Outline
I. Introduction
Thesis: In studying the underlying constructs of psychology – the origins of humanity, human nature, and human purpose – one sees the extensive influence of evolution. When contrasted with the biblical view of creationism, it becomes clear that modern psychology shares little in common with biblical principles.
II. Basic Constructs of Human Psychology A. Human
1. What is a human being? 2. How do humans differ from animals? B. Human Behavior
1. Thought, feeling, action
2. Inner and outer worlds of human perception
III. Human Origins
A. Evolution 1. Life from non-life material/Big Bang Theory 2. Genetic mutation
3. Natural selection a. Competition as the foundation of behavior b. Law of the Jungle B. Creationism 1. God created the universe and all creatures 2. Each species was created separate and distinct 3. God created man special in God’s own image
IV. Human Nature A. Evolution 1. Survival of the fittest a. Social behavior
b. Mating c. Reproduction 2. Behaviorism
a. Behavior is a combination of social learning and genetic influencces
b. Effect on antisocial behavior on reproduction 3. Biological determinism
a. No real basis for free will B. Creationism 1. Humans were made in God’s image a. God is love, justice, kindness, and joyful 2. The Fall of Man separated humans from God a. ‘War’ between good and evil
b. Man’s nature is now sinful 3. Jesus the Son of God redeemed human beings a. Death and resurrection of Jesus
b. Through God’s grace and his son’s sacrifice, man has the opportunity to accept a higher nature
3. Humans are free to choose between good and evil
V. Humans’ Life Purpose A. Evolution 1. Reproduce/Survive 2. Personal purpose is what people make it to be
3. People can find satisfaction if they follow their own desires and mitigate biopsychological problems
4. No objective basis for good and evil
a. Morality as part of natural selection B. Creationism 1. Humans have dominion over the earth a. Care for the earth b. Care for one another 2. Humans’ purpose is to live in relationship with God a. Seek God through faith and devotion b. Reject the outward sin of this world 3. Humans’ purpose is to live Christ’s message a. Love, peace, and joy b. Encourage others to fulfill their purpose
4. Humans can only experience the fruits of the spirit if they fulfill their purpose
VI. Conclusion

Annotated Bibliography
Bolhuis, J.J., Brown, G.R., Richardson, R.C., & Laland, K.N. (2011). Darwin in mind: New opportunities for evolutionary psychology. PLoS Biology, 9(7), 1-8.
These authors review the evolutionary psychology perspective on the evolution of the human mind, explaining the complexity of human thought and action as an expression of evolution. The authors assert that human cognition is partitioned in the mind according to adaptations that occurred in human thinking since the Pleistocene period. This article is useful in the present research because it explicates the beliefs that evolutionary psychologists hold about the origin of human thinking and the present state of human cognition.
Carter, S. (1987). Evolutionism, creationism, and treating religion as a hobby. Duke Law Journal, 1987(6), 977-996.
Carter presents a legal argument for the impossibility of neutrality toward religion. He asserts that an assumed position of neutrality is actually a negation of religion in that any state response that attempts to be neutral toward religion must actually take a stand against it. Carter utilizes the debate between evolutionism and creationism to explicate his argument. This article is a rarity because it presents evolutionism and creationism side-by-side in a way that shows how they reflect two differing and contradictory belief systems. The source is also useful because it presents overviews of both evolutionism and creationism.
Confer, J., Easton, J., Fleischman, D., Goetz, C.D., Lewis, D., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D.M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65(2), 110-126.
These authors present a perspective of evolutionary psychology that is rooted in the psychological paradigm but which questions the strict biopsychological approach that is necessary to accept evolution as an integral framework for psychology as a discipline. They criticize the inability of evolutionary psychology to explain the individual mechanisms that occur within specific human beings because of the science’s overreliance on generalities and theoretical mechanisms that cannot be observed in individuals. For instance, evolution itself cannot be observed in individuals because hundreds if not thousands of generations are necessary to create observable evidence. This source informs the present study on the limitations of evolutionary psychology.
