Darwinists Are Sexual Perverts
Rationalizing perversion is just as
blameworthy as engaging in it
— Accomplices to crime are punished as severely as perpetrators —
The driver of a getaway car gets the same penalty as the bank robber. There are levels of complicity, however. What would a fair-minded person think, for instance, of a politician or academic professor who rationalized a murder by teaching that the murderer couldn’t help himself, because he was genetically determined to do it? What if the professor was an evolutionary anthropologist who claimed that the murderer evolved to be a violent criminal? The professor may not have given the criminal the weapon, but aided and abetted criminal behavior by rationalizing it. He may have actually motivated a criminal to commit murder based on the evolutionary excuse.
Such a rationalization of murder was given by the notorious defense attorney Clarence Darrow who, in defending murderers Leopold and Loeb in 1924, told the judge, “Nature made them do it, evolution made them do it, Nietzche made them do it” (American Experience; West, Darwin Day in America, pp 45-49). Darrow would go on the next year to defend Darwin in the famous Scopes “Monkey” Trial.
Darwinians have much blood on their hands from their defense of eugenics and scientific racism in the early 20th century. In his thoroughly-referenced book Darwinian Racism, UC historian Richard Weikart (Discovery Institute, 2022) cited numerous leading German scientists from Haeckel through the 1940s who not only taught that Darwinism-based eugenics and “racial science” represented laws of nature, but actively participated in the Reich with publications, propaganda, lectures and official positions. Hitler relied on these scientists to justify his atrocities. They were accomplices to the Holocaust.
In the same way, Darwinians have long treated sexual perversion as normal and natural. No theist denies that human biological sex is good, both as a pleasurable gift of God and a means to fulfill his command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28, Genesis 9:1). Indeed, sexual intercourse, the “facts of life,” is universally celebrated as a biological necessity for all sexually reproducing species. But theists also understand that sexual perversion is condemned in the Ten Commandments and throughout the Bible. Hebrews 13:4 specifies the line; “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” Sex has a normal, natural function in marriage to pair bond with bodily pleasure, increase intimacy and love, and to raise a family.
Any good thing can be abused. A hand can tenderly caress and encourage; it can also punch. A foot can be used to walk or to kick someone. Sexual organs and the normal sexual urge can be a highlight of married life, or be twisted to abuse, damage, and destroy. There is freedom in limits. Think of the freedom for a traveler who stays within the lanes; a family can tour the country in comfort. Then think of the damage caused when someone breaks the traffic laws, drives on the wrong side of the road or off into a ditch, or drives drunk.
To Darwinians, though, whatever is, is right. Whatever happens, evolved. If animals do it, it must be normal. Some of the most notorious perverts of the 20th century (e.g., Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey) were avid Darwinians. And in these current times of rampant licentiousness, the Darwinians are found running alongside everyone pursuing “anything goes” sexual behavior and telling them, ‘What you are doing is natural and normal.’
If anyone doubts that Darwinians are sexual perverts in terms of aiding and abetting perversion with ‘scientific’ rationalizations, read the following news items. Are they not accomplices to crime?
A ‘user’s manual for the female mammal’ — how women’s bodies evolved (Book Review, Nature, 3 Oct 2023). Josie Glausiusz clearly had a blast reading Cat Bohannon’s new book Eve: How the Female Body Drove 200 Million Years of Human Evolution (Knopf, 2023). Josie is glad to see female bodies get more recognition in evolutionary theory for a change. “The female perspective is often missed in evolutionary tales, but it is at the centre of what makes us human,” she says. Pay attention to that phrase “evolutionary tales,” because that is what the book and the review is all about.
The reference to the Biblical first woman has no resemblance to Bohannon’s concept. Bohannon teaches about 7 “Eves” in evolution: the first furry mammal to give milk, the first to grow nipples, the first to bear live young, and so on. Here’s where Bohannon’s role as accomplice for perversion is clearly stated in Josie’s review:
Bohannon doesn’t shy away from the complex question of gender identity. It is our “huge, lumpy, terribly intelligent brain” that produces an experience of identifying as a woman, she says, and not the presence or absence of specific genitalia. “All atypical sexualities and gender identities are fundamentally ‘natural’,” she writes, “because nothing a body does (including its associated mind, which is itself a product of the body) could ever be unnatural.”
