Darwin in Designer Genes
Have you ever been driving behind one of those people who put the little mock Jesus-fish (called an ichthus) with little legs and embossed with Darwin on their car bumpers? These people are, of course, mocking Christians and generally trying to make trouble. Who are they? Generally, they are atheists or agnostics (or sometimes pagans) who put their faith in science and ``reason`` rather than God. They believe Darwin holds the answers to life`s great questions, and that the foolish Christians (and also Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, etc.) are superstitious bigoted imbeciles who believe in God and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairie but who wouldn`t know the truth if it came up and bit them on their-brains. To these people, there is no God but Science, and Darwin is thy prophet.
Yet these are the same people who often disregard the gaping scientific holes in Darwinism (most of them don`t even understand the difference between Darwinism and evolution), or who scoff at supply-side economics in favor of ``scientific socialism``, or believe in feminism, or man-made global warming, or Dianetics, or any other crazy liberal crackpot idea. The zealous desire to believe pseudo-scientific nonsense is driven by a fundamental need for faith; they were built to believe in God, and by rejecting religious faith are forced into idolatry-and for many that idol is Darwin.
Which brings us to the subject at hand; the concept of gay genes. According to a study in the journal Human Genetics this is simply not a tenable concept. Read about it here or click the header.
What does driving around with a Darwin-fish have to do with homosexual genes? I would like to point out that the most vociferous defenders of unrestricted homosexuality and gay marriage are those most likely to be driving around with a four-legged mackerel on their bumper, and yet Darwinism is damning to their case. According to Darwin, the engine for the evolution of a species is natural selection, which occurs by the mechanisms of pure survival; that is, an organism which is better adapted to it`s environment will survive to breed, while a less adapted organism will die childless, or with minimal offspring. Homosexuality tends to lead to minimal breeding. In fact, homosexuals often refer to heterosexuals with the contemptuous term ``breeders``. If our Darwinian friends are correct, a homosexual gene should have long since bred itself out of the gene pool. It offers no survival benefits-quite the opposite to hear homosexual activists tell. Yet we are supposed to believe that this gene is alive and well and may pop up in a relative near you! Logic and Darwin say otherwise.
Gay genes are a myth. The causes of homosexuality are deep and convoluted, and it will be a long time before we understand them. The current argument over this quakery will be viewed by future generations in the same light as Social Darwinism (which is inherent in Darwinian theory and which says that different races and peoples are more or less genetically advanced), studying head bumps (whatever that is called), palmistry, Flying Saucers, Martian Canals, and global warming.
Yet these are the same people who often disregard the gaping scientific holes in Darwinism (most of them don`t even understand the difference between Darwinism and evolution), or who scoff at supply-side economics in favor of ``scientific socialism``, or believe in feminism, or man-made global warming, or Dianetics, or any other crazy liberal crackpot idea. The zealous desire to believe pseudo-scientific nonsense is driven by a fundamental need for faith; they were built to believe in God, and by rejecting religious faith are forced into idolatry-and for many that idol is Darwin.
Which brings us to the subject at hand; the concept of gay genes. According to a study in the journal Human Genetics this is simply not a tenable concept. Read about it here or click the header.
What does driving around with a Darwin-fish have to do with homosexual genes? I would like to point out that the most vociferous defenders of unrestricted homosexuality and gay marriage are those most likely to be driving around with a four-legged mackerel on their bumper, and yet Darwinism is damning to their case. According to Darwin, the engine for the evolution of a species is natural selection, which occurs by the mechanisms of pure survival; that is, an organism which is better adapted to it`s environment will survive to breed, while a less adapted organism will die childless, or with minimal offspring. Homosexuality tends to lead to minimal breeding. In fact, homosexuals often refer to heterosexuals with the contemptuous term ``breeders``. If our Darwinian friends are correct, a homosexual gene should have long since bred itself out of the gene pool. It offers no survival benefits-quite the opposite to hear homosexual activists tell. Yet we are supposed to believe that this gene is alive and well and may pop up in a relative near you! Logic and Darwin say otherwise.
Gay genes are a myth. The causes of homosexuality are deep and convoluted, and it will be a long time before we understand them. The current argument over this quakery will be viewed by future generations in the same light as Social Darwinism (which is inherent in Darwinian theory and which says that different races and peoples are more or less genetically advanced), studying head bumps (whatever that is called), palmistry, Flying Saucers, Martian Canals, and global warming.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 3:51 PM
4 Comments:
"Scathing" must be your middle name. The entire idea of a "gay gene" is preposterous. The cause (if you will) of homosexuality resides within the psychological realm and not with physiology. That is why institutions such as the church and marriage were founded. To help people cope with the urge to engage in socially unacceptable behaviors. There is no monogamy imperative built into our genetic make-up. We humans have found that the stability of a cohesive family unit based on this precept to be of great benefit to society as a whole. The church in the attempt to strengthen their community as any good shepherd would, have actively promoted the societal commitment. Our former governor once stated “the church is just a crutch for the week minded.” To which some very clever religious leaders here posted billboard ads proclaiming that the church is, “strength-training for weak minds,” in response.
Homosexuality is, in the natural world aberrant behavior. Any other species that routinely practiced it would soon be overtaken by “natural selection.” Sub-dominant males of many other species mock mating behavior never actually coupling. They do it to display dominance over other males similarly excluded from breeding due to their lack of suitability. In humans, it is a “choice” largely an act of rebellion against a society, which refuses to sanction this behavior, therefore making it “naughty” and exciting.
The secular-humanists are trying desperately to force this upon us all by first creating an America with “freedom from religion,” kicking out our spiritual “crutch.” Then they attack the very institutions like marriage and the nuclear family in their fundamental forms as fostered by the church and our government for centuries.
Great post! I think I’ll have fish for dinner…
OK Tim, you keep coming over to my blog asking for more from me. So here is your homework assignment from me.
Write an essay describing why "Evolution" is God's way of teaching those He created in His image what they need to know, to reach a level of understanding high enough, to wield the powers they will receve at maturity.
Hint - think of the education of the Sorcerer's Apprentice! Got to be able to control those brooms before you get to do the big stuff!
That should keep you busy!
Gay genes may indeed be a myth, I tend to think so. But I truly believe there are women trapped in mens bodies - and visa versa.
I say this because I know at least two women in the building where I work that when you see them from behind you would say there were men. They have no hips at all, when they turn around they have very tiny breasts if at all. And you can just tell by the way the are built and the way the hold themselves - just the way they swing their arms when they walk you see that they are not at all feminine... The fact they are also gay makes perfect sense to me if you buy the women trapped in a mans body supposition. They are for all intents and purposes attracted to the opposite sex.
Surely we have all met men who are so femmy that it kind of makes you sick...
I'll just add a bit of wisdom from my dear Ukrainian mama who always says, "If they say they love members of their own sex, why does one of them always play the woman and one the man?"
This from a woman who, upon being asked if she was a "lesbian" in an interview for a job which required some clearance, replied in all innocence: "No, I'm Ukrainian." She thought that the interviewer was trying mighty hard to suppress a smile, but she couldn't understand why.
When she asked a friend of hers after the interview what "lesbian" meant (she thought it was something like Serbian) her friend howled in laughter and told her. Dear mama -- so wise yet so innocent.
Post a Comment
<< Home