Science in Christian Perspective
What Is Man?--A
Biological Perspective
and Christian Assessment
D. GARETH JONES
Department of Anatomy and Human Biology
University of Western Australia. Nedlands, Western Australia 6009
From: JASA 28 (December 1976): 165-173.
"We are nature's unique experiment to make the rational intelligence prove itself sounder than the reflex. Knowledge is our destiny. Self-knowledge, at last bringing together the experience of the arts and the explanations of science, waits ahead of US."1
"Man is a machine by birth but a self by experience. And the special character
of the self lies in its experience not of nature but of others. "2
"Man knows enough but is not yet wise enough to make Man."3
"When Aristotle marked off man from the rest of the animal world by what he called 'rationality', or when a modern anthropologist turns to tool-making or cave-painting or burial of the dead as clues to the presence of man, they are singling out some of the many ways in which the human ambition to understand the universe manifests itself. But the understanding of understanding is no simple matter."4
Introduction
It is evident from the above quotations that any attempt to answer the question
'What is man?' in a narrow biological fashion is doomed to failure.
As a biologist
I will of course lay emphasis on the biological aspects of man's existence, but
neat, rigidly-circumscribed biological answers cannot suffice. This is because,
in dealing with man we are not dealing with some isolated entity far
removed from
our own experience. In looking at man, we are looking at ourselves. In asking
questions about man we are asking questions about the one who asks
the questions.
It should not surprise us therefore, to learn that the dividing line
between biological
answers and philosophical or theological ones can become very ill-defined.
In spite of these provisos however, the question is a legitimate one
for a biologist
to tackle. Whatever else man is, he is a biological phenomenon. He is part and
parcel of the biological world, he possesses all the attributes of a
living species,
and he is subject to many of the rules and regulations imposed upon
living things
by the environment. But of course he also appears to be more than this. He is
not completely dominated by the environment; he has a control over it and himself that marks him off from
the remainder of living beings. And this is where the limitations of a purely
biological approach to man become evident. This is no man's land, and this is
where biology takes on distinct philosophical overtones.
But to return to our question: 'What is man?' J. Z. Young5 has paraphrased this
to read: 'What are good ways to study men?', and he begins his
mammoth task, enshrined
in his book An Introduction to the Study of Man, by asking: 'What are men made
of?' This approach epitomizes that of the biologist with its
reductionist overtones,
although Young makes a valiant attempt to put the pieces together again and so
emerge with a coherent picture of man. The biologist, however, is
frequently accused
of downgrading man in his attempt to reduce him to managable terms,6 and this
is certainly a valid criticism on occasions. Man may be a 'naked ape',7 but is
he nothing more than a naked ape? Man may be a tool-maker, but is this his only
attribute? It may be useful to compare man to a machine, but is it
valid to conclude
that he is a machine and that this compels us to relinquish all claims to
human uniqueness?8
It would he instructive to compare the relative frequency with which biologists
ask the question 'what is man?', and the relative infrequency with which they
attempt to answer it. Perhaps they are wise; perhaps the attempt alone is the
height of folly; perhaps a simple answer must in the nature of things
be a misleading
one. In spite of such warnings I will attempt to give a biological
answer to the
question, even if it is far-from-simple and even if, by the end, it is a little
way removed from biology.
Definitions of Man
The definitions of man put forward by human biologists fall into two
main categories:
a) those based on evolutionary data and emphasizing man's
distinctiveness compared
with other primates, and b) those illustrating the attributes of
man's brain and
hence his capacity for conceptual thought, the culture he has constructed as a
consequence of this and his search for meaning and purpose. Both categories are
essential for a holistic view of man, and I intend taking both into
account.
However, before looking at these in detail it would be interesting to
savour the
range of definitions put forward by various authorities, in an effort to get a
feel of the possibility open to us.
Modern man is one of the most successful mammals that ever lived,
successful entirely
because of the developmerit of cultural behaviour.9
Man is the sole product of evolution who has achieved the knowledge
that he came
into this universe out of animality by means of evolution.10
Man is a tool-making animal; or alternatively a cooking animal.11
Man is a technological animal, and technological change is the
fundamental factor
in human evolution.12
Man is nothing else than evolution becoming conscious of itself.13
Man is aware or conscious of his self; he has a mind, an ego and a superego; he
is capable of insight, abstraction, symbol formation, symbolic thinking, and of
using symbolic language.14
Man learns and teaches more than any other creature and therefore has
the greatest
possibility and opportunity to direct the course of events in the world. It is
his nature and his biological function or duty to do so.15
Man is the animal who relinquishes nothing. He simply adds to what he already
is and has.16
Man is a being who asks questions concerning himself. 17
Distinguishing Features of Man
Under this heading I want to discuss the features which characterize modern man
in the eyes of the physical anthropologist. These features will of
course be confined
to osteological characteristics because it is these which constitute the basis
of the fossil record.
Before discussing these features however, we need to define what we mean by the
term 'man'. As I have already hinted I am principally thinking in
terms of modern
man, that is present-day man, or as the anthropoligists would call
him Homo sapiens
sapiens. The term Homo sapiens is generally used to refer to archaic
man who was
distributed throughout most of the Old World and consisted of a
number of populations
in different geographical locations. The best known example of archaic man is
Neanderthal man who lived in Western Europe during the last ice age.
