Fschmidt, if you don't want to argue "liberals" then why do you come to a part of the forum, a thread, which is open to anyone? If you don't debate people who oppose your views, then you will not debate at all. You will just get someone who thinks like you to nod at all what you say. Also, consider if "despising people" is an adequate attitude in a debate site. Debate is based upon understanding that there are other positions, and it implies tolerance before anything else.
Of course you left out the explanation which is in the article itself.
I didn't come here to debate Liberals whom I despise and want nothing to do with. I came here to share my thoughts with decent religious people. I hope that some religious people will have a chance to read my article on
human evolution.
I have read your article, and let me say several things:
1) The Genesis problem. The Bible is not a science book, and the line you follow that "it's more accurate than other myths" is simply not an excuse. We cannot cover the fact that Genesis' creation myth is just a myth. It's an account of facts, the way humans narrated it; it could either be right or wrong, and it's wrong in many aspects. You can interpret and re-interpret, some parts will never match reality. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist though, just that the creation doesn't happen as depicted in Genesis. I'm a Christian like you and I have no problem accepting this. I do believe in God and in a creation, but not in the Genesis book.
2) The case you offer about peacock tails' evolution and present as "evolution gone wild" or "evil" is plain nonsense, for the lack of a better word, and it spreads your misunderstanding all over the rest of the examples, which I'll talk about later. It is called
sexual selection and was already described by Darwin. It's an inherent part in evolution, which you explained yourself previously. You should be able to understand perfectly that these genetic traits are not morally oriented, they simply happen in nature. If sexual selection occurs, it's because it also makes animals more apt, in reproduction, as you said. It's an inherent part of nature and if God created nature that way then that's what God wants to happen. Peacock females don't choose to find certain traits more sexually appealing.
3) Evolution of monogamy and marriage.
Evolution of marriage? Evolution works over
long spans of time and this is a basic notion. Marriage is a cultural development, we humans made it (God's view on it is another topic, but it was us who instutionalized it). Culture hasn't been going on long enough to have such profound evolutionary impact as monogamy vs. polygamy. Let me tell you what the evolution of monogamy and polygamy look like in real nature. It's reflected in
sexual dimorphism. Direct ancestors of human beings presented slight sexual dimorphism (men and women were biologically different), which implies a slight polygamy (concretely polygyny).
Walruses are natural polygamists, and they do fine like they are. It's their nature, and they are a part of creation just like we humans or, say, wolves. Some bird species are strictly monogamous.
Human sexuality has evolved to be quite varied, and in every different scenario, different behaviors evolve and do well. As I said, strictly speaking, human ancestors were slightly polygamist, and modern-day humans seem to bounce between monogamy and slight polygamy (again, talking about behaviors, not cultural constructs). Biology is not evil nor good, it is just a description about what we happen to have been created like.
4) Polygamy and monogamy affecting a warrior's enthusiasm. This is where I was going that the nonsense spread into examples. Are you aware that, say, 1.000 years of tribal wars is
not enough for a species to move from monogamous to polygamous? It is
cultural, not biological, behaviors which change. All the individuals, in the promiscuous and the "faithful" tribes, are about the same genetically. Biology is not playing a role in this kind of selection. You have a double confusion here:
-On the one hand, a "faithful" tribe doesn't imply everyone has a sexual mate. Alpha wolves are monogamous and yet the rest of the wolves don't get to reproduce. Why? Because evolution has shaped the species to behave that way, with different behaviors in different social roles they happen to be in or not be in.
-Human polygyny is, again, cultural. It's not like walrus polygamy, where the male walrus is completely biologically desgined to create a harem and fight against other males to keep his "wives" by his side. As it is cultural, discussing its biological inheritance is moot. Sexuality and culture are not inherited, but transmitted through imitation (sexuality has a biological factor but it's not determinant). Thus the son of a promiscuous person is not necessarily promiscuous, unless he is taught to be so.
When somebody rejects a sexual partner because of his behavior, attitude or culture, that is not plain natural selection. That is sexual selection, concretely opperating through culture. Yes, the one you called "evil". Almost all (or,
all) our modern sexual choices, according to you, are being made nowadays due to an "evil" basis. And intra-religious marriage would be evil, according to you, because it encourages you to choose because of culture and not natural traits. The problem here is your confusion that evolution is somehow moral and the confusion that culture is biologically inheritable. It's separate.
5) Also, on a separate note, you're also wrong that what makes humans different from animals is society. To put it bluntly, bees also have societies. What makes us different is our
intelligence.
So you cannot use this argument to defend monogamy. Monogamy does well if the species is monogamous, and polygamy does well if the species is polygamous. Human sexuality can, however, account for both. An example that polygamists are shuned upon by monogamists is moot, and that is basically what you offered.
