Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Darwinism - the so-called "scientific excuse" for racism!

Customized by Bob S

Another "accomplishment" of Darwinism was to give racism the excuse of being supported by science.   This reprehensible result of his assertions was the murder and imprisonment of many people whose "crime" was to have darker skin.  With all the racism already in place in the world and an African continent where black and Arab tribes were raiding and selling members of other tribes to slave traders before Darwin published his books, evil men needed little encouragement to take advantage of others anyway.  

Who do you suppose wrote these words in a book entitled "The Descent Of Man", Darwin as quoted from the book.

Darwin on human engineering - “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man............hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” Pages - 138-139

(Radar - By the way, the Nazi propaganda machine converted some of this exact language into their films denouncing Jews and people with medical problems).

Darwin on monkeys and Negroes- “For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descended from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions” Pages - 642-643

(Radar - well now here in America we have abandoned decency and practice infanticide without remorse.  So Darwin may well have been haunted by the results of his books, in fact, in later life he fought depression over this very thing).

Darwin, on the future of Negroes and Australian Aborigines- “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” Pages - 162,163

(Radar - Here, Darwin seems to advocate the extermination of people of color?  While he did not do any such thing, others took his words and did exactly that - kill and stuff people of color for exhibition in museums, capture and cage them like animals for display, have them "neutered" right here in America thanks to Eugenics and the "leadership" of the horrendous Woodrow Wilson).

Charles Darwin was David Dukes' hero, by the way.

Consider the title of his first book:  "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life!"   Favoured Races?! 

 Did Darwin Promote Racism?

When his own words condemn him...

The human heart is a factory for all kinds of evil—including the evil of racism (see Jeremiah 17:9 and Matthew 15:18–19). Still, while Darwin certainly didn’t invent racism, his ideology of evolution has fostered it. Consider the case of Ota Benga—a pygmy from Central Africa, who in 1906 was caged in the Bronx Zoo with an orangutan. Remember the Jews in the gas chambers devised by Hitler to advance the Aryan “master race.” Reflect on the Australian aborigineshunted down in the 1800s by evolutionists in search of the “missing link.”

  Descent of Man

The full title of Darwin’s most famous work included some stark words: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin envisioned the spontaneous formation of simple life evolving into higher forms through the pitiless forces of nature selecting the fittest.
Darwin demonstrated how he believed evolution shaped man in his subsequent book The Descent of Man. In it, he theorized that man, having evolved from apes, had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.”
Darwin wasn’t the first to propose biological arguments for racism, but his works fueled the most ugly and deadly racism. Even evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory” (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977).

  Skin Deep

Darwin’s error was later exposed through the field of genetics. What Darwin didn’t know was that people have the same brown-colored skin pigment called melanin. A person’s genetic makeup determines his potential to produce a certain level of melanin. That’s why we see a range of skin shades in people from light to middle brown to dark. Our differences are only skin deep.
Through an understanding of biblical history and genetics, we see that variations in human skin pigmentation are the result of reshuffling the genetic potential of Adam and Eve and later the eight people aboard the Ark. After the scattering at the Tower of Babel, groups of people became more isolated, allowing for concentration of certain variations within those groups. Thus the development of lighter or darker skin in certain demographic groups has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution, but only the decreased genetic potential for variation in isolated populations.

  One Race—the Human Race

Darwin was wrong. Humans are not split into various races at higher and lower stages of evolution. The Bible makes it clear that God specially created mankind in His image. We are all descendants of Adam, “the first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45), and Eve, “the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). So only one race exists—the human race.
God, who made the world . . . has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord . . . Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead. (Acts 17:2426–2730–31)
No matter what your skin color or ethnic background, your critical need is the same as every other person’s: just like Adam, you have rebelled against your holy Creator and must appear before Him one day.
Thankfully, God will judge the world by the Lord Jesus who died on the Cross as the perfect substitute for sinners who turn to Him in repentance and faith. Jesus Christ’s Resurrection was God’s stamp of approval on His Son’s teachings and sacrificial death for our sin. Knowing this, we echo the words of Revelation 5:9, “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

  Get Answers about Racism

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Sex is the philosophical battleground, Darwinism is the attacking army. On sex, marriage and rape and the opposite positions of Christianity and Darwinism

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:

1) Where did sex come from?  Evolution cannot explain it.
2) What is sex supposed to be in human society?   Darwinists promote deviation from the norm.
3) What is the natural result of an evolutionary view of sex?   Rape.

1)Refuting Evolution 2

Argument: Evolution of sex

Evolutionists say, ‘One of the so-called “problems” of evolution—sexuality—can easily be explained.’
First published in Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 11

PBS 5 was one of the most revealing about the conflicts between evolution and Christianity. The title is ‘Why Sex?’ The usual propaganda is that ‘science’ (stipulatively defined as evolution) is about facts/evidence or ‘how’ questions, while religion deals with values/faith/morals or ‘why’ questions. As explained in chapter 2, this is a faulty distinction, and this episode demonstrates this. Here, evolutionary psychology directly affects questions of sexual morality.
The program also spends much time discussing the advantages of a fully functional sexual reproductive system, but misleadingly implies that this is sufficient to explain its origin.
Sex is said to be more important than life itself, since it enables genes to be passed on to succeeding generations. PBS quotes extensively from Rutgers University evolutionary geneticist Robert Vrijenhoek, who said about sexual reproduction:
That’s our immortality. That’s what connects us to humans on into the future. That’s what’s connected us to all our ancestors in the past. That’s what connects us to the ancestors that were fish, the ancestors that were protozoans, and the ancestors that were bacteria. [PBS 5]
Of course the series merely asserted this connection, apart from dubious implications from some common features (see chapter 6). It’s also important to note how evolution directly impinges on ‘religion’ despite the claims that they are compatible (see chapter 2). Vrijenhoek implies that immortality has nothing to do with survival of the individual.

Asexual v. sexual reproduction

The PBS 5 takes its cameras to Texas, where scientists investigated lizards that were entirely female. They laid eggs that hatched into lizards that were clones of the mother. This is called parthenogenesis, from Greek parthenos (virgin) and Latin genesis (from Greek gignesthai [to be born]). They seemed to do very well, so what’s the point of sex?

Disadvantages of sexual reproduction

Indeed, the program acknowledges that sex has many disadvantages, e.g., only 50 percent of the genes are passed on to an offspring. This means that there is a 50 percent chance of losing a beneficial mutation. And in a stable population (i.e., not changing the number of individuals), there is on average one surviving offspring per parent, so asexual reproduction is twice as efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. Sex also means that an optimal gene configuration can never be passed on in its entirety.
It is also biologically costly to maintain the sex organs, and to maintain mechanisms to stop the male’s immune system destroying his own (genetically different) sperm, and stop the female’s immune system destroying incoming sperm or the offspring she carries (in viviparous organisms). And as will be seen in the sexual selection section below, sometimes sexual displays can be cumbersome and make the organism more vulnerable. Females obviously expend a lot of time and energy if they must bear live young. It takes energy to find a mate, otherwise the organism will die without passing on its genes, and if one sex is eliminated, the species will become extinct. It’s a lot of trouble, considering that asexual organisms such as bacteria reproduce very quickly.
Because of these lizards, the narrator posed the question, ‘Are males really necessary?’ Males eat about half the food, and it means that only half the members of the population (females) are involved directly in bearing young. In an asexual population, all its members bear offspring directly.

Advantages of sexual reproduction

Since sexually reproducing species do well, males must have their uses. PBS 5 then shifts to a pool in Sonora, Mexico, inhabited by a species of minnows, both asexually and sexually reproducing ones. But they are infested with a parasite that causes black spot disease. PBS again quotes geneticist Vrijenhoek, who says that the sexually reproducing minnows are more resistant than the asexual ones.
The researchers invoked the ‘Red Queen Hypothesis,’ invented by Lee van Valen; Alice (in Wonderland) raced the Red Queen, and exclaimed that they had to keep running just to stay in the same relative position. Evolution is supposed to be a race, and the asexual minnows produced clones, then stopped evolving, so are easy targets. But the sexually reproducing minnows produced lots of variation, so presented a moving target. But other evolutionists say, ‘The Red Queen idea is simply a cute name for a zoological myth.’1
This neat hypothesis seemed to be questioned when a drought eliminated the minnows. When the pool was naturally recolonized, the parasites killed the sexually reproducing ones faster. But it turned out that human-introduced sexually reproducing minnows were still the most resistant of all. The natural colonizers turned out to be inbred, so lost the advantage of variability.
So it seems that the variability is a major advantage, and well worth paying the price of transmitting only 50 percent of the genes, and the other disadvantages of males. Sexual reproduction also has a 50 percent chance of losing a harmful mutation without cost to the population (death of an individual).