Did you catch that? The mind is an evolved product of a body, which evolved from beasts. What’s the logical conclusion? Live it up, do anything you want with sex, because it’s all natural.
From the first, this book and review are utterly careless about the facts. It starts with a large graphic of a female Ardipithecus, claiming it was an upright walking human ancestor. As Casey Luskin reported at Evolution News (25 Oct 2022), hundreds of crushed and broken pieces of bone had to be assembled to justify that interpretation. Other scientists say the bones came from a quadrupedal ape (Luskin, 26 Feb 2021). Bohannon also relies on hominin status for Homo habilis (“the Eve of Tools”), the bones of which were most likely scraps of ape bones hunted for food by early humans who made the tools. A series of speculative leaps announces the arrival of each new evolutionary innovation in just-so story form. These gaffes should immediately disqualify the opinions of the book and reviewer. But Nature printed it anyway, becoming an accomplice in the factual distortions used to justify sexual perversion.
The reviewer seems gleeful about all the perverted sex that this book justifies. She ends,
The nature of what’s ‘natural’ is a topic of her final chapter, ‘Love’. As she notes, promiscuity, male domination and sexual coercion all have precedents in the worlds of chimpanzees and ducks. The one distinctively human trait, she writes, is the unusual way that we love each other: “our distinctive, complex, often bizarre and overpowering love bonds, and the way we’re able to extend those loving bonds to people we’re not related to”.
Author and reviewer rationalize “anything goes” sexual activity. But on what logical or scientific ground could they disapprove of “promiscuity, male domination and sexual coercion” which are not trending very well these days? On Darwin’s highway system, there are no lanes, lights, or rules. Whatever increases one’s “fitness” is fair game. Does that include child sex trafficking, child porn, and pedophilia? The list of sexual perversions engaged in by modern ‘hominids’ is too gross and ugly to mention.
Metaphors for human fertilization are evolving, study shows (Yale University, 2 Oct 2023). This is a naked attempt by woke professors at Yale to justify transgenderism with evolutionary theory. “While the metaphor of an active sperm and a passive egg has long been used to describe fertilization,” Mike Cummings says, “a more gender-egalitarian approach is circulating.” He praises a 1991 study by an evolutionary anthropologist, Emily Martin, celebrating how far we have come (whether upward or down a slippery slope is the reader’s call):
In the three decades since Martin’s study, Almeling said, scholars and advocates have increasingly challenged the presumption of heterosexuality and the categorization of bodies as either male or female.
Strangely, evolutionary biologists never attribute multiple genders to animals. They only seem to attribute “gender fluidity” to humans who grew up in recent Western cultures. People in other cultures are incredulous that anyone thinks that way, as shown in Matt Walsh’s film, What Is a Woman?
The evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals (Gómez et al., Nature Communications, 3 Oct 2023). This paper strives to be objective in its survey of same-sex behavior among mammals, defines terms, and makes distinctions about human behavior. It is not scientific malpractice to observe animal behavior. A line is crossed, however, when evolutionary theory is used as a justification for it being considered normal and natural for human beings. At one point they say,
This behaviour should be distinguished from homosexuality as a more permanent same sex preference, as found in humans. For this reason, our findings cannot be used to infer the evolution of sexual orientation, identity, and preference or the prevalence of homosexuality as categories of sexual beings.
In the very next sentence, however, they use evolution as a rationale for explaining human homosexual behavior:
Nevertheless, even taking into account this cautionary note, by using phylogenetic inference, our study may provide a potential explanation on the evolutionary history of the occurrence of same-sex sexual behaviour in humans.
By “phylogenetic inference,” they are saying that humans are merely members of a line of mammals including primate apes that engage in same-sex behavior. Darwinian evolution, therefore, can be “a potential explanation” for it—and if humans do it, it must be natural. Earlier in the paper, they suggest once again that same-sex behavior is a primate thing:
Same-sex sexual behaviour is particularly prevalent in nonhuman primates, where it has been observed in at least 51 species from lemurs to apes. This sexual behaviour is not limited to one sex or to the existence of artificial conditions, as it has been observed in males and females both in captivity and in wild conditions. Same-sex sexual behaviour is also frequent in humans, existing throughout most of our history and in many societies and cultures.
