Compatibility of Darwinism and Homosexuality?

[Davidius]

I think it's safe to assume that Atheists are Darwinists. Most Atheists and Darwinists I know also think that homosexuality is natural and good. But how can these two coexist? Homosexuality is not a trait that is beneficial to the species, since homosexual beings do not reproduce. If it is innate, shouldn't it have disappeared from the gene pool, or at least be on its way out, instead of growing rapidly? Whether it's innate or not, shouldn't proponents of Darwinian natural selection agree that homosexuality is deviant behavior and should be shunned for the good of our species?

Having thought about this for a while, I believe that there is only one way that Darwinian materialists can support the growth of homosexuality: the family must be destroyed. Reproduction must be controlled in science labs through in vitro fertilization, and women must be hired to be impregnated and give birth at state-run birthing centers; the children would thereafter be taken into the custody of the government. Instead of being consistent by seeing their error and reverting to the traditional family model, I believe our society will move closer and closer to the kind of thing we see in the novel The Giver to make up for the loss of population due to problems like divorce, uncontrolled contraception and abortion, and the cultural acceptance of homosexuality.

If you want to comment on my conclusions, that's fine, but I'm more interested in hearing your thoughts on the point I raised in my first paragraph.

 

[AThornquist]

That is a good point. I do recall hearing some sort of bogus answer to the incompatibility you discuss in the first paragraph, but the answer just couldn't be substantiated by the Darwinist I talked to. It was along the lines of, "Well, since we no longer feel compelled to have great numbers of offspring, our sexuality can geared toward pleasure and not solely reproduction. This is a biological bonus in today's world since greater pleasure in life is good for society blah blah blah." She was also the same teacher who enjoyed reading "The God Delusion" in class.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

That is a good point. I do recall hearing some sort of bogus answer to the incompatibility you discuss in the first paragraph, but the answer just couldn't be substantiated by the Darwinist I talked to. It was along the lines of, "Well, since we no longer feel compelled to have great numbers of offspring, our sexuality can geared toward pleasure and not solely reproduction. This is a biological bonus in today's world since greater pleasure in life is good for society blah blah blah." She was also the same teacher who enjoyed reading "The God Delusion" in class.

Yep, this is their argument. They say reproducing on a large scale is no longer the goal of humans since the species is well-established and is "overcrowded" as it is. They point to the presence of homosexual practice in animal populations when overcrowding is present. The goal now, they would argue, is social evolution that both propagates the species in a reasonable fashion (some would even argue humans should reduce its population for its own good) and at the same time evolves our understanding of morality, equality, etc. Obviously there are contradictions in this line of thinking, but that's their basic premise.

 

[jwithnell]

I think you raise an interesting point. On the other hand, Darwin was the basis for a lot of eugenics thinking in this and many other western countries until the Nazis showed the true horror of such thinking.

This is one of the current inconsistencies in western thinking. People like the freedom that comes with biological Darwinism (no accountability to a creator God) but can't live with the political incorrectness of the practical results -- homosexuality is a biological dead-end street. Man should show his dominance over other species (hey we're the fittest). Man should show his dominance over women (he's the strongest) and so forth.

 

[Jon Peters]

I think you raise an interesting point. On the other hand, Darwin was the basis for a lot of eugenics thinking in this and many other western countries until the Nazis showed the true horror of such thinking.

This is one of the current inconsistencies in western thinking. People like the freedom that comes with biological Darwinism (no accountability to a creator God) but can't live with the political incorrectness of the practical results -- homosexuality is a biological dead-end street. Man should show his dominance over other species (hey we're the fittest). Man should show his dominance over women (he's the strongest) and so forth.

I agree, most Darwinists are inconsistent. If they were consistent they'd all be complete nihilists.

 

[gene_mingo]

Don't feed the short necked giraffe.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Nihilism at least is honest enough to recognize the "deadness" and hopelessness of man in his natural state. Darwinian theory must maintain it's inconsistency to press the conclusion that man is evolving for the better. Otherwise modern Darwinism ceases to exist and plunges head over heels into it's logical conclusion which is nothing but emptyness and dispair.

 

[tellville]

I think it's safe to assume that Atheists are Darwinists. Most Atheists and Darwinists I know also think that homosexuality is natural and good. But how can these two coexist? Homosexuality is not a trait that is beneficial to the species, since homosexual beings do not reproduce. If it is innate, shouldn't it have disappeared from the gene pool, or at least be on its way out, instead of growing rapidly? Whether it's innate or not, shouldn't proponents of Darwinian natural selection agree that homosexuality is deviant behavior and should be shunned for the good of our species?



