As Dr. Ben Carson recently implied, bestiality is on a spectrum with homosexuality. Why? Because both are the natural fruit of evolutionism.
Australian moral philosopher and Princeton Bioethicist Dr. Peter Singer fully understands the implications of evolutionary ideology. Because evolution has replaced the biblical worldview in the West, human life is no longer considered sacred and sexuality has no boundaries. These two notions are apparent in Singer’s work.
First, the “whole cloth” of evolutionary biology leads Singer to extrapolate, in the area of human life:
Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons; therefore, the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.
At one time, our society regarded human beings as creatures made in the image of God. That view gave intrinsic worth to the unborn and the elderly, the well and the infirm, the productive and those unable to be productive. This understanding is no longer the foundation of society. According to the new standard it is “self-awareness” that gives human beings significance. When does self-awareness begin? Sometime between one and three years of age! By this standard, evolutionary biology establishes “moral” justification for infanticide. The abortion cycle is thus extended, no longer restricted to the first trimester of pregnancy, or the second, or third. Now, in the culture of death, children in the “fourth trimester”—fully born—are fair game.
At the other end of life, the logic leads to euthanasia. What of the years between birth and natural death? How does the rationale of evolutionary biology play out there? Hitler took it to its logical end in the extermination camps, eliminating any “life that was not worthy of life.” This is the reasoning of evolutionary ideology. The whole cloth of the Darwinian belief system produces unspeakable behaviors and consequences for human life.
Why is there so much heat over issues of life? Because abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are all policies and procedures cut from the whole cloth of atheism. It is this system that rids the universe of a moral framework and thus allows human beings to live as they choose without moral constraints. “No one is going to tell me what to do!” “If it feels good, do it!” It is a system that justifies lifestyles of nihilism and license.
Second, the same system that redefines human life also redefines marriage and human sexuality. Singer applies the same thinking to promote bestiality. In 2001 he wrote a piece titled “Heavy Petting”for Nerve, an online magazine on “sex, relationships, and pop culture.” In it he argues that humans are sexual beings, whose sexual experience is most closely related to their mammal cousins with similar sexual equipment. He begins by arguing that it was Judeo-Christian theology that separated us from the animals.
The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul. In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals.
With the modern abandonment of the Judeo-Christian worldview in exchange for the Darwinian worldview, the distinction between man and animals disappears. After all, human beings are only animals, related to our nearest cousins, the chimpanzees, and through them to the rest of the mammal world.
Singer continues his argument for the logic of bestiality: “On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones.” He further argues that human animals are sexually equipped the same way other mammals are equipped, thus there is no reason not to engage sexually with animals.
With the prohibition against bestiality removed by the abandonment of the Judeo-Christian morality and metaphysic, there is nothing to prevent the broad implications of evolutionary biology from playing out. We are only animals. So “just do it” like animals and with animals.
If the biological evolutionists are correct, there is no prohibition against any form of “human sexuality” be it heterosexual, homosexual, adult-child, or human-beast. To push back, as Dr. Carson did, is to violate polite speech, to exhibit a “hateful” attitude. But the thought police in politically correct Western society are wrong. From creation, the line is clearly drawn. On the one hand is natural marriage as the framework for the expression of human sexuality. All other conceptualizations of human sexuality lie on the other side of that line.
In the modern world, sexual freedom is rapidly replacing religious freedom as the cause to celebrate. In fact it is religious freedom, established by the Judeo-Christian worldview and its moral code, which is seen as the enemy of sexual freedom. For sexual freedom (read license) to increase, religious freedom must be jettisoned.
This is why Dr. Carson received such swift and through condemnation. His association of bestiality with homosexuality and pedophilia could not be allowed.
Ben Carson connected the dots. He is right in his analysis and statement. But the modern world does not want to connect the dots, at least not all at once. The nature of sexual “freedom” – license, derived as it is from the Darwinian metaphysic, will lead inevitably from homosexuality to pedophilia to bestiality.
Moderns want to connect the dots in their own timing, allowing the momentum for sexual license to build. They do not want to scare off the general public with the exposure of the logical consequences of their ideology. First it was sex outside marriage. Then homosexuality. Now we are sliding to pedophilia. Joining Peter Singer is Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of the popular book The God Delusion. Dawkins speaks without condemnation of what he calls “mild pedophilia.”
The logical consequences inevitably arrive at the legitimacy of bestiality as merely some other form of “human sexuality.”
As Christians we must wake up. We must be people, who, like Ben Carson, connect the dots. We need to speak prophetically to these growing trends fueled by the ideology of evolution. Nancy Pearcey, in her remarkable book, Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity, writes:
In other words, Darwinists are connecting all the dots, tracing everything back to origins. And that is why Christians had better connect the dots as well. If they offer “universal Darwinism,” then we had better offer “universal Design,” showing that design theory gives scientific support for an all-encompassing Christian worldview.
With which will the West be finally dressed: the whole cloth of Darwinism or the whole cloth of Design? Will we continue to celebrate religious freedom or slide into the logical, unthinkable “freedom” of uninhibited sexual practices?
Ordinary people will make this choice. We must be people who connect the dots.
– Darrow Miller
 Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122–23
 Pearcey pg. 216 (author’s original emphasis)