Unmarried Christians Get Pregnant More!

It's no surprise that according to a new Gallup poll, 76% of evangelical Christians believe sex outside of marriage is immoral.

But what surprises Christian commentators is that over 80% of young (18-29) evangelical Christians have sex. That's just a bit below the national average (88%). So in spite of all the preaching and moralizing, Christians are demonstrating once again that they are just ordinary humans, subject to the same healthy desires as the rest of us ... and that their religion has very little real effect on their behavior.

But the big surprise is that more of them get pregnant than the general population!

There are two pretty obvious reasons why this might be: ignorance and guilt.

The ignorance part is because evangelical Christian parents teach abstinence rather than real sex education. These poor young adults just don't know how, when or why to use condoms, birth-control pills and other contraception. No surprises there.

But guilt? That's a bit more subtle.

Is Christianity Dying? ... and Ninety-Nine Other Best Blogs

I have a new book available on Kindle!

Only 99 cents!

How can you go wrong? From the preface:

"Who would have guessed back in June of 2008 that I'd be writing my five hundredth blog with no end in sight? And I never expected The Religion Virus to be in the top ten religion books on Amazon.com's Kindle bestsellers list, as well as bouncing around between first and fifth in agnosticism and religious history. (Religious history? That's unexpected!)

"So why should you buy a collection of ninety-nine blogs that you can get for free on my web site? Because it's just a penny per blog, and we sorted the wheat from the chaff for you. You get to read the good stuff without having to wade through the blogs that should have been used to wrap fish. How can you beat that? (And there is actually one original never-before-published blog in here!)

"Like most bloggers, I don't hit one out of the park every day. But every now and then I write something pretty good. Some of these became very popular and pegged my traffic meter. Those were fun. But the ones I like best are the ones that evoked thoughtful responses, rebuttals and questions from my readers. When someone takes the time to argue with me, I know I'm making a difference."

New readers will find this a handy way to read the best of these blogs. Or if you're one of my faithful loyalists,

Woman Kuwaiti Politician: Legalize Sex Slaves

This almost needs no comment. It's Salwa Al-Mutairi, a former candidate for the Kuwaiti Parliament.

I asked (a Saudi mufti): What is the law with regard to slave girls?

The mufti told me that this law requires there to a Muslim country raiding a Christian country - sorry, a non-Muslim country - and taking PoWs. I asked him whether it was forbidden (to turn them into slaves), and he said that Islam does not prohibit having slave girls. On the contrary.

The law pertaining to slave girls is not the same as for free women. Free women must cover their bodies, except for their hands and faces. The slave girl must cover up from the bellybutton down. There is a big difference between slave girls and free women. With a free woman, the man must make a marriage contract, but with a slave girl - all he has to do is buy her. It's as if he married her. So there's a difference between slave girls and free women.

Here in Kuwait too, I asked religious scholars and experts about this, and they said that for the average, good religious man, the only way to avoid forbidden relations with women is to purchase slave girls.

I very much hope that such a law is legislated. Just like they allow servants, they should allow slave girls, and legislate a proper law in this regard. We don't want our children to fall into the abyss of fornication and similar filth, God forbid. Allah willing, things will work out.

There are countries like Chechnya, which are at war with another country. In such a case, there must be PoWs, so why not go and buy those prisoners? Is it better for them to be slaughtered over there? Go and buy them, and sell them to traders here in Kuwait.

One has to wonder: what goes on in this woman's house and in her mosque? What have the men in her life done to her? Does she really think that men are such animals that they need a stable of

Church Bucks Lawyers, Apologizes to Victims and Worshipers!

A church sex scandal mixed with an insurance company and lawyers ... what a recipe for disaster! Here's how it started to go down. The insurance company sent a letter with this statement:

"Do not make any statements, orally, in writing or in any manner, to acknowledge, admit to or apologize for anything that may be evidence of or interpreted as (a suggestion that) the actions of Vienna Presbyterian Church … caused or contributed to any damages arising from the intentional acts/abuse/misconduct" by the youth director."

But amazingly, the church ignored it! They very next day they issued a humble apology.

The insurance company gave the church legal but immoral instructions ... and the church ignored it and did the right thing. Instead of a coverup, we have a church that is trying to apologize and to make amends. Now those are what I call good Christians.

It's refreshing to see a congregation following their own teachings.

Teenage Sex Sleepovers: Why American Religious Morals CAUSE Abortions

There's a way we could cut abortion rates in half in the United States, but the religious right is against it! Why? Because it requires us to be honest and open about sex with our children. It means we must be pragmatic and admit that teens have sex whether we tell them to or not.

A fascinating report by Advocates for Youth proves what many of us have known intuitively for a long time: America's religion-based "morality" doesn't work. In spite of the good intentions of Nancy Reagan and her followers, the "Just Say No" policy for sex education actually increases pregnancy, abortion, venereal disease and poverty.