Cronbach, L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
Cronbach explores the foundations of psychology as a science and differentiates between experimental psychology and correlational psychology. These are two separate types of psychological inquiry but both are based on the scientific method of inductive reasoning and theory development. This classic work facilitates understanding of how psychology categorizes itself as a science. Within this discourse, Cronbach explores the relationship between psychology and evolution. He shows how modern psychological science is rooted in evolution. He also presents the basic constructs of psychology, including: cognition, emotion, behavior, and morality. Underlying these constructs are fundamental precepts about human origins, human nature, and human purpose. This work is useful to the present study because it explores the fundamental constructs of psychology and shows how modern psychology is influenced by evolution.
Gould, S.J. (1994). The evolution of life on earth. Scientific American, 271(4), 84-91.
This article explores the paradigm of evolution in a celebratory way. The author admits that evolution cannot explain all of the ways that creatures evolved from one another, but it posits without doubt that these creatures did evolve in this way. The author describes evolution as unpredictable and non-progressive. Gould stresses the roles of natural selection and random genetic mutation as the basis of evolutionary change and adaptation. Gould also describes the evolution of life from non-life. This article benefits the present study because it contributes a perspective on evolution and its key principles and assumptions.
Harlow, D. (2008). Creation according to Genesis: Literary genre, cultural context, theological truth. Christian Scholar’s Review, 163-198.
Harlow explores Genesis 1 and 2 of the Bible, explicating the nature of reality from a Christian perspective. He asserts that Genesis is the Christian source for information on the fundamental nature of God, humans, and the world. He shows how Genesis assumes a cosmological view of creation without explaining it in direct terms. He explores the order of creation as outlined in Genesis and informs the reader of what theological principles can be derived from this. This source is important to the present study because it offers a theological perspective for the fundamental principles of creationism.
Kibble, D. (1981). The Kingdom of God and Christian politics. Themelios, 24-32.
Kibble challenges the view that Christianity has little to do with social justice. He references many passages in the Bible that describe the Christian ethic of social justice and he asserts that Christians are called to live this in action as evidence of their faith. Kibble describes the earth as a fallen world where Christians must battle against evil to serve those in need. This work is important to the current research because it describes the Christian worldview, the conflict between good and evil, and the Christians’ purpose in action.
Numbers, R.L. (1982). Creationism in 20th-Century America. Science, 218(4572), 538-544.
Numbers describes the history of creationism in America, noting that it did not arise as a separate subject until the idea of evolution was elevated to the status of fact instead of theory. Numbers reminds readers that evolution continues to be merely a theory, but it has come to dominate the Western paradigm as if it were fact. Numbers stresses how creationist scientists such as Henry Morris reflected on the sheer mathematical improbability of life’s diversity and complexity arising by chance. This article offers a concise historical overview of creationism as a response to evolution.
Pennock, R. (1996). Naturalism, Evidence and Creationism: The Case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy, 11, 543-559.
Pennock reviews creationism and its arguments against evolution from an evolutionist perspective. He reviews the way in which creationists have called evolution ‘scientific dogmatism’ and details the charge against science that science has become a ‘secular religion.’ He also presents creationist arguments regarding the naturalist foundation of evolution and its simultaneous denial and potential inclusion of a divine origin of the universe. He refutes the creationist argument against evolution with a complex rendering of the simple statement that evolution is based on empirical evidence and creationism is not. He develops his argument from the perspective that man decides what the concept of God is and then fits this concept to the natural evidence. This source is useful in the present study because it shows how evolution and psychology view nature as the first and only irrefutable source of evidence.
Ploeger, A., van der Maas, H.L.J., & Raijmakers, M.E.J. (2008). Is evolutionary psychology a metatheory for psychology? A discussion of four major issues in psychology from an evolutionary developmental perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 19(1), 1-18.
These authors explore evolutionary psychology in terms of metatheoretical principles. These principles include: the debate between nature and nurture, the process by which individual differences occur, and the way that stage development evolved through natural selection. The authors assert that both nature and nurture interact within each person’s development. Individual genes are expressed in multiple characteristics and behaviors within each person through a process described as pleiotropic. Development itself is a product of this pleiotropic process of genetic interaction with social environments.
Scott, E. (1997). Antievolution and creationism in the United States. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 263-289.
