The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Homosexuality receives approval from evolutionists (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Homosexuality receives approval from evolutionists (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CA010:

Homosexuality is considered acceptable and even desirable by most evolutionists, who point out that homosexuality is common in many species.

Source: Evil-ution Back to Genesis 140 (Aug.). Morris, Henry M. 2000.

CreationWiki response:

Some argue that homosexual animals do not exist[1], but this response doesn't discuss that aspect further.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. The acceptance of homosexuality has nothing to do with evolution. It comes from the recognition that homosexuals, like all people, deserve real love, not just lip service about love. Evolutionists (and other non-fundamentalists), including many people who believe the Bible just as much as Creationists do, are not constrained by the narrow interpretations of the people in certain rigid religions, which are the only sources why homosexuality might be considered immoral.

It is not true that the acceptance of homosexuality has nothing to do with evolution. When a person considers human morality in light of the evolution belief system, he will most likely see that homosexuality is "natural" since other animals are seen to be doing it. If humans are just animals anyway, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. This point will be discussed further in this response, but to say that a person's acceptance of homosexuality has nothing to do with evolution is an overgeneralization. It may play a part in society's acceptance of homosexuality, but it would be speculation to state how significant that part is.

The acceptance of homosexuality may have something to do with some people's seeing that homosexuals deserve "real love", but who defines this "real love"? Is the writer saying that homosexuals can have love any way they want it and it still be defined as "real love"? That is the main problem discussing issues like this with evolutionists and/or relativists (people who believe that morality is relative to whoever holds the morals), since they do come from a different moral worldview. To them, if a person has a certain behavior pattern that they are comfortable with, or wish to pursue, then it is acceptable. There is no objective moral standard anyway, and the clear reading from the Hebrew scriptures, which do explicitly condemn male homosexual acts and have no positive message about female homosexuality, does not matter since it is just "narrow interpretations of people in certain rigid religions" (note the abusive ad hominem way that that phrase is stated).

There is a strange lack of consistency here. For a socially acceptable command in scripture which is interpreted word for word, such as "you shall not murder", it is not considered a "narrow interpretation". Yet when a command states "you shall not sleep with a man as you would a woman", i.e. male homosexuality, it is then considered a "narrow interpretation", not because the actual exegesis is inaccurate, but because it is not socially acceptable. This is not equal or fair.

Society today would appear to say that whatever gives a person gratification is "good". To them there is no right or wrong when it comes to sexuality and who has sex with whom. It is man who determines good and bad, and evolution teaches no better, putting our behavior on par with that of animals. On so many logical levels, this hedonism is inadequate, and morality implied by evolution is devoid of any objective source, and thus has no authoritative value or guidance. With biblical theism, there is an objective source of morality, which plainly does decree the immorality of homosexuality.

Please note that gratification, the fulfillment of all desires and the getting of pleasure cannot be equated with what is right and wrong, and this first point of this Talk.Origins page avoids this crucial issue, most likely because it doesn't have a good objective source of morality.

Contrary to Morris' assertion, evolutionists don't consider homosexuality desirable.

In order to be consistent with their evolutionary worldview, they can't really say anything good or bad about homosexuality.

2. The pervasiveness of homosexuality throughout nature shows, beyond question, that homosexuality is natural (Bagemihl 1998), belying the only non-religious justification for hatred of homosexuality.

This is a great example of evolutionary (and inconsistent) thinking. If something is "natural", pervasive in nature, it is therefore good for humans too, or at least acceptable. It's similar to saying "everyone else does it, so it must be okay for us to do it too." Did you know that murder is natural as well, since it happens in nature? A lot of animals in nature are territorial and will kill or battle anyone that comes into their territory? Did you know that purely instinctual actions are natural as well, since they are pervasive in nature? Great, so there should be no problem with humans being viciously territorial, murderers, and simple instinctual animals since it is natural. What a great way to derive a system of morality! Just look at nature and other living organisms and emulate them!