Archaic man had appeared by 250,000 years ago, he had a large brain and differed from modem
man mainly in the form of the skull which was long, low and broad
with a big face
surmounted by a massive brow ridge.18 Archaic man, while differing in a number
of skeletal and cultural respects from modern man, is of course more
closely related
to modern man than to examples of early hominoids such as Homo erectus. For the
purposes of the present discussion I will confine my attention to the species
Homo sapiens, and in later sections will concentrate on the
subspecies Homo sapiens
sapiens. I will use the term man to refer to Homo sapiens in general.
The unique adaptive features of man detectable in the fossil record
can be classified
under three headings: the posteranial skeleton, the dental apparatus
and the brain.
For clarity I will subdivide the post-cranial skeleton discussion
into three parts:
the hands, toolmaking and toolusing, and upright posture.
The Hand
The hand and forelimb in man have been relieved of their locomotor
functions and
have instead become specialized for the handling and manipulation of
small objects.
What this means in structural terms is that the fingers are
relatively short while
the thumb is relatively long and, of even greater importance, is
capable of being
rotated so that the tip of the thumb is brought into contact with the tips of
the other fingers. This latter movement is known as opposition of the
thumb, and
whereas apes are capable of some opposition the precision of this action in man
and the ability to oppose the thumb arid forefinger are unique human
characteristics.
The human hand is superbly adapted for fine movements, as is clearly
demonstrated
by the opposability of the thumb, the presence of nails rather than claws, and
the arrangement of the intrinsic muscles of the hand. These features enable man
to use a precision grip as well as a power grip in manipulating small objects,
which in evolutionary terms meant tools. Other structural features essential if
man was to make full use of his hands was great mobility at the
shoulder and elbow
joints and adequate development of those parts of the brain (motor cortex and
cerebellum) essential for the fine control of hand movements.
Tool-making and Tool-using
Possessing hands with this range of functional potential enabled archaic man to use and later make tools.
The significance of this step cannot be overemphasized as it was the first sign
that man was breaking free of the bondage of his environment. Not only this, it
also signalled the onset of the artificial in man's life. No longer would man
have to rely on anatomical attributes alone, he could now devise
substitutes for
hands and brute force. Indeed it is not too much to argue that the
era of inventiveness
had arrived.
The very earliest tools date from 2.5 million years ago and probably were being
manufactured even before this19. Clearly they belong to some of
the earliest
examples of hominid development, and while chimpanzees are capable of tool use,
human tool use serves a variety of functions rather than a single function as
in other primates. The very earliest tools appear to have consisted
of very crude
pebbles chipped along one edge. These chopper tools associated with Australopithecus were slowly improved by two-way chipping of the edges.
Much later came
the handaxe at the time of Homo erectus and this underwent continual
improvement
to produce the more sophisticated and more extensively chipped
hand-axe in vogue
with Neanderthal man, that is, early Homo sapiens. Tools underwent a
major revolution
with the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens, perhaps some 35,000
years ago, with
the development of very thin, sharp blades that could be used for a variety of
purposes from cutting to chiselling.20 For here it is a relatively short step
to the immense variety of instrument types with which we are familiar.
Important as are tools in the road to modern man it would be
misleading to consider
their development in isolation from other, closely-related events.
The early stone
tools implied hunting, which in turn implied cooperation between
individuals and
the emergence of a nascent form of social life. Integral to both
these developments
was the existence of a system of language, and hence a brain capable
of nurturing
speech. The inter-relationship of these traits appears essential, although the
order of their appearance and the causal factors involved in their development
are matters for speculation.
Tool-making assumes significance within the context of these
interrelated events.
Pilbeam expresses the point thus:
From this point on, hominids were cultural animal s, imposing arbitrariness on
the environment, thereby making it more complex, increasing the
richness of sensory
input, and further selecting brains that were more effective
processing organs".21
Upright Posture
Man is characterized not simply by his upright posture, as other primates are
capable of bipedalism under certain circumstances, but by his habitual upright
bipedalism. It is selfevident that this is essential for full use of the hands,
freeing them for manipulation and hence modification of the
environment. The demands
of habitual bipedalism on the muskulo-skeletal system are enormous and do not
concern us here, while bipedal walking also requires complex control
by the nervous
system.
Suffice it to say that the lower limb has undergone rotation, fitting
it for increased
weight hearing and mobility. In addition the human vertebral column
has developed
a series of curves, and the position of the centre of gravity of the
body is such
as to ensure a minimum energy expenditure during standing.