Check out these disturbing facts from the Advocates for Youth report:

	United States	Netherlands
Pregnancy per 100,000	72.2	11.8
Births per 1,000 ages 15-19	42.5	4.8
Abortion per 100,000 ages 15-19	19.8	7.8
HIV/STI Rates all adults	0.6%	0.1%
Syphilis cases per 100,000 adults	2.7	1.0
Gonorrhea cases per 100,000 ages 15-19	458.8	13.92
Chlamydia cases per 100,000 ages 15-19	2,862	150.4

If the United States could match the Netherlands' abortion rates, there would be almost 125,000 fewer abortions per year!

You'd think any anti-abortionist would take a look at these numbers and say, "Gosh, let's get on board with their program! It works!" But no, they can't. Why?

Sexual Revolution: How One Pedophile Destroyed America

I know most of my readers are strong advocates of the wall of separation between church and state, but if you ever had even the slightest doubt, read this article on World Net Daily. It's scary stuff.

They start with the laughable claim that Alfred Kinsey, the sex researcher who pulled us out of the dark ages of sexual repression, was a pedophile. From there, they build a case against every advance we've made about sex and sexuality since 1950, and conclude that our legal system should return to Bible-based laws!

Here is what these ultra-conservative religious nutcases would do:

"Pre-Kinsey, sex laws were based on biblical authority and considered an area of 'public rights,' meaning we recognized sex had civil consequences on society," Reisman said. "Post-Kinsey sex laws are based on 'scientific authority' and are considered 'private rights,' which claims sex has no social consequences."

In other words, if they were in charge, the government would have the right to peek into your bedroom and decide what's legal and what's not.

No Forgiveness From Christian School

Is Southland Christian School trying to encourage lying and abortions? It sure seems like it.

The Christian school in St. Cloud, Florida fired teacher Jarretta Hamilton because she became pregnant three weeks before her wedding date. When she asked for maternity benefits, someone at the school asked her when she'd become pregnant and she told the truth. They promptly fired her for "fornication" – sex outside of marriage.

Now I may not be a Christian, but I grew up in Christian society and have studied it extensively. Their concept of confession and forgiveness always struck me as peculiar, but it's their way. If you make a mistake and are sorry, you make amends, you're forgiven and it's over and done. Right? So you'd think if Mrs. Hamilton was honest about her mistake, the Southland Christian School would applaud her honesty. If she confessed her sins to Christ and asked for forgiveness, He would forgive her, so you'd think the school would do the same.

Apparently not.

And consider the fact that Mrs. Hamilton didn't get an abortion to cover up her fornication.

Another Fraud: Christians Cure Female Pornography Addiction

Our friends over at Westside Family Church, the monstrous Kansas corporate megachurch, have started a program to cure women who are "addicted to pornography."

Addiction is a bad thing, right? Of course! But wait, women addicted to pornography? I've never heard of that. I always thought it was the men who go for dirty pictures. Women, I am told, often prefer erotic literature to visual stimuli, and so why would they get addicted to porn? But hey, I'm a modern guy, equal opportunity advocate, and definitely not a sexist, so why not? Wouldn't it be sexist to assume women couldn't be addicted to pornography. Maybe this is just one of those problems we've never heard about because we're a sexist society that assumes women are somehow more "pure" than men about porn.

OK, so I'll go with it. Let's read the NY Times article ... wow, interviews with actual female porno addicts. Now let's read the Dirty Girls Ministries forum where these ladies go to confess ...

Wat a second ... were are the porno confessions? Most of these women are talking about having normal sexual feelings. Their big sins are having desires? Feeling lustful before they're married? Masturbating? These sound like healthy, happy women to me. Where is the self-destructive addiction? Where is the part where they are ignoring their work, families and health and destroying their lives?

Reading through these confessions, there are indeed a few women who talk about pornography. But most of the confessions seem to be about normal sexual feelings. These women are "confessing" to simply feeling lust, as any healthy woman should. In other words, they're nothing wrong with them at all!

Then I realized that their lives are being destroyed ... by the Westside Family Church. WFC is teaching these women that normal, healthy sexuality – you might say God-given sexuality – is disgusting. WFC tells them they should be ashamed of the natural feelings that any healthy, happy adult feels. They're taught to suppress their desires and passions. They're told that they are unworthy sinners merely for being normal women.

WBS is perverting these women's healthy attitudes about sex into shame and and teaching them to loathe their own bodies.

Celibacy IS the Issue: The Catholic Elephant

Did you know that only two percent of Catholic Priests keep their vow of celibacy?

"Survey and statistics that show only two percent of priests have been absolutely faithful to their vows of celibacy. Adjustment problems abound as demonstrated by repeated reports of priests abandoning their callings, fathering children, being charged with child molestation."

This is from a thesis written almost twenty years ago, back in 1992, entitled Celibacy Is the Issue by Thomas G. Lederer, which explains and predicts the current crisis of pedophilia in the Catholic Church.

Here are a couple interesting quotes.

