Have you every wondered where the chest thumping and arm pumping celebrations of victorious athletes originated? People do not normally let out a forceful victory shout upon waking from a good night’s sleep, but they certainly do after having scored a touchdown. Why do we humans do what we do to celebrate victory and express defeat? This was the question that motivated Jessica Tracy at the University of British Columbia and David Matsumoto at San Francisco State University to conduct research into the expressions of both the “thrill of victory” and the “agony of defeat”. They wanted to see if these expressions were similar across cultural lines and, if so, to suggest reasons why it is so. Tracy and Matsumoto sought to examine “whether the recognizable nonverbal expressions associated with pride and shame may be biologically innate behavioral responses to success and failure.” The August 14th edition of The Economist magazine (available at http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11919409) analyzed their research study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS). The researchers observed the reactions of athletes from over 30 countries and found that there were striking similarities in their responses to positive and negative athletic performances. The common responses included “tilting their heads back, raising their arms or expanding their chests in victory, or hiding their face or narrowing their chests in defeat.” These behaviors are not only common among human nationalities but are also observed in the primate world of gorillas and apes. For many people reading Tracy and Matsumoto's research, including the columnists of The Economist, this begs the question of why the similarity exists. The columnists are quick to provide an evolutionary answer.
The Economist article reasons thus, “Such displays may have an evolutionary function. People could be advertising their accomplishments and ensuring their status and acceptance within their social group. Similarly, shame shows acceptance of a defeat and a reluctance to fight on (which may help to avoid further aggression), and so might well be a display of submission.” Thus, our football and basketball celebrations are modern manifestations of the same survival instincts that allowed our primate forefathers to survive in the evolutionary fight for the survival of the species. This is but one minor example of how every aspect of human behavior is increasingly being understood as merely the product of blind biological and chemical forces that have no basis in anything larger than the observed natural order. Everything from reproductive choices to shopping preferences are made the subjects of an impressive array of scientific studies that claim to explain all of these behaviors on the basis of how they gave/give our species an advantage in the struggle to survive. Younger people are especially accustomed to having their behaviors, preferences, and choices explained without any reference to the supernatural. It is important for Christians to understand that studies like the PNAS research do not occur in a philosophical vacuum but are often conducted and interpreted by scientists and scholars who are devoted to an evolutionary explanation of the world. As such, it is important to divorce the information that we glean from such studies from the evolutionary interpretations that are used to explain them. The data from this study are a good example of how contemporary Christians can interpret scientific data through a distinctly biblical framework.
Many Christians assume that there must be a radical physical separation between humanity and the rest of creation, or else, the biblical account of our origins is in peril. For instance, if humans and birds share certain genetic traits or sequences, then that must mean that one evolved from the other, and thus, the Bible is proved false. This is not so, however, because the Scriptures do not place humans outside the created order. To put it simply, we are a part of God’s creation just as trees, planets, animals, and the laws of physics are. Genesis 1 places the creation of man and animals on the same day, indicating a relationship between the two. Genesis 2 reveals to us that God formed man from “the dust of the earth”, which is an essential part of God’s truth about what we are. Contrary to many other religions, our faith does not conceive of man as a preexistent being or as an angelic being descended to earth. We are creatures who are the physical workmanship of God, and as such, we should not be surprised to find similarities in the way in which God constituted us and some parts of the animal world. Not only do we share the same Creator, but we also share many of the difficulties that resulted from the fall of Man. The curses pronounced by God in Genesis 3 were not reserved for mankind alone but included all of the creation over which Adam had been made a steward. In a similar way, all of creation awaits future redemption with us: “For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. Against its will, everything on earth was subjected to God's curse. All creation anticipates the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay.” (Romans 8.19-21 [NLT])
Our unique place in creation is not the result of our physical distinctiveness but rather of our spiritual distinctiveness. Only man was created for the express purpose of representing God on earth and was held morally accountable for his actions before God. Christians must understand that no research study can either reveal or eliminate our moral responsibility to the Lord. We may express triumph or terror in ways that are similar to apes, but only God can tell us whether those expressions are acceptable in His sight or not. We may share certain cognitive faculties with the animal world, but only humans will be held accountable for how we choose to employ those faculties. I fear that many such studies and evolutionary explanations are being used as a subtle way to undermine the idea that we will one day be held accountable for our choices. Unfortunately, the Church has not been immune to this influence; however, we must realize that a better grasp of God’s revealed facts will help us to accurately interpret researched facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment