In this paper I argue that theological understandings of human nature are a major component of people’s views of human enhancement technologies. After examining studies regarding public perception of human enhancement technologies and studies exploring public perceptions of evolution, I contend the primary difference in views from these studies is how invasive enhancement technologies are. The resistance to enhancements that could change human nature I believe is connected to a theological anthropology that is too anthropocentric, and an extension of the position that humans were created by God in their present form at least 10,000 years ago. In order to address emerging technology, theology needs to do more constructive work regarding human nature and how humanity could evolve into one or more species other than Homo sapiens, both through natural and technologically assisted means.
According to a study by the Pew Research Center, Americans with higher levels of religious commitment are more likely to see enhancement technologies as crossing a line of meddling with nature compared to those with low levels of religious commitment (Fahmy, 2022). Support for evolution is at its highest in the last thirty-five years. However, specific numbers in polls and surveys differ. A Pew study published in 2019 found that participants that were asked two questions responded differently than those who were asked one question. Those who were asked two questions were first asked whether humans evolved or if they had always existed in their current form. If they said humans evolved, they were asked whether God or a higher power had a role in evolution or not. Those who were asked one question were presented with three options: humans evolved through natural selection with no role for God or a higher power, humans evolved and God or a higher power played a role, or humans have always existed in their present form. Pew summarizes the differences by saying “our estimate of the share of Americans who reject evolution and express a creationist view drops considerably (from 31% to 18% of U.S. adults) when respondents are immediately given the opportunity to say God played a role in human evolution” (). In the two questions group, the percentages of just evolution/natural selection, guided evolution, and current form were 40%, 27%, and 31% respectively. For the single question, the percentages were 33%, 48%, and 18% respectively (Cooperman et al., 2019). People were more willing to answer that God played a role in evolution and less likely to say humans have always existed in their current form when all three positions were presented at the same time.
Gallup has used the same three general categories when polling Americans about evolution starting in 1982 and summarizing the changes over time, they state that “creationism and God-guided evolution reached their peaks of 47% and 40%, respectively, in 1999 and have since trended downward. Meanwhile, support for evolution without divine intervention has nearly tripled since 1999.” In 2024 the percentages of humans existing in current form for the last 10,000 years, evolution with guidance from God, and evolution/natural selection alone were 37%, 34%, and 24% respectively. Gallup identifies religious identification, frequency of religious service attendance, political ideology, and education level as important factors in shaping beliefs on evolution (Brenan, 2024).
A study by academics and members of the National Center for Science Education that examined a variety of polls and surveys, including the Gallup and Pew studies mentioned already, and drew a number of conclusions. While people are more educated and less religious today, religious fundamentalism is still around 30% and topics like evolution have become more politicized (Miller et al., 2021). Although political beliefs are an important factor in people’s views on evolution, when we consider perspectives on evolution and enhancement together, religious commitment or beliefs appear to be even more important. People who are religiously fundamentalist are more likely to reject human evolution and support the challenging of teaching evolution in schools (Miller et al., 2021). It in unsurprising, then, that technology that could alter human DNA or what people consider to be “normal” or “human nature” would be seen as a threat and an example of humans attempting to “play God.” An underlying issue, I believe, is that as much as most Christian denominations and traditions have accepted evolution, including for humans, theological anthropology has not caught up to all of the implications of this.
Theology needs to find an answer to the question of how much change will it take for a new form of humanity to emerge. In doing so, it must avoid falling into traps such as genetic determinism. Humans share so much DNA with other species that appealing to a percentage change of DNA as a threshold is not a good solution. I argue that virtue ethics provides a more productive perspective, but one that still needs further articulation. Enhancements can change our natural dispositions and capacities, even leading to new virtues, but changes to intellectual or moral virtues alone would not necessitate a new form of humanity. Modern humans and transhumanists would still share the same natural end for our species, human flourishing. There are two possible ways that we can draw a distinction between humans and post-humans. First, if there comes a point where there is no overlap in intellectual and moral virtues between humans and transhumans, then I would argue our natural ends are sufficiently different to say a new form of humanity had emerged. The second way is if humans and transhumans no longer share the same supernatural end. For Christianity, this supernatural end is the Beatific Vision. If there were transhumans who achieved physical immortality, be it biological through life extension, or through mind uploading and the abandonment of a biological substrate, there would be a new form of humanity or a post-human species. However, the theological work does not end with classification; there are many questions about the pursuit of evolving beyond current forms of humanity that must be addressed by theology and theological ethics.
In this paper I argue that theological understandings of human nature are a major component of people’s views of human enhancement technologies. After examining studies regarding public perception of human enhancement technologies and studies exploring public perceptions of evolution, I contend the primary difference in views from these studies is how invasive enhancement technologies are. The resistance to enhancements that could change human nature I believe is connected to a theological anthropology that is too anthropocentric, and an extension of the position that humans were created by God in their present form at least 10,000 years ago. In order to address emerging technology, theology needs to do more constructive work regarding human nature and how humanity could evolve into one or more species other than Homo sapiens, both through natural and technologically assisted means.