The Brain
While the amount of information available on brain structure from fossils and
bones is limited, some important principles do emerge. The human
brain is approximately
three times as large as that of nonhuman primates, modern man having an average
brain volume around 1400 cm3, and that of the gorilla 500 cm.2 More significant
than actual volume increase is the fact that the cerebral hemispheres
are considerably
expanded in man, and are deeply included, with certain areas within
the cerebral
cortex being particularly well-developed. In addition to these
features, the branching
of the nerve cells within the brain and the
Man can be described fairly fully in purely biological terms, but he also insists on presenting himself to us as a being of value, as a person continually asking questions and continually searching for meaning in his life.
connections between nerve cells contribute to a level of internal organization
and interrelationship that result in uniquely human features .21
This idea that the organization of the human brain, rather than
simple brain volume,
constitutes characteristics that are essentially human is clearly demonstrated
in human microcephalics. Although such people may have a brain volume
within the
range of apes and with possibly even fewer cells, they nevertheless demonstrate
behaviour patterns that are human as opposed to pongid. Tredgold has described
some of the behaviour patterns of microcephalics in this way:
The mental features common to most microcephalics are the absence of
sensory defect,
a general vivacity, restlessness and muscular activity, a considerable capacity
for imitation and, usually, an inability for sustained effort. In
their perceptive
faculties these persons often compare favourably with aments of
considerably higher
intelligence , , , ,23
It is sobering to think that idiots, as micrncephalics are often
considered, are
far more human than the most advanced nonhuman primates and more human than we
may sometimes wish to accept.
While one could analyze the characteristics of man's brain in immense detail,
contrasting it at each point with non-human primates, a few areas
will be sufficient
for our purposes. Of the development of the cerebral hemispheres, an extremely
important feature concerns the parietal region which is greatly
expanded and which
is vital for the development of language and conceptualization. The expansion
of the frontal lobes in man is a contentious issue, although it is
worth mentioning
as it appears to he involved in behavioural characteristics such as motivation
and social control. The region involved in sight is again well
developed, although
this by itself does not characterize man.
In general terms the brain of man in its total complexity and
organization underlies
all facets of man's uniqueness. J. Z. Young contends that: "what
the neurobiologist
finds out about the brain must surely be relevant to fundamental views of the
nature of all this knowledge."24 From this it follows that "the whole
structure of our language and thought is limited by a pre-programme
in the organization
of the brain."25
The Dental Apparatus
The most noticeable difference between man and nonhuman primates is the absence
in man (especially males) of large, projecting canines.26
Furthermore, the canines
which are present resemble incisors in shape and lack almost totally the sharp,
conical aspect of the nonhuman primates. As a result incisors,
canines and premolars
form a continuous series in man.
Looking at the dental arcade, we see that it is rounded at the front, while the
premolars and molars are parallel on the two sides or even divergent.
Linked with these dental changes is the overall structure of the face in man which is
short from front to back, and also light. These changes are associated with an
improvement in the efficiency of mastication and an increase in the
force of chewing
in man.
Further Features
Before we leave the overtly physical realm, a number of other human
characteristics
should be taken into account.
The first of these is the slow rate of human development, the goal of which is
to delay the onset of sexual maturity. This slowing-down process is
known as foetalizotion,
because it prolongs into postnatal life the foetal characteristics of earlier
ancestral forms.27 The extent of this process in man can be appreciated when
we consider that the period from birth to the onset of sexual maturity occupies
approximately 20-25% of his lifespan, compared with as little as 8-10% in some
animals. Bronowski has termed this prolonged period of childhood
" the postponement
of decision"28 period, during which sufficient knowledge is
being accumulated
as a preparation for the future. Such a period increases the time span during
which the maturing human can acquire knowledge by observing,
listening, imitating
and growing into an individual person.29
One possible by-product of foetalizatiou is man's nakedness. This suggestion is
made because the distribution of hair on man is very similar to that on a late
chimpanzee foetus.30 This is just one of a number of possible explanations
for human nakedness, others being that it is related to hunting in a
hot climate31
or to an aquatic stage in his evolutionary past.32 Whatever the merits of such
suggestions, the fact is that nakedness, while not unique in the
animal kingdom,
is highly unusual amongst terrestrial animals. And we all know that
it distinguishes
the human 'apes' from all other apes, to borrow Desmond Morris'
allusion!33
The sexual life of humans, although showing numerous similarities
with the higher
primates is notable on a number of grounds. These include the lack of
a definite
breeding season, and this carries with it the corollary that man is
continuously
sexed. Furthermore, man is unique in his reproductive variability, pointing to
the importance in human communities of differential fertility. Allied to these
characteristics is the length and relative importance of post
maturity in humans,
that is, the period of time after the cessation of active
reproductive capacity.34
Characteristics of Man's Brain
I have already looked briefly at a few of the distinguishing features
of the human
brain. In this section I want to examine what may he called the
products of such
a brain, namely, language and thought.
Language
Man can he described as having two language systems: a thinking
language for manipulating
concepts inside his head and a speaking language for communicating
with others.3'
Whether or not this implies that other primates have thinking
languages I do not
know. The important point it does bring out though, is that man is man because
he can communicate with other men by means of speech. As we are all
fully aware, numerous animals communicate with each other via olfactory, tactile, visual and
auditory signals. Nevertheness such communication is far removed from the very
fertile communication system in man, Even the range of calls made by
chimpanzees
and baboons is limited to a fixed system in which each sign has only
one meaning.36
Human speech is a genuinely linguistic signalling system, and what is
significant
about this type of system is that it is an 'open' one. In other
words, it provides
a means whereby a very large number of signals can be combined to produce new
words and combinations of words. Because it is not programmed in the brain, it
is capable of infinite modification at will.37 All other signalling systems are
'closed' and hence lack the potential of a linguistic mode of
communication.'38
It has also been suggested that the communication systems of
nonhumans are concerned
with the animal's motivational state, whereas humans with their
linguistic system
are liberated, as well we know, from such restrictions.39
Language is also of importance in that it enables an individual to learn from
a variety of other individuals and not solely from his parents 40 This is one
aspect of multi parental inheritance, in which a supra-heredity form
of inheritance
is introduced into human experience.
