Sex is the battleground as civilized society is under attack by Naturalists. People who believe we evolved from primitive organisms are promoting uncivilized behavior. At the bottom of the destruction of Western Civilization is the belief in evolution. It is the excuse for racism, for baby-murdering, for tyrants murdering millions of "inferior" people (in their eyes) and of course murdering their political enemies. Mao, Hitler, Stalin...all the natural result of Darwinism and the Naturalist philosophies associated with it - Malthusian thought, Socialism, Communism, Eugenics. Presenting three articles for your perusal along the way. The case to be made is that evolution was popularized for non-scientific reasons. Evolution has become an excuse to reject God and therefore Godly morality. The result is a society that gets less civilized every day. The three articles, in order, make the following assertions:
Argument: Evolution of sex
Asexual v. sexual reproduction
Disadvantages of sexual reproduction
Advantages of sexual reproduction
Advantage doesn’t explain origin!
Evolution of sex?
Chimps and bonobos
Sexual morality v. evolutionary psychology
Why an episode on sex?
References and notes
Note about citations: Quotations from the Scientific American article by John Rennie will be labeled ‘SA,’ followed by the page number. Quotations from, and other mentions of, the PBS-TV series ‘Evolution,’ will be labeled ‘PBS,’ followed by the episode number, e.g. ‘PBS 6’ refers to Episode 6. Return to article.
One of the assaults on civilized society is the attack on marriage. There are civil unions that have been provided for those who are not man/woman relationships. The very definition of marriage is a man and a woman. Why do homosexuals and pedophiles work so hard to change what marriage is and destroy the franchise? Easy. Once you allow homosexuals to "marry" then next comes the adult and child marriage relationship. Do you really think the close relationship between NAMBLA and LGBT is all about? Sexual deviants know that as one deviancy becomes accepted, the next one is in line for consideration. Homosexuals are not satisfied with being allowed to maintain relationships, they are militantly seeking to recruit children to become homosexuals as well. Children are being brainwashed in public schools to not only accept homosexuals but to try out the practice for themselves, in many cases this is happening in grade schools, where being taught to be sexually active should be a criminal offense rather than a curriculum requirement.
Make no mistake. Sex was meant to be a blessing, a wonderful part of marriage between a man and a woman. Anything else is a deviation from the original purpose and leads to problems between people, disease, arguments and sometimes death. A good number of Darwinists are hoping for a society that is as depraved as the worst areas of Thailand (an international "vacation spot" for pedophiles) and San Francisco. They were quite clear about this from the start:
“[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Sir Julian Huxley quotes
Does the Bible really teach monogamy?
Origin of marriage
Polygamy’s origins and consequences
What about godly men who were polygamous?
Why did God seem to allow it, then?
SummaryIt's not often that we ask to reproduce an article that has already appeared elsewhere, but this one is exceptional. John Lofton, a Christian, here interviews Craig Palmer, who, along with Randy Thornhill, is one of two evolutionist academic authors of the book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press). The book argues that rape is to be expected on the basis of our alleged evolutionary heritage. Many other evolutionists have attacked the book's thesis; this interview brilliantly spotlights the inconsistency between evolution and the idea of moral values in a society. We do not know the interviewer, but we commend him for his unashamed willingness to confront an unbeliever with the truth, yet in a way that is full of wisdom and insight.
Craig Palmer [CP]: That there is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things. In the book we narrow it down to two plausible specific evolutionary reasons for why we are a species in which rape occurs. One is just a by-product of evolved differences between the sexualities of males and females. Or, two, rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favouring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions.
[CP]: An evolutionary reason is also known as the ultimate level of explanation. It's really the question of why are we the way we are?
And the evolutionary answer is what selective forces favoured those traits in hundreds or thousands of past generations that we eventually end up with today.
[CP]: Oh, absolutely not. That's not—
[CP]: Excuse me?
[CP]: The question of causation is a different question from responsibility. Let me turn it around and say the typical explanation is that culture, your culture, causes you to rape. Why aren't people saying then, 'Oh, then the person can't be responsible because it's their culture, something else that caused them [to rape].'
[CP]: Absolutely. Yes.
