In case anyone was wondering, do I personally think atheists are immoral people or bad parents as a rule? No. Atheists in the USA, as a rule, don’t live down to the logical consequences of their world view. Many have, thankfully, a innate sense of right and wrong. Many good upstanding Christians were raised in atheist homes like Francis Collins.

Furthermore, I can’t recall that I ever argued explicitly that atheists are bad parents. For the record, I think Atheist PZ Myers is a very fine father and husband. He should also be quite proud of his kids.

Regarding the legislation of morality, I’m a libertarian at heart. I’m for self-government, personal responsibility, and self-control. I think the US Government should limit their intrusion in the lives of people even if people choose to follow a way of life that might be wrong in the eyes of God. If Darwinists want to impale themselves on their pets like Darwinist Kenneth Pinyan or chop off their private parts like Darwinist John Roughgarden, the US Government should limit its intereference (unless of course medical malpractice is indicated or cruelty to animals is involved). However, I can’t help but think, upon hearing of these Darwinist practices — “OUCH”!

Furthermore, I’m limiting my commentary on whether the practices of Darwinists amongst themselves, their familiy members, and their pets is moral or immoral. It’s their lives, not mine. Darwin inbred with his cousin. If other Darwinists want to follow suit and inbreed, I have no desire to meddle with their way of life as long as it doesn’t affect mine.

I will however report on what Darwinists have to say on various subjects, including their comments on incest.

Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest.

Skatje Myers (daughter of Darwinist PZ Myers)

I will also comment when I think there is contradiction in their statements versus the paradigm of Darwinism:

I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.

Skatje Myers

Bad for whom? That is to say, why is it “bad” in the world of Darwinist eugenics? According to the principles of Darwinist eugenics, inbreeding is a powerful mechanism for making bad traits manifest (like killer recessives), then weeding them out, and building superior races:

According to Genetics and Eugenics: A Textbook for Biology Students

Inbreeding, also, by its tendency to secure homozygous combinations, tends to bring to the surface latent or hidden recessive characters…..Existing legislation against the marriage of near-of-kin is, therefore, on the whole, biologically justified. On the other hand, continual crossing only tends to hide inherent defects, not to exterminate them; and inbreeding only tends to bring them to the surface, not create them. We may not, therefore, lightly ascribe to inbreeding or intermarriage the creation of bad racial traits, but only their manifestation. Further, any racial stock which maintains a high standard of excellence under inbreeding is certainly one of great vigor, and free form inherent defects.

The animal breeder is therefore amply justified in doing what human society at present is probably not warranted in doing, — viz., practicing close inbreeding in building up families of superior excellence and then keeping these pure

Animal breeders can use inbreeding to surface and identify bad traits, genetically inherited diseases, then through the application of selective principles allow only the most fit animals to reproduce. The eugenic ideal is achieved with great speed. Some degree of heterogeneity is of couse desirable, so ideally we inbreed various animal populations, and then, after all the bad traits are washed out we allow the populations to mix.

But isn’t it a remarkable fact, not many in the Darwinist culture (save people like James Watson) can bring themselves to advocate a program of eugenics for humans. There is thankfully an innate desire to put human beings ahead of the concept eugenic purity (as attempted by the Nazi Darwinists). Even the SS Officers who carried out the dirty deeds had guilt issues. The gas chambers made it a lot less personal as the SS Officers had tremendous psychological problems having to carry out executions in person. But even then, amongst the wicked SS, there was a sense that this wasn’t right. They had to go through various rationalizations to overcome their innate moral revulsion to the practice of genocide.

But how does the topic of inbreeding relate to the hypothesis of a Young Cosmos? A testable hypothesis of the YoungCosmos is that genomes are deteriorating at an irreversible rate, so much so that humanity cannot have evolved over millions of years but rather appeared recently through an act of special creation.

The rapid genomic deterioration in human males has forced Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes to conclude humanity has about only 100,000 years to go. See: Adam’s Curse: The Science that Reveals Our Genetic Destiny.

Neither aggressive eugenics with inbreeding and forced sterilization can reverse the trends in humans. World-renowned Cornell Geneticist John Sanford argued powerfully the reasons eugenics is insufficient to fight genetic deterioration in his landmark book: Genetic Entropy

I raised the issue in Nachman’s U-Paradox. The human genomes are mutating too fast for existing population resources to cope with. See: Nachman’s U-Paradox for more details.

Ironically, an internet Darwinist by the name of “KC” argued that inbreeding is what rescued the human population in the past. Darwinist KC argues of the great benefits of human inbreeding at ARN in the thread: Nachman: too many mutations for Darwinism . So Darwinist Skatje argues that inbreeding is bad, and Darwinist KC argues (quite well imho) that inbreeding is good.

So the Darwinsts are caught between a rock and a hard place. Their moral compass tells them inbreeding for the sake of eugencially weeding out is morally objectionable (because of the abundance of birth defects), but their paradigm says inbreeding is good an necessary. Who is right? I will not say here.

I will however point out, things like Nachman’s U-Paradox are explainable if indeed the humans species appeared abruptly through an act of special creation and with relatively healthy genomes several thousand years ago. The Darwinian paradigm cannot resolve Nachman’s U-Paradox without appeals to massive inbreeding. Thus Skatje’s criticism of incest is not necessarily in concordance with Darwinist principles.

However, all these dilemmas are resolved if one accepts that the cosmos and humanity are young.