Advantage doesn’t explain origin!

Creationists can explain the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesn’t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. The hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, so natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently.

Evolution of sex?

PBS 5 features a cute cartoon of two single-celled creatures with eyes, kissing and exchanging genes. Then the narrator intones:
Random change produced a creature that was small and fast, which turned out to be an evolutionary advantage. Organisms with reproductive cells like that are called males. Their goal is to find organisms with a different speciality—providing the nutrients life requires. They’re called females. These early pioneers evolved into sperm and eggs. [PBS 5]
Hang on—not only is slick animation no substitute for evidence, but somewhere along the line this program jumped from alleged male and female single-celled creatures to multicellular organisms containing cells like them. The narrator continued:
Males produce sperm by the millions—with so many potential offspring, it doesn’t pay to be fussy about eggs. A better strategy is to try to fertilize as many eggs as you can. Eggs are more complex than sperm and take a larger investment of energy. Females make a limited number of them. Fewer eggs mean fewer chances to pass on genes, and that means that females—unlike males—do better if they’re choosy. At a deep biological level, males and females want different things, regardless of how things appear on the surface … . Small sperm versus large eggs … . Quantity versus quality. [PBS 5]
At about the same time, the program showed a man and woman under a sheet, probably naked but not showing too much of that, indulging in sexual foreplay, then lots of sequences of animals having sex. Is this program really meant for young schoolchildren?
Then the program explains male competition for mates and ornate sexual displays, while females exercise choice. Supposedly the concept of female choice was often discounted in Victorian England (with a female head of state who ruled for more than 60 years).
But the program shifts to a role-reversing bird in Panama. Supposedly, the crocodiles eat so many chicks that females leave the males in charge of the eggs while they try to reproduce again. The females are the ones that keep harems, and kill chicks and break eggs of other females. The narrator says:
So now it’s the females who care more about quality than quantity. Now it’s the females who fight over mates. Over time, they take on traditionally male characteristics … . So here is an evolutionary revelation about gender. Male and female roles are not set in stone. They’re largely determined by which sex competes for mates, and which invests in the young. [PBS 5]
But before, it was the relative size and speed of sperm and egg that caused males to compete and females to invest more time with their offspring, and other behavioral differences. Now, competition and investment in young are no longer effects but are themselves causes that overturn the roles expected from the differences in gametes. What this really means is that evolution as an explanatory framework is so plastic that its proponents can explain mutually contradictory states of affairs, if they have enough imagination to create plausible just-so stories.
In line with the rest of the series, PBS 5 aims to indoctrinate viewers to think that the origin of sex is well explained by evolution. A decent documentary would not have censored evidence against this view. In reality, evolutionists really have no idea how sex could have evolved. Even the atheist Richard Dawkins says:
To say, as I have, that good genes can benefit from the existence of sex whereas bad genes can benefit from its absence, is not the same thing as explaining why sex is there at all. There are many theories of why sex exists, and none of them is knock-down convincing … . Maybe one day I’ll summon up the courage to tackle it in full and write a whole book on the origin of sex.2
The smug assurances of the PBS program are also contradicted by the evolutionist journal Science: ‘How sex began and why it thrived remain a mystery.’3

Sexual selection

Darwin is most famous for the idea that natural selection is a driving force behind evolution. But he realized that this would not explain a number of features that seem to be a hindrance, e.g., the peacock tail. So Darwin invoked the idea of sexual selection, where choice by the opposite sex played a huge part in determining which individuals were able to pass on their genes. Later on, sexual selection is invoked to explain the human brain.
Creationists deny neither natural nor sexual selection. For example, we think it’s likely that sexual selection augmented natural selection in producing the different people groups (‘races’) from a single population of humans that were isolated after Babel.4
The difference is that creationists recognize that selection can work only on existing genetic information. Evolutionists believe that mutation provides new information for selection. But no known mutation has ever increased genetic information, although there should be many examples observable today if mutation/selection were truly adequate to explain the goo-to-you theory.5

