Evolutionary psychology solves the Problem of Beauty (Goodness and Truth are next)

_{William Dembski

January 20, 2007

Darwinism, Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s amazing what passes for science these days (as well as what doesn’t):

The first evidence that beauty is infectious is published today by scientists who have shown that when women see a rival smiling at a man, he becomes more attractive as a result. . . .

Why has nature designed women to be so in thrall to the opinion of others? Selecting a mate and raising children is what life is all about, according to the cold eyed view of evolutionary biologists.

As a result, it pays to get as much information on a man as possible, including what other women think of him. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Using information from others can only improve your decision about a mate,Ã¢â‚¬Â said Dr Jones.

SOURCE: click here.

Comments

The article is silly. Everyone knows that the Hokey Pokey is really what it's all about.mike1962_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

"Selecting a mate and raising children is what life is all about, according to the cold eyed view of evolutionary biologists."
And to think- Mr. Teresa without any children. She completely wasted her life. A life lived without purpose. What a selfish selfish woman to waste such precious time! This isn't science. This is nonsense. What on earth is a "rival"? If a woman isn't interested in a particular man, and another woman smiles at this particular man- how is the smiling woman a rival? A rival in what manner? Surely not a rival in the sense that they're both after the guy, if the first women isn't all too interested to begin with. I guess women can make a game out of this supposed instinct- merely smile at men that your girlfriend wants, and your girlfriend will want the man even more! So, if a man is a cheater, a scam artist, an all-around-scumbag- merely taking another woman along with him to smile at him will make him appear somewhat less scumbag-ish to the woman he wants to catch? Sorry, I find that people, in general, usually look at a person's heart, their soul, what makes them unique as opposed to the superficial nonsense this study claims women look for. Finally, from personal experience as a man- this doesn't fit reality for guys looking at women. I doubt it fits at all for women either. I've never seen someone find someone attractive simply because another woman was looking at the guy and smiling (giving a positive impression.) If that were the case, the really picky women would fall in love with the worst looking guys simply because the "worst looking" women were looking at these guys with positive expressions.JasonTheGreek_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

"Wars in which the best specimens are sent out to kill each other, hospitals which prolong the lives of the infirm, and moral value systems which call for protection of the weak." This is how Nietzsche and Hitler thought. Its disconcerting that more and more people are thinking along these lines.a5b01zerobone_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

This study seems to detect self evident truth. Any cursory consideration of changes in fashion or advertising will reveal how we tend want what we see other people want. Why does stuff like this get published as some how new? Does the success of the fashion industry also provide that Darwinism is true?idnet.com.au_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Thankfully, we do have people are willing to take a stand against these guys.a5b01zerobone_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

bFast, it's my understanding that Darwinists' explanation for your situation is that humans are (conveniently) no longer evolving. Wars in which the best specimens are sent out to kill each other, hospitals which prolong the lives of the infirm, and moral value systems which call for protection of the weak are also counter evidence for the ongoing evolution of humans, don't you agree?russ_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

Where is GK Chesterton when we really need him? Beauty, Goodness and Truth are abstract notions and not things that can be reduced to materialist explanations. I'm not sure I like the direction in which our society is heading in. I know people have been saying this for years but it really does seem at times that we live in a soulless society and I think alot of people are content to live in one. Materialists are vain enough to think that the entire cosmos can be ascertained and studied by our finite minds. They have no need for God or a soul. Everything can be explained in purely materialistic terms.a5b01zerobone_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

As far as I am conserned the whole "sexual selection" hypothesis totally collapses in light of reality. I am the adoptive father of two girls who are the product of an FAS, mentally handicapped mother. She seems to breed like a rabbit. She has no trouble finding another partner. I, on the other hand, a fellow with a good career and above average intelligence was not able to establish a solid romantic relationship until I was 40. Watching those that are low on the evolutionary totem pole breed like rabbits (and my daughters' birth-mother is surely not the only one) has caused me to conclude that this theory is, well, full of it.bFast_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

"Selecting a mate and raising children is what life is all about, according to the cold eyed view of evolutionary biologists." Would someone please do a study, then, and see how many single and/or childless evolutionary biologists consider their lives to have been wasted? Perhaps the Discovery Institute could fund the research. ;)russ_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

A finding such as this that "nature designed women" to value the opinion of other women, and so choose a better mate, does not support NDE over ID any more than saying that nature designed the flagellum so that E Coli can get food supports NDE over ID. "Selecting a mate and raising children is what life is all about, according to the cold eyed view of evolutionary biologists." To assert that successfully reproducing and child rearing is the sum total of what life is about, and that there is no greater purpose or meaning is an assertion of reductionist evolutionary theory and is demeaning to women and to those who do not marry or have children. Did Jesus, CS Lewis, the Pope and Mother Thereas miss out on "the sum total of what life is about"?idnet.com.au_{January 20, 2007
January
01
Jan
20
20
2007
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply