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. …
Since its inception over 115 years ago the field of psychology has been enthusiastically embraced by Americans, and today its popularity appears unabated in both religious and non-religious circles. Its emergence and ultimate influence on American society was both swift and pervasive. Facilitating this growth was the zeitgeist of naturalism and scientism that characterized the intellectual landscape at the turn of the century. This resulted in founding fathers who cared little about theological, let alone integrative, issues. The ramifications of these historical developments are explored in this article, especially in light of the post-modernists’ vigorous challenges of psychology's tenacious reliance on the scientific methodology. For the undergraduate psychology professor who desires to teach the integration of psychology and theology, the question of “how” to teach integration, difficult as that is to answer, is now accompanied by the question of should one continue to espouse psychology as a science, if indeed it is only a matter of time before modernism, with which psychology has aligned itself, collapses. The purpose of this article is to briefly describe the current state of the field of scientific psychology, especially given this postmodern era, and to describe the healthy and unhealthy responses that psychology as a field has made to these challenges. Finally, the hindrances plaguing a coherent response from Christian academic psychologists will be explored and possible solutions will be offered.
Teaching effectively at a Christian college or university demands excellent skills and particularly so in introductory psychology courses. With an expansive area and a large portion of students taking the class to fulfill a general education requirement, general psychology professors are challenged uniquely. Adding integration issues can overwhelm even the most diligent instructor. Yet, few pedagogical and theoretical resources on the effectiveness of different types of integrative components are available. The purposes of this article are to explore the perils and promises associated with teaching an introductory psychology course and to provide some resources and illustrations that have been found to be effective. The article also serves as an introduction to an integration curriculum incorporated into several general psychology courses at two different universities. An introduction to the curriculum reader is provided in this text, as well as an overview of other materials and topics that lend themselves to integrative discussions. Finally, the efficacy of a laboratory type experience for instilling an integrative component to an introductory class is discussed.
Abstract American college students (N = 90) were exposed to either a foot-in-the-door (small request followed by large request) or door-in-the-face (large request followed by small request) compliance manipulation, or to a control situation, prior to an opportunity to provide either spontaneous help or asked-for help. Results showed faster helping in the asked-for condition relative to the spontaneous condition. Moreover, in the spontaneous condition, the door-in-the-face technique produced faster helping than the foot-in-the-door or control manipulations. The findings support prior contentions of distinctions between the two types of helping and imply that they operate under different mechanisms.
From the titles of some recent evolutionary psychology publications on the mind, one could get the impression that the mystery of consciousness has been solved, but serious questions and doubts persist. Many scientists have deep reservations about Darwinian theory. Some of these scientists promote the Intelligent Design movement, which has received recent attention from scholars in biology, biochemistry, mathematics, philosophy, and theology. Intelligent Design theory both challenges the naturalistic evolutionary account of life and proposes an alternative scientific research program. Its aim is to investigate the natural world for evidence of divine causes and to detect the patterns or fingerprints of an intelligent designer. The implications of this theory for the field of psychology are examined, and a new field, a Christian version of Intelligent Design Psychology (IDP C ) is proposed. The article then briefly compares the psychological implications of IDP C with its chief rival, a naturalistic version of evolutionary psychology (EP N ), in relation to consciousness and self-consciousness, including why these phenomena provide serious difficulties for EP N , while at the same time providing positive support for IDP C . Both approaches are examined for their comparative abilities to describe, explain, and predict various facets of human persons that center on consciousness and self-conscious emotions.
Researchers and scientists in evolutionary psychology, a new theoretical perspective within the field of psychology, have proposed striking insights into human behavior based on our long evolutionary past. These insights and proposals have gained support over the past decade among psychologists, but they have also been roundly criticized. According to proponents, the field of evolutionary psychology seeks to synthesize modern evolutionary theory with the latest psychological findings, informed by the field of evolutionary biology. This new field of evolutionary psychology claims to have discovered insights about our universal human nature, pointing to our supposed millions of years of evolution during the Pleistocene era as the main designer of our minds. Evolutionary psychologists point to such universal phenomenon as feelings of shame, cheater-detectors, standards for female beauty, mate selection, and child abuse by step-fathers as evidence for specialized brain circuits that were designed by evolution. Adapted to a life on the savannas, the human mind is composed of these functionally specialized circuits, and to fully understand behavior today we must understand the pressures of savanna life. Critics of this new discipline, including philosophers, scientists, and evolutionary biologists, have responded with serious counterpoints. This article provides a brief overview of the field and the arguments brought against EP, including evaluating both the empirical evidence and the theoretical underpinnings. Implications for those favoring a theistic world-view are also discussed, and an introduction is given to a new field called Intelligent Design Psychology.