They admit, though, that reports of such behavior among “nonhuman primates” vary in quality and reliability.
We recognize that there may be some limitations in our database, and in our overall conclusions, caused by the lack of information on the sexual behaviour of many mammalian species and by the existence of incomplete data (false negatives). We have tried to overcome these caveats by controlling for the intensity of the research and conducting multiple statistical tests, although we are aware that this does not completely eliminate the limitations.
Another way they rationalize same-sex behavior is by suggesting that it is adaptive according to natural selection. To do this, they resort to a Darwin Flubber method of explanation: convergence.
These repeated evolutionary transitions to the same character state are an indication of convergent evolution. Although convergence may occur from random evolution, convergence that is associated with similar selective environments is considered strong evidence of adaptive evolution caused by the operation of natural selection. Finding these selective pressures may help to discern whether same-sex sexual behaviour is adaptive and, in particular, to understand why this behaviour has evolved multiple times in mammals.
The authors employ the e-word “evolution” and related words nearly 100 times in this paper. There’s no room for morals, commandments, or ethics in evolution. If natural selection produced it, and if it is “adaptive” according to someone’s just-so story, then it must be normal and acceptable behavior.
Oddly, evolutionary phylogeny leads them to believe that same-sex behavior is a recent development:
Ancestral reconstruction suggests that same-sex sexual behaviour may have evolved multiple times, with its appearance being a recent phenomenon in most mammalian lineages.
Arguing that it is adaptive, though, required the authors to raise the perhapsimaybecouldness index:
Our phylogenetically informed analyses testing for associations between same-sex sexual behaviour and other species characteristics suggest that it may play an adaptive role in maintaining social relationships and mitigating conflict.
Those are only two hypotheses that have been suggested by other evolutionists, however. Same-sex behavior is a “Darwinian paradox,” they admit, because it does not produce offspring on which natural selection can supposedly work. Evolution should not favor this kind of behavior:
First, sexual interactions with members of the same sex can have similar mating costs as sexual interactions with members of the opposite sex in terms of energy expenditure, time use, disease transmission, injuries, etc. Second, because it does not directly contribute to reproduction, same-sex sexual behaviour additionally has the opportunity cost of not producing offspring, if same-sex sexual behaviour occurs instead of different-sex sexual behaviour. For these reasons, the evolution and prevalence of same-sex sexual behaviour is often considered a Darwinian paradox.
They point out that many species engage in “adulticide” (murder), and they propose that same-sex behavior may be a way to diminish aggression in social groups. So if murder was produced by natural selection too, why not use the same reasoning to justify murder? Was Clarence Darrow right to impress the judge that Leopold and Loeb were not guilty because evolution made them do it?
Same-gender sexual behavior found to be widespread across mammal species and to have multiple origins (Phys.org, 4 Oct 2023). Reporting on the Gómez et al. paper, Bob Yirka gets the lesson. If animals do it, humans can, too. Since it is adaptive, maybe they should. Is that the message?
The research team also found that such behavior was more often seen in social species, which could mean that it plays a role in establishing social relationships. They also found it more likely to occur in species where there were higher rates of adulticide (where adults kill one another occasionally). This, they suggest, hints at the possibility that same-gender encounters could serve as a means for mitigating violence between adult males.
What’s the lesson here? Should men engage in homosexuality to avoid murdering each other? If that’s what aggressive apes do, why not? The ending disclaimer could easily be lost by a reader listening to this explanation.
The researchers note that their findings should not be used by others to explain long-term, same-gender relationship behaviors in humans because their study focused only on short-term interactions, not permanent behavior patterns.
That is a key point that could be overlooked. Animals do not engage in same-sex marriage, identity changes, and gender transition surgeries. The behaviors seen in animals are “short-term interactions” that bear little relationship with homosexuality as practiced by humans.
