Editorial comment: The editors agonized about whether or not to proceed with publication of the 2nd letter presented in this feedback article, given its outspoken honesty and with Ephesians 5:12 in mind (“For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret.”). On balance, however, we thought that it made an important point in as tasteful a way as possible given the nature of the subject, which is becoming more and more important as society becomes more evolutionized.
‘Natural’ or ‘unnatural’ human behaviour?
Many evolutionists consider much of today’s human behaviour ‘unnatural’—except when it comes to homosexual ‘marriage’
Published: 16 June 2013 (GMT+10)
The first of two letters in this feedback article is from Joel T., Australia, who wrote:
According to the evolutionary storyline, all species alive today are the result of natural processes in a dog-eat-dog ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ world. But many evolutionists regard the very behaviour that has given our species such dominance (or ‘survival effectiveness’, if you prefer) as being ‘unnatural’, compared to what other species do. Paradoxically, evolution-believing ‘greenies’ very often lobby for government legislation to curb that advantage! In contrast, the Bible does indeed say man is different from the animals (Genesis 1:27), and at the beginning was entrusted with responsibility for exercising good stewardship of them (Genesis 1:28). That’s why it’s the monkeys in the zoo enclosure and the humans with the cameras, not the other way around.
First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to read this email, as well as for the many articles you provide for free.
Next, I want to know what you think of something that’s been swirling around in my head for a while now:
- From the naturalistic point of view, matter is all there is, and man is no more than an animal. Therefore, there is no distinction between man and ‘other’ animals.
- ‘Natural’ things, according to the same people, are contrasted with man-made (‘unnatural’?) things. That is, there is a distinction between natural and man-made, for example, a bird’s nest is natural, while wooden furniture is not.
Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? The way I see it, the naturalists only have two options: either give up on the distinction between natural and man-made altogether, or admit that mankind is special, somehow different to nature.
That is to say, they either have to say that everything, from atom bombs to zithers, is natural and completely go against what is obviously true, or they have to say that man is not merely an animal, which would mean violating their worldview.
So, which is more likely? Giving up on the obvious truth, or on their worldview? In my opinion, I think that neither is likely, and that the contradiction will remain.
What do you think?
Joel T. (Australia)
CMI’s Dr David Catchpoole responds:
I like your logic—I came to a similar conclusion in my first year of being full-time with CMI. However my colleagues rightly pointed out to me that it’s not a very effective argument to use against evolutionists. That’s because, when it comes to humans, they mentally often redefine anything that humans do as being ‘unnatural’, justifying this on the basis that our intellectual prowess goes way beyond ‘mere evolutionary instinct’. So I reluctantly had to let that kind of argument slip from my armory.
But thanks anyway for thinking of us, and letting us know about your thoughts. Much appreciated.
Note also our caption to the zoo photograph above. Ironically, the second letter is about a particularly ugly aspect (warning: references to sexual perversion) of some humans’ behaviour that an increasingly vocal minority in the West take umbrage at being described as unnatural. This very cleverly-worded item protesting about homosexual ‘marriage’ was copied to CMI by Philip B. (Australia), who’d sent it to the Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) in hopes of it being published in its Letters to the Editor section. (To our knowledge, the Telegraph’s editors seem to have decided against publishing it, as it has yet to appear in any of the pages of that newspaper.)
CC by 2.0; Flickr/sara.atkins
Some Neglected Realities
Every human being on this earth is the result of a male sperm uniting with a female egg to produce that baby human, which grew inside a woman’s body.
Surprise! Male and female humans have special equipment to facilitate this process. Males have a sophisticated sperm deposit system, females have an also sophisticated receptor/fetus-to-baby nurture system. This is normal.
How did this come to be? No human invented it. It must have been an intelligent Creator’s purpose to populate the earth with humans.
Perhaps you are put off by that word ‘intelligent’? An English Professor of Mathematics points out that if you were walking along a beach and saw your full name written in the sand you would rightly conclude that it had been written by some intelligent person. Then he points out that your genetic code, which fully describes your body, is made up of billions of chemical letters, not just a few. We have known about this super-complicated code for more than 60 years now. How did it come to be? No human invented it. We discovered it, but it must have been there from the beginning. Its Creator must be super-intelligent, and super-powerful as well.The Creator thinks it is an abomination.
Is it possible that this super-intelligent, super-powerful Creator, who also created the human brain and human psyche, does not care what we choose to do with our bodies? Does this Creator not care if we call abnormal behavior normal? For example, if a man inserts his sperm depositor into another man’s garbage disposal tube, does the Creator not care? Surprise! The greatest authority the world has ever known tells us that the Creator does have an opinion about this. The Creator thinks it is an abomination, human opinion and human passion notwithstanding.
So here we are. Many of our prominent citizens in politics, entertainment, academia, the media etc think that homosexual marriage ought to be considered normal, on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage. But are not they, together with their corresponding overseas authorities, flying in the face of the Creator? Who is foolish enough to do this and think that such a decision would not bring much harm to our nation? The evidence of history indicates that it would.
Western Suburbs, 9 May 2013
Could the fact that homosexuality is such an abomination to God be because of how it destroys the analogy between Jesus and his bride? The Bible says - and "So and So" knew his wife, this to me implies a very close relationship. Face to face - with possibility to caress and speak to each other. The way the human female and male sexual organs are designed suggest exactly this relationship to me.
What I find stupid is that they state how there is a gay gene and yet somehow there is no Pedo gene or any other type of sexual gene. I never heard a Pedophile use a pedo gene as an excuse to why he is attracted to children but I would not be surprised if that becomes the next thing.
Quote [by CMI's David Catchpoole] from the above article:
“However my colleagues rightly pointed out to me that it’s not a very effective argument to use against evolutionists. That’s because, when it comes to humans, they mentally often redefine anything that humans do as being ‘unnatural’, justifying this on the basis that our intellectual prowess goes way beyond ‘mere evolutionary instinct’.”
Dr. Catchpoole, though I understand that you reluctantly let this kind of argument slip from your armory because evolutionists redefine anything people do as unnatural, thus we cannot “play a game” with them because they rewrite the rules during the game.
I think that you will find that rewriting the rules requires agreeing that the rules exist and thus the creator of the game.
Please read this little note because on their own terms our opponents must work for the truth and they display this very well.
As always it comes down to what is one’s ultimate authority – which is a position of the will thus an ethical concern. You guys are so good at exposing that the intellect is ethical. Letting this or any fruitful argument leave your armory is not in accordance with our authority to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God,…”
The truth denier’s will does not “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
Thus he is not for Christ which Christ reveals means he is against Him. Thus he cannot know anything since all treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, and we cannot do anything apart from Him.
You are at the threshold of an irrefutable argument here. You would do well to shine the light on what they are trying to keep hidden “lest their deeds be exposed.” and thus they would be “wise in their own eyes.”
The suppressor of truth exposes his folly at every step.
I encourage you to press those who offer the argument quoted above. For it is very revealing of the truth.
Thanks Murk. Much appreciated.
Brilliant Post Lester....
I live in Australia and I am sick to death of hearing all around the world..... The USA, France , Canada , New Zealand etc that Gay Marriage is normal and has been legalised......
It is totally abnormal and sinful behaviour and goes against Natural Law.. The Media should be ashamed for pampering to these minority groups as far as i am concerned, and i have noticed that Gay Marriage is slowly but surely creeping into TV shows.
We all need to make a stand by speaking to and writing to our local governments and state our views etc before this gets out of control Globally
In debating this point with many people over many years, I always hear the same question. Why do you think God speaks do strongly against the sin of homosexuality? To me it's obvious. What other sin so forcefully rejects God's design for man? What other sin says so loudly, I don't accept your standards? What other sin so blatantly flies in the face of morality, anatomy, physiology, sociology and psychology. It defies every basic construct of life set up by God to help mankind flourish. It's simply mind boggling to hear people argue for its normalcy.
What if the man was a (mutant) transexual with female reproductive organs, then would it be natural?
See Dr Don Batten's excellent article, Hermaphrodites and homesexuality: Morality cannot be decided by biological abnormalities.
What astounds me is that the action described above is clearly an un-natural one and counter to the evolutionary needs of the species. The medical dangers are well documented, despite attempts to ignore them, deny or hide them.
Proverbs 26:5 says "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." In other words, use his own argument to show how stupid and illogical it really is. If evolution were true, the way to survive as a species is to pass on your genes to the next generation. People who profess to be born homosexuals claim that they are genetically programed that way. But homosexuals cannot pass on their genes without going against the very nature of their "natural" homosexuality by engaging in what is to them an "unnatural" behavior. Therefore, the gene for homosexuality must be a mutation that evolution (or nature) is seeking to eradicate, making all homosexuals become extinct, since it cannot be passed on. The only logical alternative would be to admit that homosexuality is not genetic, but is a learned behavior, and therefore is not natural, and can be reversed back to the really natural state of heterosexuality (genes-can-be-passed-on) that can survive.
Philip B has expressed well - the relationship of the clearly defined biological differences and functions in the way we are created. (As a Christian - it is disturbing to think about such details).
Nevertheless it shows the inconsistency that evolutionists must address in regards to homosexuality; 1) the inability of reproduction and lack of any such development of this function in either gender only - amongst humans 2) the fitness for the survival of the species - according to evolutionary reasoning.
Please note - I am only addressing the inconsistency in reasoning when "Evolution" is used as a basis to defend "Homosexuality"
I was not surprised to see Philip B comments go unpublished. Imagine if it had been published they would have been a public outcry, the editor/s will be sacked and the prime minister will launch an enquiry into 'homophobia'. What a crazy world we live in and I also agree with Philip in that we reap what we sow and these abominable acts will not go unpunished (maybe we are seeing it already in the state of western countries on a whole?)