What makes language possible? As we should expect by this stage, the answer is
a complex one, involving the brain, the larynx and the tongue among
other things.
In the majority of human beings (about 98% of the population) the areas of the
brain concerned with speech arc localized in the left cerebral hemisphere, the
so-called dominant hemisphere. What is illuminating about these speech centres
is that, not only are they closely associated with each other, but
they are also
intimately linked to the motor areas concerned with movements of the lips and
tongue, and to the areas involved with hearing and sight. Both developmentally
and functionally therefore, speech forms part of a larger system incorporating
the whole of the sensory input to the brain, and it plays an essential role in
the way in which the brain responds to its environment. Without such
a comprehensive
response, man would not be recognizable as the man we know today, and he would
certainly not have produced the culture we see around us.
Thought
Under this heading I want to concentrate on man's ability to form
abstract concepts
and to generalize.
One of the glories of the human intellect is that it allows man time to ponder
and to meditate. Of course for such activities to be possible in the
first place,
a requisite level of intelligence is required. But given this, man is capable
of indulging in activities-whether physical or mental, which have no immediate
goal .41 If you like, man is capable of play long after his childhood
has passed.
What this means at the intellectual level is that man in his thinking can make
and use abstract concepts.
Concept formation involves the isolation of certain features or attributes of
an object from the object itself. Taken further, more elaborate
concepts involve
abstraction from the data provided by a number of the
Senses. 42 From here it is but a short step to the invention of new ideas and to the interplay of ideas. This latter
attribute calls forth
imagination, from which arise poetic language and scientific concepts.43
Before concept formation can be adequately utilized
another trait is essential, and this is generalization,
which lies at the basis of all human systems of explanation and forecasting.44
In McMullin's words: 'When man seeks to understand, he is capable of going far
beyond the given or the experienced; he can bring the entire universe into the
net he casts. "45 Not only this, be can integrate the present
with the past
and, to a limited extent, the future as well. Being capable of
thinking in these
abstract and general terms, man is in a position to attempt to
understand himself
and his world.
Having traced our way through man's physical characteristics we have now come
to those attributes which man sees on looking at himself as a person and as an
individual. However subjective some of these may be, we should not forget that
they principally arise from the characteristics of man's own brain.
Man's Conceptual World
The topics covered in this and the next two sections cannot be readily isolated
from each other. While I have separated them under different headings, there is
considerable overlap and interplay between some of them.
The Self
I do not intend to enter the realm of philosophy at this juncture, but I would
like to touch on areas such as self-knowledge, self-understanding,
self-consciousness
and self-awareness, Regardless of the precise connotations of each of
these terms,
they remind us of man's concern with his own being, a uniquely human concern,
one imagines.
Man possesses a degree of self-knowledge, and he is continually confronted by
a demand that he not only knows but understands himself as a human
being.46 Involved
in these pursuits is the awareness of other people and their projected images,
and in the wake of this awareness is a comparison of how we match up to those
alongside us. The result of these encounters with ourselves and other people is
a growing awareness of who we are. This is our self-consciousness and it helps
remind us of the limits of our persons. To identify ourselves with our bodies
is indeed one of the supreme achievements of the human brain.
Self-consciousness carries with it therefore, the implication that creatures characterized by it know that
they know.47 By contrast, even the most highly developed nonhuman primates are
restricted to knowing; they are knowing creatures as opposed to
self-knowing ones.
Self-consciousness ensures that man is continually asking questions,
about himself,
his existence, his destiny and about any and every aspect of his world. He
is a questioning and an answering being, because without answers self-consciousness is self-limiting.
Creativity
As I have hinted already man's conceptual attributes have placed him
in a position
where he can create
The Christian view that man is rooted in nature and formed in the image of God is an elaboration and radical development of the biological position.
new ideas, imagine new solutions to problems and question his own existence. In
short, they have bestowed upon him creativity and inventiveness. Man therefore,
and man alone of course, is the creator of his own world and the roots of this
lie in his powers of conceptualization.
McMullin expands on this idea in these words:
Only man can fashion at will a symbolic system which
be has the power to modify and improve in order to make it a more
effective lens
on she world. Man's creative understanding shows itself . . . in the constant
restructuring of symbolic forms in a restless and neverceasing effort
to understand.48
Other attributes essential to creativity are planning, forethought, memory49 and
curiosity,50 while a sense of time51 and a perspective on the future
are closely
intertwined with it. These, acting together, make man a truly creative being,
planning actions far in advance,52 devising new ways of doing things and living
as much in a world of his own making as in the physical world around him.
Man's Culture
The concept of culture is generally used to cover all those skills and ways of
life that are transmitted nongenetically.53
Cumulative Tradition
The means of transmission of ideas is by interpersonal communication
and tradition.
In other words, no matter what particular culture we are concerned
with, however
'primitive' or 'advanced', its basis lies in the ability of man to communicate
linguistically and, in more advanced cultures, also by art, writing,
the production
of books, poetry, science, technology etc. Culture therefore, is nothing other
than a world of man's own making. It is the extension of creativity
into the world
created by many brains in a particular geographical area at a particular stage
in history. Today however, with the increasing prominence of a
universal cultural
system, it is the combined product of millions of brains spanning the globe. No
matter how large or small a culture is, it remains the product of man himself
and may be viewed as an extension of man's attributes beyond his own body and
hence beyond his own physical boundaries.
Present concern over man's relationship to his environment is simply
an extension
of this principle. Man's ever-increasing technological prowess has brought the
environment within the scope of man's cultural domain, and hence
within the realm
of man's creative talents. The environment in its relationships to
modem, modern
man (that is late twentieth century man), occupies a place in the
world of man's
own creation. Hence it is subject to man's manipulation and control.
Similarly man himself is subject to his own control, whether it be in
the spheres
of reproduction, genetics
Man is free to go his own way; he is free to construct his own frames of reference; but the only freedom that will enhance his human status is one grounded within and developed according to the precepts of his Creator and Redeemer.
or the brain. Man's own body is therefore, increasingly being
encompassed by the
constraints of human culture. Man is making himself increasingly unique, if we
can use such a term, because he is producing for himself an
increasingly different
world which is man-constructed and mancentered.
Similar ideas are often phrased rather differently, namely, that man
can now control
his own evolution. Huxley speaks of psychosocial evolution which is
the cultural
phase of evolution." From this he draws out the implication that
man is now
the only agent for realizing life's further progress, the future of
life depending
therefore on his ability to understand, control and utilize the forces of his
own nature.55
Arts and Sciences
The foundations of advanced cultures are found in art, books,
literary endeavour
and science.
Artistic endeavour has a long history, and the earliest
representations that have
survived are in the form of carved figures, either on cave walls or
as small statues.56
These, dating from about 25,000 years ago, depict either human or animal forms.
They may, in part, have served as communication symbols conveying information
about people who were not present. Cave paintings, the earliest
surviving examples
of which date from about 30,000 years ago, are often dominated by animals and
animal heads. Their significance is a matter of debate, but it is reasonable to
suggest that they may have served as pictorial adjuncts to verbal communication
while they may also have had some form of ritual associations.57
The essence of writing is that it enables information to be stored outside the
brain. It is, in other words, an extra-corporeal information store.58
The revolutionary
impact of writing is that it has led to a previously unprecedented increase in
human knowledge. As we all know, we ourselves are limited in the
amount of information
we can remember, but once we build up a library of books, we have at
our disposal
an information store far greater than we could ever retain in our brains. Books
and libraries therefore, are simply extensions of our brains or more
specifically
of our cerebral hemispheres. To put it another way, they are man-made
memory stores.
Bronowski has used a rather different expression to describe books, and it is
this: with hooks comes the democracy of the intellect.59 Man, particularly when
in rebellion against those around him, is freer to express his views
and his dissent
on the printed page. He is thereby set free from constraints which
would be inevitable
in a non-literary culture.
The scientific enterprise can be understood in terms of man's biology
if we synthesize
a number of the attributes we have already considered. Man's ability to stand
back from a problem and view it in dispassionate terms is indispensable. So too is his ability to view one problem in terms of
principles derived from other areas of knowledge. So too is his
capacity for generalization
and abstraction. So too is his capacity for accepting a solution as temporary,
knowing that it will be supplanted at some future date by an alter'
alive solution.
Science therefore, embodies man's tentative excursions into his
world, rendering
them a part of his culture. It is organized experimental creativity.
The Human Person
Man is characterized by a desire to know and to be known. Each individual has
a sense of his own personal uniqueness, he is aware of his transience
and he knows
that one day he will cease to exist. Alongside such thoughts go
specific questions.
What is my destiny? Where am I going? What is life all about? Questions such as
these characterize human thought and introduce into his thinking an
overtly religions
dimension. Man's life is a search after meaning in a universe where otherwise
there is no meaning. In Eccles' words:
Because of the mystery of our being as unique selfconscious existences, we can
have hope as we set our own soft sensitive and fleeting personal
experience against
the terror and immensity of illimitable space and time.60
Religious Dimensions
Malinnwski made the statement:
Religion . . can be shown to be intrinsically although indirectly
connected with
man's fundamental, that is, biological, needs. Like magic it comes
from the curse
of forethought and imagination, which fall on man once he rises above
brute animal nature.61
Underlying these ideas is the fact of man's transience and the fact
that he knows
he is transient. Religion has therefore, been viewed by Feibleman as. "an
effort to be included in some domain larger and more pertinent than
mere existence.'62
The recognition of death is an ancient one, and is well known amongst nonhuman
primates such as baboons .63 Burial of the dead however, signifies
more than mere
recognition of death. It involves some idea of an afterlife, and it
is generally
contended that Neanderthal man buried his dead with ceremony.64 The only other
signs of religious activity before modem times were artificial hills which may
have been religious in function. It is only from about 10,000 years
ago however,
that obviously recognizable shrines and temples become commonplace, signifying
that the religious life of man had become well and truly established.
