Guessing taken seriously

For so many people, Darwin's science seems like a threat to God's design. If long ago our parents were monkeys, humans don't seem so special any more. Even worse, perhaps the whole world's set on automatic chaos and doesn't need gods.

...

Science is not designed to prove purpose. Purpose is a free will thing, either coming from God, or men created in the image of God. Yet as this article points out, Darwinists have a trump card here in that somehow, life has a design point for survival. In their view, all life through random mutation selects itself for maximum survival rates.

...

Without God, where comes this purpose? No one knows scientifically, but even to science it seems so.

...

That mutations in small ways come about to adapt to physical surroundings seems obviously true. But Darwinists strongly search for evidence that it is also true in all ways. That's how they jump to species mutations, although no evidence of half-dog, half-horse has ever been found. Nor half-monkey, half-man.

...

OK, how much do we know about something as basic as sex, and how it has mutated to become what it is? As this article shows, we don't really know anything. But experts can guess much like anyone can guess. With all this guessing, how did these survival believers come to be taken so seriously? I don't know, I would only be guessing.

...

link

...

Dr. Leonard Shlain, a San Francisco surgeon and author of “Sex, Time and Power: How Women’s Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution,” speculates that ovulation had to be concealed because women wised up and realized sex led to pregnancy, which led to childbirth, which often led to death for the woman. “Once women understood they could die as a result of having sex, why wouldn’t they abstain from sex?” But if women did not know when they ovulated, they wouldn’t know when they had to abstain in order not to risk dying nine months later (a theory that assumes they had a choice about whether to have sex).

...

On the other hand...

...

since men did not know either, suggests Karen Rosenberg, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Delaware, concealed ovulation could have reinforced “pair bonding, the idea that males had to stick around and have sex all throughout the cycle or the female might be pregnant with somebody else’s offspring.”

...
“I call that the ‘keep ‘em close’ hypothesis,” Barash says. “He not only has to have sex with her, he has to hang around and take out the garbage and mow the lawn.”

...

On the other hand...

...

But it is also possible, he argues, that hidden ovulation could have given women the ability to mate with other men during a cycle. Since women do not go into heat like most female mammals, they are sexual all the time and even a devoted male can’t guard his female constantly. While he is hunting a mastodon, she can be flirting with the sensitive cave artist across the way and possibly obtain a shot of his arty genes.

...

On the other hand...

...

Or maybe, Barash suggests, a bright red butt on one woman would bring out the worst in other women, whose men might be tempted to do a little gene-spreading. Perhaps if nobody knew who was ready for sperm and who wasn’t, harmony could reign.

...

And on the other hand...

...

His favorite theory for hidden ovulation sounds like Shlain’s. If women did fear childbirth, they may not want as many children as men. If ovulation were not hidden, women might avoid sex during it. “I call this the ‘headache hypothesis’ as in, ‘Not tonight, dear.’” But evolution wins out because women who displayed ovulation may have avoided sex during fertile days, reproduced less and given the upper hand to the offspring of women whose ovulation was less obvious.
“And so, it is those who are ignorant of their own ovulation who have inherited the earth,” Barash says.

...

So I would say, don't take science delving into purpose too seriously. They are out of their league. It is God who has a purpose, for each one of us and all together.