Rejecting Darwinian Sexual Selection

Charles Darwin gussied up evolutionism and made it presentable to Victorian folk, and also bushwhacked natural selection and turned it into a sort of deity. He gave his Natural Selection the ability to make decisions regarding fish-to-fool evolution.

But this puny god was disappointing to Darwin's acolytes because it could not explain several things. So that four-flusher dealt himself another hand that included sexual selection. Yep, that was a winner. Except that sexual selection did not take up the slack very well and raised new difficulties.

Peacock feathers, Freeimages.com / verzerk

The secular science industry has been satisfying the urges of leftists for the past few years, even when it means abandoning actual science. Because of recent claims that people can change their sex (and rebel against the Creator), the Bearded Buddha himself has been under attack: Darwin was a sexist, so his sexual selection theory is wrong. Actually, it is wrong on many levels (including the debunked part about peacock feathers to attract mates), but it seems his sexist ways are not demonstrated to be relevant to their argument.

As an aside, when biblical creationists point out that Darwin was a racist, his disciples online become apoplectic, screaming, "That's an ad hominem! It has nothing to do with the fact of evolution!" No, pilgrim, his racism was a fundamental part of his version of evolution, and pointing out this truth is in no wise an ad hominem. It would be interesting to see if those same tinhorns make the same accusation regarding his sexism and leftist ideas.

Before Darwin, the differences between the sexes were seen as examples of the beauty and design by the Creator. Human male and females were different because they were created for different roles in life: females to bear children and nurture them until they go off on their own and create their own families; males to support and protect their families. The differences were part of the design to carry out God’s reproductive purpose for them.

This Biblical idea was replaced in secular society by evolutionary philosophy and, as a result, “Darwin’s theory of sexual selection fundamentally changed how we think about sex and evolution.” In short, sexual differences evolved like everything else. Darwinism postulated that there originally were no differences between the sexes aside from gonads, but male and female choice gradually evolved the many decorative differences that exist today. Women selected men that were tall, muscular, had facial hair, a deeper voice, and other traits. Men selected women who lacked facial and most other body hair, were less muscular than males, had a slender waist, wide hips, and large breasts (i.e., the stereotypical “hourglass” figure).

You can read the full article at "Sexual Selection Comes Under Fire." Also of interest is a short article, "Binary-coded human beings."