new

The invisible hand of marriage is unseen force of productivity that results from the marriage of a man and woman.^[1]

The invisible hand of marriage is more powerful and influential than the "invisible hand" identified by Adam Smith in economics. Indeed, the source of productivity from Smith's invisible hand has been erroneously attributed to purely economic considerations, without properly factoring in the productive force of marriage. Self-interest and greed are not the primary driving forces of the invisible hand, but marriage is.

Key elements of the invisible hand of marriage include:

* the powerful incentive to work for the benefit of someone else who needs your efforts, such as a spouse or child
* the motivation to work for a future that will likely extend beyond one's own life
* the checks and balances against unproductive activity, anxiety, depression and addiction, from the very different perspectives of a man and a woman
* the insights and wisdom that result from complementary outlooks by a man and woman in marriage
* the pushing and prodding, analogous to what a supervisor, coach or sergeant does, that encourages and compels people in marriage to achieve their best
* a division of labor that enables each spouse to work on what he or she does best

(add to or improve this list)

Same-sex marriage

There is no invisible hand of marriage if the spouses have the same gender. Virtually none of the above elements exist in same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is a recipe for unproductive activity, anxiety, depression and addition, with the enormously beneficial checks and balances provided by traditional marriage.

References

1. ? This concept was first discovered and developed on Conservapedia. When this entry was generated here, a Google search on "invisible hand of marriage" did not find a single reference on the internet: "No results found for 'invisible hand of marriage.'"

When it comes to the matter of schools and evolution, the primary motive for teaching evolution in schools is to attract students to atheism and/or a naturalistic worldview at a early age and in a way that is not easily challenged by many parents. In other words, teaching evolution puts youngsters on a path towards atheism. The better the student, the more positive the reinforcement, and the more likely this approach will attain its desired effect.

If schoolchildren were permitted to believe (and say) that evolution is less likely than intelligent design, it would contradict the philosophical underpinnings of unguided evolution. This would lead students to question, even to reject, such materialist philosophies as atheism and secular humanism.

A more honest way of teaching about evolution would not be to present it as an unquestionable dogma, but simply to tell pupils what it is, how many scientists of various types believe in it; then to present all the scientific evidence for and against it.

For students who are mature enough to understand the philosophical implications, say, beginning with the upper three grades of high school, educators could explain the ideological links between evolution and various philosophical and political schools of thought: materialism, atheism, eugenics, Nietzsche, etc.

Similar links could be explored for ideas which criticize evolution, such as intelligent design which accepts some aspects of evolution while denying the lack of guidance, and creationism, which begins with the premise that God created everything.