Darwinism: Adultery Rationalized
| January 16, 2006 | Posted by Patrick under Biology, Darwinism |
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-01-03-infidelity-study_x.htm
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.
This conclusion was based on two studies of college men and women using questionnaires where the test group was asked how they felt (how scientific) about other men/women outside of their steady relationships.
Studies from the University of California-Los Angeles and the University of New Mexico-Albuquerque suggest an evolutionary tendency toward infidelity during ovulation, which is the most fertile part of the menstrual cycle. The studies suggest the propensity is more likely if women don’t view their partners as sexy. [They needed a study for this???]
“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.
The one thing the article didn’t make clear is whether they actually analyzed (selfish?) genes responsible–if only indirectly–for “men more than women desir[ing] a variety of sexual partners” or if they’re just extrapolating an evolutionary reason for human behavior.
46 Responses to Darwinism: Adultery Rationalized
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dave Scott
Giving into temptation for wrongdoing has never been an acceptable scapegoat regardless of the source of the temptation. Whether our genes, God, or the devil make us lustful it is still up to us to do what is right. No reasonable person would accept “my genes made me do it” as an excuse.
There are almost certainly genetic predispositions towards homosexuality. What I find naturally repulsive is naturally very appealing to the gay people I know and has been since puberty. I find it difficult to believe that they learned to like other guys when everything around them said thats wrong. Just because being gay comes natural does not mean that it is okay. I happen to think its an acceptable choice for other reasons, one being that I don’ts see where its my right to judge someone else’s preference’s when their behavior is not hurting me or anyone else.
Hmmm. I looked at this one yesterday and I thought about it for a while. It seems to me that all of us here are presupposing things and texturing our statements with our preconceptions. It seems to me that, if humans did evolve into social animals, then this would be a highly appropriate line of study. If we didn’t evolve (from other species) then it would still be an appropriate line of study because one would expect that our psycology would not reflect that of other animals and would not be likely to reflect the imprint of evolution. If that were to be the case, then evolution as speciation could have one more chink in its armor.
It seems to me that a good way to test evolution would be to imagine as many things as possible that evolution might result in and devise experiments to see if they are really the case. I would expect, if evolution were to have occurred, that we would have lots of hallmarks of other social animals and that maybe brain size would corrolate with social habits or something in other animals besides humans. Maybe we would exhibit behavior that would be more appropriate to a small group of animals that scavenged on the savannah than to society as we know it. We would have possibly some hallmarks of other adaptations like superb climbing ability or maybe the ability to stay under water for some time or something. Some ability that is radically out of place today.
I think it is important to remember that just because we don’t believe in evolution, that we are skeptical of modern darwiwinist claims, doesn’t mean evolution isn’t right. It just means that we are unconvinced as to its merits. If Specified complexity leads us anywhere, it is down a much darker path.
We can be relatively sure that all attempts to describe the creator (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Native American and etc.) are assuredly wrong, misguided and in fact potentially dangerous (witness Bin Laden and Pat Robertson). Mohammed didn’t talk to god, jesus didn’t rise from the dead, Shiva was not torn apart to form the world etc. Since we are nowhere near any kind of knowlege regarding the creator, it raises the question of what the heck did happen. At that point, all we can know is that we are being manipulated from afar and we know absolutely nothing about the manipulator.
Did anyone read the last paragraph of the article (from the prestigious scientific journal USA TODAY) ?
————————————————————————————
“Haselton is not saying, ‘Go fool around on your guys in the middle of the month,’ ” says Daniel Fessler, director of the UCLA center. “She’s saying, ‘Women have changes in what they’re attracted to in ways that are predictable.’ ”
————————————————————————————
It’s not rationalizing adultery. It’s explaining that at certain times women are more tempted to cheat than at other times. Makes sense, actually. When a guy is 19, he faces more temptation to commit acts of immorality than when he is 9, or 90. Would anyone disagree with this? It doesn’t mean the guy MUST be immoral– just that the urge, the temptation, is greater. And drinking doesn’t exactly do anything to enhance fidelity to one’s spouse. Should we blame evolution for that, too?
