist become meaningless. Why even work? He might as well become a full-time thief or ‘beach bum’!! It seems certain that evolutionary psychologists, many of whom live pleasant and affluent lifestyles, will not follow their convictions to their logical end but will search for a better explanation for morality, rather than teaching that it is a wholly meaningless illusion which the ‘selfish gene’ uses to advance itself. Otherwise, they have already sown the seeds of their own demise and will finally render their own understanding and intelligence as completely meaningless!

One of the most serious and worrying trends which is emerging from this new discipline is the teaching that since Humankind simply evolved from these apparently blind, irrational yet powerful sources (whatever they are???!!!), then human beings have no more value than animals. And if that is really so, why not perform vivisection (medical experiments) on retarded humans?? This loathsome thought has already been voiced several times and a hideously evil scenario which sends us straight back to the concentration camp mindset has been voiced by apparently reasonable and respectable western psychologists!

Philip Yancey’s Christianity Today article of 1998 further states the following:

Evelyn Pluhar takes that logic further down the road, arguing that in certain cases, an animal’s rights should take precedence over a human’s. For example, as one reviewer of the book suggested,

Compare a normal chimpanzee to a severely retarded human child unable to take care of itself or to speak or to reason. Given that neither qualifies as a rational moral being, capable of asserting its rights, why do we allow vivisection of the chimp but not of the child? Surely, if moral significance attaches only to full persons, then the child should be granted no more protection than the chimp, or the pig awaiting slaughter.”’

(As earlier source, p79).

Some are now even saying that humans are no more ‘moral’ in their behaviour than animals in any case, so why the fuss? Yet none of this takes account of mankind’s considerably greater intelligence. Do animals experience conscience? Do animals compose great symphonies? Do animals become architects?

Do animals become great religious leaders? Do animals open huge ‘human being’ nature reserves’?

Scientists are increasingly recognising that the difference in the human mind and animal mind cannot be explained by brain size (several animals have larger brains than human beings) though no consistent explanation has yet been offered.

And regarding the argument that all morality is sheer illusion and is just a mask for us to perpetuate ourselves, what of such truly selfless people as Mother Teresa of Calcutta? Indeed what of many of the great philanthropists and moral and religious reformers of the past? Indeed, an amazing number of such people have lived either celibate or semi-celibate lifestyles – how could their morality just be a mask for an actual determination to perpetuate their own species? The new evolutionary psychology cannot provide any kind of a consistent and believable explanation for these things! Yet they are at work right now promulgating a new and sinister dogma which will eventually render all concepts of “good”, “evil”, “right” and “wrong” as completely meaningless; their aim is the final destruction of any vestiges of the concept that there exists any such thing as moral authority and especially of the belief that any religion has any meaning or validity.


Robin Brace

Please ensure that you also check this out:

© This article is Copyright Robin A. Brace 2004. If you want it on your own website please do the honourable thing and come to us for permission first. It is forbidden to excerpt this article without our permission.


Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional