Science in Christian Perspective
Genes and Grace: A Christian Looks at Sociobiology
Duane Kauffmann
Goshcn College
Goshen, Indiana 46526
From: JASA 32
(June1980): 118-120.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." So begins
the first chapter of Genesis which Christians believe to be the revealed Word
of God. The biblical record continues with an account of the creation
of the inanimate
and animate components of the universe, concluding with the creation of human
beings "in God's image". Infused by the divine "breath
of life",
man became a living soul, Adam, the first man, named the animals, and
thus completed
his unique relation to the Creator and the remainder of creation.
While interpretations of the origin and meaning of the biblical account differ
greatly, the Genesis story is in sharp contrast to the primal mass of
incredible
density which is the source of the currently popular "big
bang" theory
of the origin of the universe. According to this view, the entire
"material"
of the universe was compacted into a single mass of energy and matter
that erupted
with a bang of prodigious proportions. This "bang",
occurring some 15-20
billion years ago, set in motion forces that are believed to remain at work in
the expanding universe of today.
From the dust clouds of the exploding cosmos orderly systems evolved at stars,
planets, moons, and asteroids took the places appointed them by the
laws of physics
and chemistry. On at least one small planet, the primeval soup developed in a
manner that made life possible. It was into this inorganic
aggregation of chemicals
that a stimulating force produced new organization and an essential
"spark"
forged living matter. And once begun, life followed life into ever more complex
forms, until some millions of years ago a new genus emerged Homo.
Of all the details of these accounts of origins which have provoked
controversy,
the emergence of Homo has provided the most emotional debate. Ever
since Charles
Darwin published his research on the probable relationships between
species, many
believers in the Christian religion have followed their interpretation
of creation and rejected the "Godless" evolution of Darwin.
Christians
recoil as the thought of finding their heritage in monkeys, apes, and
even "lower"
species of animal life. (Is must be recognized that creation and evolution are
no longer perceived as mutually exclusive by many Christians who
acknowledge that
evolutionary processes operate in nature, and may be incorporated in
various ways
into a creationist position. The focus in this paper is not the
origin and interpretation
of Genesis but on the character and predispositions which produce
human behavior.)
Recently, the tensions between science and religion have been reformulated and
intensified with the emergence of a self-defined "new
synthesis" which
calls itself sociobiology. Starting with evolutionary assumptions, sociobiology
seeks to account for mankind's biology, sociology and psychology
through analysis
of animal and human behavior (Wilson, 1975).
In the remainder of this paper, focus is on the human portion of the
debate generated
by recent findings in the social and natural sciences, particularly
as interpreted
by contemporary sociobiology. While it is clearly impossible to
resolve the complex
philosophical and scientific issues separating sociobiology and
Christian faith,
an attempt is made to detail she path a Christian might take in
facing the claims
of the "new synthesis". It is further hoped that perceptive Christian
thinkers will find creative ways to resolve these issues, both from
the perspective
of reasoned debate and from the workbench of the scientist. It is
only as Christians
accept this task that the challenge of theories contrary to faith can
be confronted.
Perhaps it is the Christian scientist who should provide the
"instance"
called for by Gregory (1978). He writes:
"One of the problems sociobiology encounters in seeking genetic
determinants
of behavior is that it must explain everything or else it explains nothing. If
there exists in a single species a single behavior that is
intrinsically incapable
of explanation on genetic ground, sociobiology drops from a universal
to a limited
hypothesis." (p. 286)
The Human Character
Let us examine first the type of human being expected by the sociobiologists.
Several writers, in books oriented to a popular audience, have made
strong statements
concerning this topic. Ardrey (1961) suggests that human beings bear
the violent
legacy of "killer apes" who are our immediate predecessors. Dawkins
(1976) suggests we are opportunistic "survival machines" designed to
perpetuate our "selfish genes". And most recently, in a
widely acclaimed
book, Edward Wilson (1978) writes:
"the essence of the arguments, then, is that the brain exists because it
promotes the survival and multiplication of the genes that direct its assembly.
The human mind is a device for survival and reproduction, and reason
is just one
of its various techniques." (p. 2)
Furthermore,
no species, ours included, possesses a purpose beyond the imperatives created
by its genetic history. Species may have vast potential for material and mental
progress but they lack any immanent purpose or guidance from agents
beyond their
immediate environment or even an evolutionary goal toward which their molecular
architecture automatically steers them." (p. 2)
Thus, while they may differ in emphasis and detail, sociobiologists
clearly believe
that humans are genetically programmed to "selfishness" in
the interests
of their own (genes') survival. Genetic success requires
adaptability, competitive
advantage, deceit, aggression, territorial control, and reproductive success,
if these characteristics are not countermanded by the situational superiority
of kin,
dynamics and/or reciprocity. Perhaps even more significant for the Christian is
the assumption that the unfolding of the genetic drama occurs without
any "immanent
purpose" or "agents beyond their immediate
environment." This self-reliant
and survival-oriented individual perceived by the sociobiologists
exhibits remarkable
similarity to the scriptural description of unredeemed humanity.
