Marriage, Monogamy and instinct; how evolutionists misunderstand the subject

'Two articles that appeared the same day [3/19/2008] on Live Science are a study in contrasts. One was titled, “Surviving Infidelity: What Wives Do When Men Cheat.” The other was titled, “Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” The thread that tied them together was evolution.' [1.]

Quotes and comments;
A. 'These differences [between male and female] may have deep evolutionary roots. “From a man’s perspective, sexual infidelity historically jeopardized his paternity certainty -- ‘mama’s baby, papa’s maybe,’” Buss said [David Buss is a professor of psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.] “Male sexual jealousy is, among other things, an adaptation designed to solve the problem of genetic cuckoldry.''

- What this person has done is to strip human beings of a rational mind. He's treating people like animals. A rational concern for fatherhood and paternity is turned into 'sexual jealousy.' He presents us with a picture of man as ape; a mindless, instinct driven animal. (Apparently professors are of a different species, as none of this stuff seem to apply to them.)

B. 'The second article went further. It openly proposed the idea that humans shouldn’t get hung up about marital fidelity (monogamy) because other animals are promiscuous, even happily so (see their sidelight, “Animal Sex: No Stinking Rules”).

- Animals aren't happy of course; they're incapable of it. (Not unless you define happiness as satisfying instincts.)
- Stinking rules? This is supposed to be science? Where would these clowns be (and their highly privileged lives) without 'stinking' rules? (And just what is the scientific meaning of a 'stinking' rule?)

C. "Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that men are more likely to have extramarital sex, partially due to the male urge to “spread genes” by broadcasting sperm.''

- There is no urge to spread genes; this is scientism and myth making. (Most humans who have ever lived have never even heard of genes.) What men are in quest of is pleasure, conquest, and status.
- Evolutionary psychologist is an oxymoron.
- Broadcasting sperm! The more evolutionary oriented a person is the more repellent their writing. (Of course if we're all just animals these stories are really just feces smearing.)

D. 'The article ended by claiming that monogamy is an unnatural thing – it is a societal, not biological, norm: “I don’t think we are a monogamous animal,” said Pepper Schwartz, a professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle.... She added, ”Monogamy is invented for order and investment – but not necessarily because it’s ‘natural.’”

- Rejecting biblical Christianity leads to nonsense like this.
- Since humans aren't animals, so they can't be monogamous animals.
- One wonders why (apart from the perks) these people bother with this exercise in idiocy. What are we getting for our billions, but a mountain of b.s.
- Despite the professors, human beings were created to be loyal. (As the members of the Trinity are loyal.)
- If some animals are 'monogamous' how can monogamy not be natural?
- Again we see what happens when people reject the doctrine of sin; they turn into idiots.

- This whole nonsense falls apart when you point out that some humans (some groups even) are monogamous and some aren't. Doesn't that kill their darling theory? They have no explanation for this; none that makes any sense. (e.g. are some beavers 'monogamous' and some not?)

- What makes this story so foolish is that these evolutionists have conflated animal 'monogamy' with human monogamy. The two aren't remotely the same. Animals are 'monogamous' out of instinct; human beings are monogamous out of meaningful commitment, out of ideas on what is moral, out of a conception of revealed Truth. Only fools would equate the two (Darwinism is a kind ideological dementia.)

- We see in this witless farce of a story more evidence for how E. theory dehumanizes human beings; it's a grand project for the deconstruction of man, a project that has as its goal the unmanning of man, the death of man. (It's done with taxpayer dollars, and I firmly believe that people shouldn't be forced to pay for their own murder.)

- Only human beings get married. I guess this is too much for evolutionists to comprehend; as they clearly don't get the meaning, the implications of this. (E.s might understand animals to a limited extent, but they apparently have no understanding of human beings. That's the sad result of the scientism of our day.) Monogamy has as its root marriage; i.e. marrying [gamos] only once. It is utterly illegitimate to use monogamy in reference to animals. Animals do not marry. They never promise to honor and obey, to cherish and to nurture. Animals are incapable of making promises, or even understanding what promises are. Animals do not take vows in the presence of other people and of god. They don't wear a token of their vows. They are punished for violating a vow. A man or a woman can violate their marriage vows (and they do so out of sin, not because they are forced to do so because of their genes) but an animal can't violate its instincts. Here again this fanciful scenario falls to piece and shatters. Infidelity among marriage partners is a voluntary act; promiscuity among animals is instinct in action.

