Is it all the shagging baby!

[dworkin]

I've been trying to wonder what in the Theory of Evolution gives the fundies so much grief.

My mind wandered to the other perrenial fundy hang-up. Sex. They want to restrict it and manipulate it to their own ends.

Evolution is all to do with sex. 'Differential survival of genes','Survival of the Fittest','Meiosis'. Talk about evolution for any length of time and you get to sex, lots of it and the quality of quantity.

This is a subject fundies do not like. If, as evolution presents, sex is a natural process that is engaged in at the most furious rate attainable, how can they keep a lid on it?

The last thing fundies probably want is for their kiddies to get an idea that sex is the normal state of affairs.

This may be the real reason. Thoughts?

[Darth Raptor]

Yes, but it's only part of the greater Evil, Naturalistic Materlism that's being forcibly dumped on the Lord's helpless flock.

Their main problem is just what they say it is: It contradicts their creation myth. If you can't take Genesis literally, why can't some of the other passages be similarly obsolete. Hell, why not throw out the Bible altogether and interpret God in your own way? These things are all interconnected to them. Evolution begets Biblical liberalism begets promiscuity begets sodomy begets anarchy begets everlasting hellfire.

But yes, all that rampant, natural and guilt-free sex must really make them squirm.

[Morilore]

To say it another way, social conservatives simply hate change. Even when specific battles get this old, social conservatives always fight change because to them, change = destruction. It's literally what makes them what they are.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Actually, I think it's because evolution took away their trump card. Before it came along, the believers could always say "If there is no God, where did we come from ?". Now, they can't. Evolution and the Big Bang ( and science in general ) have made belief in God unnecessary; I think that's what really ticks them off.

If sex among animals bugs them, it's probably becaues they don't all form nuclear families.

[dworkin]

If sex among animals bugs them, it's probably becaues they don't all form nuclear families.

Sex among human animals in particular.

[Darth Wong]

There is a strain of Christian thought which says that humans are separate and distinct from all the animals. In short, it says that we have souls but animals do not. Christians who subscribe to this mentality find the idea of evolution deeply disturbing because it implies to them that this core part of their ideology is wrong. These are the same fundie twits who think that a human clone would be a soulless, unemotional automaton.

[Ou des]

The idea of humans only having souls and the fact of evolution doesn't seem mutually exclusive even if you insist on the existance of souls. Consider dirt. People are basically built from it, but it has no soul. If you say that people have souls, then something must be happening in the space between dirt and human. You start with simple things and get more complicated things. How is a gradual evolution from animals any different? You start with souless animals and eventually reach humans with souls.

Also I didn't think fundamentalists were against sex; just birth control, premarital sex, and sodomy.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The idea of humans only having souls and the fact of evolution doesn't seem mutually exclusive even if you insist on the existance of souls. Consider dirt. People are basically built from it, but it has no soul. If you say that people have souls, then something must be happening in the space between dirt and human. You start with simple things and get more complicated things. How is a gradual evolution from animals any different? You start with souless animals and eventually reach humans with souls.

It does mean that at some point you have children with souls born to soulless animals; some find that disturbing. Many find it preferable to believe we just * poof * appeared, with no connection to the animals. This is what Wong was talking about ( and I completely forgot about ).

[General Zod]

Also I didn't think fundamentalists were against sex; just birth control, premarital sex, and sodomy.

The vast majority of fundie fucktards are against sex for anything but procreation, even if it's within marriage.

[Junghalli]

My mind wandered to the other perrenial fundy hang-up. Sex. They want to restrict it and manipulate it to their own ends.
Evolution is all to do with sex. 'Differential survival of genes','Survival of the Fittest','Meiosis'. Talk about evolution for any length of time and you get to sex, lots of it and the quality of quantity.
This is a subject fundies do not like. If, as evolution presents, sex is a natural process that is engaged in at the most furious rate attainable, how can they keep a lid on it?

Evolution doesn't say anything about ethics whatsoever, it just says that the creatures that have lots of offspring will be the most successful. And isn't it somewhere in the Bible that you should "be fruitful and multiply"? So I don't think this is the source of their problems with evolution.
I think Darth Raptor hit the nail on the head. Their problem with evolution is that it means every word in the Bible isn't absolute literal truth. And if that's the case people could select parts of the Bible they want to follow and parts they believe to be errors, false, or misinterprited (as I suspect the majority of moderates do). The horror, the horror!

[Molyneux]

The idea of humans only having souls and the fact of evolution doesn't seem mutually exclusive even if you insist on the existance of souls. Consider dirt. People are basically built from it, but it has no soul. If you say that people have souls, then something must be happening in the space between dirt and human. You start with simple things and get more complicated things. How is a gradual evolution from animals any different? You start with souless animals and eventually reach humans with souls.

Also I didn't think fundamentalists were against sex; just birth control, premarital sex, and sodomy.

What about Gaea-type theologies, where the human soul is a smaller part of a global consciousness? (*coughAllsparkcough*)

Some of them are pretty much against sex in general, though, except for the strict purpose of reproduction...and you shouldn't enjoy it if you can help it, either.

[Darth Servo]

The house of cards that their beliefs are based upon--that the Bible is 100% literal truth. If one small part of it is proven wrong, it all comes crashing down (never mind that many, many parts have already been proven wrong).