[the truth about evolution] tough questions that nobody is asking

Written by Dan King

Christ-follower. husband. father. author of the unlikely missionary: from pew-warmer to poverty-fighter. co-author of activist faith: from him and for him. director of family ministry at st. edward's episcopal church. president of fistbump media, llc.

January 6, 2010

The look of judgement that came when the question was asked indicated that she already had her mind made up that my position was unacceptable. She had a secular humanist worldview, and I had (and still have) a strong Biblical Christian worldview. And yet regardless of these fundamental differences, we were still friends. I forget how we got on the topic that day, but she asked me what I believed about homosexuals.

Knowing that I wouldn’t be able to respond in a way that contradicts the Bible, she assumed that I would completely reject everything that had to do with homosexuality. To her this was one of the worst things about Christians, because she valued them as people, and passed no judgement on their right to choose a sexual preference.

This encounter with my friend made me realize that much of the world is extremely judgemental of Christianity for having such a strict standard. However, people often fail to consider what the alternative (the evolutionary view) has to say about things like race and homosexuality. These are important questions to consider because if one rejects the Biblical view, then they are forced to accept the humanist view…

The Evolutionary View and Racism 

In 1926, H. Homma from Johns Hopkins University published a study that showed that showed that black people possess three times the number of sweat glands as white people. This makes logical sense. When one considers the differences needed to deal with and manage heat regulation between our African and European ancestors, it is obvious that this is much more needed in one group over the other.

This finding is widely accepted in the scientific community, and many other studies are founded on these facts. But the evolutionary impacts are often overlooked. There are three possible evolutionary scenarios to consider when evaluating facts like this:

  1. Blacks (African descent) are further evolved than other races.
  2. Whites and Asians (non-African descent) are de-evolved from Blacks.
  3. We are separate evolutions growing in different directions.

In the evolutionary model, humans are considered the most evolved creatures yet and are considered superior to all other creatures. Does this ‘evolutionary’ difference between Blacks and the other races mean that they are superior to the other races? If not, then how is that superiority defined by a system that holds no moral distinctions? How can the evolutionary view ever hold a non-racist perspective considering the potentially different evolutionary paths?

The Evolutionary View and Homosexuality 

The other issue is related to homosexuality and the secular humanist worldview. Since the humanist worldview states that the origin of life comes from evolution, there is this fundamental belief that only the strong survive.

Survival involves reproduction.

The problem here may be an obvious one. The evolutionary view essentially would put no value on the lives of people living homosexual lifestyles. Since people who practice homosexuality do not reproduce, then it would be perceived as nature’s way of eliminating an undesirable characteristic or trait.

The truth is that an evolutionist simply cannot account for any value in the life of someone who lives a homosexual lifestyle. It certainly does not represent ‘survival of the fittest,’ and therefore would label homosexuality as a weakness.

The Biblical-Christian View

The issue that these perspectives create is this idea that evolutionary theory would mean that stronger, more advanced forms of life have greater value. This is the kind of trap that leads people like Hitler to try to create a ‘master race’. Think about that one…

While many might say that the Biblical Christian worldview allows Christians to condemn people for the sin that they have (such as homosexuality), the truth is that Bible teaches us that God values ALL human life.

All people are created by God and have equal value in the eyes of God. This means that God loves the black man and the white man equally. God loves the person who practices homosexuality just as much as the one who practices heterosexuality.

The issue of sin in someones life is a different issue, and should not cloud the fact that God loves the person regardless. People in the church don’t always get this right, and we often alienate people for being different than what we think they should be.

Our response as Christians should be to love people regardless of race, or sexual-preference, or any other thing that could separate us. All people have value in God’s eyes, and the church is what He uses to show that to people. Can I get an amen?

Related posts:


  1. shmee

    Yeah but…

    You don't really consider the genetic importance of evolution in race or racism. The irrelevance of genetic difference between races is really, really important to consider (a big scientific argument against racism in these same scientific communities). Look for studies post-1926, please. One study is a poor foundation for the entire world of “secularism” or “science.” Appiah does a good job covering this, although it is imbedded in a philosophical view. Also, the concept of race is iffy. I know it's easier to address the scientific communities response as an absolute, but please start with a definition of what you consider a race to be. Hint: isolation and genealogy won't get you far scientifically, sociologically, or philosophically speaking. I'm not saying or trying to push for your invalidation. I just think you have a lot more to consider when speaking of “science's” take on race or racism. Plus, “science” is not a unified whole. There are many different approaches to race from many scientific perspectives. Some social, some natural.

    Secondly, homosexuality and science… lifestyles vs. sexuality. Big difference between humanistic approaches to sexuality vs. the need for reproduction. A more accurate construal of what should be (or how people are) by a scientific approach would be queer, frankly. Sexuality in observation is blurry in the animal kingdom. Reproduction happens for its own sake. Sexuality, though, is much different. Anthropology and sexuality would be a good place to look in historically, for a take on the social sciences.

    Again, not trying to say you aren't valid, but you need to consider distinctions between fields of science, divisions within those fields, more relevant and current studies, the difference between sex and sexuality, etc etc.

    Have a good week! Hope you aren't too cold.


  2. BibleDude

    I appreciate the points that you make here… However, it isn't my goal to make a strong argument against the scientific and humanist approaches. It is more to raise the question of the consequences of rejecting the Christian view.

    My perspective here is more about how the church (at least should, as the Bible teaches) embrace the value in all people, and other worldviews have more basis to reject and devalue people for certain differences.

    But to the points that you make, I will certainly explore more in those directions! I appreciate the additional perspectives! Thanks for dropping by and sharing your thoughts!


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

[the truth about evolution] tough questions that nobody is asking

by Dan King time to read: 4 min