"In late 1990, A.W. Richard Sipe's book, A Secret World – Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy, caused a veritable flood of controversy. The author, psychotherapist stated that that at least half the U.S. Priests at any given time are involved in some pattern of sexual activity."

Pope Benedict XVI: The Heat is Turned Up

The Vatican is starting to feel more heat for Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI). In just a couple days, it's gone from a NY Times story to a worldwide scandal that is engulfing the Pope himself. Here are the headlines:

Pope Benedict faces child abuse cover-up queries - BBC
Abuse Scandal's Ripples Spread Across Europe – New York Times
Vatican defends decision not to defrock U.S. priest – Reuters
Vatican says it was unaware of alleged American priest abuse – CNN
Vatican halted trial for man accused by deaf boys – Associated Press
Pope 'failed to discipline US priest' who abused deaf children – The Guardian
Pope “failed to act” over abuse – Aljazeera.net
Father Murphy, molester of deaf children – beliefnet.com

These and dozens more headlines are what happens to a religion that utterly denies our human sexuality.

Did Sex Create the Christmas Bomber?

Did Islam's unnatural and unhealthy teachings about sex turn a normal young Nigerian into a murderer and terrorist? Did a healthy young man's lust get twisted into self revulsion and hate?

NPR is doing a fascinating three-day in-depth biography of Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Christmas Bomber" who hid bomb ingredients in his underwear and tried to blow up an airplane. And once again, I was struck by how truly perverse some religious beliefs are, especially regarding sex.

"I think this loneliness leads me to other problems. As I get lonely, the natural sex drive awakens and I struggle to control it – sometimes leading to minor sinful activities, like not lowering the gaze [around unveiled women]. ... This problem makes me want to get married to avoid getting aroused. The Prophet advised young men to fast if they can't get married, but it has not been helping me much..." – Farouk Abdulmutallab

Yoga sex scandal reveals more quack medicine

I was about to give another "ho, hum" when I read of yet another sex scandal by a purported religious/spiritual leader. Ilichi Lee, a yoga leader, is accused of seducing his female followers ... what else is new? And even when I read that he's accused of bilking followers out of money using heavy-handed tactics, it was just another story. That's pretty much what all churches do, he just took it farther than most.

But then I read this on CNN:

Dahn Yoga teaches that what it calls brain wave vibration can ease some of the debilitating symptoms of illnesses such as diabetes and arthritis.

This is nonsense, pure bad science!

Religion disguised as medicine or science is inexcusable. My faithful reader know this a hot topic for me. (I've written about this before, also see Don Imus' cancer, or Christian Science, and schizophrenia).

Yoga, at least the popular activity that's practiced in America, is a great form of meditation and exercise, and teaches good lifestyle habits. What we call "yoga" is derived from Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, and emphasizes mind-body balance, peaceful contemplation, and meditation. These are all good things.

But when any religion claims to cure a disease, they're risking people's lives. Arthritis is merely painful, but ignoring diabetes can be deadly.

If I told you that you could improve or cure your diabetes using some unproved drug or technique, I'd probably be in trouble for practicing medicine without a license. Why are religions exempt from legal scrutiny and prosecution when they do the same thing?

Ilichi Lee, you should stick to seducing women and taking obscene amounts of money from your followers, but don't try to be a doctor, OK?

Let's All Wear "God Sucks" Buttons to Work

I have an idea – let's get a bunch of big, red "God Sucks" buttons, pin them on our chests, and go to work! If you work in a grocery store, or a bank, or at the welfare office, or maybe even as a Justice of the Peace ... no problem! I'm sure your employer won't fire you. Offend shoppers? Piss off welfare recipients? Horrify the couple you're marrying? It's your right!
Don't believe me? Just listen to this attorney about an identical case, defending her client:

"There are federal and state laws that protect against religious discrimination. It's not like he was out in the aisles preaching to people." – Kara Skorupa, attorney.

But you know, I have a pretty good feeling Skorupa wouldn't take my case if I got fired for wearing a "God Sucks" button. Like many conservative religious people, Skorupa and her client,Trevor Keezor, probably think the law should protect Christians (I'm guessing he's a Christian) who violate their employers' policies, but if an atheist or Muslim did the same thing, I'd be willing to bet they'd sing a different song.

Keezor was fired for violating Home Depot's dress code, which prohibits any and all buttons and badges, except those issued by Home Depot. He took the job knowing full well what was expected of him, and Home Depot's dress code is 100% legal under the US Constitution, yet he thinks that he should be exempt, just because, "I support my country and God."

This is another great example of a "proselyzation meme," a technique that religions have developed down through the centuries as they evolved and mutated in the "survival of the fittest" battle we call cultural evolution, or memetics. Cultural evolution treats ideas as evolutionary raw material, and uses Darwinistic principles to predict how they'll reproduces, mutate and evolve.

It's a lot like sex, in fact, it's exactly parallel. In biological systems, each creature has to have a way of making copies of itself in order to carry on. Whether it's a bacterium splitting, or two whales mating, we all gotta do it! Otherwise our species goes extinct.