Chimps and bonobos

The common chimpanzee Pan troglodytes and the bonobo (or pygmy chimp) Pan paniscus hybridize, so are the same biblical kind. Sometimes they are classified as the subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes and P.t. paniscus, respectively, within the same species. Although they look similar, live in similar environments, and eat similar food, their behavior is different.
Chimps are violent, and bonobos are peaceful. PBS 5 program shows the San Diego Wild Animal Park, and displays bonobos having ‘every imaginable’ type of recreational copulation, both heterosexual and homosexual, with a running commentary worthy of a hyper-testosteronic adolescent schoolboy.
So how is their behavior explained? Supposedly by female solidarity: they ‘can form alliances and cooperatively dominate males’ whereas the chimp males abuse females. So how to explain female solidarity? ‘A relatively simple change in feeding ecology was responsible for this dramatic difference in social behavior.’ Female bonobos forage on the ground, so have opportunities for social interaction. Female chimps can’t do this because gorillas eat the food on the ground, so females must forage on fruit trees alone. Supposedly a drought two million years ago killed the gorillas, and enabled a population of chimps to forage on the ground and evolve into bonobos. What a pity, says the program, that we didn’t have a similar history and evolve ‘to be a totally different, more peaceful, less violent, and more sexual species.’
As usual, we shouldn’t expect actual evidence for this story. From the available evidence, it’s impossible to prove cause-effect. In other words, how can we disprove that it was the other way round, i.e., that female solidarity didn’t generate ground foraging behavior, or even that a gorilla invasion didn’t cause bonobos to devolve into chimps?

Sexual morality v. evolutionary psychology

A female may well want the male with the best genes to ensure that her offspring are the ‘fittest.’ But her best strategy for offspring survival could be finding a male who will stick around and help her care for the young. The male’s best strategy is to make sure the offspring are his, so monogamy would have a selective advantage.
But other evolutionary forces threaten monogamy. For example, songbirds are monogamous, but sometimes a female will lust after a male with stronger genes. But this is risky—if the ‘husband’ finds out, he could kill the offspring.
Concepts from animals are applied to humans in the new field of evolutionary psychology. In the PBS program, Geoffrey Miller claimed that our brain is too extravagant to have evolved by natural selection. He claimed, ‘It wasn’t God, it was our ancestors,’ via sexual selection, that shaped our brain ‘by choosing their sexual partners for their brains, for their behavior, during courtship.’ Art, music, and humor played the part of the peacock tail.
Supposedly this is borne out by tests of human attraction. Men prefer women’s faces with full lips, indicating high estrogen; and other facial features, indicating low testosterone. Both are indicators of fertility. So now males do make choices despite having fast and small sperm? Once more, evolution explains any state of affairs, so really explains nothing.
Women looking for a short-term fling, or who are ovulating, prefer more masculine faces, indicating ‘good’ genes. But they prefer more feminine ‘gentler’ men for a long-term relationship, because they will be more likely to help care for her children. But appearances can be deceptive. We also wonder whether a face of a person from a different people group would be picked as often, although there is no disadvantage to the offspring’s genes from so-called interracial marriages.6
While there’s a fleeting disclaimer that evolutionary psychology is controversial even among evolutionists, this program presents Miller’s ideas uncritically and unchallenged. But a review of his book, The Mating Mind, in New Scientist said:
How does one actually test these ideas? Without a concerted effort to do this, evolutionary psychology will remain in the realms of armchair entertainment rather than real science.7
A leading evolutionary paleoanthropologist, Ian Tattersall, was equally scathing of Miller’s book:
In the end we are looking here at the product of a storyteller’s art, not of science.8

Why an episode on sex?

In searching for explanations as to why evolutionists would feel passionately enough about their belief system to spend so many millions foisting it upon the public as in the PBS Evolution series, one may not have to look much further than this segment. It is as if those looking for justification of an ‘anything goes’ approach to sexual morality have had a major hand in this segment. With humans already portrayed as just an advanced species of ape, and sex as a mere tool for propagation of genes, the way the program dwelt on the random hetero/homo ‘flings’ of our alleged bonobo ‘cousins,’ and the association with an allegedly superior, more peaceful lifestyle, was telling.

