February 14, 2013 | David F. Coppedge

Science Site Promotes Polygamy

On Valentine’s Day, a Darwinian science site has actively promoted polyamory, the “swinging” lifestyle.

Live Science, a long-time promoter of Darwin-only views (and attacker of creationism), has outdone itself for Valentine’s Day: promoting polygamy and polyandry (hetero- or homosexual) as healthy alternatives to traditional marriage.  Although not mentioning evolution specifically in its parade of articles, it draws on what animals do for support.

In “Polygamy May Be Good For You,” Live Science reporter Stephanie Pappas used the word of a Vermont psychologist to insinuate the “nonmonogamy” (which could include any non-traditional arrangment) is not so bad – it’s even healthy.  She’s talking about having multiple sex partners with knowledge of those involved.

In “Five Myths About Polyamory Debunked,” Live Science reporter Stephanie Pappas alleged in a series of 5 short articles that nonmonogamous relationships are perfectly fine, citing “researchers” and an upcoming “International Academic Polyamory Conference” starting tomorrow at (not surprisingly), Berkeley.  Here’s “Myth 5: Polyamory is bad for the kids.”  Pappas quoted a “legal consultant” and “former Georgia State University professor” who is “writing a book on polyamorous families” as an expert: “One of the main things this does indicate to me is that these families can be really good places to raise children,” Elizabeth Sheff said. “Not necessarily that all of them, definitionally, are, but that they may be, depending on how families work it out,” despite questionable evidence.

Live Science Staff posted a non-scientific poll: “Would You Consider Polyamory?”

In “Love & Lust: 7 Lessons from the Animal Kingdom,” Live Science reporter Wynne Parry used animal antics of dinosaurs, salmon, squid and other creatures as teachers of human morality.

Finally, in “The 5 Secrets of Seduction,” Live Science reporter Tia Ghose advised people on how to get a “pick-up”– not how to show faithfulness, honesty, or unselfish commitment.  This article had links to the polyamory articles.  The multiple authors and editor’s blessing makes Live Science a promoter of “nonmonogamy,” whatever it is.

Of course these articles had nothing to say about STD.

This is what you get with evolutionary amorality.  Animals are our teachers.  Anything goes.  It’s all an evolutionary game to pass on genes.  Ethics, agape love and honesty are meaningless.  We saw the progression with evolutionary psychology casting its imprimatur on homosexuality; now polyamory is on the threshold.  What will follow: child sexual abuse?  Rape and murder?  Don’t disbelieve it; this world view has no standards.  Darwinism even justifies cheaters (“non-cooperators”) as parts of the evolutionary game just as valid as the cooperators; that could include rapists and murderers.

By praising “nonmonogamy,” Live Science has willingly opened a Pandora’s Box, declaring itself no friend of true science, but a promoter of evil.  Just watch: as with homosexuality, the initial shock will be replaced by acceptance, entertainment, then advocacy (see satire, “The Future of Cannibal Rights“).  Those who oppose the new non-monogamy sexual revolution in favor of traditional marriage will be seen as purveyors of hate who must be persecuted.  The book of Revelation describes a time when mankind, even when God’s judgment is falling upon them, would not repent of their immoralities (Rev. 9:20-21). Without a Christian revival, dark days are coming.



(Visited 31 times, 1 visits today)


  • rockyway says:

    1. ‘Although not mentioning evolution specifically in its parade of articles, it draws on what animals do for support.

    – This is an example of what Raymond Tallis refers to as the ”animalization” of human experience. Treating human beings as animals is a (brutal) form of reductionism. This sad story shows us that Darwinian intellectuals are completely clueless when it comes to interpreting human experience. Darwinism turns clever people into intellectual and moral fools. (Do they really want to do everything animals do?)

    2. ‘Wynne Parry used animal antics of dinosaurs, salmon, squid and other creatures as teachers of human morality.

    – “Thus saith the salmon”?

    Calling activities animals engage in moral behavior, is an equivocation fallacy. Morality is utterly dependent upon consciousness and freedom.

    Only God, can properly define what is moral or immoral. Without his creator man is lost and anything can be called good. (e.g. Socrates and pederasty)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.