And the cool thing about sex is that we like it, because all of our ancestors, every single one of them, liked sex too. If even one of them didn't, well, we'd have never been born.

Religions are like that too. Any religion that doesn't have a way to spread itself, both across society and down through time, will quickly become extinct. More importantly, the religions that have the strongest proselytizing efforts (i.e. the memes that tell members to "spread God's word") are the ones that steal members from other churches and thereby gain memberships.

With sex, the ones who like it the most are the ones who have the most babies, and generation after generation, their descendants will inexorably grow at the expense of those who like sex less.

It's identical with churches. The ones with the strongest proselytizing memes are the ones that grow. Think about the Mormons, for example: They're the fastest growing church around. When was the last time a Catholic knocked on your door? The Catholic church is losing ground as a percentage of our population, and most other Christian churches are shrinking even faster than the Catholic Church.

So it's no surprise that most religions have a strong meme that says their members should actively spread God's word. And Mr. Keezor was just helping his Church with the memetic version of sex: spreading the memes, helping them reproduce, making sure that his particular branch of religion will survive in the endless Darwinian struggle of my-God-versus-yours.

Catholic Priests: Constitution Cuts Both Ways

Here is a twist: separation of church and state cuts both ways, it seems. A Catholic Priest, angry because he was accused of molesting two boys, sued them for defamation. But the U.S. Constitution, which the Church has used as a shield, cut the other way this time. His case was thrown out because the only way the court case could go forward was to examine how the Church investigates its own clergy. Such an examination, said the court, would violate the separation clause of the Constitution.

So the priest is out of luck. The Roman Catholic Church removed him from his pulpit because there was "reasonable" evidence to conclude he'd molested the boys. He apparently wasn't convicted in criminal court, so legally he's innocent. If his employer was anything except a church, he could have his day in court. But if he wasn't a priest, he'd probably be in jail.

There's no happy ending to this story, but at least for once the Constitution's separation clause protected someone from a clergyman's vengeance.

Does God have Genitalia?

I've always wondered: Does God have genitalia? Does He have a penis and scrotum and testicles? And if so, what the heck does He do with them?

I mean, if God has a penis, why?

Does He have a relationship with some goddess somewhere? Back in the good old days, like in Moses' time, the Jews were pagans (yes, they really did believe in many gods, in spite of what you were taught), and a lot of the Jews thought maybe God and Isis were hanging out together, and maybe even doing the dirty. But since the Abrahamic religions evolved the idea of monotheism, that means Isis and those other goddesses were just figments of everyone's imaginations, which sort of implies God really didn't have a girlfriend after all. And presumably, since God doesn't commit sins, and masturbation is a sin, that's out too. So a penis thing would be pretty useless.

And surely God doesn't need to take a leak, since He is God. I mean, he doesn't need to eat or drink, right? So there's nothing to pee either, so that doesn't explain why God has genitalia, if indeed He does. In fact, that kind of leads to more questions than answers, because if He doesn't eat, then why does He need a stomach, intestines, and all that other stuff inside?

But if God doesn't have a penis, scrotum, testicles and such, and maybe not even a stomach and intestines, then it's kind of odd to say we humans were made in His image, because we do have all that stuff in order to eat, drink and procreate. So maybe the Bible means "in his image" sort of like a snapshot or something, like, on the outside we'd say, "Hey, look, I look just like you, God!" but if a surgeon could get God on the operating table and take a look inside, he'd say, "Hey, this isn't right! This guy's got no stomach, or anything!"

I guess maybe that Genesis creation stuff is a myth or something. It sure can't be literally true, since you'd have to overlook an awful lot of crazy stuff to believe all of it.

Senator Ensign: Another Christian Hypocrite

A friend of mine once told me, "We Christians aren't better than anyone else, just forgiven." What a refreshing, honest, attitude! I get so tired of Christians (and Jews and Muslims) with their smug superiority, who claim that their religion makes them more moral than others.

Today, two stories in the news hammer this point home. First, Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada) admitted to having an affair with one of his campaign staffers. This would hardly be noteworthy except that Sen. Ensign is an conservative Christian, an outspoken member of Promise Keepers, and was a vocal critic of Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) when he was arrested for trying to solicit homosexual sex in a public airport bathroom.

Second, a Catholic priest in Miami who was photographed kissing his girlfriend on the beach finally left the Catholic Church, became an Episcopal priest, and married his love. Rev. Alberto Cutie finally did the right thing when he rejected the Catholic Church's unhealthy and unnatural ideas about celibacy.

We're all humans, and nature has endowed us with a wonderful attractive force called sexual appeal. In the past, the possibilities of disease and pregnancy made it important for societies to develop strong rules about who could have sex with whom; womens' virginity in particular was highly prized. These common-sense rules were, unfortunately, turned into religious law, and those who didn't follow them were branded "sinners."

