The triumph of Darwinian evolutionary biology in the second half of the twentieth century brought social behavior into the picture, although – labeled “sociobiology” – not without controversy. The mechanism–organicism split continued to divide evolutionists, with “Standard Evolutionary Thinkers” firmly mechanist, and challengers “Extended Evolutionary Synthesists” – often appealing to evolutionary development (“evo-devo”) – firmly organicist.

Ancient stone tools provide a unique source of empirical evidence for reconstructing the evolutionary origins of human culture, mind, and brain. As a key component of hominid adaptations throughout the Paleolithic, stone tools not only document human evolution but likely helped to shape it. Properly interpreting this evidence requires both “middle-range” theory linking archaeologically observable material remains to the behaviors that created them and high-level theory appropriate for placing these reconstructed behaviors in a broader evolutionary framework. An extended evolutionary perspective on Paleolithic toolmaking as embodied practice integrates levels of analysis by emphasizing the interaction of evolutionary and behavioral processes unfolding on multiple spatiotemporal scales. Although much work remains to be done, initial efforts toward an integrated evolutionary neuroscience of toolmaking are beginning to trace the evolution of a uniquely human technological niche rooted in a shared primate heritage of visuomotor coordination and dexterous manipulation.

Chapter 6 unpacks salient hypotheses in contemporary evolutionary theory that challenge traditional views of the Fall and original sin. The first challenge comes from the gradual nature of evolutionary change. On the modern synthesis of Mendel’s account of particulate inheritance with Darwin’s account of natural selection, evolutionary change happens gradually. It is hard to see how a single volition could have corrupted human nature. (This seems to be true even on the “extended evolutionary synthesis.”) The second challenge, or rather set of challenges, stems from the legacy of our evolutionary history. It appears that at least some human beings were disposed to sinful forms of behavior (e.g., aggressive violence), and yet at the same time we have evolved dispositions to altruistic cooperation. This causes problem for the traditional Augustinian account of both pre- and postlapsarian human nature: human desires seem not to have been perfectly ordered before the Fall, and after the Fall it seems that we aren’t entirely selfish. The third challenge stems from the widely supported hypothesis that the human population never dipped below 6,000 individuals. Either some people were created in sin or far more people were created without sin than traditionally assumed.