Nathan Tabor
September 8, 2005
Charles Darwin disagrees with homosexuality
By Nathan Tabor

New Orleans' annual week-long homosexual flesh-fest and orgy in the streets, widely touted as the Southern Decadence Gay Pride Festival, had been welcomed by city officials in years past because of the large influx of cash it brought into the economy. But this year the gala event had to be postponed by circumstances beyond their politically correct control Hurricane Katrina.

As I write this column on the afternoon of Labor Day 2005, a handful of homosexuals in the French Quarter are holding a scaled-down "Decadence Parade," anyway. With dead bodies and human excrement floating in flooded streets throughout the devastated city, these hardy partiers refuse to be deterred.

"It's New Orleans, man. We're going to celebrate," declared one, wearing a sombrero and carrying a guitar. The New York Times described this plucky group as "lingering signs of a fading vivacity" in the Big Easy.

But, you see, that's what being "gay" is all about. Taking big risks with a great likelihood of known disastrous consequences. Homosexual males live, on average, to the ripe old age of 42, hardly a demographic for the cautious planner. They live a destructive lifestyle and are destroyed by it, which strikes me as a curious form of blindness to reality. No fear for them, of God or nature.

This little side note, based as it is on the latest headlines, is really just an introduction to segue into the following premise. Not only are homosexuals seemingly blind to their moral conflict with Christianity, they are also blind to their natural conflict with our modern secular god, Science, particularly as espoused by the disciples of Charles Darwin, the prophet of evolution.

Proponents of the gay agenda like to say their lifestyle is genetically determined and they don't have a choice in the matter. Most homosexuals reject God so they can't claim they were "created" the way they are. From this we can conclude that most agree with the tenets of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

However, this position poses a logical contradiction. Just consider the basic scientific definition of Evolution, which is, according to the MedTerms Online Medical Dictionary: "the continuing process of change, especially in reference to natural selection."

Under Darwin's process of natural selection, all "beings" as opposed to the outmoded religious idea of "creatures" are continually adapting to their natural environment in order to have a better chance of surviving. The weakest and most poorly adapted die off, while the strongest and most improved survive long enough to mate. Their offspring inherit their genes, and thus the species improves from one generation to the next.

Darwin "noted that successful species produce more offspring in each generation than are needed to replace the adults who die . . . The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction," MedTerms explains.

This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce sexually, they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. Under evolution, then, successful reproduction is the key. Homosexuals would cease to exist because their sexual practices are such that they do not produce natural offspring.

Therein lies the quandary, then, for the gay activist seeking to make his intellectual case for respectability based on science and genetics. These secular gods have abandoned him to oblivion. By their iron laws of Natural Selection, he cannot possibly exist, let alone be genetically preserved and determined.

This poses a huge dilemma for both the homosexuals and the evolutionists. Are the evolutionists willing to weaken their dogma by accepting the homosexuals as a genetically determined subspecies? If evolutionists accept homosexuals, the whole Darwinian argument falls apart.

© Nathan Tabor


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)


Alan Keyes
Why de facto government (tyranny) is replacing the Constitution (Apr. 2015)

Stephen Stone
Will Obama be impeached now that Republicans control both houses of Congress? (Nov. 2014)

Laurie Roth
Third Debate - Smooth -- smiling Hillary appeared paranoid -- arrogant -- conspir

J. Matt Barber
The crucifixion of Judge Roy Moore

Dan Popp
Montanism, legalism and Trumpism

Kurt Kondrich
Down syndrome Awareness -- my greatest assignment!

Frank Maguire
Altar-ing our self: the passion for destruction

Curtis Dahlgren
A column for the ages ("powerful women"?)

Bryan Fischer
The only thing you need to know on November 8

Selwyn Duke
No, Trump should not accept the results of a possibly stolen election

Lloyd Marcus
Hillary Clinton: America's most dangerous "enemy within"

Michael Bresciani
The tale of two Hillarys -- and one Donald Trump

Jen Shroder
The good in Donald Trump

Frank Louis
Worried Trump will get us into war? With Hillary there will be nothing left to fight for!
  More columns


Click for full cartoon
More cartoons

RSS feeds



Matt C. Abbott
Chris Adamo
Russ J. Alan
Bonnie Alba
Jamie Freeze Baird
Chuck Baldwin
Kevin J. Banet
J. Matt Barber
. . .
[See more]

Sister sites