Nakedness, Morality, Evolutionism

A significant influence on some Moral doctrines has been the account in Genesis 3, on the basis of which reproductive processes have become some of the fundamental themes of those doctrines.  However, a careful reading of those passages suggests an inadequacy in the doctrines.  For, contrary to the conventional image of the scenario, Adam and Eve are not 'ashamed' by the realization that they are naked, and God's anger is directed not at their nakedness, but at their coming to realize that they are naked, which they have been all along.  So, the widely accepted premise that shame at being naked reflects the sinfulness of fornication is not faithful to a literal reading of the passage.  Also lost in the popular image of the scenario is another implication of that nakedness.  For, it implies that clothing in Eden is unnecessary, as a protection against cold, wetness, the burning sun, etc., i. e.  that the climate in Eden is unlike that of anywhere known on the planet.  So, conversely, Genesis 3, presents a theory of the origin of clothing in human history.  Now, Evolutionism repudiates the usual focus of the scenario, i. e. by showing that reproductive processes are part of the evolutionary legacy received by humans, and, hence, are nothing new to the first humans, thereby undercutting the Moral tradition that is based on the purported sinful discovery of fornication in the passage.  On the other hand, it is less successful in explaining the invention of clothing, since it has yet to offer a compelling demonstration of how the human loss of fur constitutes an evolutionary advance, the most plausible analysis to date perhaps being the ad hoc speculation that fur would be too hot and/or cumbersome for an organism with the mobility of a human.  Still, that analysis is better grounded than the account that has had significant Moral consequences for centuries.