Thinking genes

If you're looking for a brief intro to recent brain research and a quick outline of how it affects anthropology [Christian or otherwise] this article may help get you in the right vicininty. I think that the biggest issue is shown by this quote:
"although cultural influences on morals are strong, an important genetic element is also present. 'Much of what we think of as culturally learned or individually reasoned in moral judgment,' he said, 'may turn out to be driven primarily by evolutionary forces.'"
It's a challenge not only to Christians [though perhaps not as great as some might think] but to large sections of the social sciences too. Most social sciences have tended to think that biology stopped where culture started -or vice versa. It looks like the picture may be more complicated [and are we really surprised?]
It needn't be a problem to Christians [at least not those of us who don't take it that we're supposed to believe in creation taking 6x24hours]. If God creates/d through the mechanisms that the geological record shows [and I don't see this claim as, in principle, different to the idea that God created me through the mechanism of my parents' bodies and bringing me up], then we should expect that both the traces of that process should show up [just like we have the trace of our development in utero in the form of a navel] and that perhaps even, providentially, that process delivers at least some of the things into our human nature that God wants there ...

Now, I know that there are difficulties with that: what about the things that may be in our nature that God doesn't want there. That's another debate, perhaps; suffice to say that I am not sure that this question is as simple as it may first appear: I am not convinced for example, that aggression is necessarily wrong. Like sexual desire, it may be a matter of how it is dealt with and used. I note that Jesus acted aggressively on a few occasions ... or perhaps we should make a distinction between the polar opposites of aggressive and passive and the middle way of assertive? -Where the difference is in our choices about how to respect ourselves and others and how to make the best of the situation or not.

It seems to me that some of this brain science stuff is going to challenge us to think more carefully and fully about ethics, but it isn't going to challenge the fundamentals of there being right and wrong, and virtue and vice to discuss, think and pray about.

The idea that physical disgust may actually be the basis for moral feelings is not, in principle, diferent from the claim that our thinking is inevitably fashioned by our physical condition [eg Lakoff's "Metaphors we Live By" ] or by our social interaction with others. [Hobson, Peter. 2002. The Cradle of Thought. Exploring the Origins of Thinking. ]
Wired News: Clear Pictures of How We Think: These form the raw material, the clay, that God breathes life into and makes able to relate to him. Our priviledge and responsibility is to make these things the stuff of relating truly and lovingly to God and to our neighbour. How they got there is interesting and may even be enlightneing, but it doesn't take away from it.