[CP]: That's a very good point. But you need to avoid the naturalistic fallacy. What was favoured by natural selection is no more likely to be considered good or bad. You can't just make the assumption that if something is natural, favoured by evolution, that therefore it is good. That is the naturalistic fallacy.
[CP]: I've never heard that term.
[CP]: Oh, oh. Then given those two options, I guess I'd be a naturalist evolutionist.
[CP]: It doesn't come from what was selected for. I suggest that where it comes from is that you look at the consequences; not the causes of a behaviour, whether it's evolved or not, but what are the consequences. And then you are free to choose which consequences you find desirable and good and which should be encouraged, and which consequences you find bad and should be prevented.
[CP]: Because it causes so much human suffering.
[CP]: I would go with that.
[CP]: We're free to deem those things we consider wrong. Let me ask you: Are you a creationist?
[CP]: Ahhhh, I see.
[CP]: No. I was raised Christian, a Congregationalist. I'm now an agnostic. I don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist.
[CP]: You don't like my human suffering answer?
[CP]: That's true. I do not give that ultimate reason. You're right, absolutely right.
[CP]: I actually think that what you say is basically true. I kinda like the view that we have free will to decide what's right and wrong and that we don't have to follow some scriptures.
[CP]: But you have democracies and laws—
[CP]: An individual can decide if cannibalism is fine or whatever. But others have the right to disagree and to enact laws and vote so that persons can't act on that.
[CP]: You also have the rule of the majority in law and that does figure into it.
[CP]: Well, they might if they know the majority has passed laws that will lock them away for the rest of their life.
[CP]: Very interesting.
[CP]: I would agree with you on that one. Absolutely.
[CP]: This may surprise you, but I actually think religion has a good effect on people because it has been the way that generation after generation has passed down moral codes.
[CP]: Could it be possible that my view of how living things came to be, would it be logically consistent—possible—that what I believe is true and yet the teaching of that truth has social consequences that we might consider bad? I think that is possible. And that your view—though not accurate—might have better consequences if taught? I think that's possible.
[CP]: I think there are aspects of religious teaching that have wonderful social consequences and particularly the encouragement of morality and self-restraint that does come with religion and—
[CP]: Sure. OK, this all comes certainly with Christianity. I've written a paper but never published it arguing that all types of sexual crimes increase when religion and moral traditions in general deteriorate.
[CP]: OK. I would agree that there is a correlation between powerful Christian traditions and the lowering of all kinds of crimes, maybe particularly sexual crimes. And I would agree that in our society we have seen Christian traditions weakened.
[CP]: And that (the weakening of Christianity) is a factor responsible for the increase in rape and sexual crimes and violence, murder in our schools, which you've mentioned. So, there is maybe a small point of agreement here.
[CP]: The question is whether the benefit of teaching this outweighs the cost. My view can increase knowledge, generate predictions which can be tested and you discard the ones that aren't met and keep the ones that can increase knowledge. The downside is that my view tends to—you would say it has to—is that it diminishes the role of religion. And I think that religion does make people more co-operative, more self-restrained, nicer, altruistic . . .
[CP]: OK, Christianity, sorry. I'm an anthropologist and am used to talking in those terms. I'll try to stick to Christianity. [My view] turns people away from Christianity. Christians are nicer, more altruistic, more willing to sacrifice for someone else, more willing to restrain themselves for someone else than from someone who does not practise—I would say any religion—than in evolution. So, you have to choose and I've had to choose. What are the benefits of increased knowledge versus the cost of this loss of say Christian behaviour?It's interesting that I actually started a dissertation in graduate school on religion. And what I found was that it was too close of a call for me to make. Yes, I thought I could increase knowledge about religious behaviour, its causes, etc. But in doing so it tended to have the effect on people I convinced of [this that they] would no longer practice their Christianity. I was not at all sure that was a good thing. In fact, I sensed that it was making them more selfish and less cooperative.
[CP]: I understand perfectly. I would try to behave in a nice, caring, non-selfish, restrained way . . .
[CP]: Yes. Exactly. Perfectly put.
[CP]: Yes, the behaviour without having to. . .
[CP]: (Laughing) That's very good.
[CP]: No, not quite. But, I have enjoyed this.