Evolutionists Question Darwin on Sex

Evolutionists are so confused. They remind me of the early astronomers who devised insanely complex formulas of planetary orbits to show they all orbited the Earth.

Turning from stars to sex, Christians have it pretty easy. We believe God created a balance between the sexes and set down rules for marriage that are all about preserving the marriage and honoring God with fidelity, love and mutual respect and sacrifice.

Evolutionists see a different world: females seeking dominant providers to further her breeding stock, men sowing their seeds all over the place to ensure enough children and enough genetic diversity. Self-interest, base emotions, acting from the genes instead of from the heart and mind -- dreary stuff.

Looking over the evidence, two writers who appear to be evolutionists (Caryl Rivers a Boston U journalism prof and and Rosalind Barnett, is a senior scientist at Brandeis University) reject the Darwinian model in an op/ed in today's LATimes. On their way to rejection, they lay down some startling thoughts, like why should females be monogamous?

Rather than wait for her evolutionary Prince Charming, what if the supposedly coy female best protects her genetic future by seeking out a whole pride of Charmings? A mother could indeed gain an advantage by copulating with many males, who would then be invested in her offspring. This behavior might prevent males from attacking her babies, or might elicit other forms of protection from a group of males rather than from just one, as males generally are disinclined to kill infants of their species to which they have any kind of connection.

And the cheating male?

And does a male have to move from female to female, siring as many children as possible, to ensure that his genes will survive? Do men have love-em-and-leave-em genes? Scientists now suggest that sticking around is a better strategy for human males. After all, because the human female does not go into estrus (heat), the roving male may miss the two or three days a month she's fertile. Even if she's ovulating, there's only about a 20% chance that he will impregnate her. If he does, and he's soon off to greener pastures, he won't be around to protect his offspring.

Rivers and Barnett are not arguing for a 70's style sexual revolution. They may not realize it, but their conclusions are quite conservative.

Cornell University biologist Stephen T. Emlen reported in 2003 that "attractive people tend to value attractiveness, wealthy people value mates with money and ambitious types and family-oriented souls tend to gravitate to others like themselves." The desire for similar mates was five or six times more powerful than the desire for beautiful or wealthy ones.

So what should we make of this landslide of evidence against the ultra-Darwinians' belief that mating is driven by rigid patterns of programmed sexual behavior? That we are more than puppets dancing to a preset tune. And perhaps "that old black magic" is as good a way as any to understand how and why we love.

Like so many evolutionists, they come close, but when it comes to crossing the line they can't quite do it. They fall back to man, and "old black magic," because they can't take the step that's required to consider who might be playing that preset tune if not dumb evolution. It is so obvious that God is the tune-spinner, but they just don't hear.