Answers in Genesis: Sex Didn’t Evolve

Your Curmudgeon is shocked — shocked! — that the subject of sex is being discussed at Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. AIG is the online creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.

But that’s what they’re talking about. Their essay is The Origin of the Sexes. It begins by telling us that an evolutionist claims: “sexuality as an essential evolutionary factor that is co-responsible for our being here at all.” They purport to quote him as saying:

Without sexual differentiation, the line of descent would have been much slower and probably would not have reached the present high level, so that man would not have developed.

Then they quote another who says:

The ‘invention’ of sexual reproduction is certainly the one decisive cause for the development of the higher plants and animals to much more complex levels of organization.

But the creation scientists have a very different view of things. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

[The sexual reproduction] process is excluded from any upward trend in the line of descent, because no essentially new information arises as a result of the recombinations occurring in sexual reproduction. Through all their countless recombination efforts, all breeders of plants and animals have provided proof that even the most highly bred cows remain cows, and that sunflowers never grow from wheat.

No new information! That’s why cows remain cows. Let’s read on:

Sexual reproduction is only possible when both sexes have fully functional reproductive organs at the same time. By definition [omitting AIG’s weird reference to their list of evolutionary assumptions], an evolutionary process is not directed by some purposeful strategic plan. How is it then possible that such different and complex organs, which fit one another in every morphological and physiological detail, could have evolved suddenly?

Wait a minute! Haven’t we seen that argument before? Oh yes, we saw it (and rebutted it) in April of last year. See Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare. Perhaps it was Jack Chick’s website that inspired AIG.

Regardless of who stumbled into this historic discovery first, how does AIG explain the titanic mystery of how male and female sexual organs somehow came into existence concurrently and function so harmoniously? Here’s their answer:

In the creation account, it is repeatedly emphasized that God originally provided the capacity for reproduction. [Bunch of scripture quotes omitted.]

So there you are, dear reader. AIG (and Jack Chick) have solved the problem that has confounded evolutionists. The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — has endowed us with these marvelous organs. Be sure to express your gratitude in an appropriate manner.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “Answers in Genesis: Sex Didn’t Evolve

  1. Sexual reproduction is only possible when both sexes have fully functional reproductive organs at the same time.

    Sigh.
    1. There’s lots written about the evolution of sex. Google is your friend, creationists.
    2. You don’t need “both sexes” to engage in sexual reproduction. A population of single-sexed hermaphrodites will do just fine – like a lot of plants. Heck, a propulation of asexual bacteria can exchange DNA with each other, switching between sexual and asexual reproduction as environmental conditions change.
    3. No reproductive organs are needed at all. See, again, bacteria.
    4. Stuff like this makes me sad Olivia Judson no longer writes for the NYT.

  2. eric says: “Stuff like this makes me sad Olivia Judson no longer writes for the NYT.”

    Olivia [* sigh *].

  3. This is what happens when a non-scientist tries to explain science…

  4. Jim Thomerson

    I have been told humans are the only mammal without a penis bone in the male organ. If this is correct, perhaps we should complain to the designer.

  5. How does he explain parthenogenesis in Komodo Dragons?

  6. johnpieret

    Ray (I’m bananas) Comfort has also used this “argument.”

    http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2009/03/of-birds-and-brains.html

    Even after he had it not-so-patiently explained to him, he couldn’t grasp the concept.

  7. NeonNoodle

    The only subject Christians know even less about than science is sex. Why don’t they leave it to the experts? (And no, I don’t mean Catholic priests.)

  8. Retired Prof

    Why don’t Christians leave sex to the experts? They don’t admire or trust the French any more than they do sex itself.

    Back when theocrats replaced the term “French fries” with “freedom fries,” they also tried calling one element of foreplay “freedom kissing,” but it reminded them so much of “free love” that they gave it up in terror of eternal damnation.

  9. aturingtest

    AIG: “By definition… an evolutionary process is not directed by some purposeful strategic plan.”

    Now you’ve got it!

    “How is it then possible that such different and complex organs, which fit one another in every morphological and physiological detail, could have evolved suddenly?”

    And now you’ve lost it. Why do you assume that a ” purposeful strategic plan” is necessary for that development? You were that close…

  10. SC said (my emphasis added):

    The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — has endowed us with these marvelous organs. Be sure to express your gratitude in an appropriate manner.

    If you insist… (looks at wife and says in a voice mimicking Arte Johnson’s “dirty old man” from “Laugh In”), “Do you believe in the hereafter? Then you know what I’m here after!