Related Articles

References and notes

  1. L. Margulis and D. Sagan, What Is Sex? (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 121.
  2. R. Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1997), p. 75.
  3. B. Wuethrich, Why Sex? Putting the Theory to the Test, Science 281:1980–1982, 1998.
  4. The human ‘races’ issue is covered more fully in C. Wieland, One Human Family: The Bible, science, race and culture (Creation Book Publishers, 2011).
  5. Note that even if such a mutation were ever discovered, evolutionists would still need to find hundreds more to give their theory the observational boost it desperately needs. See L. Spetner, Not by Chance (New York, NY: Judaica Press, 1999); also see Carl Wieland, CMI’s views on the intelligent design movement, 30 August 2002.
  6. K. Ham, Inter-racial marriage: is it biblical? Creation 21(3):22–25, June–August 1999.
  7. T. Birkhead, Strictly for the Birds, review of The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, New Scientist, p. 48–49, 13 May 2000.
  8. I. Tattersall, Whatever Turns You On. Review of The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, New York Times Book Review, 11 June 2000.

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.   

Once homosexuality is allowed to steal marriage, then the next goal for the deviants is to normalize adult-child marriages.   NAMBLA is focused on adult men having sex with children, and they are tilted towards homosexual relationships.   Men in the NAMBLA want to normalize a sexual relationship between a 50 year old man and a 7 year old boy and hoping for a marriage law that includes this scenario.   They want "Gay Marriage" to become law, then they will go after the ages so that it will become legal for people to marry young teenagers and then children.   You don't think so?

Adults, what do you think your grandparents would think about "Gay Marriage?"   Men who put their lives on the line to defeat Hitler would be angered to see the elements of Fascism that have invaded our society.   The vast majority of the generation that stepped up to defeat tyranny and the holocaust would see elements of Hitler's Germany becoming accepted in the USA in the 21st Century and they'd be angry.   I am angry.  You should be angry! 
As a society we decided to allow sexual deviancy to exist and not be criminal activity, at least homosexuality.   But now it has become celebrated and is being promoted.   How many television dramas and comedies are bringing in happy homosexuals to the fore?  Quite often they are a caricature, effeminate males and aggressive females as homosexuals in sitcoms, often "artsy" and so often being portrayed as bullied.  Yet it is the homosexual community and their allies who are being belligerent    It is propaganda and it is everywhere in the media.   Movies,  television shows, most newspapers and major news media all in it together, promoting a "new morality" which is nothing more than the old immorality.

If you are a Christian or simply a patriotic American who believes in traditional values, the values our nation has stood for since the late 18th Century, you should be concerned and angry at the attack on our morality.

There is no comparison to civil rights here.   No one should be prejudiced against people of different religions or different nationalities.   You are born with the racial heritage that you inherit from your parents.   You are guaranteed freedom of (not from) religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  But there is no comparison between the kind of sex you wish to have and the genetic makeup you were born with, as there is no "gay gene" and people are NOT born homosexuals.   Homosexuals may be "made" primarily through the events of childhood and possibly their personality may tend towards that particular deviancy.  But this is not a reason to normalize it.

You may like to steal things from others.   You may get a thrill from killing living beings.   Perhaps you would like to kill people because it thrills you.  Maybe you like beating people up for the kicks?   Those things you desire to do will get you put in jail IF YOU DO THEM.   But people who take control over their ungodly desires and do not follow through do not commit crimes and do not go to jail.   I've certainly been angry enough at someone to want to beat them, haven't you?   Anger is a common human emotion.  But civilized people control their urges and do not follow up on them.   Let's face it, if you could walk into a bank and demand 50,000 dollars with impunity, you would likely do it.  Why not?  Law based on an absolute moral code made the society of the United States relatively civil for over 200 years.   But it was around the 200 year mark where we began to see the wheels coming off.   School prayer banned, then legalized murder of babies, now sexual deviancy not only being accepted but lionized.

