Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Thoughts on the Evolution of Homosexuality

...Or Adventures in Aggravating Young Progressives.

The decision over the weekend to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" made me think: How does a strict Darwinian evolutionary worldview explain homosexuals and homosexual behavior?

I asked this question on the blog where many local progressives were gathering to raise toasts and sneer at those dinosaurish Republicans. One of them had written something along the lines of, "Nature (or God) made 10 percent of the population homosexual, so it is really uncool to be mean to people." I pointed out that probably every one of them believed in Darwinian evolution as the infallible scientific paradigm. I mean, one just HAS to be an evolutionist to be a gay loving progressive, right? Who wants to be perceived as a stupid creationist? That's like what Sarah Palin believes.

Darwinian evolution is the default "scientific" mechanism to explain why life does what it does to adapt and survive, so where does homosexuality fit in? Moreover, a conundrum arises when we consider that homosexuality is a same-sex attraction and behavior, but one cannot reproduce with the same-sex. So what biological advantage does homosexuality confer? Even more to the point: if organisms are merely gene transferring machines as evolutionary dogma insists they are, where did homosexuals come from to begin with? The genes have to be passed along from some previous, homosexual organism, but again, organisms can't reproduce with the same-sex. This is an especially difficult problem if one is going to argue homosexuality is genetic rather than nurture or a choice.

The push back was what I expected: emotional froth.

The first person said I was a hater burning a strawman to ask such a stupid question. Okay, I guess. I am just looking for some consistency among free-thinking, intellectual progressives who pride themselves with NOT being narrow-minded, gay bashing conservatives and big believers in reason and logic, Darwinian evolution being a big part of that reason and logic worldview.

One person wrote that monogamy doesn't confer an evolutionary advantage either, so put that in your pipe and smoke it you ignorant Republican bigot. But I pointed out that whether a couple is monogamous or polygamous is irrelevant. In a viable, evolutionary worldview, only heterosexuals can reproduce sexually, either with one or multiple partners.

A second commenter responded to my objection by pointing out how there are many heterosexuals both male and female who can't reproduce, you homophobic jerk. That is true, but again, it is irrelevant. According to an evolutionary worldview, those reproductively impotent couples wouldn't survive either, but the ability to reproduces really has nothing to do with the point: Only heterosexuals can reproduce and pass their genes along to the next generation.

A third person chimed in with some homophobia stomping anecdotal stories from around the world. He wrote,

Zoos in Japan and Germany have documented homosexual male penguin couples. They built nests together and used a stone as a substitute for an egg. (Happy Feet!) Both male and female pigeons sometimes exhibit homosexual behavior. Same-sex pigeon pairs will build nests, and lesbian hens will lay (infertile) eggs and attempt to incubate them. Courtship, mounting, and full (*I can’t type it-I’m blushing*) between bulls has been noted to occur among American Bison. Yup- good old mid-western American Bison. And I can’t even post what those naughty Amazon Dolphins do.

Of course, zoos in Japan and Germany are zoos. You know, where animals live in climate controlled captivity and are pampered by people 24-7. A zoo is not the brutal, harsh world of BBC Planet Earth. Homosexual male penguin couples would die in one generation without reproducing. So too with the lesbian pigeons. It's called natural selection in the evolutionary construct, and it weeds out the weakest members of the group so the overall group can survive. Additionally, bison bulls and dolphins that supposedly display homosexual behavior typically reproduce with females to pass along their offspring. They are not exclusively homosexual, as it were. And if we are going to look to the animal world to justify our behavior, chimps will kill and eat their own babies and male whales of all breeds gang rape females. At this point, I don't see Congress repealing rape policy anytime soon.

Pro-homosexual defenders are stuck with what could be called a Dawkins' Dilemma. It doesn't matter if it is people or animals. How did homosexual behavior arise naturally without the ability of homosexuals to reproduce? If we apply evolutionary dogma, homosexuals are mutations; rejects that should be selected against because of their inability to continue the health of the group population.

So in the overall debate with gay issues, if progressive liberals are to be true to their core, intellectual and scientific values, they unwittingly encourage the idea that gays are natural mutations, which make them worst bigots towards homosexuals than religious conservatives ever will be.

Labels: , ,


Blogger donsands said...

Good reasoning. But, they won't discuss it. Perhaps a few will. But the majority will simply rant. Which is another evidence of the Bible being authentic.

Unbelievers hate, and surpress, the truth.

I know when I share the pure and simple truth of fornication is sin, and God does not like it, the response is, "and eating steamed crabs is sin too."

These are the arguments that will continue to come our way.

Thanks for the good post. Good stuff to know.

7:11 AM, December 21, 2010  
Blogger zostay said...

Because of post-modernism, they don't have to be logically consistent, which is why Dawkins and other Darwinists are fine with being completely inconsistent. They simultaneously believe nature is ruled by survival of the fittest and promote altruism free of morality. Pomo is the ultimate inoculation against truth because you can mix totally inconsistent world views and smile happily that you are good enough, smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like you.

The discussion of homosexuality closely resembles similar discussions I've had with pro-aborts. Even when you defeat them in argumentation, they cling to the "Well, just cuz!" reasoning in the end. They are loyal and serve their master well. Pray for them.

7:43 AM, December 21, 2010  
Blogger Strong Tower said...

Another thought.

10:36 AM, December 25, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Jus' wondering: Did you get banned for being a troll, Fred?

7:50 PM, December 25, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Nope. Actually, the moderator is fair and I think appreciates the push back from me even if he totally thinks I am a wacko.

8:48 PM, December 25, 2010  
Blogger College Jay said...

There are plenty of birth abnormalities and genetic dead-ends that continue being passed on despite the fact that those inflicted by them cannot reproduce. Many forms of mental retardation and impotency have a genetic -- or otherwise purely biological -- basis, and are passed on via recessive genes. Add to that the fact that human homosexuals are still capable of mating heterosexually. Even if it is disgusting to them, it has still happened over the centuries due to the fact that pretty much all cultures have required marriage and reproduction, regardless of whether or not the individuals felt love or even sexual attraction towards one another. Considering all these factors, it wouldn't be improbable for homosexuality to arise in the population at the rate it does, no more so than any other debilitating genetic handicap.

Of course, to use this argument, evolutionists have to use the words "homosexual" and "handicap" within the same paragraph, and good luck getting that to happen, even though it's the most logical argument that they have in their arsenal.

11:06 PM, December 25, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home