In the Old Testament, human character is shaped by the sin of Adam and Eve, an
event motivated by their selfish desire to be "like God". The history
of God's people following that event is one of constant yielding to the sins of
pride, greed, and self-interest. The Ten Commandments are directed
against these
human propensities and the Old Testament Scriptures promise a saviour who will
provide a way of redeeming fallen humanity.
In the New Testament, consider Paul's scriptural concept of the
"old nature."
In Colossians 3, Paul notes deceit, anger, wrath, and covetousness as aspects
of the "old man", and in Ephesians 4 he lists vice, indecency, anger,
bitterness, evil speakings, and theft. He then admonishes his readers
to "put
on the new man" (v. 24 KJV) which will "put away" these traits
which destroy kindness and forgiveness.
"Putting away" the old nature is a key element of the "immanent
purpose" that Christians call the Gospel. Human beings who respond to this
message are to bring the old nature of pride, selfinterest, deceit, and anger
to the cross and thereby experience conversion. The "new
creature" created
by this experience is to demonstrate characteristics substantially opposed to
the genetic predispositions of the "old nature". This
"new creature"
will exhibit attributes making possible a community of human beings
which exhibit
the fruits God's Spirit makes possible.
Reciprocity
In order to explain helping behavior between organisms, the
sociobiologists suggest
that self-interest may he risked in the pursuit of reciprocity, with
the "faith"
that such behavior will result in "cost effective" benefits at some
future time. Reciprocity defined in this behavioral manner reminds
the Christian
of the "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" doctrine upon
which Christ
commented in the Sermon on the Mount. In response to this formulation
of the reciprocity
ethic, Christ's words were "But I say onto you, that you resist not evil;
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also."
(Matthew 5:39) In further examples Christ requires going the extra
mile, and providing
for persons in need regardless of their ability to reciprocate. Finally, even
enemies are not to be feared or hated. "But I say unto you, love
your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you."
(Matthew 5:44ab)
The call to behavior which contrasts with self-concerned reciprocity
is elaborated
in a passage recorded in Luke,
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?
Even 'sinners'
love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what
credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to
those from whom
you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend
to 'sinners'
expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to
them, and lend
to them without expecting to get anything back." (6: 32-35a NIV)
The unavoidable conclusion is that the follower of Christ is to extend love and
assistance to others, without requiring the sociobiological
assumption that such
help may ultimately benefit one's own genes. The result of this behavior is the
spreading of Christ's love, and reward in heaven, whatever may be the cost to
one's biological survival.
Clearly, if genetic forces are programmed to "equivalent"
reciprocity,
the Christian is called to violate his "genes" in the pursuit
of a higher goal. Similar implications may be derived from analysis of equally
important sociobiological constructs.
Kinship Altruism
The theory of kinship altruism has been developed to account for the assistance
animals, and humans, provide for members of the same species.
Honeybees demonstrate
this principle well, since the workers, in caring for the young, are
in fact caring
for offspring with whom they share 1/2 of the tame genes. Parents who care for
their children are providing for individuals who carry i/r of their
genes. Through
similar argument, if providing for cousins, eight persons must
benefit according
to this theory, since cousins carry only Vs of the genes of the helper.
It need not he denied that humans concern themselves with their
relatives, although
the concern may not be as carefully calculated as kin altrutim would lead us to
believe. Family breakdown patterns, the rising abortion rate, and
shrinking family
size are facts which cause difficulty for the sociobiologists' concept of kin
altruism.
The life of the Christian is based on different ties. While the welfare of every
human individual is a concern of the Christian, the "family" for the
Christian transcends genetic ties. The "family" is the church, where
"kin" are based not on chemical DNA, but on common faith.
The Christian
is called to support, suffer, and even die, not necessarily for biological kin,
but for his or her faith or fellow believers.
The best example of this redefined kinship pattern is Christ, whose death was
for humanity, even though many reject his costly sacrifice (a
violation of reciprocity!).
Christ's death, which Christians reciprocate with a response of acceptance and
belief, was in the interest of creating a community of faith which transcends
the soeiobiologists' genetic conception of altruism.