With advances in birth control and protection against disease, these ancient practices are nearly irrelevant. Today, a couple should consider their commitment, their compatibility, their desires, and anything else each one feels is important, and nothing more. Unfortunately, outdated morality still causes untold harm, in the form of frustration, secretive and/or harmful outlets for sexual desires, lies, guilt, and missed opportunities.

Men like Rev. Alberto Cutie must go through terrible angst before they finally reject the perverted celibacy that the Roman Catholic Church expects of its priests. The Church lost a good man, and Rev. Cutie must feel like he's lost his family.

But worse, men like Senator Ensign brag about their purported "better" morals, and insult non-Christians by implication as morally inferior. Yet in the end, as my friend said, "Christians aren't better." At least some of them have the courage and wisdom to admit it.

Why Does the Christian Anti-Sex Meme Survive?

Of all the tenets of Christianity, the prohibition against their priests having sex is the most perverse and unnatural. Requiring healthy men to ignore nature's strongest instinct is simply a recipe for disaster. Our sexual desires are almost impossible to suppress, and when we try, it's like trying to hold the steam in a boiling pot: Sooner or later it will burst, and do all sorts of damage.

If today's story was just another about a Catholic priest molesting young boys and/or girls, it would barely even be newsworthy – there have been so many. But in this case, one of the most charismatic and influential Catholic leaders in modern times, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, is not only accused of molesting a number of boys, but he also had a "regular" affair with an adult woman, and fathered a child.

Ironically, it was his child that brought his reputation down, not molesting young boys. Go figure.

Unfortunately for the Legionaries, they are taught to revere the founder, to identify with him spiritually and emotionally, to read all of his works and study his life for guidance. With the revelation that their leader was, in fact, a sexual predator, and had fathered a child, the group has quite a problem on its hands.

While researching for my book, The Religion Virus, I read dozens of books, studied Christianity's history in depth, and I came to understand many things. Using cultural evolutions and a memetic approach, most of the tenets of religion and churches, which superficially are baffling to those not raised in a religious environment, are actually quite predictable. Concepts like heaven and hell, monotheism, an asexual god, and so forth, are all memes (evolving ideas) that are plainly "fit for survival" in the Darwinistic sense.

But I've never been able to understand why Christians vilify sex so much, why that meme survives. Why do they hold abstinence and chastity in such high regard? How are those memes more fit for survival in the dog-eat-dog world of religious-dogma memes?

When Christianity started, it was quite the opposite. The Jews believed that sex, wine, and other pleasures were God's gift to humanity, to be enjoyed &ndash with proper moderation and respect. To deny oneself these pleasures was to reject God's gifts. The Jews even today expect their rabbis to marry and have children, after all, a rabbi is supposed to set a good example for his people.

A great deal of the Christian vilification of sex came from St. Augustine, who wrote extensively on the subject, and really laid the foundation for the modern Christian attitudes for sex. But that doesn't answer the more fundamental question: Why did St. Augustine's anti-woman, anti-sex attitudes become Christian dogma? There were many other writers who advocated a more reasonable and healthy attitude towards sex. Why were they ignored?

I'm still working on this puzzle. But in the mean time, the damage goes on. And on, and on, and on.

Tags: sex priest catholic christian scandal atheist atheism

Atheism's Toxic Effects in the Abortion Debate

Ok, I admit it, the headline is deliberately provocative to get your attention. Vjack over at Atheist Revolution wrote an excellent blog, Religion's Toxis Effects in the Abortion Controversy, in which he demonstrates that religion turns honest discourse about an important controversy into black-and-white good-versus-evil mudslinging.

But my provocative title is apropos to my thesis: There is a solution to the Abortion controversy, but we'll never reach it until we stop trying to debate the abortion issue. It's hopeless. Atheists tend to dismiss the legitimate and heartfelt beliefs of religious people in the abortion debate. These are not a bunch of nut cases with silly beliefs; they are our friends and neighbors, and they honestly believe that abortion is murder. As Atheists, we can see that life and the human "soul" are purely physical phenomena, and it's hard for us to take the religious position seriously. But if we aren't careful, we risk getting into a pointless debate that will distract us from real progress.

The only solution to the abortion controversy is to eliminate the need for abortion completely. Years ago, I heard Professor Carl Djerassi, inventor of the birth-control pill, interviewed on the radio, and he put it best: "Wouldn't it be better if we lived in a world where women have full access to birth control, where no woman ever needs to seek an abortion again?" (Paraphrased, it was probably 25 years ago!)

Almost everyone in the United States, Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Baha'i, you name it, agrees to a remarkable extent on one topic: Birth control is moral, and is a woman's right. Even the majority of Roman Catholics agree; they think the Pope and official Catholic ban on birth control is simply wrong, and that the Pope is out of touch with reality.

I propose that Atheists, and religious people of a more liberal nature who accept that abortion isn't murder, should stop engaging in the futile debate about when the human soul is created, and instead focus on birth control.

A tiny minority of ultra-conservative religious leaders have a monsterous influence on United States domestic and foreign policy. Their conservative views are preventing distribution of birth-control pills, condoms, medication, education and many other services that are desperately needed, here and abroad.

