Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Yet Another Way Darwinism Makes People Stupid

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I noticed an article on MSN entitled “15 Ways You’re Secretly Ruining Your Marriage.”  Curious, I clicked on it, and the author was trotting out pop Darwinism by Way #2:

YOU TAKE HIS PORN HABIT PERSONALLY

Sure, it doesn’t feel great to think about your guy fantasizing about other women. But it’s totally normal. Research shows that 64 percent of U.S. men look at porn at least once a month, and 55 percent of ’em are married. And it really has nothing to do with how he feels about you or your relationship—most men just need to blow off steam by themselves, the way you zone out to How I Met Your Mother reruns after a long day. The fact that it’s porn he’s zoning out to—well, he’s sort of wired for it: One study found that men’s brains react differently to porn that women’s; for them, it’s a form of stress relief. Bear with us, but evolutionarily speaking, a guy is always looking to maximize their mating opportunities. So seeing what’s out there is, well, relaxing (just like it’s relaxing for us to go shopping and know what shoes are at the mall, even if we’re not buying them). We know—weird—but in other words, he can’t really help it. So as long as it’s not hurting your love life, don’t take it personally.

Pornography is evil for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it objectifies women, treating them as nothing more than a means for sexual gratification of men.  Not only is pornography evil, it is objectively harmful.  Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D. identifies the following harms:

  • Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their conjugal relations and less emotionally attached to their wives.

  • Pornography use is a pathway to infidelity and divorce, and is frequently a major factor in these family disasters.

  • Couples affected by one spouse’s addiction usually experience a loss of interest in sexual intercourse and good family relations.

  • Both spouses perceive pornography viewing as tantamount to infidelity.

  • Pornography viewing leads to a loss of interest in good family relations.

  • Pornography is addictive, and neuroscientists are beginning to map the biological substrate of this addiction.

  • Users tend to become desensitized to and bored with the type of pornography they use, seeking more perverse forms of sexual imagery.

  • Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity.

  • Prolonged consumption of pornography by men produces notions of women as commodities or as “sex objects.”

  • Pornography engenders greater sexual permissiveness, leading to a greater risk of out-of-wedlock births and STDs.

  • Child-sex offenders are more likely to view pornography regularly or to be involved in its distribution.

Against all of that, MSN advises wives to “get over it,” because he evolved to use porn and “he can’t really help it.”

The formal logical fallacy committed by the author is “appeal to nature,” i.e., men have a natural desire to use porn; therefore use of porn is a good thing (or at least an inevitable thing) that wives should tolerate.  Piffle.  This advice goes beyond stupid to affirmatively harmful.  By the same logic, the author could have written, “men evolved to want more than one sexual partner; get over his multiple infidelities; he can’t help it.”  The same logic could also lead to “he raped her because he evolved that way; she needs to get over it, because he can’t help it.”

Materialist idiots like the MSN author pervert morality by suggesting that “the good is the desirable and the desirable is that which is actually desired.”  True morality, however, is based upon conforming one’s behavior to the objective, transcendent moral code, even when (nay, especially when) we “feel” like doing otherwise.

Comments
My wife and I work with kids in a nearby community where the 'oppressive' Christian ethic regarding sexual behavior and marriage is almost entirely gone. Married people are a bit of an oddity to the kids; especially faithful and long running marriage. The usual is that the kids have many siblings from an assortment of fathers; none present. Mother may or may not be present and if present not a nurturing one. Often a grandmother is doing the job of rearing; often the ball is being dropped altogether. Most have never received the most basic moral lessons; respect for others; respect for authority. The importance of order, structure, following the rules. It's a Darwinian environment. Chaotic, dangerous, violence always close to the surface and it often gets it's way. I think our culture at large is headed this way and I'm seeing the near future for us all. But at least we're all free to define our own meaning, purpose and morality, right? (Darwin be praised...) That's what Dylann Roof (of recent Charleston infamy) did, and no one who knew him judged him for it. Dylann's of the world may one day be the norm rather than the outlier. And they'll reign over a hell, rather than serve in a heaven.leodp
August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
With that line of reasoning about what is normal human behaviour according to Darwinists, take a look at Darwin's Descent of Man In the beginning of the book, you will find a sort of definition of natural selection, which is about all the space Darwin spends on formulating his hypothesis. "Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals." On about 15 occasions later in the book he writes about how this selective encroachment untill extinction of human races occurs, most signicicantly when writing that: "Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race. (.....) and when of two adjoining tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption." Racial and tribal genocide is the chief operator in shaping humans as they are today from an apelike progenitor, according to Darwin.mohammadnursyamsu
August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
Or this one: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-and-natura-non-facit-saltus/#comment-492110 It doesn't take much work to "try" to distance him from Darwinism or evolution. All it takes is presenting anything he's ever said on the subject. I think Barry may be projecting.goodusername
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Well, comment one is pretty clear cut... https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/greg-dawes-contradicts-himself/wd400
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Yeah, goodusername, if I were you I would try to distance myself from him too.Barry Arrington
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Like I said, Darwinism makes people stupid. Thanks for demonstrating that, mahuna, with your aggressively stupid rant.
I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure based on past statements that mahuna isn't a Darwinist.goodusername
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
groovamos @ 8, I say Darwinism makes people stupid. Perhaps it merely makes them credulous enough to believe stories like "Vikings had no law against murder" or "Indians hump each other indiscriminately." On second thought, one does not exclude the other, because the credulity necessary to believe Darwinism is itself a form of stupidity.Barry Arrington
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Hee hee thx Barry. I should add that my friend's travels were in the 70's and the situation may not be the same today.groovamos
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
groovamos @ 6, mahuna probably got that from the same person who told him the Vikings had no law against murder. Darwinism makes people stupid.Barry Arrington
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
mahuna: I was told by a friend who took a Comparative Religion class in college that among Indians (the real ones, from India) that as soon as a person is old enough to be interested in sex, they’re allowed to have sex. I assume this to be the default, traditional human view. Choosing a partner to share a household is an entirely separate question. This is bogus. The institution of matrimony (with VOWS) as a framework for sex has been universal for thousands of years. Otherwise Indian history would be full of stories of mothers with multiple children by different men, and in grinding poverty. Indian women historically have been too smart to fall for shacking up, hooking up, like what we see here in the USA and celebrated in the leftist-controlled media, and the social disaster that has resulted. Maybe you should see the movie "Gandhi" and review the scene where the principal reenacts matrimony with VOWS. The vows are there for a reason - to protect the well-being and security that is preferred for childhood. This is impossible in the world of shacking, hooking up that you maybe prefer. Since I have been exposed to Indian thinking and philosophy, I will mention that there are ancient art objects over there that might be considered pornographic by some Westerners, especially conservative Christians. But over there these objects have no such significance. They are not secret but are guarded and provided for the edification of spiritually well balanced members of society. The understanding of them comes from the realization of the sacred power behind sexual order. I have not seen them but have read descriptions, one example sculpture is of a goddess standing spread legged and a god positioned below with tongue extended at the ready. (Bede Griffiths, "The Marriage of East and West") So mahuna I think your friend was duped by leftist academic perversion of Indian thinking, perversion quite self-serving considering what leftists are into and the common deal they are offering the young regarding sexuality. Like what yours truly bought into. unfortunately. One more story about a friend. I have one who traveled extensively over there, and being aware of the beauty of Indian women in the West, at one point asked where all the beautiful young women were. He was told that they are rarely seen in public, sort of under lock and key. Beautiful young women over there are seen as specially blessed, goddess-like and submit to protection from the dangers of depraved men and their lack of self control, kind of like many in our society.groovamos
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
mahuna wants to objectify women and pursue them for sex with all of the moral discretion of a dog chasing a bitch in heat -- and still feel good about himself. So he sits down and writes a lengthy rant in which he makes up crap like "Viking's could kill anyone they wanted and it was perfectly legal so long as they ratted themselves out." I suppose we got that in service of the following logic: "If Vikings could kill anyone they wanted, I should be able pursue women for sex with all of the moral discretion of a dog chasing a bitch in heat." Like I said, Darwinism makes people stupid. Thanks for demonstrating that, mahuna, with your aggressively stupid rant. Barry Arrington
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
Mahuna @1
Mahuna claims: “Marriage, especially monogamy for life, is a VERY modern social concept. For more than 99% of human history, males and females in the manpack, and any other manpack that happened along, were free to do what came naturally. And so thinking about a man or woman you met 6 months ago while you were routinely mating with someone else was perfectly normal.”
That’s a really nice idea, Mahuna, and it might even be accurate if there is no God and we humans are nothing more than evolved pond scum contained in a big skin bag. If that is your worldview, then of course, you will believe what you do. Now, if you could only prove your worldview, you would really have something to go on. Lacking that ability, your ideas about marriage are nothing more than beliefs/claims based on your interpretation of history.
Mahuna objects: “I’d also point out that one of the FIRST things that Protestants did when they broke with Rome was to allow divorce, in spite of the clear New Testament instruction “what God has jointed together, let no man put asunder.” If you allow divorce, then you are admitting that husbands and wives can start shopping for new bedmates before the ink is dry on the divorce papers.”
No, you need to read the Bible to understand when divorce is permissible. Try reading Mt. 19. In this world, sometimes divorce is a necessary evil. It is something God hates, and is to be avoided as much as possible. We certainly have lessened the standards and divorce happens far too often in our materialistic me-centered culture, and the Church may have some fault here, but that doesn’t change God’s standard. All it means is that humans are sinful and have trouble living up to God’s standards.
Mahuna: “I was told by a friend who took a Comparative Religion class in college that among Indians (the real ones, from India) that as soon as a person is old enough to be interested in sex, they’re allowed to have sex. I assume this to be the default, traditional human view. Choosing a partner to share a household is an entirely separate question.”
Of course you ASSUME that to be the default human view. I do not make that assumption because my worldview is different than yours. Certainly young people got married at an earlier age in the past, but just because you come up with an example of one culture that has that view of sex, does not mean it is the default human view. It could also be an example of a culture that strayed from
Mahuna’s false understanding: “Restrictions on sex, based on age or martial status, have ENTIRELY to do with property rights and inheritance, excepting of course among religious fanatics who believe that human sexual intercourse is inherently evil.”
It is true that property rights and inheritance have something to do with marriage, but it does not necessarily follow that those things determined or are the reason for restrictions on sex. Faulty logic. Also, you have a totally warped understanding of God’s view on sex. It is a gift to mankind. The very first command God gave to Adam and Eve was in essence to have lots of sex and make lots of babies. The sexual relationship is blessed by God within marriage. There is nothing evil about it. It is inherently good, not evil, but that does not mean we are totally free to use it however we want to. Anything can be abused. God loves us and gives us guidelines on how it is to be used so as to be a blessing to us and protect us from the harm that comes from the abuse of it. You will not find the idea that sex is inherently evil anywhere in the Bible.
Mahuna continues: “The inherently evil thing was one of the MANY strange ideas pushed by the men who started Christianity. Oddly, these same men included an epistle flat out forbidding “sacred virgins” while at the same time encouraging young women to choose death over losing their virginity and organizing societies of nuns. But, hey, why complain about consistency and logic is a religious text?”
No, again you are mistaken. Even the NT tells us that sex is a good thing. In fact, in I Cor. 7, we are told that it is a sin for married people NOT to have sex! Interesting! I’m not really sure what you are referring to here, but I am sure you are purposely trying to understand the text in the most ridiculous way.
Mahuna doesn’t believe in real morality: “Morality is a VERY time-dependent and culture-dependent idea. There isn’t any point in trying to argue that there was EVER any consistent elements of what is moral. For example, a Norseman could simply kill another Norseman in cold blood and NO ONE would call this “murder” unless the killer attempted to HIDE the killing. Any self-respecting Norse killer would tell “the first man he met” that he had just killed Sven Olafson, and at some administrative meeting later on agree to pay the kin of Sven his “man price” (weregeld). The suggestion that there was anything evil or immoral about the killing itself would have struck everyone, including Olaf, as nonsense.”
Wonderful Mahuna. I’m not familiar with the Norseman culture, but so what? Over time, mankind has strayed from the principles of God’s Word. What you say is true about the human view of morality. It has changed, but that doesn’t mean that there is no absolute standard of morality. Those are separate issues. It simply shows that you are I are sinners like the rest of ‘em and are in need of God’s redemption and forgiveness.tjguy
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
mahuna, I've been a Christian for twenty-five years. I have met many people who believe that sexual conduct outside of marriage is wrongful, but I have never met any Christian—not even one—who believes that human sexual intercourse is inherently sinful. Stop posting bigoted nonsense.EvilSnack
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Darwinism not only makes one stupid, but it makes one immoral and could easily lead to the destruction of your marriage, not it's preservation if one decides to take this approach to justifying your porn habit to your wife. It's so easy to justify sin when it is your sin you want to justify. We are so often hard on others and easy on ourselves! Sinful human nature. Materialistic Darwinism WILL influence society in a negative way and this is one very good example! Does porn lead to a closer marriage relationship? Does porn help increase our love for our spouse? Does porn increase trust in our relationship? Does porn effect how we look at and treat our spouse or our expectations for our spouse? Does porn help us feel more satisfied with our spouse or less satisfied with them? Will porn help us to be more disciplined and to grow in self control or will it lead to addiction? "Oh honey. You just don't understand men. It's no big deal. You are being too sensitive!" Are you willing to be understanding when your wife commits adultery and says "You just don't understand women. you were not meeting my emotional needs so I went to someone who could." If so, then try an open marriage and see how that works for you and your family. IF there is no God and we are nothing but products of evolution, there is no such thing as sin or real right and wrong so morality can be reduced to likes and dislikes, socially approved and disapproved actions, but using the words "right" and "wrong" are misleading because there is no such thing. You can't even say it is wrong to break the law. All you can say it that it is against the law and is not a socially approved thing. Right and wrong are simply figments of our imagination in the fairy tale world of Materialism.
Romans 1:21 "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." This is the effect of Materialism. Yes, Darwinism DOES make people stupid!
tjguy
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Marriage, especially monogamy for life, is a VERY modern social concept. For more than 99% of human history, males and females in the manpack, and any other manpack that happened along, were free to do what came naturally. And so thinking about a man or woman you met 6 months ago while you were routinely mating with someone else was perfectly normal. I'd also point out that one of the FIRST things that Protestants did when they broke with Rome was to allow divorce, in spite of the clear New Testament instruction "what God has jointed together, let no man put asunder." If you allow divorce, then you are admitting that husbands and wives can start shopping for new bedmates before the ink is dry on the divorce papers. I was told by a friend who took a Comparative Religion class in college that among Indians (the real ones, from India) that as soon as a person is old enough to be interested in sex, they're allowed to have sex. I assume this to be the default, traditional human view. Choosing a partner to share a household is an entirely separate question. Restrictions on sex, based on age or martial status, have ENTIRELY to do with property rights and inheritance, excepting of course among religious fanatics who believe that human sexual intercourse is inherently evil. The inherently evil thing was one of the MANY strange ideas pushed by the men who started Christianity. Oddly, these same men included an epistle flat out forbidding "sacred virgins" while at the same time encouraging young women to choose death over losing their virginity and organizing societies of nuns. But, hey, why complain about consistency and logic is a religious text? Morality is a VERY time-dependent and culture-dependent idea. There isn't any point in trying to argue that there was EVER any consistent elements of what is moral. For example, a Norseman could simply kill another Norseman in cold blood and NO ONE would call this "murder" unless the killer attempted to HIDE the killing. Any self-respecting Norse killer would tell "the first man he met" that he had just killed Sven Olafson, and at some administrative meeting later on agree to pay the kin of Sven his "man price" (weregeld). The suggestion that there was anything evil or immoral about the killing itself would have struck everyone, including Olaf, as nonsense.mahuna
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply