Evolution and pornography

The most obscene pornography I've heard of is the dream of some Darwinists (including Richard Dawkins) to create a hybrid of man and chimpanzee. We see here the depth of perversity in some opponents of creation. That they can find such a fantasy titillating (exciting their hatred of God and Christianity) shows us how incapable they are of giving an objective account of the evidence at hand in the origins debate.

Quotes and comments;

A. No doubt drooling at the mouth, Dawkins writes of his fantasy, ''Politics would never be the same again, no would theology, sociology, psychology or most branches of philosophy. The world that would be so shaken, by such an incidental event as a hybridisation, is a speciest world indeed, dominated by a discontinuous mind." [1.]

- In case you weren't aware of it, for many evolutionists, being labeled a speciest is about as evil a thing as they can imagine. (A speciest being someone who imagines humans are unique; that they are not in fact animals.) You might wonder how Dawkins can know all this change would happen, especially since the 'continuous' model is already accepted by the great majority of academics. They already act as if the dream were true, or had already happened. (Why he calls it incidental I don't know.)

The bible expressly forbids beastiality by the way. (It might seem that this law was implied in the repeated refrain from genesis that each animal reproduced after its kind.)
- There always seem to be people who find it exciting to do what the bible forbids. (Is this one of the big attractions for espousing evolution over creation?)

The Mosaic law has some rules forbidding hybridisation that I've always found puzzling. (At one time I wondered if they might have had their source in speculation about kinds.)

B. David P. Barash is another devotee of humanzee pornography; one who dreams of seeing human/animal hybrids in the future. I see in this more evidence of how Darwinism degrades the human mind; how it turns people into idiots. [2.]

- I can't imagine any animals having interest in such a project, but then animals aren't depraved as human beings are. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists, there are many essential differences between human beings and animals; one of these being the ability to sin.

C. Barash claims such a hybrid would erase the line between animals and humans. "It's a line that exists only in the minds of those who proclaim that the human species, unlike all others, possesses a spark of the divine and that we therefore stand outside nature." [2.]

- Why does he say 'only' in the mind? Doesn't evolutionary theory exist only in the mind of humans as well? We see here that a prime motivation for some evolutionists is the desire to disprove God and Christianity. Evolution isn't so much a search for truth in that case, but the search for the disproof of God. Such a hybrid, if such a monstrosity were to be produced, wouldn't disprove man as created by god, it would only prove the bible's claim that the heart of man is deceitfully wicked above all things.

That they'd be willing to produce such a creature (I doubt this would be possible) only goes to show what hatred animates these people. What could possibly be the fate of such a thing? Apparently they don't care.

If this hybrid would prove evolution theory is correct, does the failure (on the part of Stalin, etc.) to produce such a hybrid then disprove evolution? This would seem to be the downside of the Barash/Dawkins dream. (I'm not saying it would.)

Notes;
1. Spiritual brain - Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary p.14
2. ibid/p.15
3. see p.14 for a reference to the Stalin incident.
4. A key question for e.s is why humans and apes are so different. Since the theory states they had a common ancestor something must have happened to make humans so radically different. But what? I've never seen any answers to this question that were at all convincing. Since evolutionists can't answer this question they either (for the most part) ignore it or claim (despite the evidence) that the differences are trivial.
5. In my opinion the idea man is just an animal (which is the reigning model of academic thought at the moment) gives modern thought a pornographic foundation.
6. The SF stories of Cordwainer Smith featured animal/human hybrids; cat people, dog people, and so on. (I've always seen it as an element of horror in his work.) Without a strong creationist perspective I don't see any way to prevent such experimentation. It's my view that the role of man (as a steward under God) is to do his best to preserve the original created kinds; not to in any way add to them, or to create new kinds.