Right now, regions of Africa have stunnning and horrifying rates of AIDS infections, in some cases 25% of the population is infected and will die. These are poor countries to start with; the cost of caring for these people as they sicken and die, and the resulting explosion of orphans, will overwhelm all economic and social progress for decades. It is a tragedy greater than most of the greatest plagues in human history.

And it could have been prevented with an aggresive campaign that included sex education, condom distribution, and medical aid. Sociologists warned of this impending disaster years before it happened, but because the solution included birth control and abortion rights, the funds for birth control, condoms and education were withheld. This completely preventable plague was left to run wild, and will ultimately result in hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide.

So, let's start engaging our religious friends (and those we may not consider friends, too) in a debate about birth control and sex education. Let's break the stranglehold the ultraconservative churches, led by the Pope himself, have on American and world politics. Let's make it so that every woman in Africa has access to condoms, so that we can stop the AIDS epidemic. Let's give every teenager in the world a reality-based sex education (to use vjack's term), so that no girl ever has to have an abortion again. Let's teach young couples everywhere how to be responsible, and plan their families, so that every child born will be greeting by happy, excited parents who planned the event and look forward to raising a happy and healthy family.

The abortion debate is a dead end. We have to hold the line, keep abortion rights from being eroded, but that's it. But the birth-control debate can be meaningful, productive, and have a far greater impact on the health and well being of everyone in the world.

Tags: abortion birth-control aids religion christian christianity atheist atheism africa epidemic

The purpose of sex

What is the purpose (evolutionarily) of sex? This is a pretty esoteric blog, a detailed technical argument. It's an essay I wrote a while back, but not being a biologist, I couldn't get anyone to read it. Now that I'm a blogger, I'm going to put it out there on the web, so that if nothing else, I can claim I thought of it first.

This article demonstrates why sexual reproduction is a prerequisite to the evolution of complex biological structures. Using information theory and a statistical viewpoint, I also show that while sexual reproduction may be "costly" in the short term, it is beneficial to the survival of a gene in the long run.

I've read a lot about evolution, and as far as I know, nobody has ever explained sex adequately.

Sex and the Single Gene
by Craig A. James, February 2007

The Paradox

One of the apparent paradoxes in evolution is: Why is there sex? Or more properly, why is there sexual reproduction, meaning the process by which two individuals share genetic information in the process of reproducing? Sex cuts the chances for a gene's replication at least in half.

As with everything else in evolution science, a seeming paradox like this means we haven't yet discovered the benefits of sexual reproduction. The fact that it exists in spite of this extremely harsh penalty means there must be an even more potent benefit. A 50% reduction in a gene's chances to reproduce is monstrous. This is the paradox of sex: It seems to defy explanation.

Cross-discipline approaches can often bring new insight into old problems. The problem of sex in evolution, as described Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale, in the chapter The Rotifer's Tale, jumped out at me. As a computer scientist who has studied information theory, the sexual reproduction appears inevitable; I would go so far as to say information theory predicts sexual reproduction.

An Information Science View

The first lesson of information science is that perfect information transcription is theoretically impossible. At the molecular level, Planck's constant is a significant factor, and Heisenberg tells us there will be transcription errors. In addition there are external forces, such as radiation and reactive radicals, that can damage the information contained in DNA.

The second lesson of information science is that you can correct for just about any error rate via redundancy. Even very error-prone copying methods can be made "error free" (where "error free" means reliable to any arbitrarily-small error rate you'd care to pick) with enough redundancy.

Redundancy comes in many forms. Mathematicians and computer scientists have some very efficient error-correcting methods, but these sophisticated mathematical algorithms are beyond the reach of evolution. A much simpler form of redundancy is replication of information, such that if one copy goes bad, other copies are available.

From an information-theory point of view, there are two reasons sex is inevitable (where "transcription errors" are what a biologist would call a mutation):

1. Transcription errors that are bad (detrimental to survival)
2. Transcription errors that are good (enhance survival and reproduction)

With sexual reproduction, the first is mitigated, and the second is amplified. In a nutshell, it boils down to the fact that with asexual reproduction, each gene is on its own, whereas with sexual reproduction, a gene can benefit from good mutations in other genes, and can survive mutations in other genes with which it shares a body. Let me amplify.

To begin, I must clarify the critical concepts on which my arguments stand. I will coin new words to clearly distinguish five very different concepts:

• A "gene-individual" is a particular molecular fragment that happens to reside on a strand of DNA in one individual.

• A "gene-class" is collection of identical single genes, spread across a number of individuals, and usually across a number of species. The gene-class also has an abstract (i.e. human) conceptualization as the "perfect" instance of this gene: The base pairs that, when present on a strand of DNA, cause the scientist to say, "this gene is present in this individual".

• A "gene-pool" is used in the customary sense: A set of genes spread across a number of individuals in a breeding population.

