The Evolution of Evolution

Evolution presents a basically simple subject tainted with prejudicial and illogical equivocations and denials. The denials, whether from scientists or the religious, are expressed about whether we feeble-minded humans can understand certain aspects of how the universe developed, whether the Big Bang actually occurred, whether outside influences were involved, the age of whatever process(es) brought it about, conflation of some elements of it with others, the right to express an untestable guess and pose it where it can be compared to the grandfathered-in untestable guesses… on and on and on, the argument itself evolving with whatever wicked new hoax can buy its way in. Evolution is about one thing: development. Whether mechanical, cosmological, biological, anamorphosis or any other specific category, evolution is about the development of that subject within the confines accredited to it, perhaps relative to other categories but not to be conflated with them.

Conflation: Conflation results in equivocation, where data from one argument gets used to advance the other in an attempt to treat them as the same. Does not the greater portion of the disagreement cackled over evolution involve apparently purposeful equivocation between biological and cosmological evolution? “God exists; God created the heavens and the Earth” is a subject different from the development of biology. Whether a god named God yanked out Adam’s thirteenth rib to create Eve is a different subject from the Big Bang. To bounce back and forth to toss in arguments about both is conflation, that is wrong, and it happens from both sides. It happens on the religious side because they fear to not involve the god named God in their posits, and because some ancient guy thought the Bible recounted every single year of Earth’s history. It doesn’t. It only goes back to about when people figured out how to write, and how to make something other than a cave wall to write on. I suspect it doesn’t even go back that far.

Human behavior is as easily understood as observable events and processes as is anything else, and as subject to variable conditions that can be (have been) recognized and given data values. Desire, taste, pleasure, pain, stress due to imbalance, and any other sensory or emotion-based perception is as much a part of that as any other kind of stimulus. It is the results and the intentions that make something moral, immoral, or inconsequential. Rather than making contradictory statements, show why that one is wrong. Otherwise, accept it, draw some inferences from it, and then find some way to show them true or false. Don’t do like a dog chasing a rabbit around and around a tree. Stand still, and you will eventually “get it.” Stop, think, and the rabbit will run up your back.

As an evolved socially oriented species, we humans arrived in the present with intact, highly developed moral instincts that have become misdirected by powerful influences that have learned to turn us against our own best interests. We have been taught to suffer guilt and shame for innocent and innocuous actions and thoughts for which we intended no actions. We overpopulate our planet while millions starve to death for lack of sustenance because we inherited creeds that trample our innate sense of propriety to death. We have learned to reverse our understanding of good and evil and make it stick. We have learned live in ways that overwhelm the natural processes that govern biological support on our planet, so now we put ourselves at risk of environmental changes may go beyond our range of adaptability. That is a predictable result of global warming. When that occurs, the creedents will have lost the argument, but nobody will win.


Sounds like a fun idea, right? In a truly free country, multiple mates ought to be common practice, it would seem. It was, after all, common practice in history. Polygyny (many women), one male with multiple wives, has been the commonest form and likely contributed to humanity’s survival. Polyandry (many men), a female with multiple husbands, is the least common in history. Polyamory (many lovers) is a mix that takes many forms, including incorporated marriage and, maybe, no marriage. Polygamy (multiple spouses) serves as an umbrella term with which we refer to all of them. We have no way to know how a decentralized polygamy would function in a truly democratic setting.

Polygyny, the picture that forms in most minds upon any mention of polygamy, has been mainly practiced in patriarchal religious settings dominated by a strong authority, although some unattached groups can be found in Midwest USA, but still religion-based. That I have found no example of a democratic system from which to learn stands to reason due to the nature of polygyny as being patriarchal from the ground up, built around a male at the center. The fictional book, Plygs, based on the cult at Little Creek, well describes the patriarchal religious setup and the ills inherent to it.

Love Times Three, with input from all the adults involved, describes a politically more moderate, still religious (Mormon), setup of a lone male with three women. The setup still centers on the male but, when the females organize to resist his too-demanding desires, he has no backing of a central authority to enforce any overbearing wishes onto them. This family’s structure seems healthy and grounded in ethics, based on input from various family members as presented in this more interesting than expected book.

While thoughtless fantasies about polygyny might seem desirable to men, consider life where you can find no woman to marry. The main gripe against polygamy comes from evolution, wherein women seek to attach themselves to men able to provide the best care and security for themselves and their children (King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines in 1st Kings 11:3). Given unlimited freedom, such men will gather up as many women as they can, and deplete the pool. The cult at Little Creek was accused of banishing teenage boys and leaving them to fend for themselves or die in the desert. The purpose given for banishment was to rebalance the gender populations, the elders having considered the young males expendable.

I write this as a dedicated monogamist after more than half a century of marriage with the same beloved woman. I realize monogamy comes with its own set of problems, but I do not want government agents surrounding my home and scaring my neighbors just because only two of us live here. Still, the concept of freedom to engage in polygamy gives rise to serious questions regarding potential eventual depletion of a pool of potential partners for men, accompanied by increased temptation to engage in rape and cuckoldry.

My own thoughts on polygyny, if they matter, is that it seems selfish on the part of the man until you realize the tremendous effort required of him just to keep it from falling apart. To think that no lone woman can meet his every need may have some truth, but it must be as true for her as for him; and she deserves fulfillment the same as he. On the other hand, women who seek the comfort and security of close relationships with other women should not be thwarted from finding and attaining that by busybody governments acting on behalf of offended religious prejudice when no other real harm can be shown AND none of the actual participants has issued a warrant of complaint. A person’s religion is sacred to him and her, and the government must stay on its own side of the constitutional wall, even despite offended judges.

Still, I find it impossible, considering the women in my life, to picture any of them as willing to allow ‘her man’ introduce a new wife into their relationship, no matter how much legalized it became. Not without coercion from religious belief, not without coercion on his part. In all the information I could gather, religion planted the idea, and the acceptance of it, at an early age. I could find no secular examples. For me, the idea of coercion does not jibe with the ideas that support freedom of choice, nor does governmental interference jibe with freedom of choice nor religion. The happiest and healthiest people will be those with the freedom to choose, who do their homework, and choose well.

Polyamory takes many forms, the most widely known apparently being incorporated, or corporate, marriage. Polyamorous relationships can be long-lasting, but most seem to get set up as temporary (as in, “We’ll hook up until graduation, and then decide whether to marry or split.”)

None of these forms of marriage have been tested in a scientifically controlled experiment such as my own fictional The Utopia Experiment describes regarding a failed attempt to develop a completely natural society using modern knowledge.

More about polygamy:

Escape [Carolyn Jessop and Laura Palmer] 0767927567 True first person account of Carolyn’s life growing up in a polygamous fundamentalist environment and her escape with eight children.

Becoming Sister Wives Four wives, one husband, as they told their story on TV.

Next Page »