Evolution: The Root of the New Homosexual Monkey Morality!

Jude 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, AS BRUTE BEASTS, in those things they CORRUPT THEMSELVES.

The following are excerpts from Dan Gilbert’s book, “Evolution: The Root of All Isms,” published in 1935:

“Dr. Samuel D. Schmalhausen is probably America’s most popular and persistent champion of free ‘sex expression’ and ‘sex experimentation’ – carried to the lengths of perversion and degeneracy. Dr. Schmalhausen advocates and approves what he calls ‘refined’ and ‘civilized’ promiscuity; indeed, promiscuity is a central pillar of what he terms the ‘New Morality.’ Included in his conception of the ‘New Morality’ is also HOMOSEXUALITY, which he boasts has ‘achieved a respectable status.’ He contends: ‘Abnormalities and perversions, sexual and social, are becoming a very familiar part of contemporary morality.’ (page 134, ‘Our Neurotic Age’)

‘Now what is the basis on which this modern Moses has proclaimed a New Morality? On what ground does he assure the younger generation that ‘All the sacred concepts of the Puritan and Victorian periods have been denuded of their sanctity’?….Dr. Schmalhausen contends that back of what he calls the ‘Sexual Revolution’ lies the ‘Scientific Revolution.’ In ‘Why We Misbehave,’ he states: ‘The sexual revolution is the most recent and the most profound phase of the scientific revolution: the drastic application of the principle of experimentalism to life in all its personal aspects.’ (pages 19, 20) He holds that his ‘experimental’ and ‘revolutionary’ sex ethic is simply a by-product of the dawning of the ‘scientific age.’ In writing on ‘The Sexual Revolution’ (‘Sex in Civilization,’ pages 355, 356) he says: ‘In practice, the by-product of this matter-of-fact attitude (of EVOLUTIONARY science) toward the universe was acceptance of the experimental ethic that permitted mere man to TAMPER WITH NATURE….The scientific root of the sexual revolution is this blasphemous conception of the right of man (heralded as made in the image of God) to tamper with nature.’ Again he says…’THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION IS THE TERMINAL PHASE OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.’ (page 356) And again…’The most fundamental revolution is the scientific….the scientific revolution…eventuated…in the most astonishing revolution in the history of the human species: the revolution in sex and morals.’ (page 355)

To Dr. Schmalhausen, of course, the most significant ‘fact’ established by the ‘scientific revolution’ is the EVOLUTIONARY DOCTRINE of the ANIMAL NATURE OF MAN. The ‘scientific’ theory that man is an animal, of a nature with beasts, is the basis on which Schmalhausen asserts that promiscuity and perversions are natural and proper for humans, even as they are for the animals….’Nature,’ he asserts on the basis of the evolutionary concept of what nature is, ‘permits everything: objects neither to INCEST NOR HOMOSEXUALITY nor playful perversions…’ ['Our Neurotic Age,' page 145]….He contends that evolutionary ‘Historical perspective lends a kind of normality to the most extreme abnormality in behavior…’ (‘Sex in Civilization,’ page 355)

Promiscuity and perversion, Schmalhausen contends, are perfectly compatible and in accord with human nature because human nature ‘knows and ANCIENT ANIMAL HISTORY.’ Because promiscuity is ‘natural’ to the animals and because man is presumed to be an animal, Schmalhausen holds that for man, too, ‘Promiscuity is natural enough…’ (‘Sex in Civilization,’ page 389, 391)….Schmalhausen thinks it rather absurd that so-called ‘civilized’ folk should hold aloof from promiscuous practices: ‘There is a notion among nice people that promiscuity is good enough for SAVAGES but beneath the dignity of civilized folk. There is no reliable evidence of an ethnological nature for this self-deluding superstition…’ (page 389)….’The advanced women are overtly and undisguisedly heading for promiscuity pure and simple…’ (Robert Briffault, quoted approvingly by Schmalhausen, ‘Sex in Civilization,’ page 388)

Schmalhausen flatly denies that God created man and woman as mates for each other – ‘that male and female created He them.’ Schmalhausen holds that the EVOLUTION of the sexes, the division of the species into males and females was haphazardly accomplished by a series of accidents – that they were not INTENDED and DESIGNED for each other, and that therefore HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT UNNATURAL AND IS NOT VICE….

The sex nature of man is supposed to be similar to that of the lower animals. Schmalhausen goes on to defend his ‘experimental’ sex ethic on the ground that ‘Animals, for example monkeys, show no decided and inevitable preference for the opposite sex. Succinctly summarized, said animals enjoy the practices of masturbation and HOMOSEXUALITY…’ (page 28)….The WHOLE RELEVANCY, then, of the argument rests upon the EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS; for if man is not related to the lower animals their ‘sex nature’ can bear no relation to his. Indeed the ‘traditional moralists,’ who thought man made in the image of God and who thought humans fundamentally different from animals, CONTENDED THAT A STUDY OF THE HABITS OF ANIMALS WOULD REVEAL HOW MAN SHOULD NOT BEHAVE. But Schmalhausen and the others who carry evolution to its logical conclusion simply reverse this proposition: having decided that man is fundamentally the SAME as the ‘other animals,’ they conclude that a study of their conduct would reveal what conduct is NATURAL and proper to human beings.

Having reviewed the ‘unfamiliar facts’ relative to the wide variety of perversions ‘natural’ to monkeys, Schmalhausen asks if there is ‘any form of sex behavior that may be called abnormal in the pathological sense.’ He takes the position that the experiments with animals prove that there isn’t, and says: ‘One thing seems perfectly clear: it is no longer permissible for an enlightened person TO BE HORRIFIED BY PERVERSION.’ (page 29) Verily, becoming ‘enlightened’ regarding the behavior of monkeys ‘revolutionizes’ one’s outlook!

In ‘Our Neurotic Age,’ Schmalhausen also constructs his ‘New Morality’ on the basis of the conclusions drawn from the behavior OF THE BEASTS. He says (page 144), ‘There is no absolute certification from nature for HETEROSEXUALITY…’….he concludes that in the light of ‘psychology, animal and human’ – ‘the very concept of PERVERSION loses so much of its meaning as to be almost useless as a sexual category.’ Of course, all concepts of decency and morality are meaningless and useless to animals; and since man is only an animal, Schmalhausen contends that they are meaningless and useless to man!….And in full view of the evolutionary history, Schmalhausen maintains: ‘The conclusion is inescapable….we are BORN PERVERTS.’ (‘Our Neurotic Age,’ page 145) Of course, we are – IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, if we have the perverted nature of the beast stamped indelibly on our being. If man is an evolved animal, with millions of years of jungle experience back of him, of course ‘perversion and abnormality are more basic (i.e. natural) in the human behavior repertory than what we are pleased to call normality and decency in conduct.’

But aside from EVOLUTION, aside from the theory of the BRUTE ANCESTRY OF MAN, is there ANY BASIS for this ‘experimental’ ethic, this justification of UNNATURAL VICE, this morality of sexual license? Apparently, there is not. Dr. Schmalhausen has written endlessly on this subject; he has evangelized with fervor and ingenuity for the ‘higher promiscuity’ and for sexual license, but always, in the last analysis, his whole case rests on the evolutionary doctrine and its logical implications. His whole argument for ‘MONKEY MORALS,’ for BARNYARD ETHICS, for sex anarchy and ‘free sexual experimentation’ is based on the theory that man is an animal – and that what is ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ for the monkeys is natural and normal for man.”

[Pastor Joey Faust, http://www.kingdombaptist.org ]