Is there a reasoning behind why mother raises a child going through a lot of pain and problems., headchaes. Is mother being logical doing things without expecting return? In eyes of Science, are mothers unreasonable beings? (I am alive thanks to my mom). In the eyes of science if I am not mistaken mothers actions can not be explained in scientific terms. or with theory of evolution.
2006-09-13 06:54:39 · 8 answers · asked by V 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sure, science can. Neurological and pattern imprinting, emotional trauma associations, psychological bonding through dependency, personality resonance, behavioral conditioning, etc. All valid psychological models, and all explain the observable behaviors and biochemical/limbic reactions that are referred to as maternal love.
Is that the only way it can be explained? No. But it does answer most of the questions, so it is at least one valid set of explanations.
You can't ever prove something by arguing that some other theory doesn't answer the questions. That's not a valid scientific proof. If you want to prove something, you need to prove that it DOES answer the questions, better than any other theory.
2006-09-13 06:59:32 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the mother's actions CAN be described in the terms of evolution, and the fact that therer are some mothers who seem to be emotionally detached from their children is not evidence away from this fact, but evidence in fact FOR evolution.
If God created all people to be loving and caring for their offspring, then you would never see abandonment of this ideal. Of course, admitting that people are imperfect, you would find that some 'reject' this 'divine inspiration' but it would still 'be there'.
Psychology shows that those mothers who are able to reject their children are incapable of the various emotional states needed to create that bond, be it biological or pathological.
Only the fact of gene-oriented evolution can explain this. At some point in our past, we were not an entirely altruistic species. At some point, as our brain structures evolved, a gene which predisposed mothers towards altruism specifically to their children (as seen in other mammals, so this gene already probably existed, its statistical expression is all that changed) developed or became predominant. This would have been highly beneficial because it would have increased the rate of children reaching sexual maturity, and since they'd likely carry this gene, they'd express the same care towards their own offspring.
However, in a communal group, the non-altruists would share in the benefit of this gene, so while the expression of the non-altruistic predisposition would be lowered, it would never entirely vanish.
How does your creation explain the inability for some mothers to bond properly with their offspring? Are they just possessed? That's inventing an agent, and occam's razor says the principle that invents the fewest agents is usually correct. Are they simply imperfect because God screwed up making them (how else could you describe the act of creating a woman who could not love her children)? That's also inventing an agent.
So where's the logic in creationism here?
2006-09-13 07:04:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Science makes a stab at explaining it, and the product is a scientific model utterly devoid of beautiful things such as self-sacrifice and tenderness.
That is, there are scientific models that discuss how it is evolutionarily explainable--that a mother's love for a child protects the young of the species so that they may grow to sexual maturity themselves and continue the cycle of reproduction. Which is all well and good, and is entirely plausible.
But when it comes to throwing oneself in front of a semi to save the life of the child, or giving up one's own temporal dreams so that the child may better thrive, some science refers back ceaselessly upon itself, asserting that this is all part of instinct within the species.
It has yet to satisfactorily explain why a healthy 35-year-old will throw herself in front of a semi to save an ailing 80-year-old from getting run down, however, which goes against the love-to-promote-reproduction model.
2006-09-13 07:05:28 · answer #3 · answered by Gestalt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science can certainly explain the love between mother and child. It's a sort of symbiotic relationship. The child came from the mother's womb. It's also the oedipus complex ,a psychiatric concept by Carl Jung for the males to be emotionally attached to mothers. Then, there's the maternal instincts to protect her young just like the behaviors studied in gorillas.
2006-09-13 07:07:57 · answer #4 · answered by rosieC 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You don't see how a mother's instinct to protect her child isn't a part of evolution in action? It helps ensure the propagation of the species. You can see it everywhere from the insect world to human beings. It's elementary. If you're trying to disprove the theory of evolution you're going to have to do better than this, sorry.
2006-09-13 07:00:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's a distinctive thing for humans as well as animals so that the weak babies would find a humane being care for him till he grow up and become independent needing no more external support, I think.
2006-09-13 07:36:46 · answer #6 · answered by Green visitor is back :D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A species who doesnt care for its young would not last very long.
2006-09-13 06:57:27 · answer #7 · answered by Rob 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
SCIENCE CAN DEFINATELY TELL YOU THAT GOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
2006-09-13 07:06:21 · answer #8 · answered by kscottbrady2003 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