Scott begins his article by asserting statistics that refute the idea that evolution is the accepted view of the majority of Americans. While it is the official view adopted by the state and taught in schools, Scott presents evidence that the people do not necessarily agree with the official view. Scott asserts that creationists reject evolution because it is considered the root of atheism and a rejection of God. Scott defines evolution and creationism and then outlines their fundamental principles and differences. Scott separates evolutionists from creationists with the monikers ‘old earthers’ and ‘young earthers’ and describes many of the types of creationism that have evolved. He presents evolutionists as a single, unified group. He also describes many of the legal battles that have been fought over the teaching of evolution. This source is informative to the present study because it compares creationism with evolutionism.

Creationism VS. Evolution

The modern scientific paradigm as it relates to nature and humanity is dominated by Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is the only acceptable view taught in schools, because it is a secular view and schools are legislated to keep religion out of all public life. At the same time, Scott (1997) notes that only 44 percent of people actually believe the basic principles of evolution such as the idea that humans evolved from apes. Those who do not believe in evolution are often creationists, people who believe in the biblical view of creation and humanity. For the purposes of this research, evolutionism and creationism will be treated as two paradigms of belief, both based on significant assumptions that are in turn reflective of the expert sources to which they turn for evidence. Evolutionism turns to human reason applied to the natural world while creationism considers the Bible as a God-inspired communication, to be the only true evidentiary source of truth on earth.
Even though human reason and natural evidence changes over time, the influences of evolution are even broader than one might at first imagine. The field of psychology, for instance, is almost entirely rooted in evolution through its focus on biology and natural selection mechanisms as the determinants for human thought, emotion and behavior. In studying the underlying constructs of psychology – the origins of humanity, human nature, and human purpose – one sees the extensive influence of evolution. When contrasted with the biblical view of creationism, it becomes clear that modern psychology shares little in common with biblical principles.
Basic Constructs of Psychology
Before explaining the influence that evolution has had on psychology as a discipline, it is important to understand the fundamental principles and constructs that underlie the discipline itself. In the view of modern psychology, human beings are mammals, animals that are very complex in their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Bolhuis, Brown, Richardson, & Laland, 2011). Humans are individuals that differ from one another in traits, self-expression, and social identities but all humans share a great deal in common (Cronbach, 1957). Many psychologists assert that all humans develop along a uniform continuum of stages though they often disagree about the particular stages that operate within human beings. Most psychologists believe that humans are products of their environment combined with their natural tendencies that are genetically determined. Humans only differ from animals in the expression of their thoughts, emotions and behaviors. As the primary subject of human psychology, humans are perceived to be individual expressions of unique combinations of thought, feeling, and action. Psychology involves itself in the study of these combinations and the resulting perceptions of identity. Psychology also studies the relationship between the individual and his or her environment with a particular emphasis on the individual. Psychology does assume that there are preferable ways of living that maximize emotional well-being. Psychologists believe that morality is relative in the sense that it is culturally determined rather than objectively real (Ploeger, van der Maas, & Raijmakers, 2008).
Human Origins
One of the fundamental assumptions that psychology derives from evolution is the origin of human beings. Evolutionary theory posits that human beings evolved from other primates that are considered to be less complex. As such, humans are part of the animal kingdom of mammals. Evolutionists believe that mammals evolved from other less complex creatures, stemming back to the first life. This first life is believed to have somehow been created from a chemical combination where some sort of explosive effect occurred to animate non-living tissue (Gould, 1994). This is an extension of the Big Bang Theory wherein the universe itself was believed to be created from a single explosion of matter at the beginning of time. Most of the changes in creatures have occurred since this time as a result of genetic mutations, adaptation, and natural selection. Natural selection is based on the competitive behavior that results in some species and individuals surviving better than others through greater reproductive success and greater dominance over others. This view has informed psychology by connecting human behavior with animal behavior and essentially removing the separation between humans and animals. Thoughts, speech, emotion, and behavior are all considered to be extensions of evolutionary mechanisms (Bolhuis, Brown, Richardson, & Laland, 2011).
