Why not evolution?

From an excellent book about the differences between typical Eastern and Western thinking …

The obsession with categories of the either/or sort runs through Western intellectual history. Dichotomies abound in every century and form the basis for often fruitless debates: for example, "mind-body" controversies in which partisans take sides as to whether a given behavior is best understood as being produced by the mind independent of any biological embodiment, or as a purely physical reaction unmediated by mental processes. The "nature-nurture" controversy is another debate that has often proved to generate more heat than light. As evolutionary biologist Richard Alexander pointed out, nearly all behaviors that are characteristic of higher order mammals are determined by both nature and nurture. The dichotomy "emotion-reason" has obscured more than it has revealed. As Hume said, "reason is and ought to be the slave of passion"; it makes sense to searate the two for purposes of anaysis only. And it's been suggested that the distinction between "human" and "animal" insisted upon by Westerners made it particularly hard to accept the concept of evolution. In most Eastern systems, the soul can take the form of any animal or even God. Evolution has never been controversial in the East because there was never an assumption that humans sat atop a chain of being and somehow had lost their animality.

Source: Nisbett, Richard E. The Geography of Thought. Simon and Schuster, 2003.