I lived close to San Francisco at one time.   Even in the 1970's, going into the "gay districts" was close to dangerous and it was not unlikely that you might meet a man wearing a dress when you hopped on a trolley car.   Now all you have to do is go to Zombietime to see how San Francisco resembles Sodom and Gomorrah. (Not safe for children or work).   Hey, USA?   San Francisco is your future!    Indianapolis, San Antonio, Philadelphia, Atlanta, this really what you want the country to become? 

So what if you want to be a homosexual?   Keep it to yourself.   Your urges have been legalized.   It doesn't mean they are right.   It is part of the degradation of society.  Right now you can murder your baby.   Baby murdering is far worse than homosexual activity.   Homosexuals have more STDs, more partner abuse, they have been shown to (if they raise children) to be less effective parents and no surprise there.  They are also invading churches!  But up to now being a homosexual does not give you the right to murder heterosexuals...unless they are in the womb.

A Christian church is supposed to be a place where Biblical values are taught and respected.   Homosexuals are welcome in church but homosexuality should be identified as a sin problem, just like lying and stealing and murdering and adultery.  Women who have had abortions are welcome in churches as well.   In fact there are many former drug addicts, homosexuals, women who are depressed over aborting children, alcoholics, all seeking counseling and help to build a better life going forward.   Church is in part a hospital for hurting people who have seen sin problems ruin their lives.  Normal Christian churches recognize Biblical truth and are there to help sinners overcome problems rather than condemn them.   The normal church is there to help people have a better life, not beat them up for doing something wrong.

But some churches have lost their way.  Some churches believe they should accept what secular society accepts.  Some churches actually teach that evolution is true!!!  The idea that evolution is true is the key to destroying society.  Maybe Charles Darwin had no intention of destroying common decency and morality in society.  But the promoters of Darwinism certainly did!  For a church to support the very forces that seek to destroy Christianity is to cast doubt on the idea that it is even a church.  For an organization like BioLogos to abandon the Bible to accept the ever-changing opinions of fallible men means they should simply abandon any link to Christianity and admit they have compromised their beliefs and kowtowed to Darwinism.

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

2)One man, one woman

Does the Bible really teach monogamy?

one man one woman

Origin of marriage

The clearest evidence that monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matthew 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Genesis 1:27and 2:24, saying “the two will become one flesh”, not more than two.
Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy—Jesus will not have multiple brides.
The 10th Commandment “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife [singular] … ” (Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Timothy 3:2). And this is not just for elders, because Paul also wrote: “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Paul goes on to explain marital responsibilities in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife.
The example of godly people is also important. Isaac and Rebekah were monogamous—they are often used as a model in Jewish weddings today. Other examples were Joseph and Asenath, and Moses and Zipporah. And the only survivors of the Flood were four monogamous couples.

Polygamy’s origins and consequences

It is very important to remember that not everything recorded in the Bible is approved in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated—first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Genesis 4:23–24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Genesis 26:34).
Skeptics often try to discredit this teaching by pointing to examples of multiple wives in the Bible. But what does the Bible really teach?
God also forbade the kings of Israel to have “many wives” (Deuteronomy 17:17). Look at the trouble when Israel’s kings disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David’s sons from his different wives (2 Samuel 13, 1 Kings 2); and Solomon’s hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–3).

What about godly men who were polygamous?

Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife—note how much strife this caused later with Ishmael and Isaac and their descendants to this day (Genesis 16, 21). Jacob wanted only Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters’ urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Samuel 25:42–43). Also, Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah because of Hannah’s previous barrenness (1 Samuel 1:1–7).

Why did God seem to allow it, then?

God’s permitting of polygamy seems more like the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts. But it was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matthew 19:8). Whenever the Mosaic law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional: “If he takes another wife to himself … ” (Exodus 21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations on the husband towards the additional wives, which would discourage polygamy. In view of the problems it causes, it is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.

Related Articles

While Christianity is the foundation of civilized society, Darwinism actually encourages or at least explains rape as part of the mechanism of evolution!

Evolution shows its true colours


It'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.

