VENEREAL DISEASE


OVERSIGHT

Although many topics have a direct and adverse bearing on the theory of evolution, a number of them are completely overlooked by evolutionists. VD, in a subtle yet powerful way, is one such topic. And in view of the many aspects of evolution which are based on "proofs" ranging from subtle to flimsy to nonexistent, it is hard to imagine simple oversight as the reason for omitting such topics from discussions on evolution. Perhaps they are overlooked because they simply suggest a nature which is diametrically opposed to the purported mechanics of evolution.

THE EPIDEMIC

According to the Center for Disease Control, syphilis struck about 90,000 people in 1984. The number of visits to doctors for genital herpes rose dramatically from 29,560 in 1966 to 416,059 in 1983. Gonorrhea struck about 2,000,000 people in 1984. A lesser known disease, Chlamydia tracomatis, strikes about 3,000,000 people a year and causes sterility in about 11,000 women annually.

About 25 diseases are known to spread through sexual contact.

At least some of the sexually transmitted diseases which have spread in epidemic proportions appear to be the result of promiscuous sex. Some experts agree that monogamy seems to be the answer to curbing these epidemics. The "sexual revolution," it appears, is not quite what it's been hyped up to be. "Free sex" is not free at all -- it comes with a high price.

EVOLUTIONARY ENIGMA

The very survival of a species depends on reproduction. Monogamy is of no concern to some blind bat called "nature." Nature would "prefer" that a species reproduce at any and every opportunity. So, you'd think that after allegedly "improving," "perfecting," and "eliminating the less fit" for billions of years, nature would have had enough "sense" to eliminate all diseases which hinder or interfere in any way with procreation. After all, nature has been intelligent enough to put pleasure into reproduction to ensure a species' survival. (How in the world nature ever figured out what pleasure was and that it would help perpetuate a species, boggles the mind. Plants reproduce without any apparent pleasure, but they manage.)

So, after bringing life to the point of ultra sophistication and giving us an ingenious incentive to reproduce, nature throws in a bomb -- it gives us a host of deadly and debilitating venereal diseases which not only have not been wiped out but which have the potency to spread like wildfire when sex becomes too free and indiscriminate. How do you account for such sudden counter- productive behavior on the part of nature? How could nature not have "figured out" after billions of years, as it has allegedly done so wonderfully in many other respects, that VD is, from a biological standpoint, not in our best interest and in direct opposition to what nature has been doing for those alleged billions of years. Instead of developing life and removing obstacles, nature now appears to be hindering the very process which brought us here. Is this nature's idea of a practical joke?

AIDS

Probably the most dreaded of all sexually transmitted diseases is AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). AIDS is a disease which attacks the immune system, and, as some evidence suggests, also the nervous system. Without treatment or a cure, the life expectancy of an AIDS victim is about eighteen months. Even with treatment the disease produces a high mortality rate. Death is usually brought on by the inability of the victim's immune system to fend off other diseases and infections.

The spread of AIDS is believed to be largely the due to homosexual activity.

One phenomenal aspect of this dreaded disease is that it was virtually unheard of before the 1970's. In 1979 there were only 10 known cases of AIDS in the United States. By 1986, with the total number of cases soaring to over 17,000, the fear of AIDS had created panic virtually everywhere. The panic grew so strong that parents kept children from attending schools, hospitals began more stringent screening procedures for blood donors, gay bath houses were forced to shut down, and even heterosexually promiscuous establishments were under scrutiny by government agencies. The fear of this deadly disease had "come out of the closet" and penetrated virtually every corner of society.

ANOTHER EVOLUTIONARY ENIGMA

If it isn't strange enough that nature has not managed to wipe out VD, nature suddenly, after those alleged billions of years of "evolving" and "improving" life, springs a strange killer disease on us -- AIDS, a virus which, of all things, destroys the ultrasophisticated immune system which nature has been evolving since the beginning of time. Such a virus should have been one of the first things to be wiped out by nature before going ahead with "plans" to populate an entire planet. How do you figure this? Nature spends billions of years building sophisticated life forms. It devises this ingenious immune system which can, and apparently does in many healthy humans, wipe out virtually every harmful virus and bacteria. Then nature comes up with a disease which destroys the immune system and kills its host. Has nature gone mad?

WHERE ARE EVOLUTIONISTS

Why don't we hear more talk on this topic by evolutionists? Obviously, this topic seems to point in the "wrong" direction -- it depicts nature as having properties contrary to the mechanics of evolution. And some of it even smacks of a nature capable of sending out messages of morality. Is this possible?

COINCIDENCE

Let's face it, sex, illicit or otherwise, was not discovered by the generation of the sexual revolution. Sex is as old as time. And VD is probably just as old. Why the sudden epidemic? Is it a mere coincidence that VD began spreading wildly at a time when indiscriminate sex became accepted as simply "the sexual revolution?" And is it a mere coincidence that VD continued to spread in epidemic proportions as society continued its more relaxed attitude toward sex?

Homosexuality isn't a new phenomenon either. How or why did AIDS suddenly crop up seemingly out of nowhere? Is it just a coincidence that AIDS came at a time when homosexuality was beginning to be viewed by homosexuals as just another lifestyle and not anything that needed to be kept "in the closet?" And is it also just a coincidence that AIDS began spreading to the heterosexual community at a time when some portions of (heterosexual) society were beginning to accept homosexuality as a "right" rather than a perversion?

A REDEFINITION

Evolution is not evident in even the very act of reproduction. Ironically, what is evident are the messages that the sexual revolution of the twentieth century is not the way to go, and that "two consenting adults" is not necessarily a good criteria for sexual behavior -- heterosexual or homosexual. Such messages of morality, rather than supporting evolution, actually beg for a redefinition of our understanding of nature as a purely physical phenomenon.

A 'HIGHER NATURE?'

Is it possible that what scientists have been referring to as "nature" all these years is actually a "nature" of a different kind -- the kind that doesn't lend itself that easily to scientific scrutiny? And maybe scientists cling to their purely physical version of nature, attributing the genius of our universe and the hidden messages of nature to accidents and coincidences, just in a stubborn determination to avoid recognizing that our physical universe may in fact be governed by a "Nature" which goes far beyond any imaginable science? Perhaps it's time we realized that it takes a lot more than a scientific mind to recognize that there is a great deal more to our universe than meets the eye. Perhaps recognizing that some events in our physical world may be manifestations of a grander "Nature," takes intelligence, guts, and a high degree of honesty. How many people can honestly boast a combination of such qualities?