That’s why I was asking about instincts earlier, particularly mating instincts, but I don’t seem to be getting any specific answers to that.
At least the researchers in this study published their findings and thus were open to criticism. They also cautioned that their sample size was small. Finally, we haven’t been told what other scientists think about this study.
Consider that in the Darwinian worldview the origin of the desire itself to commit adultery would have an evolutionary basis, not just the ovulation cycle. That’s quite different from other worldviews compatible with ID where adultery is an unnecessary addition. Not to mention it’s the ASSERTIONS outside of the observation that women are more tempted to stray when ovulating (which I don’t doubt and I thought a minor point) that what led me to title this post as I did:
““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”
“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.”
“”It’s a natural thing for women to kind of look around, and every once in a while to feel attracted to someone other than their partner.”
Now if you want to get anal about it your point is valid when it comes to SOME worldviews compatible with ID. But at the least Haselton herself seems to be rationalizing adultery so I could retitle this to be “A Darwinist Rationalizing Adultery Based Upon Her Particular Worldview”. But I’m not PC so I won’t.
Thought so. Earlier today I sent this email to Dave:
“I had a feeling it might be Josh just because it fit his style of responses.
*some other stuff about Josh’s case*
Anyway, speaking of recognizing styles of writing. Is it just me or is woctor suspiciously close to keiths? When I first read one of his posts I could have sworn
that it was him posting. I’m assuming that if it is him he’ll be smart enough to avoid arguments that got him banned previously.”
Though it wasn’t just your writing style…I also recognized your attitude in how you are unwilling to relent in an argument.
Not that that’s a bad thing…
Also, when I view your previous post in my browser (Firefox) the comments from Dave and me are both in bold. I ended up making another comment with the exact same information so I’ll just remove my addition to your comment.
Firefox. I edited my previous comment a bit but apparently you loaded the page before I did that.
I just emailed Dave about this, noting that I wouldn’t mind having you around. At the same time I told Dave that it’s up to him whether to uphold his previous decision to ban you.
Russ: “In fact, wouldn’t I more effectively perpetuate the survival of my genes if I have as many kids as I can around the world?â€Â
Woctor: Not necessarily, because getting your genes into future generations also depends on your kids growing up and reproducing. If your absence makes their survival less likely, you haven’t done anything for your genes. This is why a male penguin takes on the job of incubating the egg while his mate returns to the ocean to feed. If he doesn’t do this, the egg freezes and he has no offspring that year.
——————
Some animals perpetuate their species simply by producing huge litters. And lots of kids survive and thrive in spite of obstacles, so if I can father a hundred kids, I’d say I’m more likely to produce another Bill Clinton (product of a dysfunctional home) than the nice guy next door who maintains a small nuclear family.
It sounds like evolution is predictive in the following manner: “Whatever happens, that’s what evolution would have predicted.” So in this example, if we lived in a society where male promiscuity was endorsed (such societies exist) you might be arguing that male sexual exploits ensure the survival of the species!
Keith and Karen,
I’m interested in the following rhetorical question by Karen:
“Should we blame evolution for that, too?”
Doesn’t evolution claim to be a naturalistic account of the origin of human beings in our totality? Evolution doesn’t say that only some parts of our nature were evolved and grants that other parts came about in some way transcending the evolutionary process. It’s evolution all the way up and all the way down. Doesn’t it follow that evolution is ultimately to “blame” for every aspect of our nature and behavior? Not only the fact that we have tendencies to adultery, but also that we sometimes resist those tendencies, and sometimes think about whether we should resist them. Even that we contribute to blogs about whether adultery is evolutionary must itself have an evolutionary origin. Evolution is to blame because evolution is the purported origin of life in its totality.