This view differs significantly from the biblically-based creationist perspective in fundamental ways. First, creationists believe that God created the universe and all of the life on earth. Creationists believe that it is implausible and even irrational to argue that life could be created from non-life. Instead, creationists believe that God purposefully and lovingly created the universe, the earth, and all life. God continues to be directly and personally involved in the events that occur on earth. Creationists also believe that all living things were created separate and distinct from one another. Although many living things share some resemblances and traits, they were created as unique organisms (Numbers, 1982). The primary source for God’s hand in creation comes from the Book of Genesis in the Bible. In this book, it also states that the world was created in a certain order. Humans were created on the last day that God worked on his creation, the sixth day. Importantly, Genesis makes it clear that humans were the culmination of God’s plan for his new creation (Harlow, 2008). Humans were intended to have dominion over the earth such that they cared for the earth in the way that God cared for them. Also, humans were the most special in God’s eyes because God created them in his own image. This was different from all other animals. This idyllic picture of creation ceases with the entrance of Satan and sin, however, and the perfect world of the earth becomes one of sin and death. The understanding of how human beings are today hinges on both their initial creation by God and their fall from grace.
This view of the creation of human beings differs in important ways from that of evolution. First, humans are related to the animals only by means of God’s hand in creation. Humans are not evolved from animals. Secondly, human behavior cannot be understood in animalistic terms because to do so misses God’s purpose and plan in creating humans. For the creationist, the thoughts, emotions, and behavior of human beings are expressions of their God-given nature. Human beings behave in certain ways because of the inner struggle between good and evil. Although they were created out of pure good, human beings accepted the struggle between good and evil and embodied it when they sought the wisdom of God on their own terms and sinned against God (Kibble, 1981).
Human Nature
Another key construct within psychology is that of human nature. Human nature can be understood as the driving forces that underlay behavior. Paradigmatic views of human nature impact psychology because they influence the questions that psychologists ask, the theoretical directions that psychologists take, and the conclusions to which they come in the course of their research and clinical practice with patients. The scientist view of psychology, formulated on the basis of evolution, postulates that human nature is influenced by three interrelated mechanisms: survival of the fittest, behaviorism, and biological determinism. Survival of the fittest is the idea that those creatures that compete best by securing the most resources and reproducing the most successfully will be the ones to proliferate and survive while those that fail at these tasks will die (Gould, 1994). This idea leads to the conclusion that those humans alive today have traits that help them to be successful at securing resources and reproducing. Thus, their behaviors are adaptations that facilitate survival.
From this basic idea, psychology has assumed that social behavior is adaptive because humans live in groups. Marriage, mating behaviors, and reproduction are all animalistic urges derived from the drive to survive. Antisocial behavior can interrupt a person’s ability to survive and reproduce, leading to the death of that genetic line and those traits. Even morality and ethics are believed to be nothing more than adaptations for the purposes of survival (Carter, 1987). Psychology has also assumed that children’s dedication to their parents and people’s tendency to learn from others are adaptive traits that have proliferated because they increase reproductive success and resource allocation.
Behaviorism and biological determinism stem from this idea as it is applied to the human in the social environment. Behaviorism posits that people learn by conditioning such that one can use positive and negative reinforcement to mold people’s behavior. Cognitive behavioral theory, behaviorism, and operant conditioning are all derived from the belief that thoughts drive behavior and that thoughts arise out of the learning that people have absorbed from their social environment. In addition, biological determinism asserts that internal tendencies of personality or trait-driven behavior are expressions of biologically hereditable traits (Ploeger, van der Maas, & Raijmakers, 2008). In this view, there is no true appeal to any belief in free will. In fact, strict determinists and behaviorists do not believe in free will.
This contrasts sharply with creationism. In fact, it is difficult to imagine an evolutionist and creationist having a conversation about this topic, because their views differ so significantly. In the creationist view, humans were made in God’s image. This means that humans are intended to be loving, just, kind, and purposeful. Humans are intended to serve those they lead and to be humble, knowing that they are always in the presence of God. Yet creationists also believe that the fall of man led to the present constant conflict between good and evil. This battle between good and evil occurs in the world, in social groups, in nature, and within each and every individual’s heart. Because humans disobeyed God and sinned against him, they accepted evil as a part of their nature. Thus, human nature is now rooted in sin. Even though humans were created for good, they now have a strong tendency to want to sin (Harlow, 2008). This is the root of temptation. Without a relationship with God, the temptation to sin is too strong and people will fall into evil ways. As a result of God’s eternal desire to be in relationship with his people, God sent Jesus, his son, to redeem human beings. This has resulted in the possibility of human beings becoming servants of God and their neighbors once again. Without God’s grace acting in their lives through their faith in Jesus the savior, people’s fallen nature will continue to dominate their lives in various ways (Kibble, 1981). However, people have free will, meaning that they are capable of choosing their actions, thoughts, and behaviors.
