Welcome to Carnivorous Caribou

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Evolution = Adultery?

I finally read the entire August 15 edition of TIME Magazine, "Evolution Wars." (That's right, I'm a freak, I even read magazines front to back, not jumping around.)

Time's magazine on Intelligent Design was certainly interesting. Between this edition, and the one before it (Inside the mind of a 13 year old), they certainly have been publishing articles to create engaging discussion. It was interesting to read the thoughts of others, just to understand the "other camp." The article on evolution, however, didn't really solve anything.

Yet, something caught my eye today. As I was getting through the last couple pages of the magazine (Again, not really reading it for thought, but rather so for the satisfaction of completion) their "people" section had two things that caught my eye:

A) An small blurb about Robert Evans, 75, marrying his SEVENTH bride. Evans response was, "This wasn't impulse this time...I waited over six months."

B) A small Q & A with Kate Hudson. The question was asked, "You've said recently that you think manogamy is unrealistic. Would you mind if your husband had an affair?" Her answer:

"...I think I'd mind. I mean, scientifically and animalistically it's not realistic. Men look for nice, strong women to have children with, and that's their instinct. I'm not gonna put any pressures on my husband to be the perfect husband. If that's something he had to do and that's the kind of man he was, which he's not, I just wouldn't want to know."

Any wives reading this? (Wait, don't answer that...I think I know the answer.) Fine, OK, husbands, what do you think? Can we explain our actions simply by instinct and impulse? Is the standard of being the "perfect husband" simply being faithful to your wife? Do you really think your wife would be comforted as long as she didn't know you were cheating?

Here in lies the strength of evolution. It's not the scientific evidence (which isn't strong). It's not the scientific problems of Intelligent Design (really, what refutes I.D.). When you create a worldview that eliminates a need for God, you create opportunity for yourself.

You can be on your seventh marriage and act like it's your first. You can marry a man without the expectation (for either you or him) to remain faithful to one another. You create a world where you call the shots.

Frankly, I like the world that was created. It wasn't created by me. It wasn't even created for me. But I like the idea of looking my wife in the eye and saying, "It's your fault that you settled for me and could have done better. You're stuck with me now, baby. And our Creator expects you to stay with me."


  • At 12:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have often thought that if I washed out as a pastor I might take a shot at being an evolutionary psychologist. Its kind of like being a weatherman. You don't have to be right, you just have to sound convincing. And how exactly does one study the habits of prehistoric man since, by definition, there's no history to study. I guess I would just normalize my baser instincts as necessary to aide my climb to the top of the food chain. Rather than becoming civilized, progress would be defined as becoming primitivized (?) Excuse me, I'm suddenly feeling an urge to draw sketches of wildebeast on my office wall.

  • At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    as Steve Orterburn of "Every Man's Battle"...it comes down to the choice of being MALE or being a MAN. A man, especially a man of God, can make that choice of fidelity each day, each hour.

  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Jeremy Bear said…

    "It's your fault that you settled for me and could have done better. You're stuck with me now, baby. And our Creator expects you to stay with me."

    Okay, dude, fess up: how did you get ahold of a copy of our wedding vows?

    Seriously, though, you did beat me to the punch. I was in the midst of cooking up a blog entry on why I am and I always expect to be a hardcore Creationist and an anti-Darwinist Evolutionist.

    I'm so weary of hearing secularists complain that Creationists refuse to "look at the facts" when the truth is usually a) they don't know the facts themselves, it just feels good to patronize or b) they are acquainted with the scientific support of Darwinistic Evolution, but can't admit that their theories depend on instance after instance of gigantic exceptions to the most basic laws of physics, chemistry and molecular biology.

    Creationists refuse to look at "facts" like Irreducible Complexity or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? How about population trends or redwoods or lunar recession? How about the fact that there has yet to be a single, conclusive piece of fossil evidence demonstrating any sort of evoltionary gap-filler?

    GAH! Fires me right up, I tells ya!

    Speaking honestly, it's far easier for me to believe in Creation Science than it is for me to believe the miraculous claims of the Bible. Let's face it, the former's more provable.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home