- Because evolutionists perversely insist on treating man as an animal they get everything wrong. The results of myth making are extremely harmful; negative to lives of couples, individuals and communities. (One wonders if these Darwinian profs say to their spouses, ''well sorry honey but my genes made me do it. You can't blame me. Richard Dawkins and Pepper Schwartz have exonerated me.")

- Human beings marry for a purpose; animals to not form units (unit restrictive, or not) for a purpose. There is no internal purpose to instinct; instinct is the opposite of purpose. (This despite how evolutionists try to manufacture purpose for them.) Any 'purpose' in animal instinct comes from outside the animals; i.e. it was designed into them by an Intelligent being. (The Triune God) Instincts (contra the E.s) didn't somehow develop; they were given in complete form to the kinds of the original creation.

- Promiscuous sex among animals doesn't corrupt them (the meaning of adultery) whereas adultery does corrupt human beings. (e.g. it hardens the heart, it renders people cold and suspicious, it brings shame and sadness, etc.) It's meaningless to apply the term adultery to animals. (In a sense Darwinism amounts to a misuse of language. The theory is impossible to put over without this abuse of language. You might hope professors would be concerned with such matters, but apparently not... at least when it comes to their pet theory.) Darwinism involves an attack on language, and thus on rationality itself. (i.e. if you use words improperly, you cannot make sense; your arguments will be irrational and illogical.) Since animals are creatures of instinct it's hard to see how they can be corrupted by the actions of another animal; even one of the pack. This is not the case with human beings, who can be corrupted by the actions of another.

- In true marriage the two become one; when adultery occurs this bond is broken, and the victim feels like half a person, or less. The intimate bond between the man and woman is broken. Animals don't have anything we can rightly call intimacy. (i.e. of an emotional and personal transparency and openness.) People feel altered by the experience; usually on a permanent basis. The bond people have between them is broken; but this bond doesn't only exist between them but resides in each of them individually. (This is why we say, 'the affair broke his or her heart'.)

- Unit formation isn't celebrated (not that animals are capable of it) in animal groupings. On the other hand marriage is usually the biggest celebration time the average person has.

- In an earlier time it wouldn't have been necessary to point out such basic matters, but Darwinism has had the effect of destroying traditional knowledge. As Dennett admits, and even celebrates, it's a great cultural acid. (Not that any acid can be universal. His dream of a universal acid is clearly Satanic.) The beautiful traditions of marriage have, under the pernicious influence of evolutionary theory, been replaced by groundless just so stories about animals. Darwinism is the great dumbing down of civilization. (We might liken it to the degenerate move from Monotheism into polytheism and pantheism that the ancients suffered.

Notes;
1. Adulterers: Evolution Made Us That Way 03/19/2008 [Creation/Evolution Headlines]
March 19, 2008 — Two articles that appeared the same day on Live Science are a study in contrasts. One was titled, “Surviving Infidelity: What Wives Do When Men Cheat.” The other was titled, “Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?” The thread that tied them together was evolution.
2. If you want to know how absurd it is to speak of monogamy in terms of animals try to imagine two animals getting married.
3. To pretend that 'natural selection' (whatever it's supposed to consist of this week) can account for all things is like saying the earth orbits the sun because of natural selection, because it thereby gains some evolutionary advantage, or reproductive advantage. If evolutionists were consistent they'd explain the tilt of the earth by natural selection; clearly there's an advantage in having the specific tilt the earth does. They would also account for the distance from the sun by natural selection. Isn't it clear that the earth was more successful than the other planets in gaining the optimum spot in the solar system? (What a colossal struggle that must have been! Surely the craters on the other planets can be accounted for by this struggle for existence.)