This view contrasts with most of psychological science though there are some theories of psychology that conflict with evolution and accept a view that is more aligned with that of the Bible. Those theories of psychology that emphasize individuality, self-actualization, and psychological mechanisms over biological ones accept the principle of free will (Confer, Easton, Fleischman, Goetz, Lewis, Perilloux, & Buss, 2010). They do not, however, accept the role of God in people’s lives. In fact, all modern theories of psychology make an expressed and determined effort to relegate God to a cultural phenomenon rather than a fundamental actor in people’s lives (Harlow, 2008).
Humans’ Life Purpose
Without God, a human’s life purpose becomes entirely self-serving and entirely focused on successfully navigating the competitive world of nature and human society. Indeed, this is the view of life’s meaning that psychology supports. To an evolutionist, the purpose of human life is to survive. Any other purpose is constructed by individuals for their own pleasure. There is no other reason for living. Humans are ruled by their desires to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Individuals, then, can follow their own desires and solve their psychological problems so that they can have fulfilled desires. This may require them to overcome psychological problems that are part of their inborn tendencies such as a depressed approach to life or an angry disposition. Finally, the evolutionary psychological view is that there is no objective basis for good and evil because morality has merely evolved as part of the adaptive set of traits and behaviors. Good and evil and morality in general are now culturally constructed entities that have no objective reality. Thus, it is only wrong to kill when cultural groups dictate that it is wrong. If one lived in a cultural group where killing was acceptable then it would not be wrong. This relates to the purpose of human life because it indicates that there are no right or wrong ways to live according to the human science of psychology (Carter, 1987).
Creationists, on the other hand, believe that humans were created to be in relationship with God and to care for his creation. Humans were given dominion over the earth so that they might care for it and for one another. Also, humans fulfill their lives’ purpose by seeking to be in relationship with God through their faith in God and in his son Jesus. Their purpose is also to reject the outward sin of this fallen world and to encourage others to seek the truth. To achieve this, humans were taught that love, peace, and joy are the outward signs of a faithful heart. Thus, humans who fulfill their purpose will experience these fruits (Kibbble, 1981).
Conclusion
Evolution is a powerful influence on modern psychology today. It has heavily impacted psychology’s fundamental assumptions about the origins of human life, human nature, free will, and human purpose. These assumptions in turn influence the way in which psychologists approach helping people change and improve their lives when they experience psychological distress. These assumptions also affect how psychologists view healing, morality, and learning. These views are highly contrasted with those of creationism where God has a direct and active role in all aspects of creation and human life. In the view of a creationist, psychology is doomed to be ineffective in facilitating true growth, development and change in human beings because it fails to address the true purpose of human life and the real reasons that psychological problems evolve.

References
Bolhuis, J.J., Brown, G.R., Richardson, R.C., & Laland, K.N. (2011). Darwin in mind: New opportunities for evolutionary psychology. PLoS Biology, 9(7), 1-8.
Carter, S. (1987). Evolutionism, creationism, and treating religion as a hobby. Duke Law Journal, 1987(6), 977-996.
Confer, J., Easton, J., Fleischman, D., Goetz, C.D., Lewis, D., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D.M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65(2), 110-126.
Cronbach, L. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
Gould, S.J. (1994). The evolution of life on earth. Scientific American, 271(4), 84-91.
Harlow, D. (2008). Creation according to Genesis: Literary genre, cultural context, theological truth. Christian Scholar’s Review, 163-198.
Kibble, D. (1981). The Kingdom of God and Christian politics. Themelios, 24-32.
Numbers, R.L. (1982). Creationism in 20th-Century America. Science, 218(4572), 538-544.
Pennock, R. (1996). Naturalism, Evidence and Creationism: The Case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy, 11, 543-559.
Ploeger, A., van der Maas, H.L.J., & Raijmakers, M.E.J. (2008). Is evolutionary psychology a metatheory for psychology? A discussion of four major issues in psychology from an evolutionary developmental perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 19(1), 1-18.
Scott, E. (1997). Antievolution and creationism in the United States. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 263-289.