Darwin Hits Home: Adultery Rationalized
USA Today began an article with a steamy picture of a man and a woman embracing. As could be expected, they are not married; reporter Sharon Jayson began, “Some men cheat on their partners. So do some women. Now researchers say it is more than a wandering eye that might cause a woman to stray.” And what is that extra touch? Why, it’s the selfish genes.
The article reported, without question or controversy, on results by UCLA and UNM scientists who claim that women feel more lusty for non-husbands (excuse me, partners, that is) during ovulation, compared to how the guys feel about the chicks (i.e., ready for one and all, all the time, but jealous when their main partner’s eyes wander). This conclusion was based on two studies of college men and women. They were asked how they felt at different times of the month about sex objects outside of their steady relationships:
“Something biologically wakes up around high fertility and says, ‘Is your romantic partner the best sexual partner for you, given that you’re likely to conceive?’” says Martie Haselton, assistant professor of communication and psychology at UCLA’s Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.
Along those evolutionary lines, men more than women desire a variety of sexual partners because genes carrying that trait were passed along in men, Haselton says. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Jayson wrote that this does not necessarily mean women have to cheat in the middle of the month, but just that they experience changes that are biologically predictable. And so far, this only relates to college students. “Further study would be needed to say whether the findings apply to married couples or those in longer-term relationships,” she said. Undoubtedly, this would also make biological sense to someone whose career is in a Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture.
Pastors, this one is for you. Notice two things about this putrid article. The obvious one is that this is another (06/07/2004, 08/20/2001) stupid, pseudoscientific rationalization for cheating (they call it that, too!) on one’s “partner” (whoever or whatever that is; we wouldn’t want to use the old words husband or wife for fear of offending someone with some other, more liberated relationship), based on flawed reasoning, shoddy technique, and baseless interpretations of weak data, leading to purely amoral ends, justifying immorality, all flowing straight out of Darwinian evolutionary dogmatism. Nothing new, in other words.
The second thing, even more alarming, is that you, as a pastor, have nothing to contribute to this discussion. You see, our culture has decided that any stupid thing a “scientist” says about reality, even culture and the most intimate of human relationships, is sacrosanct and not open to question (except perhaps between competing Darwinian views). Make any claim in the name of Darwin and “science” and you will have an eager lapdog reporter panting at your knees, waiting to retrieve your stick and run with it. The evolutionary tale will be dutifully recorded in the growing materialistic scripture known as the scientific journal. By contrast, when was the last time they came to your church and took notes from your sermon? (except, perhaps, with intent to file a lawsuit on the grounds of separation of church and reality.)
Pastors have no voice in this culture. In colonial days, pastors were esteemed as pillars of the community. Pulpits stirred the heart and soul of the young republic, and government leaders looked to the men of God for inspiration and guidance. Now, virtually no one in the media or elite institutions of power in this country takes a pastor’s view on marriage and adultery seriously, even if he is a scholar of the Bible, history, theology and philosophy with multiple degrees and fluent in Greek and Hebrew, because, you see, he represents “religion,” something for the weak and backward who don’t yet understand “science” (i.e., molecules to man evolution).
If you think that’s disturbing, read Janet Folger’s wake-up article in the cover story of Whistleblower magazine (Dec. 2005). It may not even be safe very long for you to say what you think about these matters from your own pulpit, to your own congregation, on your own property. While the public schools do “reverse evangelism” on your young people with unopposed license (see Agape News), the powers of government influenced by special interest groups and activist judges may soon rule it intolerable for you and your church to engage in evangelistic activities (i.e., hate speech) in the community, and may make it illegal for you to spread your message outside the walls of your church building – or jail cell. Now read Ezekiel 22.