Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that no one can tell if such crazy-talk is literal or not. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.
Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously DNA didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.
How to Get to Heaven 
I think you may have misinterpreted what they said about “desire to spread their genes.” Many evolutionists believe that animals have instinctual behaviors that effect their life patterns. One example of this is migration in birds. They always seem to fly south in the northern hemisphere just before winter comes (and north in the southern hemisphere) so that they can survive. Those that don’t often freeze to death before they can reproduce, and those that reproduce go on and live. In much the same way, those that do not want to reproduce die out, and any genes that make them want to reproduce stay within the species. It’s not so much making a decision as it is doing what is primal instinct and failing (read: dying) if it doesn’t work.
On Douglas’ apparent contradiction, it seems he does not understand why homosexuality exists at all, and made a contradiction out of hypothesis-testing (i.e. presenting multiple theories to see which one can substantiate itself the best). Given disagreement between different perspectives on the issue, it’s pretty easy to see why a “scientist” could get so baffled.
Also, I haven’t heard of any study where exclusive homosexuals changed to exclusive heterosexuals once they have been fully-developed as adults. This seems to be the context in which they speak from my understanding of their discussion, and if it’s correct, makes the baby analogy seem less credulous. A source would be great, thanks.
I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t think that it’s fair to say such broad-sweeping statements that equate to “evolutionists hate the Bible and God.” They have not yet been enlightened. I have many colleagues that practice variations of Christianity that simultaneously believe in evolution. I think these are the kind of over-generalizations that drive people away from understanding the true message of God’s will.
“I think you may have misinterpreted what they said about “desire to spread their genes.””
No I haven’t.
“Many evolutionists believe that animals have instinctual behaviors that effect their life patterns.”
And like I said, they don’t explain what they mean when they say that their DNA wants to spread and that animals are looking for a mate with the best DNA. Further, even if they had said, “the DNA gives them their instincts to look for the best DNA” that would still be nonsensical since there is no evidence for that, and ironically, that would only be further evidence for intelligent design if such a thing were true: DNA giving animals specific programming to somehow observe for a mate with the best DNA. And like I said, there are God-haters that clearly say such stupid things in order to avoid the words programming and programmed. Further, instincts are a spiritual thing, it’s mental and/or emotional, and to simply attribute them to material programming would be presumption. It ignores the soul and mind which are not material things and which could have their own programs.
“One example of this is migration in birds. They always seem to fly south in the northern hemisphere just before winter comes (and north in the southern hemisphere) so that they can survive. Those that don’t often freeze to death before they can reproduce, and those that reproduce go on and live. In much the same way, those that do not want to reproduce die out, and any genes that make them want to reproduce stay within the species. It’s not so much making a decision as it is doing what is primal instinct and failing (read: dying) if it doesn’t work.”
That statement does not refute what I said. You’re simply saying what instincts cause birds to do and what part of evolution is, not the illogical statements I pointed out that evolutionists make.
“On Douglas’ apparent contradiction, it seems he does not understand why homosexuality exists at all,”
According to him, all evolutionists don’t, not just him.
“and made a contradiction out of hypothesis-testing (i.e. presenting multiple theories to see which one can substantiate itself the best).”
What?
“Given disagreement between different perspectives on the issue, it’s pretty easy to see why a “scientist” could get so baffled.”
Learning about different perspectives is not a reason to contradict yourself. There are many different views on everything, that doesn’t mean that everyone is automatically going to be confused and contradict themselves. My point is, that he contradicted himself, and it’s something that evolutionists do often, and that homosexuality is an aberration.
“Also, I haven’t heard of any study where exclusive homosexuals changed to exclusive heterosexuals once they have been fully-developed as adults.”
I’m talking about the testimony of former homosexuals, I said nothing about a study and you don’t need “studies” to learn if they are telling the truth. Get to know God and learn about Christians. And the Bible, having much evidence for it, and none against it, says there are former homosexuals, and it being trustworthy (because of the evidence), can be believed about that then. You seem to me to think that you need to use science to believe anything, which isn’t true. Remember instincts? Remember observation? And there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. As is obvious: love is a choice, and so is lust. IF NOT, then the world, the entire world is illogical for having adultery laws, and marriage laws, and expecting anyone to be faithful or to have emotional self-control, and if there is no expectation of emotional self-control, then there should be no expectation for anyone to obey any laws. But clearly, there is an expectation for people to have emotional-self control. Like I also said in my article: no one is born lusting after anyone, that’s a choice. And again: there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
“This seems to be the context in which they speak from my understanding of their discussion, and if it’s correct, makes the baby analogy seem less credulous.”