Ideas Have Consequences
Is it any surprise that Big Science and Big Media have been rushing to accept every form of sexual perversion in the LGBTQ+ rainbow? For instance, on Sept 27th, Ken Chan at The Conversation bemoaned a survey of “Queer leaders” that found that “LGBTQI+ people [are] still overwhelmingly absent from corporate boards,” as if this is a crisis. This PhD candidate’s article is saturated with ESG and DEI lingo about the benefits of “diversity” everywhere. He leans on “researchers” for justification.
The Darwinists’ rationalization for “anything goes” sex also explains the strong bias in Big Science and Big Media for abortion. If humans are evolved apes, what better way to engage in guilt-free perversion than to destroy the inconvenient consequences?
Darwinians cannot escape their complicity in the sexual revolution. For the time being, they are not endorsing male dominance, adulticide or sexual coercion. But the Darwin Effect is a bottomless pit. It may be only a matter of time before the Darwin Party is in favor of those.
A word about so-called ‘same-sex behavior’ in animals. This does happen; I once observed on a ranch a female donkey trying to mount its mother. (This was in a corral with no access to any males.) But like the authors indicate, such interactions are typically brief, not like the homosexual push for ‘gay marriage’ that won a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court in 2015, a concept never recognized previously in the history of the human race, as swing justice Anthony Kennedy admitted. But how should Christians evaluate animal same-sex behaviors?
Initially, one must ask, what do we mean by same-sex behavior? If defined too loosely, one could claim that guys gathered in a man cave to watch a football game are engaged in it. Good grief; both men and women enjoy each other’s gender company at certain times. This is normal and natural, as we all know. The guys might all be married family men, just wanting some camaraderie with the hombres. Additionally, same-sex attraction is normal to a point, as the existence of men’s magazines and women’s magazines illustrates. Men admire other men who are fit and want to imitate their handsome traits by learning workout techniques, diet tricks, and how to dress for success. Women admire women who are beautiful and want to learn to dress and act in attractive ways. It’s not uncommon for one woman to remark about how beautiful another woman looks. None of that is “homosexuality,” as we all know. Many churches hold men’s conferences and women’s conferences. We can admire our own kind and be sexually attracted to the opposite sex; a “man’s man” is a term indicating that men know what is respectable for men. Women know what is beautiful and attractive for women. Some of these traditions are cultural; in Biblical times, a “holy kiss” was a man kissing a brother saint. Even today in some Middle East countries, kissing between men is culturally normal and expected. If defined too narrowly, on the other hand, there are inappropriate human behaviors that might be missed. It crosses an unspoken line when one wants to engage in intimate sexual acts with another of the same sex.
It’s hard to know about animal same-sex behaviors, since the Bible does not discuss this, but we can infer several things. One is that the world is not the same as when it was created. Degeneration of genomes and epigenomes has increased for thousands of years. Another point is that animals are driven instinctively to avoid pain and seek pleasure, as pet owners know. They are also curious. Sexual contact is undoubtedly pleasurable for animals as well as for us. Without the kind of conscience unique to humans, animals may find some gratification in various behaviors not involved with reproduction, just like chimps routinely groom one another and pull off bugs in each other’s fur. Occasional sexual arousal is normal in animals as well as in humans. When arousal occurs, animals may sometimes “act out” sexual postures as practice for their normal heterosexual activity, without any intentional ‘same-sex’ motivation. Thirdly, the brief encounters among animals are nothing like the gross and obsessive behaviors engaged in by today’s LGBTQIA+ (and whatever else) participants. Animals do not hold “pride parades” showing off how disgusting they can act in front of everyone, demanding that others not only accept them but follow them in their perversion (Romans 1:28-32).
Mainly, humans are exceptional and unique. Animals are not made in God’s image. The theological differences between creationists and evolutionists become crucial where the rubber meets the road, here in the issue of sexuality. God only commanded humans, not apes and birds, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” He has different standards for animal behavior. Only humans have a conscience, a knowledge of God, a moral compass, language, and eternal existence. What God intended for animals is his business. We have his orders for us, and those are given in his Word.