An Evolutionary Argument for Traditional Marriage

Let’s assume the truth of Darwinian evolution for the sake of argument:

According to Darwinian theory, we are the products of a long, gradual process. This process included genetic variation acted upon by natural selection. Species that are the most fit will on average produce more offspring, and so will tend to spread throughout a population. At any given time a species will generally be populated by the most fit individuals, although a population is always changing.

That Darwinian process has produced males and females for each species that reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is the process selected by nature for getting these species' genes into the next generation. These requirements for producing children have been dictated by nature. 

Many species that reproduce sexually will mate but then only one of the parents will remain behind to raise the offspring. Additionally, some species will mate, the mother will lay her eggs, and then the progeny are on their own to face a harsh predatory world. More rarely, mom and pop will mate and then both will stick around to handle the parenting duties.

Human beings have historically shown themselves to be in this third category. Cultural studies ranging over the world and throughout history have demonstrated that men and women make long-term pairing to raise their children. Human children are notorious for taking so danged long to develop. The complexity of the human species with physical, emotional, and cognitive needs probably tended to require more than just what a mother or father could alone provide. Also the length of time required for human maturation would have tended to encourage both mating partners to contribute to the raising of their children.

That this is the case is easily explained by evolution. Nature must have selected for this long-term-pairing trait. By definition the dominant trait in a species is the most beneficial for survival. Therefore we should follow what is best for our survival and maintain our traditional marriage model. Anything else will just weaken our survivability on average.

What do you think? Given Darwinian evolution, does this argument work?

Sauce for the Goose

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea."

This statement was made by William Provine, professor at Cornell University, in a debate with Phillip Johnson at Stanford University in 1994.

If Dr. Provine thinks it is appropriate to draw a metaphysical conclusion ("there are no gods") from a scientific theory ("modern evolutionary biology"), then surely he won't mind if others draw their own metaphysical conclusions from scientific evidence.

Those of us who hold to Intelligent Design (ID) get accused of using science to support our belief in God. Well, ok, it's a little more complicated than that, but if William Provine can draw a negative conclusion ("There is no god") from empirical data, then surely we can form a positive conclusion ("an intelligent designer does exist") from empirical data.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.