I recently read a book by Michael Shermer titled “How We Believe”. It is essentially an evolutionary explanation for why people believe in religion. Implicit is the conclusion that religious belief is irrational because it is a mere artifact of evolution. I’m wondering when the book comes out “Why we do science”, which gives the evolutionary explanation for why people believe things like the theory of evolution…. I wonder if the answer would be that evolution finally produced a creature, man, who became able to escape the causal nexus of evolution and believed things simply because they are true and not merely because evolution programmed him to. That would indeed be a miracle.
This is what I meant on the other thread about an Intellectual Doomsday Machine… if our behavior is explained entirely by evolution and the very fact of that explanation undermines the rationality of moral or religious belief, then it undermines rationality entirely because we are products (allegedly) of evolution in our totality.
Cheers,
Dave T.
Red Reader said : “Pitiful. Where you say, “I don’t think…†was good. But the rest is hogwash.”
Just a personal attack with no reason for it? You judge my honesty by … eh … what was that again? Where was I dishonest? Accusing me of tricking people. Please state your reason, for I sure don’t see it.
The problem here is bad logic, not acceptance or rejection of evolution. If the genetics that cause adultery exist (as the authors of this study believe), then it’s not an evolutionary issue as much as it is an example of the natural fallacy (ie. that the way things are is an indicator of the way things should be). If the suspected genes do, in fact, exist, then IDist could just as easily rationalize cheating by saying that “the Designer made me adulterous.”
DOESN’T EVOLUTION CLAIM TO BE A NATURALISTIC ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN BEINGS IN OUR TOTALITY?
I don’t think evolution addresses everythingâ€â€just the diversity of life on earth. It doesn’t address the origins of life or the origins of the universe. I don’t think it can address spirituality, although it might be able to tell us about the capacity to be spiritual. For example, you would need a brain with a certain amount of sophistication to be able to tell right from wrong and to deal with abstract concepts. Science in general looks for natural causes for natural phenomena, but it can’t really go beyond that and remain science. Shermer is a philosophical naturalist, which means that for him, nature is all there is. This worldview is also called scientism, not to be confused with science. If Shermer believes that he has explained away religious belief, he needs to explain how he got his own brain to transcend evolutionary fog. He is welcome to his beliefs, but I don’t happen to share them. At least he is open enough to stand up and put his cards on the table. He’s a talented writer, and I find great value in his column in Scientific American without buying into his philosophy.
Quite a few scientists are methodological naturalists, meaning that while evolution can explain the diversity of life we observe in nature, there is also a supernatural component of reality. Many scientists have a sincere religious faith.
As for the issue of adultery, if you can’t say anything about your intelligent designer, how can you promote ID as a remedy for bad morals? How does an IDer know that the intelligent designer is even interested in morals? How do you know he isn’t married to a designer wife, but secretly commits adultery with a whole harem of designer girlfriends? Or, the designer could be a demon who is breeding us for science experiments. Look at the leg irons used to shackle slavesâ€â€they are intelligently designed, but that doesn’t mean the designer of them is moral! What about all the slave owners in the South who raped their female slavesâ€â€surely most of them believed in God, and not in evolution.
As others here have ably pointed out, instead of blaming evolution for bad morals, why not turn the tables and blame the designer? No IDer is brave enough to tell me where mating instincts come from. Did they evolve? Were they intelligently designed? Why didn’t the designer make us like geese, who are generally monogamous? For that matter, why didn’t the designer give us a breeding season, as he did with other animals? Surely that would eliminate most adultery. In short, I don’t see ID as a remedy for bad morals.
Personally, I’m not a scientist, but I find science/evolution quite compatible with faith. If I thought that God intelligently designed the horrible tick I found sucking blood from one of my dog a few days ago (in Connecticut, and in January!) I’d find another religion FAST.
Karen,
I see that we essentially agree:
“Shermer believes that he has explained away religious belief, he needs to explain how he got his own brain to transcend evolutionary fog.”
The points in the your last two paragraphs are good ones, but they are basically a restatement of the classical problem of evil. Why would a good God permit evil to exist in His Creation? These are questions I like to wrestle with, but I don’t think this is the forum to do it….