• A "gene-contingent" is like a gene-pool, but for one specific gene. It is a set of gene-individuals that are in the same gene-class, and additionally are in an interbreeding population such that they may "cross paths" in the future.

The last one, the gene-contingent, is the key to the information-theory argument that sex is beneficial to a gene, in spite of the two-fold penalty of sexual reproduction.

The gene-contingent of sexual and asexual species are critically different: For a sexual species, the gene-contingent to which a gene-instance belongs is spread across the breeding population, whereas for asexual individuals, the gene-contingent and the gene-instance are identical: one individual.

Beneficial and Synergistic Mutations

In The Rotifer's Tale, Dawkins captures the second half of the information-theory argument regarding sex when he says: "... genes are continually being tried out against different genetic backgrounds ... [those that cooperate] tend to be in winning teams." In other words, when a beneficial mutation occurs in any gene-individual of a sexual species, every gene-individual in the "gene river" has the possibility to eventually pair up with the new, better gene.

What is the probability that a beneficial mutation will occur in the gene pool of a sexual species versus an asexual species?

Since an asexual species is always a "species of one", the chances are vastly less. In an asexual species, each gene-individual only benefits from good mutations in the specific individual in which it resides. The chances of a good mutation happening to one of other genes in a specific individual are many orders of magnitude less than the chances of it happening somewhere in the whole species.

By contrast, in a sexual species, a gene-contingent can benefit from any good mutation anywhere in the species.

Now consider synergistic mutations. Suppose there are two beneficial mutations that could occur, that together are also synergistic, or alternatively, where the second mutation's beneficial properties depend on the first mutation being present. In a sexual species, the first beneficial mutation will will propagate through the gene pool, so that when the second mutation occurs, the synergy will be realized.

By contrast, in an asexual species, the two mutations will almost certainly happen in different lines of descent, and the synergy will never be realized. Because of this, we can predict that asexual species will not be nearly as adaptable, nor will they evolve as quickly, as sexual species.

Complexity

Complexity simply cannot arise in asexual species. Consider the odds: Imagine a very simplified ecosystem that can support one billion individual single-cell creatures that divide once per day. Each day, half of the individuals die, and half go on to the next generation. And image that, on average, one mutation occurs somewhere in the population per day.

Complexity in lifeforms requires a long sequence of mutation and selection. In our hypothetical population, suppose two mutations occur that together would result in a more complex creature. The chances are one in a billion that they will occur in the same individual's line of descent. In other words, the two mutations would never “encounter” one another.

By contrast, if our same population of a billion creatures uses some form of DNA exchange, and if both of these mutations are individually not detrimental (or only slightly detrimental) then the chances approach 100 percent that sooner or later, both mutations will be “inherited” by an individual, increasing the complexity of that individual. The added benefit conferred by the pairing of the two mutations will quickly cause the pair of genes to spread throughout the population. And once this happens, the third and subsequent mutations that further increase the complexity of the creature are again a billion times more likely to encounter the first two in a sexual species than in an asexual species.

Using this logic, we can make a prediction: Any species that changes from sexual to asexual will not evolve significantly once asexual reproduction begins. Or, if it does, it will be at a rate that is billions of times slower than sexual species in similar circumstances. Such a species can survive indefinitely if it was already well adapted to its environment prior to becoming asexual, but it cannot evolve further. We can predict that such species will all become extinct sooner or later, due to a change in the environment, or to an encroaching species that competes in the same ecological niche or preys on the species.

Harmful Mutations

Information redundancy is only available to sexual species, where the gene-contingent spans many individuals. The survival of the gene-contingent is not dependent on any one individual; transcription errors don't terminate the gene-contingent. By contrast, in an asexual creature, mutation of a gene-individual ends the gene-contingent forever.

One might argue that asexual species have information redundancy because the gene-class spans many individuals. Indeed, the loss of one gene-individual does not make the gene-class extinct. But this argument is flawed: The gene-class is not the entity on which evolution operates. Only the gene-contingent matters from an evolutionary perspective.

This goes to the very heart of Darwinian evolution, and what is meant by natural selection. Once speciation occurs, each species' gene-pool only "cares" about its own survival and reproduction. The fact that that two recently-split species share a gene-class is irrelevant; the two gene-contingents are in competition rather than cooperation, and the demise of one can often improve the survival of the other, even though the gene-individuals in each species' gene-contingent are identical. This is reflected Dawkins' statement, "... the entity that is carved into shape ... is the gene pool."

Once a rotifer reproduces, each gene is "on its own" and no longer "cares" whether its "brother and cousin" genes survive or not. In fact, the opposite is true: Speciation occurs at every reproduction for the asexual rotifer, so all gene-instance of a gene-class are in direct competition with one another.

Because of this, there is no information redundancy in an asexual species, no opportunity to correct errors. Each gene is completely on its own, and the chances approach 100% that it won't survive in the long term.

Evolving the Ability to Evolve

Sexual species have an enormous advantage over asexual species because they can support variations.