The family created by Christ's death breaks down the barriers, both genetic and
cultural, which separate people in cubicles of self-interested preservation. The
New Testament stresses that for human beings biological and
sociological subspecies
have been transcended. Paul expresses this truth in these words: "For as
many of you have been baptized into Christ have part of Christ. There
is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.." (Galations 3: 27, 28)
The implications which accompany the formation of this universal body
of believers
are also of considerable interest. For if the Christian life requires
conversion
from the old biological/cultural nature to a new life, it most be possible to
transcend the genetic and social forces which sociobiologists feel
are determinants
of behavior. Indeed if humans are to be held personally responsible for their
behavior at the time of judgment, provision needs to be made for
achieving acceptance
before God. Christians believe that Christ's power makes this
possible. His power,
exercised by His Spirit, makes achievable the redefined kinship and the revised
reciprocity principles.
Selfish Gene or Jubilee
Sociobiologists and evolutionary biologists have devoted extensive attention to
concepts of competitive advantage through acquisition of status and!
or territory.
Data from animal genera demonstrate the numerous ways in which
territory affects
the struggle for food, furnishes safety from predators, and provides access to
mates. Strength and strategy accumulate these necessities to the
genetically most
"fit".
The Old Testament proposes a model at variance with competitive
striving and the
accumulation of property. This program is called the year of Jubilee (Leviticus
25). During this time (every 50 years) debts are to be forgiven, lands are to
be returned to their
rightful heirs, and slaves are to be given their freedom. Although doctrine is little
taught or followed
by contemporary Christians, it serves as a
benchmark against
which New Testament teachings on wealth and property might be understood.
In the New Testament, money and possessions are repeatedly named as temptations
so the believer and the Christian is instructed to use them in God's service,
not for power, ease, self-interest, or exploitation, in place of the
human propensity
to seek territory and wealth the Scriptures outline the necessity for
Christians
to choose a servant role. In this role Christians are to serve the
needs of others
and avoid the temptation to "lord" it over their fellowman.
The year
of Jubilee and the servant stance are in stark contrast to the
notions of dominance
and acquisition common in animal data. A successful return to a biblical view
of wealth, position, and justice might lead to human behavior quite
discontinuous
with sociobiological predictions.
In Whose Defense
Discussion of the year of Jubilee suggests another doctrine followed by few contemporary Christians (a fact which the sociobiologists may help us understand). While the New Testament teaches quite plainly the need to love one's enemies, and appears to teach nonviolence, few Christians find this interpretation. Thus Christians have frequently, even eagerly, been participants in warfare, particularly wars to protect freedom of religion and democracy.
This paper is not the place to reargue the voluminous literature on war and nonresistance. It will be sufficient to note that conflict leading to aggression is readily predicted from animal data. For Christians to choose the way of peace, and seek their security in a God who guarantees eternal life, would provide a rebuttal of the proponents of war's "natural" causation. Furthermore the renunciation of war implies the rejection of tribalism (read nationalism), the repudiation of wealth, power and territory as purposes of human life, and the discarding of"fitness" as an inviolable motive of human being. In renouncing these sociobiological drives, the Christian affirms the servant stance and the non-biological character of the believing community.
Unfortunately, the fractured and fractious characteristics of the church, and the self-interested behavior of individual Christians, serve to support the position of the sociobiologists. Examples abound. Agape love is denied by personal competitiveness, gossip, and conditional relationships (a form of sociobiological reciprocity). Materialism and economic gain contradict professions of the servant role. Denominational territorialism belies a common faith in the power of love and the unity of the Spirit. Indeed, one might suggest that the church family is split into tribes seeking their own "genetic" preservation, in denial of the biblical instructions that it is necessary to lose life in order to find it. In short, if the church is to transcend sociobiologieai determinism, therapeutic efforts are urgently needed. I have sometimes speculated that if Christians were really being Christian, much less of their behavior could be understood psychologically, sociologically, or sociobiologically. Until Christians demonstrate the power of love and the servant stance, the "selfish gene" (and theories of like emphasis) will not have been displaced by the power of the divine Spirit.
References
1Ardrey, Robert. African Genesis. New York: Dell Publishing, 1961.
2Dawkins, Richard.
The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
3Gregory, Michael.
"Epilogue". In Gregory, Michael; Silvers, Anita; and Satch,
Diane (eds)
Sociobiology and Human Nature. San Francisco: Jostey-Bass, 1978.
4Wiison, Edward. Sociobiology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.
5Wilson, Edward.
On Human Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.