Biblical Family Excels Over Evolutionary Promiscuity

Evolving for survival or made for flourishing?
Cumulative evidence from the social sciences still
shows the superiority of God’s created order for
positive societal outcomes over alternative lifestyles

More than Gene Distributors
Behavioral Science Shows the Wisdom of the Created Order 

by Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds 

In an article published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology in June 2025, Clo et al (2025) builds a case against monogamy and for promiscuity by examining animal and plant behavior. A spate of similar articles released this year, such as a microsimulation study, published in Demographic Research (April 2025) also applies evolutionary mating logic to a cohort of Dutch women’s reproductive trajectories, referencing an evolutionary framework of “re-partnering and multi-partner fertility”, which supposedly “enhances” genetic compatibility and reduces mutation load.

This evolutionary view of humans as “genetic distributors” in a bid for survival has also flooded educational institutions, for example, an open-source publication by Wheaton College publicly states from observing animals that promiscuity “… can enhance genetic diversity by ensuring a wider distribution of alleles and reducing the likelihood of inbreeding depression”, and simultaneously contrasts that: “… in monogamy, fidelity can reduce genetic diversity…”.

But does evidence from the social sciences really support the Darwinian assumption of genetic “survival” being the goal of all species’ advancement? 

A contrasting 2025 publication by the Heritage Foundation titled “Crossroads: American Family Life at the Intersection of Tradition and Modernity” suggests the opposite from a social sciences perspective: that societal outcomes of non-monogamous lifestyles do not lead to human advancement. Synthesizing longitudinal data spanning 1950-2023 from multiple federal sources containing nationally representative data from the U.S. Census Bureau (e.g., Current Population Survey, IPUMS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Bureau of Economic Research, Pew Research Center and other sources, mounting evidence over the past 73 years indicates that monogamous marriages produce the best environment for flourishing of offspring.

How Darwin fueled the sexual revolution.

How did Darwinian predictions fall so far from measured outcomes in the social sciences literature? What does applying Darwinian logic to human societies fail to account for? 

Marriage or Mating Cycles for Societal Advancement? What the Latest Data Shows 

From a Darwinian perspective, serial mating is claimed to offer numerous biological advantages supposedly for species adaptation and survival. Among these purported advantages are the maximization of reproductive opportunities, improvements in offspring viability through mate switching or ‘flexible mating systems’, allowing for the selection of “genetically superior partners” over time. It is also theorized that promiscuity improves fitness, and survival odds in unpredictable environments. 

However, statistically significant observations from 73 years of nationally representative data compiled by the Heritage Foundation (Special Report No. 310) suggest that human advancement is much more complex than genetic distribution. In fact, the benefits of monogamous marriages span beyond biology, to psychology, socioeconomics and a lower likelihood of experiencing extrinsic mortality risk and environmental harshness.  Quoting from the report, the data shows that: 

“Children raised by their married, biological parents have better outcomes, including a far lower likelihood of poverty, better psychological well-being, higher educational attainment, and a lower likelihood of experiencing abuse or engaging in delinquent behavior.” (p. 2) 

“Married mothers and fathers report greater levels of happiness than their unmarried and childless peers, and married adults experience less loneliness, have greater financial well-being, and enjoy better emotional health.” (p. 2) 

“Children living in a cohabiting household are also the most likely to experience physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, most commonly at the hands of a cohabiting, non-related adult.” (p. 12) 

Amidst these overwhelming trends emerging from data spanning the past 73 years, the report notes that: 

“Despite cohabitation’s connection with lower marital stability and with poorer child outcomes, Americans overwhelmingly believe cohabitation gives people a higher likelihood of relationship success.” (p. 12) 

Why does such a broad gap between theory and reality persist in our society? Could evolutionary theory, and aversion to commitment be driving these perceptions?

Watch and share this Short Reel about this article. Click to view.

How The Outcomes of a Created Order Defies Darwinism
Examining an Experiment with a Multi-Partner Fertility 

Among the pertinent themes for consideration in the Heritage Report is the dramatic rise in “multi-partner fertility” – mimicking the gene distribution concept of evolutionary theory. Although some may argue that the statistics on marriage benefits may confound the practice of multi-partner relationships within marriages, the report highlights that the sample contrasts show that such practices are not as common in marriages. Quoting from their report: 

The prevalence of multi-partner fertility is significantly higher in cohabitating relationships where couples share children. Forty-six percent of cohabiting couples in childbearing unions include at least one partner with multi-partner fertility, compared to 23 percent of married couples. 