[Ed. note: This article may not be appropriate for younger readers.]
John Lofton [JL]: So, how would you sum up what your book is saying?
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.
[JL]: What do you mean when you say evolutionary reasons?
[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.
[JL]: So, if men rape for evolutionary reasons then they are not responsible for their rape?
[CP]: Oh, absolutely not. That's not—
[JL]: How could they be responsible? To what?
[CP]: Excuse me?
[JL]: Evolutionary man would be responsible to what? To whom?
[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].'
[JL]: I assume you think rape is wrong and should be a crime.
[CP]: Absolutely. Yes.
[JL]: But, if we just evolved, how can there be any right and wrong?
[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.

[JL]: But, you're a naturalistic evolutionist, right?
[CP]: I've never heard that term.
[JL]: I mean, you either think that God caused evolution, and that's the way people were created. Or it all just happened naturally.
[CP]: Oh, oh. Then given those two options, I guess I'd be a naturalist evolutionist.
[JL]: Then I repeat my question: Where would right and wrong come from in a completely natural world where things just happen?
[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.
[JL]: But let's take this conversation out of the realm of the abstract. I'm talking to you, Dr Palmer. You say rape is wrong and should be illegal, right?
[CP]: Absolutely.
[JL]: But, if there was no law against rape, why would you be for making it illegal? Why do you think it is wrong? By what standard is rape wrong?
[CP]: Because it causes so much human suffering.
[JL]: But this begs the question. Why is it wrong to cause human suffering? In naturalistic, evolutionary terms, what is a human that it is wrong to make one suffer? I mean, you believe that humans are accidents, they just happened.
[CP]: I would go with that.
[JL]: So, why would it be wrong then to make humans suffer if they just happened?
[CP]: We're free to deem those things we consider wrong. Let me ask you: Are you a creationist?
[JL]: I'm a Christian who believes the Bible.
[CP]: Ahhhh, I see.
[JL]: Are you a Christian?
[CP]: No. I was raised Christian, a Congregationalist. I'm now an agnostic. I don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist.
[JL]: The reason men rape is because of Original Sin. This very easily explains rape. But because you're an unbeliever, you have no real answer as to why rape is wrong.
[CP]: You don't like my human suffering answer?
[JL]: As I've said, this begs the question because you don't say why causing human suffering is wrong. I say, because I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, that rape is wrong and human beings ought not to be made to suffer, because God says this is wrong. God says rape is a capital crime. And making humans suffer is wrong because we are made in God's image. But, you can't say any of this.
[CP]: That's true. I do not give that ultimate reason. You're right, absolutely right.
[JL]: You still say rape is wrong, however. But, where would right and wrong come from in an evolutionary world where things just happen? Isn't there a problem here, from your perspective?
[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.
[JL]: But, if we have this free will that means that each one of us can decide for ourselves if rape is right or wrong. A rapist can decide that rape is OK for him. And a rape victim can decide that rape is not OK for this victim. If all this is true, then there is no right or wrong regarding rape. There are just different opinions.
[CP]: But you have democracies and laws—
[JL]: But you say individuals decide about rape being right or wrong according to their free will.
[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.
[JL]: But your free will, everybody-decide-for-himself-what's-right-or-wrong view, by definition, means that there is no transcendent, absolute argument against rape or anything else.
[CP]: You also have the rule of the majority in law and that does figure into it.
[JL]: Not at all. This doesn't, necessarily, bind individuals. In fact, what you just said is just one more opinion that I can accept or reject according to my free will, as you see it. Do you really think rapists respect majority rule?
[CP]: Well, they might if they know the majority has passed laws that will lock them away for the rest of their life.
[JL]: But see, the problem you have is that the way you reason—and the only way you can reason as a naturalistic evolutionist—is that everyone decides for himself, according to his own free will—which he does not have but thinks he does—what's right and wrong. And this means there is no right and wrong, that everybody just makes up his own religion, his own right and wrong. And this is exactly the situation we have in our society today, which is why we have moral chaos! In fact, this is what God talks about in the book of Judges in the Old Testament—a time in Israel's history when they, too, were in chaos because 'every man did that which was right in his own eyes' (Judges 21:25).
[CP]: Very interesting.
[JL]: It is. But, tell me this, please. For generations now, in our public, government-run schools, your view has been taught. Kids have been taught evolution, that they are animals who evolved from lower forms of animal life. How do you think this is working? I don't think it is working.
[CP]: I would agree with you on that one. Absolutely.
