Evolution encourages promiscuity and lust (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
- Evolutionists promote the concepts of promiscuity and lust, pointing out that the quest to produce many offspring is a main goal of organisms under Darwinism.
Source: Morris, Henry M. 2000. Evil-ution. Back to Genesis 140 (Aug).: a-c.
(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. Description does not imply promotion. Mistaking "is" for "ought" is the naturalistic fallacy. The theory of evolution no more promotes promiscuity and lust than germ theory promotes getting infectious diseases.
Does the germ theory imply that getting infectious diseases is beneficial?
Let's analyze this comment: The TO response attempts to make this [implied] analogy between the theory of evolution and the germ theory:
- Evolution relates to the promotion of promiscuity as germ theory relates to the promotion of contraction of disease.
- Evolution's standard dogma is that it is descriptive, not prescriptive, according to evolutionists.
- Therefore the theory of evolution does not encourage promiscuity, but it predicts that it will occur.
- Therefore, by analogy, germ theory does not encourage disease, but predicts that it will occur.
- This relies on the condition that promiscuity and contraction of disease are both conscious decisions.
It's also worth noting that a study published by the National Institute of Mental Health describes significantly lower sexual activity in children who were taught abstinence, versus those who were given a comprehensive program, versus those who were given a "safe sex" only curriculum (respectively). Whereas this study did not explicitly touch on evolution versus creation, it is common knowledge that secular people tend to be quite against abstinence programs, whereas Christians (which would include Creationists) are for abstinence programs. This directly contradicts the TalkOrigins assertion that one's belief or unbelief in evolution has no effect on a person's promiscuity or chastity.
2. Solving a problem works best if you first understand the source of the problem. Creationists, by denying sources of behavior, are less likely to deal with behavioral problems effectively.
This argument claims that Creationists, in not acknowledging Darwinist history of the origin of life, cannot properly deal with behaviour that springs from it. This is fallacious, as the argument assumes that Darwinism is accurate. Creationists can use exactly the same logic to claim that evolutionists do not understand the true source of the problem, i.e., the sinful nature of human beings. Therefore it is insufficient in proving a point because it depends upon the very thing that is in question - the theory of evolution.
If one assumes that young earth creationism is correct, then the argument presented above is true: Evolution promotes the concept of promiscuity and lust. If one does not assume either view, then the argument presented above is still true. If one accepts the theory of evolution then the argument is true, but perhaps also justified. Promiscuity and lust are not justified if Darwinism is untrue.
The main driving point with this Creationist argument is that it assumes that promiscuity and lust are wrong. Such concepts are absent for an atheist, but not for theistic evolutionists. The point above is useful for young earth creationists when addressing theistic evolution proponents who accept the sinful nature of humans.
- ↑ Teaching Teens About Abstinence May Delay Sexual Activity, Reduce Risk Behaviors. Science Update. February 2, 2010(NIMH) Accessed September 29, 2011 14:00.http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2010/teaching-teens-about-abstinence-may-delay-sexual-activity-reduce-risk-behaviors.shtml