Does evolution teach/encourage one to commit adultery or not? —Shouldn’t one “spread their seed” as in “survival of the fittest” and all that? If “God does not see” (according to one’s beliefs) then this directly affects human behavior. // And again, this planet is owned; your soul is owned. FEAR God and keep His commandments. The oversimplified “God is luf, luf, luf” (love—) stuff is incomplete, poor theology, I would contend.
49 comments
Indeed... or at least a very commonly stated fundie-preacher line.
'Course, "spreading seed" is supposedly good while letting someone do so is pure sin, moreso if it was unwanted and gotten rid of...
the damn line reads as "its ok to rape, you'll be punished for having been raped because you should be you slut" to me, among other twisted uses some freaks seem to keep for it.
No, evolution does not teach/encourage one to commit adultery. There is, however, a certain holy book that teaches one to acquire a wife by raping her and then giving a little payola to her dad.
For the last time:
Evolution is not about morality. And neither is fearing or obeying an invisible bogeyman in the sky.
And anyway, if you impregnate a bunch of women, and you don't take care of your spawn...many of them will starve or suffer. Not really a good reproductive strategy, huh?
Live your life in fear of the big bogeyman in the sky, "editor", if that is what tickles your fancy. Just keep your fucking mouth shut about it, as normal intelligent human beings are busy dealing with real-life problems and challenges, and we dislike the useless spew from superstitious simpletons like yourself.
Interesting thought, but why? Theology has nothing to do with evolution! If you believe in God or not, and/or monogamy, so be it. If you do or do not believe in God and wish to be promiscuous, again, so be it. Evolution really has nothing to do with morals, simply survival and improvements within a species. Actually evolution would probably benefit more from diversity instead and more different "seeds being spread" to more differnet partners, but that's just a guess.
As a matter of fact, would Evolution instead encourage one to remain with one's current mate and children, thereby making more offspring with the mate you already have secured, and ensuring said offspring survive to participate in the next generation themselves?
Does evolution teach/encourage one to commit adultery or not?
Males have a natural tendency to want to have sex with as many females as possible, because for males, sex is biologically "cheap" - if a female lets him, a male can father a child in five minutes and walk away. Females, on the other hand, have a natural tendency to limit males' access to their reproductive system because for females, sex is "expensive" - pregnancy puts a huge strain on the female body, and may even be fatal.
So evolution predicts that males will tend to be promiscuous, and females will tend to be selective. If males are monogamous, it's mostly because females impose monogamy on them as a condition of access to them.
And that's exactly what we see, both in humans and in other animals. Evolution doesn't encourage adultery; it predicts it.
"The oversimplified “God is luf, luf, luf” (love
) stuff is incomplete, poor theology, I would contend."
Well, I can agree with this at least, seeing as God is in the smiting and judgement business.
Is any god that you have to fear worth any of your time on Earth?
"The oversimplified “God is luf, luf, luf” (love
)stuff is incomplete, poor theology, I would contend." Of course, yor god is more of a god of compleat rage who has killed more people than Satan.
As I understand the classical definition of adultery, it simply involves a married woman with a man who is not her husband. From ancient Greece to modern-day Texas (last I heard), a husband is entitled to kill any interloper.
By this rule, it appears that adulterers are selectively removed from the gene pool. Not much of an incentive there, fo' sho'.
Evolutionary theory is morally neutral.
It's neither good nor evil.
Evolution doesn't have anything to say on how you should or should not live, any more than spectroscopy or organic chemistry does. It merely is.
It is a facet of the natural world, no more, no less, in exactly the same way that biological death and childbirth are.
It's up to you and whatever philosophical system/religion you embrace to tell you how you should or should not live.
Of course, the 'deadbeat dad' gene (assuming there is one) can only increase if there is no compensating decreas in fitness in their children. So as long as we don't do anything stupid like criminalize abortion or something, deadbeat dads will always be just a parasitical minority.
(And, no, I'm not being serious.)
Why do so many people try and develop a moral philosophy out of evolution? It's a frackin scientific theory, not a moral philosophy.
It makes just as much sense to try and form a moral philosophy based on Bernoulli's ideal gas law. Or how about a moral philosophy based on quantum mechanics?
Evolution is the theory of how life has achieved its current state. It says nothing about morals. To commit adultery, you have to be married to begin with, which a cultural notion and concept(I don't really know if animals can claim alimony or partner benefits). And there are animals, like penguins, for example, who are monogamous, but, again, we're not talking about morals, but about instinct. And talk about poor theology. Nobody can fulfill ten commandments about a guy you can't see, if you don't understand the core principle, love, underneath them, won't you?.
I agree with Puck. The theory of evolution can explain(not encourage)certain attitudes that we consider inmoral today. However, if we stick to the Biblical meaning, is even more vague. I explain, in Biblical language, adultery is ONLY the crime consisting of making love to a married woman. Not making love outside marriage or when a married man fucks another woman, who's single. Let's begin by the fact that marriage is a human insitution explained by ANTHROPOLOGY, not natural science(where Evolution is formulated)and the fact that adultery, in the Biblical old-fashioned meaning is not encouraged by evolution. Why?, because women can't "spread their seeds".
Of all animals (yes, I consider myself an animal, I shall burn in a pool of fire for eternity) human is not part of those who are naturally monogamist. So called adultery is only natural hormonal caused desire which is why both gender might commit it.
As for the christian god, any god allowing this kind of filth to be spread by their so-called follower who spread words of hatred toward their brothers and sisters while spreading the words of love is the proof that god killed himself after a few generations realizing that mankind is a lost cause.
Erm, did I get away from the subject?
Gravity makes rocks fall to the ground. If you throw a rock onto someone's head, you're a criminal, gravity or not.
In your own words, explain how that can apply to evolution and morals.
Evolution doesn't teach nor encourage anything, it's a natural process. But you have a point, anyway. Great apes have a seven-year cycle in our attraction. Meeting, mating, caring for the child, and when the child is about 6 years old it's pretty viable and the parents might split up to meet someone new. But, if you stay together, you'll probably fall in love with each other again. You missed one crucial point; the caring for that "seed", so that it in turn can spread its seed.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