Although each gene-contingent "wants" to replicate perfectly at each generation, it can (ironically) benefit from the imperfect replication of other gene-individuals in the gene pool. To understand this, we must view evolution from two perspectives: Long term and short term, which roughly translate to "stable environment" and "changing environment".

In the short term, evolution favors uniformity. Suppose we could create a completely stable environment, and we could prevent mutations. For sexual species, sex shuffles the gene combinations, working towards an optimum; after a while, a single "perfect" individual would emerge, and all variability would be lost. For an asexual "species" in the same environment, we would expect after a while for one line of descent to dominate and all other lines to die, resulting in what appeared to be a single species (all identical individuals). The net result in either case is the same for both sexual and asexual species: A uniform gene pool.

(Strictly speaking, this latter case isn't completely true; only the phenotypes would be uniform. Variation in the genome that have no effect on the phenotype are irrelevant, so variations in the genome would remain. But our core argument remains sound: stability results in uniformity.)

However, over the long term, a changing environment favors a certain degree of variability, rather than uniformity, in the gene pool. If the environment is suddenly hotter, more acidic, a competitor arrives, etc., variability increases the odds that at least some of the individuals will survive.

Seen over a very long time scale, each species must be able to adapt to changing conditions, so one would predict that variability itself is an important survival strategy.

This leads to a paradox: Species without variability are less likely to survive over the long haul, yet evolution favors uniformity as long as the environment is stable. In the short term, most variations are bad, but in the long term they ensure survival.

Thus, we predict that evolution should have created a mechanism where stability and faithful reproduction of the genome is ensured, yet variability is not only tolerated, but is actually necessary.

Or, to put it another way: A mutation that produces a competing gene-contingent is bad for the original gene-contingent, yet the gene-pools benefits from its ability to support competing gene-contingents. “You mutate.” “No, YOU mutate. It will be good for us!” “If it's so good, then YOU do it.”

How can we resolve this paradox? Again, information redundancy gives the answer.

For the asexual individual, there is no solution to the paradox. Its genes have no redundancy, so it must favor extremely accurate reproduction of its DNA. In fact, I would predict that asexual species' DNA is more "robust" and resistant to mutation than the DNA of sexual species. Mutation to the DNA of an asexual individual is almost always the end of the line for those genes, so any gene (or any gene's phenotype that is part of the DNA copying and repairing mechanism) that was slightly more susceptible to mutation than a competitor would quickly be eliminated from the population.

By contrast, the redundant information stored across the gene pool of a sexual species allows it withstand many orders of magnitude more errors than an asexual species. Sex allows for imperfect gene replication, which ensures the long-term survival (adaptability) of the species, yet the information redundancy provided by the extended gene pool means that errors are not fatal.

Imperfect replication (mutation) is necessary to ensure for long-term survival, but perfect replication is required for short-term survival. The answer is information redundancy: With sex, information is replicated, errors can be tolerated, and variability within the species gene pool is possible. The paradox is resolved.

Conclusion

Seen from an information-theory point of view, sex has evolved to provide redundancy of information across a gene-contingent, so that transcription errors can be tolerated, and so that beneficial mutations can be shared. This has two important consequences.

First, it provides a mechanism to spread favorable mutations across a gene pool such that sequential mutations "encounter" each other rather than occurring on separate lines of descent.

Second, it makes variability possible, which helps ensure long-term survival in a changing environment, because the redundancy provided by an extended gene-contingent make detrimental mutations more tolerable to the genome.

Soulgasm: I want to be a Christian Too!

You can't make this stuff up...

Right road to 'soulgasm'
U.S. evangelicals mix hot sex at home with repressive political agenda

"Ok, honey, I've averted my eyes from other women all day, now take off your clothes, 'cause we're gonna do it now!"

Yeah, I like that idea! No romance, no foreplay, no consideration for how my wife's day went or how she's feeling, she's mine, all the time! Sex all day, every day? I think I'll become a Christian! Oh, wait, my wife is Jewish. Darn!

Apparently this group finally realized that men love sex (duh?), but they also love looking at women with lust (duh!). They've been telling men for a couple thousand years that these impure thoughts would send them to hell, but men just keep looking. After all, a quick glance at that cleavage ... God's not going to send me to hell just for that is He?

So they added a new trick: Combine aversion therapy – training men to look away instantly, just as you'd pull your hand from a hot stove – but mitigate the damage by "decriminalizing" sex toys and wild, uninhibited sex. Oh, and by the way, the woman has to become a virtual sex slave to her husband if this is going to work...

The Christian vilification of sex, and sexual enslavement of women, rages on unabated, they've just added this new twist: They've learned the hard way that abstinence is unpopular. Their new memes, which I predict will spread rapidly, are a Christian man's dream: His wife has to submit to his sexual needs 24/7, to "become like a 'merciful vial of methadone for him' by being constantly sexually available." What does the guy have to do to get this subjugation from his wife? He has to pretend he doesn't look at other women. Duh.