Atheistic scientists are at pains to admit the limits of evolution theory, particularly the fact that there is no real evolutionary explanation for
why we procreate. Science is in the business of explaning the
what and
how, via observation and experimentation.
What is it?
Science: It is a species.
What is it doing?
Science: It is procreating.
How is it doing it?
Science: Biological explanation given.
Why is it doing it?
Science: It just does.
When scientists begin to explain the
whys, with something more than "it just does," then they begin to act as philosophers and are no longer "doing science." With respect to the continuation of human existence through continuous replication, the best they can come up with is "genes must be selfish." This, despite the fact that science offers zero evidence for this notion. In fact, it goes contrary to the fact that genes are not selfish.
Science doesn't tell us why life forms, let alone human beings, have the tenacity for procreation. Atheists recognize that the Book of Genesis says life replenishes the earth with itself because God commands it, so some are aching to come up with something else that would make this explanation superfluous for religious people. This is just another step in the ongoing agenda among some atheistic scientists who are trying to remove all reasons for postulating God. But all they are doing here is showing just how far they are willing to step out of the lines of science to fuel their anti-religious agenda.
Now I have recently seen a few people on this forum assert what has been illicitly taken for granted in Dawkins publications, that genes are selfish and that humans procreate because it is an evolutionary trait we inherited, or an innate desire to see our genes passed on.
The evidence for this?
Well, humans who have no business procreating, insist on doing it anyway. Therefore, it must be an evolutionary trait beyond their control. We're nothing but mindless animals I tell ya! To say the least, this is entirely incomplete as a scientific theory and is no more "scientific" than ID.
So what
does explain the reason behind human procreation? How about the fact that humans are orgasm junkies. Simply put, sex feels just too damn good to forgo. And no, it just isn't the same with a condom.
A natural result of sex is pregnancy, and the natural result of pregnancy is seeing one's genes passed on to another generation. So once we come full circle, the real queston is
why the heck does sex feel so good? Giving birth doesn't feel good, so
why does sex? For religious people, that is God's way of guaranteeing the propagation of species. For the scientist, well, "it just does."
So instead of accepting what we already know from the social sciences, which already explain these questions well, and completely ignoring the obvious answer that sex just feels too good to forgo, some people look to evolutionary biology for an explanation that better suits this anti-religion agenda. But evolutionary biology provides no meaningful answer, so one is invented from non-science and asserted as axiomatic because that is the latest trend: replace religious explanations with scientific ones,
even if they aren't really scientific. Thus, by way of papal declaration from the ivory tower of science, we are told that humans procreate because we are only interested in passing on our genes, even if we don't even realize it.
Just take this excerpt from a post by ajax a couple of weeks ago:
Whether subconsciously or consciously, the selfish gene is there and he's manipulating the world to make him the multiply and expand. It's just how living things are wired.
Like so many people have done before, ajax appeals to the false and misleading imagery provided by Dawkins. It is based on non-science. This deserves repeating:
genes are not selfish. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that they are. But because the atheistic scientist needs to explain all human functions in mechanistic terms, where science fails to offer support, he relies on his own "poetic" rhetoric and masquerades it as science.
The evidence is evident in every day life. All things being equal, people will favor the man he shares more genes with. That's why it's such an exception or big deal to see people fighting against their own kind. Nobody shares more genes than siblings and in spite of their brutal battles of sibling rivalry, they will almost always side with their sibling vs. an outsider.
But this "evidence" has already been explained by social science.
Moniker previously regurgitated the same speculative tripe, and then tried to paint me as stupid because I wasn't aware of this so-called "science." I'm fully aware, I'm just not fully gullible. This isn't science, and constantly asserting that it is won't change anything. Thanks to the social sciences, we know why people are more likely to take sides with someone they are related to as opposed to a perfect stranger. It has nothing to do with a subconscious desire to see one's genes survive, but has more to do with how humans interact with those whom they are socially acquainted.
My Mom will be more inclined to defend me over a total stranger, for the same reason why I am more inclined to take sides with a neighbor than someone who lives in a different state. It is a matter of social relation, not "genes." We're just more likely to be socially acquainted with family members, and that is why we take sides with them.
I noted previously, to no avail, that my step-father has virtually no relationship with any of his biological kids/grandkids. He doesn't particularly like my sister, but oddly enough he treats her three kids like royalty. Why? Because they live around the corner and are always associating with him. They have a close relationship. Thus, during Christmas time, he forks out money on a laptop computer for 9 year old Hannah, and an HD camcorder for 12 year old Graham. And his out-of-state biological grandkids? They'd be lucky to get a phone call.
This single example is enough to destroy Dawkins' theory above, but there are millions of examples that undermine this non-scientific proposal. So what is done with refuting evidence such as this? It is downplayed and reinterpreted to suit the conclusion. But science isn't supposed to begin with a conclusion while reinterpreting all data to fit said conclusion. This is why what Dawkins suggests really isn't science, but rather his own philosophical musings driven by a rabid anti-religious agenda
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