  11. Ceteris Paribus

    Anyone suppose AIG’s obsession with the origin of sex might be founded in the fundigelical premise that the male is the rightful master of the family, politics, and religion?

    If Hambo had looked at the work Darwin published on barnacles about a decade before “Origin”, he would have discovered that in the case of one barnacle species the male body had evolved to the point that it was reduced to the status of a mere insensible gonad, attached parasitically to the female of the species, and serving no other purpose beyond procreation.

    With a change of species name and a few other details, some number of human females probably would agree that the barnacle was not unique it its evolution of body plans.

  12. Ah. That explains why so many leaders of the creationist movement are desperate to get into the pants of their choir singers, parishioners, and constituents: to finally find evidence to refute Darwinism.

    See: “Bishop” Eddie L. Long, molester of his parishioners; Rev. Jimmy Swaggart, serial pursuer of prostitutes; Rev. Ted Haggard, Dr. George Rekers; Rev. Billy James Hargis; Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho); Sen. David Vitter (R-LA); Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss).

    I have a term for such people. Two words, three syllables. First word “Choir”. Second word, the Curmudgeon would not let me write.

  13. Correction: Two words, four syllables.

  14. >”The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — has endowed us with these marvelous organs. Be sure to express your gratitude in an appropriate manner.”

    I think that would be highly inappropriate. 😉

  15. The world needs more Oliva Judsons.

  16. Of course God originally provided us with the capacity for reproduction.

    Because he already knew that Adam and Eve would sin and they’d need gonads. So that the whole human race would have to be saved by God’s son’s blood sacrifice. Case closed.

    God’s like that.

  17. [The sexual reproduction] process is excluded from any upward trend in the line of descent, because no essentially new information arises as a result of the recombinations occurring in sexual reproduction.

    Organisms that sexually reproduce carry two forms of most genes, one of which is dominant and one recessive. A mutation which is neutral or currently disadvantageous can spread through a population as a recessive gene, and be manifested only when two recessive copies are paired. While currently disadvantageous, therefore uncommon, these recessive mutations might prove advantageous in adaptation to some future environmental change. It is possible that the mutations for light colored hair and skin arose in this manner, as recessive genes which existed in human populations in relatively low frequencies until they were selected for as populations moved further north into areas with less direct sunlight.

    Also, most features of organisms are the result of the interplay of numerous genes, and mutations passed on through generations might be neutral or slightly disadvantageous until paired with a specific combination of genes from another organism, whereby they become strongly advantageous. Sexual reproduction permits this continuous mixing of genes, constantly fed by small mutations, over generations. All of these combinations are exposed to selective pressures, resulting in….evolution.

    Another possible benefit of sexual reproduction is that a potentially disadvantageous mutation, if spread through a population as a recessive gene, might persist long enough to mutate a second time into a clearly advantageous form. I will admit that this is speculative, but I think it is possible.

    Thus, I would argue that rather than being excluded from “any upward trend in the line of descent” (the creationists always assume evolution proceeds in some upward manner), sexual reproduction actuals facilitates evolution by enabling the spread, persistence, and recombination of potentially useful mutations in populations. That is, in short, the creation of new information in the genome, however the creationists want to define the term.

  18. Christine Janis,

    “I have been told humans are the only mammal without a penis bone in the male organ. ”

    Not true. The bacculum (or “os penis”) is found only in the following orders of placental mammals: Primates, Rodentia, Insectivore, Carnivora, Chiroptera (the more astute may note a nice potential mnenotic here).

    All primates, that is, except humans. This alone is enough to convince me that there is no god.

  19. Christine Janis said:

    All primates, that is, except humans. This alone is enough to convince me that there is no god.

    Wait! You just proved a point of the creationists! If we’re the only ones who don’t have a penis bone, that means we’re special!
    Okay, maybe not in the way that we wanted…

  20. Christine Janis, says: “All primates, that is, except humans.”

    That’s the “rib” Adam gave up from which Eve was made.

  21. Heh. Don’t encourage ’em, SC.

    I’m thankful we don’t have a penis bone. One less bone to worry about breaking. I don’t even wanna think about what other problems a penis bone might cause.

  22. retiredsciguy

    @Ed: Well said!

  23. Whales are some that don’t have penis bones. Some species’ penises are twelve feet long–think of the logisitics of…well, you know…if they did!

    A classic example of Good Design™