Editorial comment: The editors agonized about whether or not to proceed with publication of the 2^nd 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’

The first of two letters in this feedback article is from Joel T., Australia, who wrote:

caged monkey — 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:

Hi Joel,

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.

Regards

David Catchpoole
CMI

Note also our caption to the zoo photograph above. Ironically, the second letter is about a particular aspect (warning: graphic references to sexual behaviour) 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.)

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.

Philip B.

Western Suburbs, 9 May 2013