Poor Ardipithecus…exploited again

Perhaps I was too quick to declare that previous article the worst one yet on Ardipithecus…now the Family Research Council has weighed in. Would you believe that Ardi supports their anti-gay stance?

the article describes what C. Owen Lovejoy, an anthropologist at Kent State University, says about the social organization of this species:

The males, he argues, pair-bonded with females. Lovejoy sees male parental investment in the survival of offspring as a hallmark of the human lineage.

So, how long has marriage (i.e., "pair-bonding") been a male-female union? About four million, four hundred thousand years, if this secular scientist is to be believed. And what was its purpose? To insure "male parental investment in the survival of offspring"--something which the advocates of same-sex "marriage" contend is now no longer necessary.

And what will we be discarding, if we change the definition of marriage from being a union of a man and a woman? Only "a hallmark of the human lineage."

Marriage is not merely a religious institution, nor merely a civil institution. It is, rather, a natural institution, whose definition as the union of male and female is rooted in the order of nature itself. And it doesn't take a Bible to prove it. In this case, evolutionary theory points to the exact same conclusion.

Wow. So much is wrong there.

• Another characteristic of the human lineage is increased social behavior: Lovejoy could also talk about general male investment, or community investment. There's this concept called inclusive fitness that means non-parental relatives can also benefit from providing care…and it doesn't matter whether they are gay or not.

• If you have same-sex marriage, you could have two males contributing to the success of their offspring. Male parental investment can occur in the absence of the females altogether! Another way to interpret this is that gay male parental investment is a further elaboration of this "hallmark of the human lineage."

• The naturalistic fallacy is still a fallacy. Even if this narrow (and inaccurate! Human sexual behavior has always been complicated, and there were almost certainly all kinds of homosexual behaviors going on) interpretation of what our ancestors were doing was correct, it says nothing about human behavior now. We have evidence of cannibalism in some fossils, this does not imply that we ought to start eating each other's brains.

• Most annoying of all to me is that the twit who wrote this piece, Peter Sprigg, also leads some of the FRC's anti-evolution initiatives. This is the guy who promotes the creationist "strengths and weakness" approach to education. He doesn't believe in evolution anyway!

• Since when does the religious right use the sexual behavior of a couple of apes as a model for good Christian sexual relations?

So, basically, Sprigg is another liar for Jesus who hypocritically uses a mangled version of evolutionary theory to support results he likes, and wants it removed from our curricula when it leads to answers he doesn't like.