If you want to comment on my conclusions, that's fine, but I'm more interested in hearing your thoughts on the point I raised in my first paragraph.

I have been making a very similar argument for years. I call it the Evolutionary Argument Against Homosexuality. I have found it very effective in everyday conversations. If the person accepts evolution and naturalism they are forced to admit homosexuality is wrong - at least scientifically speaking. Given that it is impossible to give up evolution and naturalism in most people minds because these are established "facts" they are forced to at least acknowledge that the Christian view of homosexuality isn't "oppressive" or "way out there."

I've actually found evolution very useful in supporting a Christian worldview as in many ways the Christian way of life is evolutionary preferable to the secular way of life. This becomes a powerful apologetic at least when talking to everyday people.

 

[SRoper]

They can point to anthropology which suggests that abortion and homosexuality are made taboo in a people when that culture needs to promote population growth. Those taboos tend not to be present when that people is facing pressures of overpopulation. They use the policy of the Soviet Union as an example.

 

[Rich Koster]

Isn't any science based on a lie bad science or defective science? True science will always lead to the facts contained in scripture.

Think of this: if all atheists went homosexual, within about 100 years we would be rid of them by extinction, wouldn't we??? Then us breeders could be happy!

 

[Marrow Man]

So, if I'm understanding the points some have made -- population control is a goal of (at least some) Darwinists. Eugenics was useful until society determined that to be morally "icky." Homosexuality is now a form of population control since society no longer thinks that to be morally "icky."

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Typically the secularists like to point to some remote studies of female gorillas in the Congo pleasuring one another or a deer in mating season mounting a fellow buck when it gets in the way of the female, logically this means that animals are practicing homosexuals universally and it is completely and utterly natural.

Never mind that dogs tend to get busy with pillows, what kind of sexual attraction does that fall under I wonder?

 

[Marrow Man]

Some animals also practice familial cannibalism. Is that a morally appropriate practice?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

So, if I'm understanding the points some have made -- population control is a goal of (at least some) Darwinists. Eugenics was useful until society determined that to be morally "icky." Homosexuality is now a form of population control since society no longer thinks that to be morally "icky."

I don't think they would argue that homosexuality is a means of population control. Their argument would be that population growth isn't necessary, so homosexuality doesn't contradict Darwinism.

 

[Marrow Man]

But there is a pragmatic consequence to homosexuality, since it curbs "overcrowding" (you made this point in # 3). Is homosexuality therefore not "useful" to the species since it helps control the population (given Darwinian presuppositions)? Perhaps it is just population control - lite.

There is also another inconsistency to such practices. There are homosexuals who still sire offspring, albeit through artificial means. Is this not inconsistent with one aspect of homosexuality (in a Darwinian context) while "consistent" in another (getting ones genes into a subsequent generation)? How would a Darwinian respond to this? And if homosexuality is "right," should it not be discouraged?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

But there is a pragmatic consequence to homosexuality, since it curbs "overcrowding" (you made this point in # 3). Is homosexuality therefore not "useful" to the species since it helps control the population (given Darwinian presuppositions)? Perhaps it is just population control - lite.

There is also another inconsistency to such practices. There are homosexuals who still sire offspring, albeit through artificial means. Is this not inconsistent with one aspect of homosexuality (in a Darwinian context) while "consistent" in another (getting ones genes into a subsequent generation)? How would a Darwinian respond to this? And if homosexuality is "right," should it not be discouraged?

You make good points, Pastor Phillips, but I think you're missing what the Darwinians (or most of them) would argue. Darwinians would argue that homosexuality is not harmful to the human species because the population doesn't need to grow, so homosexuals who don't reproduce are not harming the species' chances of survival. I don't think they would say homosexuality evolved to help the species. They would simply say that it doesn't harm humanity, may even help it, and thus there is nothing "wrong" with it from a Darwinian perspective. They would argue that the more important evolution is social and "moral," such that we accept all people regardless of sexual orientation, etc.

 

[Marrow Man]

Thank you for your helpful comments. It would seem, though, that "the more important evolution is social and 'moral'" is an even bigger problem and ultimately begs the question. And if homosexuality did not "evolve" to help the species, how do Darwinians account for it?

 

[SRoper]

So, if I'm understanding the points some have made -- population control is a goal of (at least some) Darwinists. Eugenics was useful until society determined that to be morally "icky." Homosexuality is now a form of population control since society no longer thinks that to be morally "icky."

I think you are confusing description with prescription. I've said it before, but just because we believe in gravity doesn't mean we ought to throw everything we can down the deepest hole we can find. Scientists are supposed to describe what happens, not what should happen.

 

[Marrow Man]

But it was never my goal to confuse science with Darwinism.