Death-awareness
Starting from the acknowledgement that one of the most fundamental features of
man is his selfawareness, Dobzhansky argues that this has brought in its train
fear, anxiety and deathawareness. "Man is burdened," writes Dohzhansky,
"with death-awareness. A being who knows that he will die arose
from ancestors
who did not know."65
Dobzhansky contends that, while death-awareness is not genetically controlled,
it is a basic characteristic of man as a biological species.66
Death-awareness,
in its turn, is a prelude to what Dobzhansky calls man's ultimate concern, 67 that is, his concern with things beyond himself and
his present
life; it is concern with the infinite. This brings us back to man's quest for
meaning in life, a search which appears to be an integral part of
man's make-up.
Man a Machine
In spite of the apparent freedom exercised by man in looking beyond
himself, biological
approaches to man inevitably raise the question whether man is simply
a machine.
Some assert that this is indeed the case-man is a machine, and as such should
be able to act in thoroughly objective ways.68 Others however, while conceding
that it is useful to describe many of the actions of man in machinelike-terms,
distinguish between this useful analogy and the direct statement that
he actually
is a machine. Man then, according to such people is like a machine.
If man is not a machine, why is this? A machine, after-all, is a
human artefact,
it is a product of man's brain. Because we speak so frequently in
picture language,
comparing that which is unknown with that which is known, it is profitable to
use machine analogies. These however, give us no fundamental information about
the nature of man, only about certain descriptions of him. A holistic view of
man, including his experiences and emotions, belies the apparent simplicity of
man-is-a-machine explanations. To suggest that we fully understand
machines, tells
us more about the simplicity of the particular machines than about our ability
to understand them. To suggest that we can say with confidence that
man is a machine
tells us little about man, something about machines, and a great deal about our
naivete.
Being Human
We started off by asking the question: 'What is Man?' How far have we come? Are
we any nearer an answer? Is the question correctly worded?
'What is Man?' implies that man is a thing, an object to be analyzed, weighed,
measured and assessed. But is he this, and if so is he nothing more than this?
You might expect me as a biologist to accept the question in this form without
complaint. Our discussion though, has taken us beyond the narrowly experimental
and has forced us to look at man in his own right, as a person and not merely
as a primate different from other primates. Admittedly, the so-called personal
side of man stems from biological characteristics, and in particular
the organization
of his brain. But man, the person, still confronts us.
Let us also ask the question then, 'Who is Man?' In this form the
question brings
to the surface the worth and the status of man. It prompts us to ask: What is
meant by being human.69 Above all, we need to ask: Where are we going? Where am
I going? Where is technological man going? Whatever our answers to
these questions
they assume that man, both individuals and the species, has worth.
They are responses
to the question 'Who is Man?'
As a biologist and a human being, because I cannot split myself into one or the
other, I recognize a need for both questions. Man can be described fairly fully
in purely biological terms, but he also insists on presenting himself to us as a being of value, as a person continually
asking questions
and continually searching for meaning in his life. These are not
mutually contradictory
sides to man; they are different levels, each essential for a unitary view of
the whole man. Whatever else man is, he is a whole. When he loses his
wholeness,
he lapses into ill-health. Similarly, when we as observers of man
ignore his wholeness,
we see not man but something less than man.
A Christian Assessment of Man
All too frequently man is approached in a fragmentary way, the
implication being
that a unitary view of man is unattainable. And yet this survey of man based on
the attributes and aspirations of human biologists has brought us surprisingly
far. It would of course he misleading to suggest that there is a consensus of
opinion among human biologists on all the issues I have raised. Clearly this is
not so and the further we have moved from the narrowly biological the greater
is the divergence of opinion. Nevertheless the very fact that man's culture and
person can legitimately be discussed within the framework of human
biology demonstrates
the wide scope of this approach.
But in spite of this, is there not still an immense jump from the
type of conclusions
we have already reached to a Christian view of man? To answer this question we
need to remind ourselves of some of the conclusions at which we have arrived.
Man can be distinguished from other primates on the basis of his use of tools,
his posture, many of the characteristics of his brain and his
prolonged childhood.
His language system and powers of abstract reasoning and
generalization not only
set him apart but also place him in a position to understand and mold
his world,
an ability immeasurably enhanced by his self-knowledge and
creativity. Unfortunately
or fortunately for man these characteristics leave him dissatisfied with what
he sees and feels in his immediate world; he longs to know more, he
longs to understand
more because he knows he is finite. Hence the inevitable religious dimensions
to his life with their emphasis on his ultimate concern. Man knows
there is meaning
for his life if only he can find it. And so man must attempt to know who he is
and what place he occupies in a world of immense and exciting
possibilities.
Man is an enquiring animal. He is unique in his search for truth, concern for
moral values and acknowledgement of universal obligations.70 He is rooted not
merely in his biological connections but also in his ethical
aspirations. In many
ways man is a moral being having a strong sense that some actions 'ought' to be
done and others 'ought not' to be done.71 He is a creature of this world but is
not limited to its immediate, material dimensions. He is explicable
in biological
terms only as long as the human and ethical side of his nature is not
overlooked.