You’re confused because you are being pretentious: you’re using too many “high words” and getting lost in your attempt to sound smart. Speak plainly not like your some actor in a movie trying to impress an audience.
“A source would be great, thanks.”
A source for what?
“I don’t mean to be rude, but I don’t think that it’s fair to say such broad-sweeping statements (LIKE EVOLUTIONISTS DO ALL THE TIME?) that equate to ‘evolutionists hate the Bible and God.'”
And that you don’t think it’s fair is evidence that it isn’t “fair”? What happened to “studies” that you desire for evidence, but now it’s just your complain that is good enough for evidence? And must I really say, “NOT INCLUDING CHRISTIANS WHO ARE SAVED WHO ARE NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION”? I’m not merely writing to ignoramuses and newbies to life, but to people who already are aware that there are some saved confused Christians. And for those who are not ignorant or newbies to Christianity, atheism or evolution, it’s obvious I’m not referring to every single evolutionist as a God-hater. Wasting my time to explain the obvious is not something I want to do.
“They have not yet been enlightened.”
Now you’re the one making the broad-sweeping statement.
“I have many colleagues that practice variations of Christianity that simultaneously believe in evolution.”
And not all variations lead to salvation according to the Bible; there is a narrow path to salvation that few find according to Christ.
“I think these are the kind of over-generalizations that drive people away from understanding the true message of God’s will.”
See above, and you obviously haven’t read much of my writings or what I believe to make such a broad-sweeping statement about what and how I teach, and you should have been more careful then to do that being that I was pointing out clear contradictions and clear bad-teaching cliches by evolutionists. You’re mind is backwards.
For evolutionists, the exact process for how animals spread their DNA is that those that do not survive die out. Those that do not wish to reproduce to not have bloodlines continued. I do not think that this process is a reason why intelligent design is true. “Those that don’t follow the traits die” isn’t the same argument as that someone “programmed” (a term I abhor as much as you).
Next, my analogy was so that the reason why they’re confused about homosexuality in genetics makes sense. The theory states that traits that do not improve reproductive capabilities die out. It wasn’t a refutation of anything you said.
Hypothesis testing is providing multiple viewpoints, each for consideration. From my understanding he presents multiple viewpoints under this type. It’s not the same thing as a contradiction, because he does not hold one as a universal truth.
On the gay-turned-straight issue, I just wanted to read anything on it. I haven’t read or heard of any testimony before: it’s news to me. I just know that studies can often be verified or indicted based on their methods, and the statistician in me knows that testimonials can often contain false information. If it was in the Bible, just the passage and edition would be good. Even if it’s not a study, could you link me to a website? I would still appreciate that. By the way, the source was for the study I was referring to two sentences previous. I just know that in my life as a straight man, I’ve never made a decision on my whether I was gay or not. And if there was a choice, some would choose to be straight, no?
As for my vocabulary, it’s just the way I think. I’m sorry you think it’s “high words” or whatever but that really doesn’t take anything away from what I’m saying nor does it have a single implication on my positions. I use the words that I believe are the most descriptive of my thoughts. I see no problem with this.
Lets go to the entire “hate God and the bible” shpeel. The reason why I thought it was a gross generalization was that it indicated hatred where there is none. By your own view; these people haven’t the same viewpoint, which means necessarily they haven’t been enlightened. It isn’t a gross generalization – it’s necessarily a fact. Either way, I wasn’t speaking from my own voice, but rather providing a reasonable alternative to the language which posits evolutionists hating God. I know for a fact there are people who are Christian and believe in evolution: these people do NOT hate the Bible, do NOT hate God, and even if they don’t find the path to salvation, that doesn’t reflect their opinions on God or the Bible. Additionally, the implication of this is that it prevents people from learning and accepting intelligent design because they feel ostracized. I’m using “God’s Will” as a synonym for intelligent design.
And you’re correct: I haven’t read any of your works, nor does it matter. You were pointing out poor wordings on the part of evolutionists, and then you told everyone that all evolutionists hate God. I don’t think that ANY referenced any of your other works. If you explained this before, link me to it.
“For evolutionists, the exact process for how animals spread their DNA is that those that do not survive die out. ” No, that’s not true for all, maybe for simpleton ones, but that isn’t what they teach. They teach what you can look up on any encyclopedia concerning what molecules-to-man type evolution is. Evolutionists who believe in sof are could also be believing in something nonseniscal depending on what type of sof they believe in: http://creationwiki.org/Natural_selection#Survival_of_the_Fittest_as_a_Tautology I found out about this because of an article I recently posted on sof possibly being disproved. Sorry can’t read the rest of what you said, too tired and I get the impression I’m going to be getting into arguments of ignorance with you from what I’ve read so far. Maybe someone else will reply to you.