Sexual ethics and evolution

I'll begin by clarifying some of my comments on the Spirit's role in evolution two posts prior. First, this little line of enquiry is entirely experimental. It's a "suppose if" about the fact of evolution, although I am becoming more and more convinced of its veracity. Second, I hold strongly to creative, covenantal monotheism (the deity being YHWH, the God of Israel), and I don't think evolution diminishes this god's power, authority, or prestige in any way. In fact, the creative Spirit is given more room to work, and the only thing stopping him is creatures who are evolutionarily defiant. That is, they choose not to keep the standard of fully evolved humanity and instead revert to animalism.

Now, regarding sexuality, we see in the animal kingdom many different expressions. There's one fish, which in the right circumstance, can reproduce asexually, that is, with no sex act but the necessary sex cells are provided solely by the female. Other species, such as cattle, elk, elephants, gorillas, etc., have a dominant male who spreads his genetics to the females in order to ensure the survival of the species. I've heard that some eagles and cranes may mate for life. We see almost this full diversity of reproductive behavior in humans (which I'm using for Homo sapiens partially realized, not necessarily "fully human"). In fact, Bloodhound Gang has memorably expressed an "unevolved" sexuality with the line, "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."

So what if we "just do what comes naturally"? I think we fulfill a valid heritage from our ancestry. The Biology of Sin has been immensely helpful to my thinking in this regard. Accomplished neuroscientist Matt Stanford takes the concept of sinful behavior and chases down what is happening in the human body when the sin becomes compulsive. I cringe every time I think this, but perhaps those who follow their instincts are simply not as evolved as people who do not. (Caveat: More highly evolved people in this schema would also be humble. Also, we all lack evolution in some ways. Those who know me know that I can't control my tongue, making me a foolish communicator. But by God's Spirit, I am evolving.) So the compulsion that most guys feel to look at a woman a second time is probably a survival mechanism. It's his body's deep way of attempting to preserve what it assumes is some awesome DNA.

This leads to the question of the "fittest" that get to survive. There is a myth out there that people who limit their behavior for religious reasons are pansies. Actually, these people have more self-control, and they're following a blueprint for the most successful possible human existence. While animal behavior turns to infighting to prove dominance . . . Let's start over here. That sounds too much like a human office. Less evolved forms of life fight amongst themselves to prove dominance, get the best mate, secure the best domicile, etc. For gorillas, the proving of dominance is perfectly natural. It is the thing they do for their species to survive. But humans have ingenuity. This leads to medicine, which leads to someone like me with crappy DNA that causes diabetes to survive long enough to procreate and saddle their sweet little girl with a higher chance of developing diabetes. We can find ways to procreate and survive that don't involve beating our chests and shouting. Although, adolescent males don't often figure that out till much later.

So what is the profile of the "fittest" according to the New Testament? Be humble and gentle. Love. Serve. Give up your life for others. And Jesus alludes to exactly that: "The one who seeks to preserve their biological life will lose it. But the one who holds to biological life loosely will be rewarded with more satisfying life now and excellent life in the age to come." What is the effect of this behavior in human community? Peace. Flourishing. But beware the moment a gorilla in a man suit comes in trying to take control or prove something. Fear invades. People start getting defensive. Everyone begins to look down in their hands at that precious little thing called survival, and they clutch it tighter. And survival dies a little. That community just experienced evolutionary regression.

Now what about the fittest human sexuality? (Not necessarily what Ali G is describing when he calls a woman "fit.") I'm only going to attempt to describe this from a male perspective, because it's what I live every day. It's a trusting, committed relationship in which offspring can be borne who will learn the parents' fit behavioral traits and hopefully get nice genes along the way. The male will still look at women other than his wife and feel a procreative urge. But he tells himself thankfully that the Creator has supplied a fit partner with whom the family has an excellent chance of survival. And then he realizes that if he were to tend toward more basic mammalianism that he could possibly lose everything that he in his fitness has striven for.

So is sanctification evolution? I kind of like that idea. Regardless, our lives are all cradled in the hand of God. But as humans begin to willingly behave as God requests, we look more and more like the ideal human, Jesus. We don't necessarily need to become X-Men in order to have taken an evolutionary step. I believe Homo sapiens is the most biologically evolved species, even if we may not be the strongest or the fastest mammals. What makes us different is the complexity of behavior and communication that can enhance our survivability. So I think it is behavior that is the penultimate horizon of evolution. The only evolving that remains after that is for God's kingdom to become fully present at the resurrection.