And it is the human side of man which is the exciting and forbidding one.
How can we advance in our understanding of man in his totality? Is he more than
an equiring animal? Can he be a fulfilled one? Are there answers
beyond the reach
of human biology and is this where Christianity comes in?
As we have already seen, man is rooted in nature,
sharing the finitude, ereatureliness and death of all living things.72 "You
are dust and to dust you shall
return."73 And yet man is more than this. He has a special relationship to
God and in some senses he is like God. "Then God said, 'Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness . . .'. So God created man in his own image, in
the image of God he created him."74 From this we can conclude that, like
God, man is personal, he can think and communicate, he is rational. Like God he
has emotions and can feel, he can make certain free choices, he is responsible
and accountable.75 Man then, and man alone is a responsible self who
can be addressed
by God and who can respond to the demands of righteousness and justice.76
Man cannot help seeing himself as over against a god, to whom or to
which he recognizes
he has obligations.77
This is the beginning of a Christian view of man. At no point does it
depart from
what we learn of man from the perspective of human biology. Rather,
what it does
is to usher in an additional perspective, one which revolutionizes
the biological
one because it places our view of man on a different footing, thereby providing
a complete picture of him. In doing so it provides a means by which
man's yearning
for that which is beyond him can be met. And as we have already seen, this need
is a biological one. The Christian view that man is rooted in nature and formed
in the image of God is an elaboration and radical development of the biological
position. It is broader than the biological one embracing the latter within its
compass and setting it in a dynamic Godman, Creator-creature dialectic. For the
Christian, man has a meaningful relationship to the Creator, and is capable of
a level of experience and existence quite different from all other
living things.78
Man is made with the intention of responding to God's gracious word in personal
love and trust, and only in this response can he be what he truly is.79
This brings us to another important principle: man is a unity. He is not just
body, neither is he just soul; he is not just material, neither is he
just immaterial.
In each instance he is both, Man is a totality; he is a unity. To
suggest as did
the Gnostics that matter is inherently evil is a sad denial of the
Bible's affirmation
of the natural order and hence of matter. At the same time however,
the limitation
of man's horizons to matter is a gross denial of his relationship to God and of
his grounding in the purposes of God. Man is a unity transcending the vistas of
the observable and yet thoroughly biological in all he is.
How does this help us? Is the idea of unity alone sufficient?
Probably not, because
man is a unity requiring description and explanation at a number of levels. To
use Ian Barbour's phrase, he is a man
levelled unity" What this means is that, as Richard Bube puts it:
Man can be understood only when described as a machine and as a person created
by God, created with real personality in the image of a personal God
but functioning
on the biological, biochemical, and binphysical levels according to
the laws that
govern the rest of nature as well.81
The image of man to emerge from human biology is a multi-levelled one, as human
biology itself encompasses a range of related disciplines. This is useful and
as we have seen it presents us with a surprisingly comprehensive
picture of man.
By itself however, it cannot be a complete picture because it omits-as indeed
it
must-man's relationship to God. Only as this level of description is taken into
account does man assume his true position in the world and his rightful status
as a responsible personal being.
It is only in the context of a universe which has meaning that man can himself
aspire to meaning. And a God-centered universe is indeed one which has meaning
and in which life can be seen as having beauty and value. For the
Christian, the
universe and hence man has value because a personal God has created
it and created
man within a framework of personality. In a personal, caring universe man can
find meaning and value, not only as a species but also as an
individual. The enquiring
animal can become the purposeful animal, but first he must recognize his need
of God and the requirement that he enter into a true relationship with God and
his fellowman.
What is man? Perhaps the Christian would prefer to ask what it means
to be human,
and whether man can be fully human outside a Christian frame of reference. For
the Christian, man stems from the purposes of God and achieves both
significance
and freedom within the designs of God. Man is free to go his own way;
he is free
to construct his own frames of reference; but the only freedom that
will enhance
his human status is one grounded within and developed according to the precepts
of his Creator and Redeemer.
From this it follows that man is a being of immense worth, and under
no circumstances
is he to be despised. The psalmist described man's stature in
unforgettable terms.
"What is man that thou art mindful of him?" he asked, only to reply:
"Thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him
with glory and honour. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put
all things under his feet."82 Man, of course, is far from perfect; all ton
often he misuses his abilities and misdirects his energies. Nevertheless, even
though he is a fallen being, he remains a being facing God. And this
must be our
point of departure as we seek to understand the depths and the
heights, the potential
and the limitations of man.
REFERENCES
lBronowski, J., The Ascent of Man, British Broadcasting Corporation,
London, 1973,
p. 437.
2Bronowski, J., The Identity of Man, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1965, p. 106.
3Beadle, G. W., quoted by Dobzhansky, T., Evolution: implications for religion.
In Haselden, K. and Hefner, P. (eds.), Changing Man: The Threat
and the Promise,
Anchor Books, New York, p. 155.
4McMullin, E., Man's effort to understand the universe. In Roslonsky,
J. D. led.),
The Uniqueness of Man, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, pp. 3, 4.