The sarcasm in that should be clear. Of course this is no way for humans to derive morality, lest we just end up destroying ourselves on more levels than just the physical level. That is why there is a need for an outside arbiter and lawgiver to show us the way rather than just human opinion, nature, or the moral implications of the evolution theory and its in-built dogmatic naturalism and reductionism.

The writer's linking the "natural" nature of homosexuality to whether the hatred of it is religious or not is inconsistent, unless he thinks all religious ideas should be a product of nature as well. Alas, another example of the all-pervasive nature of his naturalism rather than his science. Why should religious moral views agree with nature or what happens in nature? Morality, especially human morality, does not have to agree with the "morality" pervasive in nature, since there are philosophies about this world that do not link humans and animals as the evolution faith system does.

This issue is also linked to Claim CA009. It is claimed by creationists that evolution shows that since we are just animals, there is no reason why we shouldn't act like them. What is noticeable in the Talk.Origins response to this present claim is that they advocate that since homosexuality appears to be natural, in their opinion, in animals, it is natural and acceptable for us humans too. This shows the writer's inconsistency. If at one time he is going to say it is okay for humans to act like animals and at another time say that it is not okay for humans to do such, he betrays the inherent inconsistency in his beliefs. And just in case this is claimed to be taking him out of context, read his point number 2 in his claim CA009 where he tries to point out that "evolution teaches people to behave like humans" and in this point in this present claim that the pervasiveness of homosexuality amongst animals, the animal kingdom, "nature", makes it okay for us. In other words, "evolution teaches people to behave like animals."

Let's be blunt. These two claims on Talk.Origins shows its capacity for a pick-and-choose mentality. When it suits us, we can behave "like humans". And then when it suits us, we can behave in a behaviour consistent with the rest of the animal kingdom, i.e. "like animals". Who is in charge of morality? Humans! And since there is diverse human opinion on what is right and wrong, it's no wonder we have a mixed up system of morality.

The search for objective truth is not easy, but one can only find it when they acknowledge an active, vocal universal Creator such as the One in Genesis, and thus a form of creationism, rather than the subjective, human-centred, nature-centred morality of evolutionism, and the mute, presently brain-dead deity evolutionists, whether theistic or atheistic, pay lip service to.

3. The Biblical objection to homosexuality is hypocritical, because those who condemn it do not condemn just as vigorously other prohibited behaviors such as wearing clothing made of two kinds of material (Lev. 19: 19), trimming or shaving sideburns (Lev. 19: 27), getting tattoos (Lev. 19: 28), and charging interest (Deut. 23: 19-20). People who condemn homosexuality do so not because the Bible tells them to, but, ultimately, because they want to. People who condemn others should first examine the morality of their own judgments.

The problem with this objection is that its scope is only limited to a certain form of Protestant Christianity rather than creationism as a whole. There is no point in discussing the finer points of one group of people who hold to special creation, when there is a wider group. In fact, this point focuses more on the people than the actual issue of creation and Genesis. There is no point in saying "because people appear to make mistakes, or appear to hold to a inconsistent moral system, the text which holds the philosophy, i.e., the Bible, and thus the moral statute is also hypocritical". People can have a right moral law, yet have other ideas that aren't consistent. That doesn't make that right moral law wrong.

Another point is that in the Torah, the Law of the Creator which was given to Moses, homosexuality is called an abomination. The context of this law shows that this type of sin is wrong for both Israelite and non-Israelite (all nations other than Israel). There are laws that are only for Israel and laws that are applicable to everyone. The same cannot be said for all the other laws that the writer of Talk.Origins points out. So his exegesis falls down again here.

When it comes specifically to homosexuality, the facts are: that evolution says there is nothing wrong with it amongst humans, deriving such views from the behaviour of animals; and that there is a moral code from the Creator that says it is wrong. When it comes to the original claim, the author, Henry Morris, appears to have been generally right.

Concerning the very last sentence, "people who condemn others should first examine the morality of their own judgments", the writer of Talk.Origins would do well to take his own advice.