[JL]: So, why doesn't this shake your belief then? If you can honestly say that the teaching of your view is not working, why doesn't this shake your viewpoint?
[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.
[JL]: But, I'm not talking about just 'religion'. I'm not a religionist. I don't believe 'religion' saves anybody. 'Religion' is something people babble about and praise when they don't know what they are talking about. 'Religion' isn't, necessarily, good or bad. It depends on whether you're talking about a true or false religion.
[CP]: Ahh.
[JL]: But, again, why do you cling to a view that you admit has not worked when taught to our kids in the public, government-run schools? Do you care if reality refutes what you believe?
[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.
[JL]: (Laughing) Oh, boy. One of the things I have on my resume is that I thank God I never went to college—which is why I am so smart.
But, no, your view is not possible because it contradicts the Word of God. Your view is an interesting evasion to try and get you out of the corner you are in. But, it is not possible.
The consequences of teaching your view are bad because what you believe is bad, is false! But, if you really believe that your view when taught has bad consequences, where does this leave you? And what should be taught in the schools?
[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—
[JL]: Again, please, forget 'religion'. I'm not a religionist. I'm defending Christianity.
[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.
[JL]: You mean Christianity since there are no 'moral traditions in general'. The reason I'm so touchy on this matter is because God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is to be given the glory for all good things that happen. And He is robbed of this glory when one speaks of 'moral traditions in general'.
[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.
[JL]: You're a master of the under-statement.
[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.
[JL]: But, where does this leave you and what you believe? If the secular humanist order is collapsing all over the world—and it is—where does this leave you when you admit this view has bad consequences when taught? And what are these bad consequences of teaching naturalistic evolution?
[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 . . .
[JL]: But, we're back to 'religion'.
[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.
[JL]: But, when you—as an unbeliever—worry about people falling away from their Christianity, when you are not a Christian, [it] makes you a hypocrite! Seriously, how can you do this when you, too, reject Christianity?
[CP]: I understand perfectly. I would try to behave in a nice, caring, non-selfish, restrained way . . .
[JL]: A Christ-like way, you mean. The Christ in whom you do not believe!
[CP]: Yes. Exactly. Perfectly put.
[JL]: Your problem is that you want Christianity without Christ.
[CP]: Yes, the behaviour without having to. . .
[JL]: But, you're not going to get it! You will not get Christianity without Christ! You will not get the fruit without the tree! See?
[CP]: Uh-huh.
[JL]: You remind me of a story that was told about the French atheist Voltaire (1694-1778). It is said that when he had atheist friends over for dinner they spoke openly, while being served, of their atheism. But, Voltaire told them to shut up, that he didn't want such godless talk in front of the hired help because if they believed this they might murder him in his sleep and rob him.
[CP]: (Laughing) That's very good.
[JL]: And it's very true, too, and applicable to you! What you need to do is repent of your sin of unbelief and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You need to admit that your godless philosophy has been a dismal failure. But, you're not there yet.
[CP]: No, not quite. But, I have enjoyed this.

Reprinted with kind permission of the internet newspaper
John Lofton is a US journalist, syndicated columnist and TV commentator on political and cultural/religious issues.
Both and Answers in Genesis are two of the many great organizations formed by scientists who, in the tradition of Newton, Bacon and the other great Theistic scientists of the past, advance the cause of science with the understanding that God created a logical Universe which mankind can comprehend in order to utilize the resources available to them.   You will find many more great organizations in my links list, but I have only a fraction of the many great groups of scientists and philosophers listed there.   More and more scientists are realizing the utter paucity of evidence to support evolution and are looking for real answers and people who, like them, are willing to consider all possibilities and not simply the ones that Atheists and Naturalists prefer.
Philosophy is the foundation of science.   You cannot separate science and worldview.  When anyone tells you science is, by default, a Naturalistic discipline, they are lying to you or they are themselves living a lie.   Before anyone ever makes a scientific statement, it was formed on the foundation of a worldview.
I am absolutely a Christian, a Young Earth Creationist and absolutely certain that supernatural formed the natural.   My science can explain the Universe and the Solar System and the surface features of Earth as well as the existence of organisms and the life that is in them.    Darwinism fails to do any of these things.   I am also asserting that Darwinism is hazardous to the health of a society and therefore all of mankind.