THE VAST MAJORITY of public schools in America today teach evolutionary science, to the exclusion of creation science, to students at both the high school and elementary school levels. In some cases, it is judicially mandated. Most people will readily concede the point. For those who don’t, just a few minutes spent “surfing the net” should provide ample evidence that the teaching of evolutionary science pervades public elementary and high schools throughout the United States today. What many fail to recognize, however, is the correlation between the teaching of evolutionary science on the one hand, and the promotion of the homosexual agenda, on the other. The two are inextricably intertwined but, ironically, are not sufficiently compatible to walk hand-in-hand down the aisle. The twin engines of evolutionary development are thought to be (1) the drive to survive and (2) the drive to reproduce. Homosexuality precludes the second (reproduction) altogether, and truncates the first (survival), as studies show the average life-span of homosexuals to be substantially less than that of heterosexuals, due primarily to sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV-AIDS, and suicide.1
In 1987, the United States Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Louisiana law requiring public schools to give “balanced treatment” to “creation science” and “evolution science” in their curricula. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (U.S. 1987). Consequently, the state’s public schools were effectively ordered to teach evolution to the exclusion of creation science. Other states (e.g., Massachusetts) followed suit. One ground on which the majority based its opinion was that the law did not accommodate any of the many “other” theories for the origin of life. As Justice Scalia so eloquently pointed out in his dissent, however, there are no other theories. There are only two possible explanations for the origin of life: either we were created by something outside of ourselves (e.g., God), or we evolved into what we are from nothing.
The ramifications of the two views (creation or evolution) are profound and inescapable, and they have profound and inescapable implications for our sexuality. If we are creations, we must face the specter of being responsible to a creator—which I call God—in all things, including sexuality. But if we evolved from nothing, then the specter of responsibility vanishes into a void absent any Creator to whom we can be held responsible for anything, including sexuality. Absent a Creator, we are free to “be ourselves,” to do as we please, hampered only by self-imposed whimsical and necessarily arbitrary confines and qualifications such as, “so long as it is not hurting anybody else” or, worse yet, provided “nobody knows.” Both boil down to the same simple maxim that, absent a Creator-God, it’s okay to do anything if it “feels good and won’t subject me to prosecution.” The idea of an absolute moray in the absence of an Absolute Creator-God to whom we are responsible is an absurdity. Either we were created by some Thing or Being to whom we are ultimately responsible, or we evolved from nothing and are free to do as we please. This tautology rips a moral dichotomy between creation and evolution, and consequently how each relates to the homosexual agenda. The seminal question is, did we evolve or were we created? Consider the odds.
The statistical odds against Man evolving out of nothing are astronomically slim, to a point approaching the non-existent. Sir Fred Hoyle, probably the greatest biological statistician of our time, calculated that the probability of a single protein molecule (not a living cell mind you, but just a single protein molecule) coming into existence by mere chance is "1 in 10 to the 300th power,” or, in his words, “practically nil.” That is one chance in a number so big it begins with a 10 and is followed by 300 zeros. In scientific circles, he explains, probabilities smaller than 1 in anything over 10 to the 50th power are known as "zero probabilities.” Think what this means for the probability of creation. Because there are only two possible explanations for our existence (creation or evolution), to the extent we can rule out one theory we can “rule in” the other. If the chance of rain tomorrow is 20%, the chance that it won’t rain tomorrow is the inverse, or 80%. So if the chance of a single protein molecule coming into existence by mere chance is 1 in 10 to the 300th power, then the chance (probability) that the protein molecule was created by something outside of itself jumps up to almost 100% or, more precisely, 0.999… percent of a chance, with a total of 300 ‘9’s following the decimal point. The odds of creation become exponentially greater when we consider the statistical probabilities against humans, animals, plant life, and even single cell organisms evolving out of nothing.
Statistics aside, Creation makes logical sense as well, provided only that one believes in the existence of anything--a tree, a book, a car, anything. The argument is not original with me,2 but there are only three possible explanations for the existence of that “thing;” let’s say, a book: (1) the book created itself; (2) the book always existed; or (3) the book was created by something outside of itself (i.e., a Creator). The first option is a logical impossibility. Nothing can create itself without pre-existing its own creation. In other words, for the book to “create” itself it would have to have been a book before it was created—a logical impossibility. Option (2) (that the book always existed) is logically possible; but we have no evidence anywhere in the universe of anything in the universe (including the universe) that has always existed. Scientists agree that the universe did not always exist but had a beginning be it via the “Big Bang” or some other start. Accordingly, one can believe Option (2), but there is no empirical evidence for the belief. There is no evidence in the universe that anything in the universe, including the universe, has always existed. That leaves us with Option (3), that the book was created by something outside of itself. And that conclusion holds true for everything else in the universe, including the universe, including you, and including me. Logically and statistically speaking, therefore, we must reasonably conclude that we are creations of a Creator-God outside of the universe. He created us and everything in, around and about us. Therefore, statistical probabilities and simple logic compel us to face the likely specter of responsibility to that Creator-God for our acts.
Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, and virtually every other mainstream religion in America and abroad universally condemn homosexuality as a perversion or sin—sin being defined as the breach of a dictate imposed upon Man by God, as Creator. Each also presupposes or infers from special and general revelation the existence of a Creator. It is only atheism, with its denial of any Creator to whom His creations are responsible, that opens the door to homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle and practice. And it is only evolution, and the teaching of “evolutionary science,” that allows for the embracement of atheism. Accordingly, homosexuality is as dependent for its acceptance on the theory of evolution as is atheism. But again, the three aren’t compatible because atheism and evolution rest on the rising tides of reproduction and survival, while homosexuality contravenes both. So homosexuals are left with Creation and, with it, responsibility to a Creator-God. This holds true for the homosexual and the heterosexual alike, like it or not.
Seen as a series of mere “do’s and don’ts,” Christianity (and most other religions) may appear on the surface to zap the fun out of life. To the contrary, Christianity and, to be more specific, the Bible, should be viewed as a handbook for life. In John 10:10, Christ says he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly. God also desires that our lives be long. Ephesians 6:2 tells us that the first command that comes with a promise is to honor thy father and thy mother that thy days will be long upon the earth. God gave us the Bible to extend our lives and enhance them pursuant to the dictates of His creation. As Creator, He knows how his creations work. The Bible is meant to be used for our lives like an automobile handbook is meant to be used for a car. You can put oil in the gas tank if you want, but eventually the car’s going to break down and need major repairs if it is to avoid the junkyard. Only by following the manual will the car perform at full function and for maximum longevity. The same holds true for the Bible. The Bible is not an arbitrary set of rules designed and imposed upon us to deprive us of anything, but a handbook, a guide if you will, that tells us how to live the long, abundant life made available to us by the same Creator-God who gave us the handbook.
In that regard, the Bible is clear with respect to its admonition against homosexuality. The Bible says homosexuality is an “abomination” (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 NKJV) and that practicing homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9-10). Thus the correlation between evolutionary science and homosexuality is made manifest. Both evolution and homosexuality are anti-Christian, rooted instead in atheism, humanism, and hedonism. To every extent the atheists and evolutionists can disprove or discredit Genesis, and particularly its account of Creation, they can disprove and discredit the rest of the Bible and, specifically, its condemnation of homosexuality. Twisting Genesis to accommodate homosexuality (or any other sin) allows them to twist the rest of the Bible to buttress their own world views. Unable to square their views with the Bible, statistical probabilities, logic and, we submit, science, homosexuals often try to do through the back door what they cannot do through the front. Instead of denouncing creation science and biblical morays by reference to religion, science, probability, or reason, many a homosexual will simply denounce God and creationism by reference to the Bible’s admonition against his homosexuality. In other words, the fallacy goes, “I am a homosexual and the Bible says homosexuality is wrong; therefore the Bible must be wrong.” And if it’s wrong about one thing then chances are it’s wrong about other things as well.
Many a homosexual will also claim to have been born that way, while an evolutionary scientist might lend credibility to homosexuality by claiming that animals practice it. The scientific evidence with respect to both assertions is suspect, to say the least. But let’s indulge for the moment the possibility that they are true: that some people are born homosexual and that some animals engage in the practice. So what? Animals also eat their young and hunt and kill each other for food. Are we to reduce human morality to animalistic instinct? And just because one is born with a predisposition to engage in a particular mode of behavior (e.g., lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, drunkenness, or homosexuality, etc.) does that validate or lend morality of any kind to the act? Of course not. The fact that one is born predisposed to do something does not thereby and necessarily render the act moral, normal, healthy or acceptable, no more so than does an animal eating its young justify a human being doing the same thing.
Homosexuality depends for its moral justification on atheistic evolution, but the theory of evolution itself undermines homosexual development. Homosexual development is more credibly attributed to the Genesis account of Creation, with the subsequent Fall of Man. The Bible tells us that God created Man and He created Man male and female. Homosexuality reputes the very nature of the man/woman relationship as established by God, who poured half of His attributes into man and the other half into woman, leaving neither fully whole until they “came together as one” in Him. Consequently, the homosexual will never be “complete,” and his theology no more sound than that of the atheistic evolutionist. It is both a sham and a shame that our public schools today teach evolutionary science, to the exclusion of creation science, and thereby promote homosexuality on the slumping shoulders of evolution, while undermining the man/woman relationship made manifest by Creation in all its splendor.