Note: the nineteenth produced two essential ideas of morbid consequence (unfalsifiable ideas / errors, and therefore imaginative guesswork, ideological, not truly scientific): Darwinism and Marxism.
Darwinism amounted to the resurrection of a very ancient idea, first proposed by certain pre-socratic philosophers: viz., eternal (non-created) matter which suggested the universe simply always existed (thus begging the question of origins / being) with spontaneous life simply appearing. Darwin, whose family had long been philosophical evolutionists, went out looking to find a “scientific” basis for the idea and proposed another metatheory: Natural Selection, which can only be asserted, hardly “proved”.
And within mere decades virtually all data in existence was sifted through that ideological lens. Dr. David Berlinski, mathematician and philosopher of science, shows in his works that such an idea can never be a science, even if alternative explanations of the universe (like Intelligent Design) are ruled out, a priori, no matter how much more credible their findings. Darwinism is more in line with the Enlightenment West’s projections about endless “progress”.
In the final analysis Darwinism is a faith, a worldview. In the following article see how such specious lenses continue to be applied to current political movements by means of wild conjecture, even those which destroy the structural, binary teleology of nature and are therfore unecological.
Today science is extremely uncomfortable with Mystery and so attempts to fill in the blanks, at it were, which can never be filled via unfalsifiable meta-theory posing as objective fact.
The Evolution Myth has always been totalistic, and today the mythmakers use it to give a veneer of scientific inevitableness / determinism to decadence and sin, “beyond freedom and dignity”
What I am referring to above pertains to Macro-evolution and speculative “science,” the supposed evolution from one species into an entirely other, not to Micro- evolution which is simply variations within nature’s fixed, unchangeable species. We all appreciate and respect hard science (applied physics, medicine and so on) but speculative, unfalsifiable, unprovable “science” which so often trespasses into philosophy / metaphysics and ultimate origins is quite another thing altogether.
Cf. also the works of Dr. Wolfgang Smith, Stephen C. Meyer, Phillip E. Johnson, et. al….
“Dr Kanazawa believes that women have had to evolve to deal with the experience of men having more than one partner.”
(I jave removed the Sun.UK.Co. links due to indecent pics and other links) —SH
This is the fascinating reason women have evolved to become bisexual
EXPERTS believe that women are more sexually fluid than men, meaning they’re less likely to associate with a particular orientation.
Psychologist Dr Satoshi Kanazawa believes that evolution has led to women becoming open to intimacy with both genders.
He claims that sexual fluidity is a means of “reducing conflict and tension among co-wives in polygynous marriages”.
Participants were asked to categorise themselves into a particular sexual orientation Getty Images
The study, published in Biological Reviews, reveals that there are differences in male and female sexuality.
Dr Kanazawa, from the London School of Economics and Political Science, explained: “The theory suggests that women may not have sexual orientations in the same sense as men do.
“Rather than being straight or gay, to whom women are sexually attracted may depend largely on the particular partner, their reproductive status, and other circumstances.”
Experts collected data over ten years focusing on the sexual orientation of Americans, grouping them into different ‘waves’.
Participants were asked to categorise themselves as: 100 per cent straight, mostly straight, bisexual, mostly gay or 100 per cent gay.
Analysing the data allowed researchers to compare how flexible men and women were when it came to sexual attraction.
Dr Kanazawa cites ‘tension among co-wives’ as the reason behind increased fluidity Getty
After discovering that women were more fluid with their sexuality, experts began to debate why this is the case.
Dr Kanazawa believes that women have had to evolve to deal with the experience of men having more than one partner.
He claimed: “Even though humans have been mildly polygynous throughout evolutionary history, polygynous marriages are often characterized by conflict and tension among co-wives.
“I propose that occasional sex among cowives may have reduced such conflict and tension, and increased their reproductive success.
“Female sexual fluidity may have evolved as an adaptation to facilitate it.”
The study is similar to one conducted by researchers last year, who made the bold claim that women were either bisexual or gay but never straight.”