You will want to study this one closely, by clicking over to the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog and reading it for yourself, but we’ll give you some excerpts to, ah, stimulate your curiousity. We’re talking about their new blog post: The Human Difference and the Design of Sex.
The author is Geoffrey Simmons, about whom we previously wrote The Discoveroids Have a New Fellow. Here’s their biographical information about him. He’s a creationist MD, and he writes a lot about sex — see Discoveroids: The Miracle of Childbirth. Here are some excerpts from his latest, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
Was sex designed to be fun? [Huh?] That may sound like a silly question [Yes, it does.], but finding the answer might be paramount in knowing how we humans came about, and why. It’s doubtful that human beings would exist if the sex act were compulsory or pure drudgery; and, it’s a no-brainer that we have to reproduce to endure. Animals operate on instinct, but humans are different. The difference cries out for an explanation.
Jeff is going to explain the difference for us. He says:
Before going further, I’ll say only a few words about the intricate mechanics we share with other creatures. Just the steps needed to repeatedly manufacture an ovum and millions of sperm, then deliver them in a reasonable way [Gasp!] to a practical place for the maturation of the egg, require an astronomical number of coincidences in design and timing.
Ooooooooooooh! It requires design! After that stunning revelation, Jeff tells us:
There’s a unique set of pheromones for each species. Mind you how difficult life would be if the buffalo and the prairie dog had identical pheromones [Wow!] or dogs didn’t smell different from cats. What if all bird mating calls were identical? Might the warbler accidentally pursue the sparrow? Trees would be alive with fights, not songs. And no babies.
And what if people and porcupines had identical pheromones? Fortunately, the designer — blessed be he! — has spared us from that nightmare. Jeff continues:
Obviously, procreation can be accomplished under other circumstances, but to be fully human it has to be enticing, gratifying, exciting, memorable, and loving for both partners. [Are you “fully human” dear reader?] It’s safe to say that human intimacy, at its best, surpasses that of any animal, even the most intelligent. Darwinists (like Darwin himself) would likely reply that this is a matter of degree: quantitative rather than qualitative. Really?
Skipping a few paragraphs that we know you’re going to read for yourself, Jeff asks an interesting question:
One might ask if there ever was a trial-and-error process regarding procreation — in the way evolution explains the rest of biology. It’s hard to fathom how that would look. Each step up would have needed new information.
It looks like he’s describing adolescence. Oh wait — maybe not. Let’s read on:
Was sex less exciting for the Neanderthals and therefore the ultimate cause of their decline? That’s anyone’s guess. Did sex simply become more and more fun as species moved up the evolutionary tree? I can’t know this for certain, but I suspect one-celled organisms don’t have much fun reproducing.
We’re only halfway through Jeff’s essay. There are thrills awaiting you in every paragraph, but this is already long enough so we’ll skip to the end. Jeff finishes with this:
Take away any part of this and sex would not be the experience we know. Might we be programmed to get excited, in that human way, about opportunities to reproduce? To me, this all smacks of very complex design that only an intelligent designer could and would design.
This might be the Discoveroids’ best essay ever, and the lesson is powerful: Sex does the job, and it’s fun — therefore Oogity Boogity!
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.