We’ve encountered this creationist argument before. First at the Jack Chick website: Jack Chick: Sex Is Evolution’s Nightmare.
From there, it found its way to other creationists, for example: Answers in Genesis: Sex Didn’t Evolve, and then Discoveroids: Sex Is Irreducibly Complex, and most recently Self-Published Genius #70: The Fatal Flaw.
After all that pioneering creation science, the argument has become respectable enough to appear at the website Christian Post, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their article is titled Top 3 Reasons Why the Popular Evolution Story Is a Myth.
It was written by F. LaGard Smith, described at the end as “a professor of law, principally at Pepperdine University School of Law. Smith is the author of over 30 books on a wide variety of legal, social and religious topics. He is most widely known as the compiler and narrator of the best-selling The Daily Bible®, with over two million copies sold.” Here are some excerpts from his article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]:
We have Charles Darwin to thank for opening our eyes to the forces of natural selection so useful today in medical research, healthcare, and technology. But Darwin also did us a great disservice, all too blithely extrapolating from observable “bounded” evolution to his Grand Theory of microbe-to-man “unbounded” evolution. In a nutshell, Darwin speculated that, since there is evolution within well-defined species, then all species must surely be the result of evolution. Logical enough, but simply wrong. Darwin’s extrapolation is fraught with a host of problems, at least one of which — in three particulars — is fatal to his Grand Theory.
Ooooooooooooh! Darwin extrapolated too far! He went from micro evolution to macro evolution — or in Smith’s words, from “bounded” to “unbounded” evolution. And there’s fatal flaw in his theory. Here it comes:
That fatal flaw? The origin of sexual reproduction. Evolution (and evolutionists) simply can’t explain it, and Darwin himself never even tried. … Darwin discussed sexual selection, gender divergence, and all sorts of matters pertaining to breeding, but, curiously, not a single word about the origin of sex.
What a revelation! Smith speculates:
Did Darwin simply take sex for granted since the biological world is awash with sex? Was he just too close to the problem to recognize it? Or is it possible that this particular difficulty was too much of a threat to his elegant theory to highlight it for his readers and critics? Whatever the explanation, it’s clear that Darwin never seriously dealt with the following three devastating problems with his theory:
Then, in a scholarly way, Smith breaks the sex problem into three “devastating” issues. He discusses each one for a paragraph, but we’ll skip that. Here are the issues:
1. Natural selection could not have “selected” from genderless asexual replication the DNA information necessary for evolving the very first male and female forms necessary for sexual reproduction.
2. Natural selection could not possibly have evolved even the most elementary form of sex by meiosis — a radically-different form of reproduction from “exact-copy” asexual mitosis.
3. Natural selection could not possibly have provided simultaneous, on-time delivery of the first sexually-compatible pair of any species in order to move to the second generation of that species, nor certainly to any other, “higher” species along the supposed chain of common descent from microbe to man.
Stunning, huh? Let’s read on:
Taken together, the first two problems are quietly acknowledged by evolutionists to be the “Queen of evolutionary problems” for which, despite their best efforts, they have no answers.
Wowie — the “Queen of evolutionary problems”! Then what’s the third problem — the king? It’s even bigger than that, as Smith explains at the end of his article:
Remarkably, the third (even more obvious) problem is never once addressed by evolutionists. Could that be because, as with Darwin himself, mentioning it would risk destroying an elegant, but fatally-flawed theory?
We’ve mentioned our own response to this great mystery before, but it seems appropriate to repeat it:
The two sexes exist in hermaphrodites. Some hermaphrodites cycle back and forth from one sex to the other. All that needed to happen is that one individual was mutated so that it was stuck in one sex or the other. This wasn’t a reproductive disaster, as that individual could always find a mate (but probably not a permanent one). If the “sticky” mutation perseveres, in future generations there will be some individuals that are always one gender or the other. That’s how it begins.
The existence of sex is a major problem for creationists, but that doesn’t stop them from engaging in it. Maybe, each time they do so, they imagine they’re striking a blow at evolution. That would explain their fecundity.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.