5Yoong, J. Z., An Introduction to the Study of Man, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1971 p.v.
6Angenstcin, L., Shall we play God? In Haselden and Hefner, op cit., p .97.
7Morris, D., The Naked Ape, Jonathan Cape, London, 1967.
8Wooldridge, D. E., Mechanical Man, McGraw Hill, New York, 1968, p. 203.
9Pilbeam, D., The Ascent of Man, MacMillan, New York, 1972, p. 1.
10Dobzhansky, T., Genetic control and the future of man. In Barbour,
I. C. (ad.),
Science and Religion, SCM Press, London, 1968, p. 315.
11Discussion by Simons, E. L., Primate Evolution, MacMillan, New York, 1972, p.
276.
12Ferkiss, V. C., Technological Man: The Myth and the
Reality, Mentor Book, New York, 1969, p. 35.
l3Teilhard de Chardin, P., The Phenomenon of Man, Footana,
London, 1965, p. 243. Compare Dobzhansky, T., The
Biology of Ultimate Concern, Fontana, London, 1971,
l4Dohzhansky, ibid p. 64.
l5Young, 07) cit., p. 640. '
16Ferkiss, op
cit., p. 33.
l7Heschel, A. J., Who is Man?, Stanford Stanford, 1965 p. 28.
18Pilbeam, op cit.,
pp. 4-6. 19
19IIbid, p. 80.
20Young, op cit., pp. 500.504.
2lPilbcam, op cit., pp.
12, 14.
22Ibid, p. 73.
23Tredguld, A. F., Mental Deficiency, Williams and Wilkins,
Baltimore, 1947.
24Young,
op cit., p. vii.
25ldern.
26Pilbeam, op cit., p. 49.
27Huxley, J., The Uniqueness of Man, Chatto and Windus London, 1941,
p. 13.
28Bronoweki,
The Ascent of Man, op cit., p. 424.
29Schweppe, J. S., Man: a
Remarkable Animal,
Research and
Education Fund, Chicago, 1969, p. 24.
30Huxley, op cit., p. 13.
31Young, op cit.,
p. 478.
32Hardy, A. C., quoted by Young, idem
33Morris, op cit.
34lluxley, op
cit., pp. 14.18.
35Bronowski, J., The Identity of Man, Penguin, Harmondsworth,
pp. 48, 49.
36Young, op cit., p. 490.
37McMullin, op cit., p. 14.
38ldem.
39Pilbeam, op cit., p. 79.
40Young, op cit., p. 516.
4lBronowski, The Ascent of
Man, op cit., p. 432.
42Young, op cit., p. 488.
43Bronowski, The
Identity of Man,
op cit., p. 48.
44Young, op cit., p. 623.
45McMullin, op cit., p. 11.
46Heschel,
op cit., pp. 6, 11.
47Eccles, J. C., The Understanding of the Brain,
McGraw-Hill,
New York 1973, p. 220.
48McMullin, op cit., p. 37.
University Press,
49Pilbeam, op cit., p. 154.
p. 77.
50Clark, M. E., Contemporary Biology: Concepts and Implications, Saunders, Philadelphia. 1973, . 2.
51Schweppe, op cit., p. 74.
52Bronowski,
The Ascent of Man, op cit., p. 423.
53Ynung, op cit., p. 499.
54Huxley, J., Essays
of a Humanist, Penguin, Harmonrlsworth, 1966, p. 37. 55Husley, J.,
Religion without
Revelation, Watts, London, 1967, p. 170.
56Young, op cit., p. 525.
57Ibid, pp.
529.537.
581bid, p. 516.
59Bronnwski, The Ascent of Man, op cit., p.
429.
60Eccles,
op cit., p. 223.
61Quoted by Dobzhansky, T., The Biology of Ultimate
Concern,
op cit., 1971, pp. 77, 78.
62Quoted by Dobzhansky, ibid, p. 78.
63Young,
op cit., p. 524.
64Pilbeam, op cit., p. 180; also Dobzbansky, The
Biology of
Ultimate Concern, op cit., p. 70.
65Dobzlsansky, ibid, pp. 68, 69.
66Ibid, p. 72.
67Ibid, p. 77.
68Wooldridge, op cit., pp. 201.204.
69Heschel, op cit., p. 29.
70Barbour, I. C., Issues in Science and Religion, S.C.M. Press,
1966, p. 364.
7lBarclay, 0. B., Reasons for Faith, I.V.P., 1974, p. 61.
721bid,
p. 360.
73Cen. 3:19; cf. Is. 31:3, 40:6; Job. 14:1-17,
74Cen. 1:26, 27.
75Chapman, C., Christianity on Trial, Book 2, Lion Publishing,
1974, p. 53.
76Barbour, op cit., p. 361.
77Barclay, op cit., p. 61.
78Ibid, p.
55.
79Wallace, R. S., 'Man' in The New Bible Dictionary (ed.
J. D. Douglas), I.V.P., 1962, p. 776.
80Barbour, op cit., p. 363.
81Bube, B. II.,
The Human Quest, Word Books, 1971, p. 35.
82P, 8.4ff.