The myopic narcissism that plagues man has never been more grossly displayed in modern history than in the latter part  of the  20^th Century.  While mankind is getting more and more vile in displays of immorality, the “I am a good person” mantra grows louder, almost to convince themselves of the blatant falsehood. This self deification has attempted to blur the clear boundaries of good and evil, as mankind, in his innate selfishness, longs to believe the lie. It seems today that the term “evil” is seldom applied to the violent criminals in our prisons, the Islamic terrorists who want to kill us or those who kill the unborn, but is commonly applied to Conservatives and Christians.

In man’s attempt to make all things permissible, many have now taken to the argument that genetic programming determines what they do therefore they are not accountable for their actions. I believe that this excuse has been subconsciously generated to defy the conscience awareness of right and wrong that each person has been designed with in our souls.  Though many of these people are unaware that they have a worldview, it is evident that their belief is grounded in the idea of evolution and many heartily accept this myth. The idea that we have evolved out of a pool of slime now justifies acting like slime, reduces man to non-thinking, impulsive, reactionary beings with no conscience, self awareness or free will. 

Let’s step outside of reality for a moment and entertain this idea as it applies to homosexuality.  Suppose there is a gay gene that was placed in people through evolutionary processes. Let’s also suppose that the complexity of DNA could evolve and be sustained without an Intelligent Designer we will call God. Lastly, we will suppose that the genetic programming has been dispersed throughout the human gene pool. If you grant all of these conditions, we still have a problem. When applying the laws of Natural Selection as understood by the Evolutionist, how did the gay gene survive over millions of years?  By natural selection, the gene should be extinct by the inability to reproduce. If the gene were passed on through heterosexual relationships, then that discounts the genetic programming argument by demonstrating the ability to control the gene, thus controlling behavior.  You can make a similar argument about a heterosexual womanizer.  When I was in college, I had a roommate who considered it acceptable to bed a woman by any deceit necessary.  When confronted about his treacherous acts, his answer was ‘I’m a guy’ implying that some testosterone driven force made decisions for him.  This is non-sense considering the number of men I knew who seemed to be able to control lust and made good decisions regarding women.  This was simply an out of control boy who wanted to taste all of the candy in the candy store and lacked the moral currency to purchase a piece of candy.

The reason that I take the time to spell this out is that once you identify behavior with genetics, you instantly create a link to justify any actions regardless of how vile they may be. This idea of genetic determinism will quickly erode any society and undermines the laws that enforce moral and ethical behavior. Our entire social fabric is woven with personal responsibility and once we remove this responsibility, nobody can be held accountable for any crime, criminal, civil or misdemeanor.

I use homosexuality in the example above, but really nothing is exempt.   Polygamy, adultery, pedophilia, bestiality and rape all become permissible under this philosophy.  In a recent case in Austria, a man argued in court that he was genetically programmed to be a rapist.  No personal responsibility, no remorse, and no desire for consensual sex just simply that he was made to be a rapist and he cannot control his desire to rape no more than you control your need to breathe.  His argument is Darwinian in nature as he sees women as a means to an end.  If survival of the fittest is the law that caused a pool of slime to evolve into an organized community of slime, then how can we condemn this rapist for his animal instincts?  Now most clear thinking people will hear this and dismiss it as a desperate attempt to get out of jail, but if we are honest about it, this argument is no different than other arguments being made about their behavior.  

In another recent case in America, the ACLU argued on behalf of a group of pedophiles, known as NAMBLA, that these men have a right to express and publish their opinions even if those opinions describe and advise members how to break the law. The case stems from a member of the group who abducted, murdered and raped a young boy after NAMBLA literature encouraged him to act on the feelings he claims to have been suppressing.  This vile group holds the view that their lust for young boys is normal because they are genetically programmed to desire these types of relations.  Though NAMBLA actively promotes the rape of male children, they are convinced that they are doing nothing wrong and infer genetic programming.  They also cite the misogyny of ancient Greece as “proof” that this is natural and that they are the victims of arbitrary laws.  This gross illustration demonstrates not only the depths of man’s depravity, but also how embracing a false assertion with zero scientific credibility can lead man to try and justify any behavior.  One of the greatest atrocities in the history of man, the Holocaust, can be tied to this line of reasoning.  Hitler's entire idea of creating a pure race was based on Nietzsche's Ubermensch which was grounded in the idea of self improvement through survival of the fittest and attaining a new ethical paradigm that proclaimed the death of God.  The Nazi eugenics philosophy reasoned that to murder the Jews was to do nothing more than cleanse the gene pool.  A more recent study in Australia is now claiming that wives are genetically programmed to be antagonistic towards mother in laws.  Of course the study cannot produce legitimate genetic verification and makes many exceptions such as social conditions, but it is still being marketed at another study tying behavior to genetic programming.  One has to question the motives of this study because it appears that this study exists for the sole purpose of promoting dissension among traditional family units.