The Best Argument for Creation? Sex


Quick note:

Sexual dimorphism isn’t about the differences in genitalia between the sexes. It’s about the other differences between the sexes. It can be the relative size, brightness of plumage, presence of antlers/horns, and so on.

(Matthew Pevarnik) #22

Read through the posts and have been enjoying the interactions. I briefly wanted to comment on a popular form of the argument regarding sex and evolution among mostly Christians that reject the theory of evolution and any possible theories of the origins of life. It is not necessarily related to your questions, but goes something like this:

Scientists can’t explain the origins of sex. Therefore God supernaturally designed it.

That’s the whole argument and here is one more recent article from the Old Earth Creationist (though anti-evolution and any theory regarding the origins of life or the universe) Reasons to Believe:

In other words because scientists can’t explain the origins of sexual reproduction it is a reason to believe in a divine creator. Which is a classic god of the gaps type of argument and the only way I had ever heard Christians talk about such things. A nice writeup from 2016 regarding a more recent explanation regarding how two sexes evolved is here (perhaps a biologist could chime in if there’s anything more recent or comprehensive):


It appears that I’m not included in this conversation, which seems to be between moderators and one non-moderator. However, in this conversation about SEX, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the curious case of the anatomy of the the female spotted hyena. The poor creature has been given a pseudo-penis,through which she must have sex and give birth. How does creationism/intelligent design explain this?

Watch the video!

(Austin) #24

Sorry! I haven’t responded much to your comments since it didn’t seem to interact with the article. I apologize for that. I don’t know how to answer your questions. I was simply looking for a response to the article in a systematic way.


(Phil) #25

Interesting anatomy, thanks for sharing. In looking at it, there are a lot of strange genitals in the animal kingdom.

(Christy Hemphill) #26

No way. You got me last time and I’m still kind of shaken up over it. It should have trigger warnings. :flushed:

(Christy Hemphill) #27

Well, if you ever want to ditch the IMB and talk about the thrilling possibilities in the world of Bible translation, Scripture engagement, trauma healing, ethnic arts consulting, or literacy and language development, I know some people…


I did indeed address your article. I asked how creationism explains the various intersexual conditions. Do you know what I’m talking about? Your article tries to neatly divide the world into “your’re a boy OR you’re a girl.”
It’s not that simple. (And this has nothing to do with homosexuality or transgenerism.)

(Austin) #29

Hey there! Did you by chance miss my edit to the original post? It’s not my article. I saw it somewhere and was looking for an evangelical, EC response to it since I’m not a scientist.

I must’ve missed your response to the article itself. And for that, I apologize :slight_smile: I did not intend to overlook you. I’m new to the whole message boards thing!

Thanks for your responses, they’re appreciated.

(Matthew Pevarnik) #30

I finally got a chance to look at the article. It’s rather well typical. Mostly of the form similar to what I guessed above without reading it:
‘This is too complex or has too many steps to the process, therefore God.’

And then there’s the interesting tie in to culture wars, which helps propagate the falsehood that a scientific explanation is actually against God and his plans. That’s a big tactic of the movie and YEC community at large (and some OEC groups that I mentioned above). I’d love to respond in more detail but want to at least mention some of the questions he poses are good questions similar to one of the authors in the Nature writeup I posted above:

(Randy) #31

I appreciate your review, @Burgardless. I think that it reminds me of the skeptics who thought that evolution can’t account for beauty and art. I’m actually pretty fascinated by how evolutionary psychology accounts for it, though it creeps me out a bit from time to time about how much of what I think is delightful and serendipitous has adaptive value.

I had to laugh after reading @Christy’s post about 'Neo Cal"–at first I thought it might be “Neo-Californian”! Something like this:

I think Michael Bird would be a good interviewee for the podcast!

(Phil) #32

In looking over the article, the biggest problem I have with it is that, like much YEC positions, it is based on poor interpretation.
From the article:
" After all, Moses talks about sex in Genesis 2: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

He then goes on to focus on becoming one flesh meaning “sex,” which in the context of Genesis is placed immediately after Eve was made from Adam’s side. Adam was only a fragment of what God made him to be until reunited with Eve. Certainly becoming one means a great deal more than having body parts that fit together in some fashion or the other. It means growing together in life, helping one another to get through together what one alone could not do easily. Ultimately, it reflects on the relationship between Christ and the church, where both are necessary to fulfill the purpose given.
As I write this, I am acutely aware that many follow a more solitary path in life, either by choice or by happenstance, and what does that then mean for them? The sometimes unspoken attitude in the church is that somehow they are not whole and are somehow broken, unfortunately. Thankfully, Paul shows and speaks of how singleness can be an advantage and perhaps even preferable, and ultimately our wholeness is found in Christ.

(Randy) #33

I Cor 7:6-7

6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Vast parts of Christianity (Catholicism being the biggest single group in the Church) value singleness and devotion to God.
I think that there are gifts of devotion to God, silence, peace, wisdom, service to others (as in Francis of Assisi, St Therese of Lisieux, Henri Nouwen, Thomas a Kempis, and so many others) that I can not achieve as a married person.


Unless you believe Dan Brown, Jesus himself remained a single man during his life on earth.

(Mark D.) #35

I got an education on intersex conditions when I read Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides a couple years ago. Wonderful story and a fascinating phenomenon, what might have been called hermaphroditism in the past.

But the hyena doesn’t seem to be about that so much as simply having a very different bodily and behavioral expression of secondary sexual characteristics. I guess the sea horse would be another such anomaly.

But the female hyena’s … ahem … package reminds me of the cutest joke I ever heard a middle school student tell another. I’ll go post that in the humor thread before I forget it.


Re intersexuals, I knew about hermaphrodites, but not too much. Then I read the most tragic book I’ve ever read: As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl by
John Colapinto. The boy in the story wasn’t intersex, but due to a botched operation in infancy, he had reassignment surgery and was raised as a girl. He was never told about this. Now, if somebody had deliberately set out to torture this child they could not have done a better job. It was painful and depressing reading. He had a male brain, and nothing could change that. When he got older and found out what had been done to him, he opted for surgery to become male again. But the damage had been done, and he eventually committed suicide.

PBS NOVA had a show about intersex conditions and related topics called Sex: Unknown

I didn’t say that the female hyena has an intersex condition. After all, all spotted female hyenas are like that. So they’re just plain weird.

btw, I read a great book about hyenas called Hyena Nights & Kalahari Days by Gus Mills and Margie Mills. Highly recommended!!

(Mark D.) #37

My first reading obsession was everything to do with animals. I’m sure I would enjoy that book on the brown hyena. Unfortunately I’ve moved on in my reading appetite and now read almost exclusively fiction. I still look at natural history videos however.

Of course, middle sex conditions don’t pose any existential issues for me. But I wonder what significance it has for a traditional conception of creation. If the ‘messiness’ of evolution is ‘perfect’ enough -and I’m fine with that- the occasional birth defect or deadly disease can’t be seen as all that much more significant a ‘flaw’.

(system) #38

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.