While Darwinian models often suggest that such practices may offer reproductive flexibility, the empirical outcomes of the more ‘flexible’ cohabiting trend contradicts this. Quoting from the report: 

“Cohabiting unions are far more unstable than marriages…  (p. 12) 

“Children whose parents have multi-partner fertility are at greater risk for negative outcomes, such as delinquency and behavioral problems.” (p. 20) 

Re-examining recent evolutionary literature by Clo et al (2025) that concluded in their promotion of promiscuity, the authors admitted that some species do favour monogamy. However, the authors quickly went on to explain that “promiscuous mating systems” still played a role to “increase reproductive success” and “acquire genetic benefits”. Quoting excerpts from their article, they claim: 

 “Monogamy is generally selected against and is only stable when biparental care is required for offspring to survive; this is seen in some bird species and fish. Many birds show social monogamy but have a genetically promiscuous mating system…, as both sexes seek extra-pair matings; males to directly increase reproductive success, and females to acquire indirect genetic benefits….. Only when both parents are constrained in their ability to seek mates outside their social bond do we expect to see genetic monogamy.” (Clo et al, 2025) 

However, dissecting this viewpoint, if polygamy really created advantages, the American society today should be well advanced in evolutionary advantages, as marriage and monogamy have significantly declined over the past 73 years. As the Heritage Foundation notes: 

“In 1950, married couples comprised 78 percent of all American households… Only 4 percent of children were born to unmarried parents… The typical life script was consistent irrespective of race, religion, or socioeconomic status. Most Americans married in young adulthood, children were born within marriage, and divorce was rare. Today, married couples make up less than half (47 percent) of U.S. households, 40 percent of children are born outside marriage” 

Despite becoming more aligned with the supposed “gene distributor” role theorized by evolutionists, though, harmful outcomes have prevailed. Social science evidence overwhelmingly shows that the growth of multi-partner fertility and cohabitation does not lead to adaptive resilience. As the Heritage Report potently points out: “By age 12, two-thirds of cohabiting parents have broken up, compared to one-quarter of married parents” (p. 12). Such fragmentation weakens not only individual households but entire community networks, contrary to the collaborative advantage suggested by kin-selection or flexible mating theories. 

Another alarming, deleterious trend of the societal fall away from monogamy is the statistical link of family structure as a significant predictor of suicide risk. From a strict Darwinian lens, suicide is not favorable as it reduces reproductive fitness and removes the individual from the gene pool. This was noted in another recent evolutionary work: the 2025 Springer Handbook of Suicide Prevention chapter by Soper & Shackelford. Soper notes: “Wilful self-killing ought to be a non-starter in the Darwinian ‘Struggle for Existence’. However, research globally in Australia, USA and even Denmark have found that the disruption of families by separation or divorce “was one of the most commonly identified psychosocial risk factors in suicide deaths” (Quote from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).

Insights from Denmark’s historical study (1951-1980) were even more remarkable, finding that a 1% increase in divorce was associated with a 0.32% increase in suicide, and divorce trends were more predictive of suicide rates than unemployment! Our society has followed the Darwinian path, treating copulation as merely a mechanism for gene transfer or self-pleasure, thinking that it would lead to advancement. Instead of enhancing survival odds in unpredictable environments, however, this social experiment has resulted in numerous adverse consequences at both the individual and societal levels. 

A biological family is the basis of society. The created order set forth in the Bible was established for our good.

The Created Order Remains a Proven Framework

Studies in the social sciences overwhelmingly suggest that while Darwinian logic may increase gene sharing, long-term societal flourishing is best served by the Biblical model of lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage. 

This theme further highlights the philosophical undercurrent where Darwinian logic reduces humans to merely gene-distributing organisms navigating reproductive landscapes. But when that logic is tested against generations of data on family structure, the results undermine its premise. The Biblical model that began in Genesis, prescribing a lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual marriage aligns not just with theological convictions, but with measurable societal benefits, offering a proven framework which cannot be equaled by fragmented or fluid unions.

Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds is a Christian, Jamaican, Environmental Science researcher, and journal associate editor. She holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography from the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona with high commendation, and a postgraduate specialization in Geomatics at the Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. The quality of her research activity in Environmental Science has been recognized by various awards including the 2024 Editor’s Award from the American Meteorological Society for her reviewing service in the Weather, Climate and Society Journal, the 2023 L’Oreal/UNESCO Women in Science Caribbean Award, the 2023 ICETEX International Experts Exchange Award for study in Colombia. and with her PhD research in drought management also being shortlisted in the top 10 globally for the 2023 Allianz Climate Risk Award by Munich Re Insurance, Germany. Motivated by her faith in God and zeal to positively influence society, Dr. Buckland-Reynolds is also the founder and Principal Director of Chosen to G.L.O.W. Ministries, a Jamaican charitable organization which seeks to amplify the Christian voice in the public sphere and equip more youths to know how to defend their faith.