Cheers,
Dave T.
Dave T,
Thanks for your reply, but what about the other points I raised? While promoting fidelity in marriage is an excellent idea, I don’t see how belief in some mysterious designer of bacterial flagella would inspire anyone to be faithful to one’s spouse. If we can’t ask questions about the designer, you can’t say that he is interested in humans or how they live their lives– or has any business telling humans what to do, for that matter. There is a really big disconnect here. The hold of a slave ship is intelligently designed, but that hardly makes the designer a moral authority who can inspire and/or command others to behave morally!
Also, where do you think mating instincts come from?
-Karen
Karen,
I don’t know where mating instincts come from. It’s possible they evolved. Evolutionists are absolutely certain they did. I’m not sure.
Believing the bacterial flagella was designed won’t help your marriage, but then it has never been claimed it would. ID is not an all-embracing ideology the way evolution is in the hands of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and many others. The point of this thread is that evolution does not restrict itself to merely describing how certain features of natural organisms came about, but expands to swallow up all other areas of human inquiry from psychology, to ethics, to philosophy. It’s the “universal acid” that eats through all of human knowledge, in Daniel Dennett’s words.
ID does not have such pretensions. It’s intent is to show that certain features of biological organisms must have had intelligent causation. That’s it. Any other attributes of the designer, it’s motives, whether it has said anything to us, it’s metaphysical status (natural or supernatural) are beyond ID in the strict sense. ID leaves room for philosophy and religion and does not swallow them up like evolution, but it carries no necessary philosophical or religious conclusions itself. That’s why the moderator of this blog isn’t even religious, but Bill Dembski is.
If you want to know whether the designer is moral or not, supernatural or not, or whether you should listen to it (assuming it is even saying anything to us), that is a matter of philosophy. Unlike evolution, ID won’t tell you what to think about these things…
Dave T.
Karen, as I said earlier to keiths “your point is valid when it comes to SOME worldviews compatible with ID.” For example, if you’re talking to Deists who believe in a good creator your questions would be fair to ask. I’m not sure what their response would be. If you asked Muslims they’d have an answer since they believe in strict predestination: “57.22]No evil befalls on the earth nor in your own souls,but it is in a book before We bring it into existence” and “[14.27]…Allah causes the unjust to go astray, and Allah does what He pleases.”
Will simply opposing evolution in the science classroom really help improve our morals? Buckingham and Bonsell lied under oath in the very act of trying to curtail evolution!
What makes you so sure that ID will remain in scope, or won’t be co-opted to serve some evil purpose? ID proponents are already trying to change the definition of science, and they often complain that ID is mischaracterized or misunderstood.
You probably know that even the Bible has been misused to justify racism, slavery, and other horrors. Some people go so far as to blame all the evil in the world on religion. People like Dawkins are extremists, and don’t represent the views of most scientists. The Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History makes it abundantly clear that evolutionary theory addresses biological diversity ONLY. You can read about it here: http://www.amnh.org/exhibition.....winism.php
At the end of the day, human failing is behind adultery, not Darwin (who happened to be a family man who was very devoted to his wife and children). Playing the blame game is also a human failing, whether we say “the devil made me do it†or “evolution made me do it†or even “the designer designed me to do it.â€Â
The article that prompted this thread actually has some value, in that it is telling us when a woman would be most vulnerable to temptation. It does not follow that we must succumb to that temptation. The last paragraph reads,
“Haselton is not saying, ‘Go fool around on your guys in the middle of the month,’ ” says Daniel Fessler, director of the UCLA center. “She’s saying, ‘Women have changes in what they’re attracted to in ways that are predictable.’ ”
Even the most pious youth groups in the land would readily agree that we are more tempted to commit immoral acts in certain situations than in others!
Now, about mating instincts– you said you don’t know if they evolved or were designed. Perhaps you could ask Professor Dembski if he has any thoughts on this matter.
-Karen