EVOLUTION OF HUMAN NATURE

In opinions on evolution of features of human mind one can spot the existence of clear dualism. Some biologists as well as the great majority of philosophers and theologians perceive human being as a creature of completely different nature from other living creatures, including biologically closest relatives of our species. As presenters of such views usually do not deny the process of evolution itself, most often they point to an enormous acceleration of the tempo of Homo sapiens intellectual development which took place 40 thousand years ago that, according to them, once and for all separated man from the rest of the world of nature. However, during last 30 years, at first a large group of biologists and later psychologists became convinced that there was nothing extraordinary about the character of human nature. Proponents of that view perceive evolution of human intellect as a continuum whose individual aspects can be derived from rudimentary animal features. According to them an overriding motivation of human behavior is a maximization of Darwinian fitness. The first serious trial of such a revision of beliefs on human mind was sociobiology created by an entomologist Edward O. Wilson. Because of its radical character, sociobiology has not gained general acceptance and has been criticized both on grounds of methodology of natural sciences and philosophy. However, in recent years there have appeared more and more supporters of evolutionary psychology. They try to explain the development of features of human mind by means of theories and hypotheses borrowed from evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology, e.g. family selection, reciprocated altruism, Good Genes Hypothesis, the Red Queen Principle, and the concept of 'selfish gene'. Although from the point of view of methodology of science the research program of evolutionary biology is correct, at present a significant part of evolutionary psychologists' statements go far beyond still scarce empirical support. Nonetheless, evolutionary psychology will certainly become an important voice in the discussion on sources of human nature, the voice which should be ignored neither by philosophers nor theologians.