 |
 |
Dripping Springs Weekly Bulletins
Is Evolution the Cause for Infidelity in Males?
Yes, you read the question right. A University of Texas professor has written an academic paper entitled “The Evolution of Desire.” The long and short of his paper is the premise that male promiscuity is “hardwired—therefore ‘normal’, derived from their evolutionary past and their connection with their ‘animal ancestors’.”
The Washington Post published an article last week in which this view was commented upon by men and women of science. The comments were very nearly divided 50-50 on the validity of the research and the conclusions drawn from the research. David Buss, the Texas author, says “the evidence is irrefutable.” And Bradley University professor David Schmitt says, “The results are strong and conclusive.”
But many other scientists had strong negative feelings, some in the same academic discipline, “Evolutionary Psychology.” Some said, “the study is impressive, but his findings are far from universal.”
Scholars in other fields said Buss was guilty of “choosing his facts, making his conclusions less about science than wishful thinking.”
Well, I don’t know what the fuss is all about. Men have been claiming such nonsense for years—centuries. All the folderol about “evolutionary psychology” is just one more way that men have assumed evolution is true, and beginning from that point, “proved” what many males have always wanted to believe—that they have a “right” to be promiscuous, to be unfaithful to their wives, etc.
Ohio State University psychologist Terri Fisher made this very point. She spoke of young men telling their girl friends that their “need” for many sexual partners is because “I’m a man!”
Thomas Huxley, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, plainly stated in his writings that it is easy for many to “leap” at Darwin’s theory “since the idea of God interferes with our sexual habits.”
A major problem, in addition to the poor science (as previously admitted by men and women of science) is that evolution ignores evidence of design in the universe, and attempts to explain it all by a “titanic explosion.” The following are necessary to accept “evolution” as the means of the development of man and the universe:
Spontaneous Generation
Louis Pasteur, Lazarro Spallanzani and Francesco Redi performed the necessary experiments proving the concept of spontaneous generation, or Abiogenesis to be false as early as the 17th century. The “thoroughly documented Law of Biogenesis demands that life must come from life.” But evolution expects us to agree that at some time in the past, “at least once,” the living came from the non-living, life from non-life. The popular author Isaac Asimov said: “After all, from the mere fact that we are here we are forced to assume that once upon a time at least one case of spontaneous generation took place—assuming further, that one eliminates supernatural creation from consideration.”
Missing Links
Most of us have heard of the search for the “missing link.” Darwin wrote that because of the gradual development of species there should be large deposits of fossil remains between the species, in other word, the “missing links.” To this day, a “missing link” has not been found. Louis B. Leakey, himself an evolutionist, has stated, “There is not one link missing—there are hundreds of links missing.”
This search for “links” led to many that were rejected following careful examination. Even the scandalous “Piltdown Hoax” had its roots there.
Reject the Bible as superstition
For years men were hesitant to deny the Bible’s credibility. But no longer. Some are much more bold to ridicule the Bible, to deny its inspiration and speak of it as myth.
They say the six days of creation must be metaphors, early characters of the Bible must be fables, and the universal flood of Genesis 6-9 must be regarded as early superstition.
Mathematical improbability
From their own writings, those who accept evolution admit that the “chance” of even the first steps of evolution occurring in the right time, the right proportion and the right order are “mathematically impossible.” Carl Sagan admitted that the chance was less than one in 102,000,000,000. But some still believe it and expect everyone else to believe it as well.
Others
To accept evolution’s theories one must deny the application of the second Law of Thermodynamics, acceptance of the old “Ontogeny Recapitulates Philogeny” theory, and believe in Wald’s claim that “time itself performs the miracles.”
If man wants a reason to believe in evolution he will find one. And, if he wants to use that as an excuse for adultery, he will do that too.
|
|
|
|
“To make an organism demands the right substances in the right proportions and in the right arrangement. We do not think anything more is needed—but that is problem enough. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet, here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation”
|
|
|
|
|
DYING TO SELF
When you are forgotten, or neglected, or purposely set at naught, and you don't sting or hurt with the insult or the oversight, but your heart is happy, being counted worthy to suffer for Christ,
THAT IS DYING TO SELF.
When your good is evil spoken of, when your wishes are crossed, your advice disregarded, your opinions ridiculed, and you refuse to let anger rise in your heart, or even defend yourself, but take it all in patient, loving silence,
THAT IS DYING TO SELF.
When you lovingly and patiently bear any disorder, any irregularity, any impunctuality, or any annoyance, when you stand face-to-face with waste, folly, extravagance, spiritual insensibility -- and endure it as Jesus endured,
THAT IS DYING TO SELF.
When you never care to refer to yourself in conversation, or to record your own goods, or itch after commendations, when you can truly love to be unknown,
THAT IS DYING TO SELF.
When you can see your brother prosper and have his needs met and can honestly rejoice with him in spirit and feel no envy, nor question God, while your own needs are far greater and in desperate circumstances,
THAT IS DYING TO SELF.
When you can receive correction and reproof from one of less stature than yourself and can humbly submit inwardly as well as outwardly, finding no rebellion or resentment rising up within your heart,
THAT IS DYING TO SELF.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
