Learning to Know Ourselves: 1. Identity

Recently, we watched an episode of “The Magic Prank Show" on Netflix.  This series featured Justin Willman and his crew who "pull elaborate pranks on unsuspecting targets to help real people get payback."  In this particular episode, the aim was to help two brothers by helping one brother give a payback lesson the other brother for prematurely revealing that he was gay. 

Willman and crew set about learning all they could about the “outing brother” by interviewing the “avenging brother.” The interview soon revealed that the outing brother was terrified of robots and AI (artificial intelligence).  Armed with this knowledge, Willman’s crew unleashed the full force of the payback upon the outing brother.  They brought him face-to-face with Justin Hillman who, of all things, played a very convincing “human robot,” making the encounter very terrifying.  Imagine the emotions of the victim when he faced his greatest fear; and on top of that, a robot, who revealed to the outing brother knowledge of his deep, dark secrets.

Imagine how you would feel if you encountered a “being” who knew all about you.  Upon recovering from the initial shock, you might ask yourself,
“Does this someone or something have good or evil intentions?” 
“Can I trust this all-knowing “being” who knows all about my relationships, account numbers, and personal secrets?

Then, suddenly you feel convicted: 
“How well do I know myself?”
“Does this robot know me better than I do?”

Finally, your logic converges on an interesting notion:
1)  “If this robot knows all about me, and
2)  “If this robot is “good,” then
3)  “Why shouldn’t I trust Him to lead me on a path to a more fruitful life; a life more likely to fulfill the purpose for which I was born?  After all, what better counsellor is there than one who knows all about me, has only good intentions for me, and is willing to help me? 

Wouldn’t you agree?   Now, please read on and hold your initial thoughts for later.

What Shapes Our Identity?
When we wonder how well we know ourselves in relation to what others know and think about us, we enter the realm of our personal identity.  Our identity is defined by our family, friends, life history, values, interests, preferences, and traits.  Our identity as individuals is expressed through our behavior, wardrobe, and communication. 

In an earlier blog, entitled “Reflections at Age Seventy-five” (Click HERE), we considered some basic influences and ways our identity is shaped, including our worldview [Click HERE.].  Who we are and are becoming is shaped by both genetic (hereditary) and environmental factors —e.g. cultural influences through the institutions of family, school, church; and influences of the economy, politics, media, the arts, and entertainment.

A more straightforward example of how heredity and environment interact relates to our adult stature and overall health.  As most of us know, our height, weight, and overall health are all influenced by both our heredity and our nutrition (health care and hygiene, especially during early development).  A much more complex example is the matter of how heredity and environment interact to influence how our biological sex and gender are determined.  This blog and Part 2 to follow will address the important topic of gender identity and expression.

Biological Sex and Gender Identity
Our biological sex is generally assigned at birth and is typically identified by three anatomical (physical) distinctions as follows: 
1) gamete type (female = eggs; male = sperm);
2) gonad type (female = ovaries; male = testes;
intersex = part ovary-part testis); and,
3) chromosomal inheritance (female = XX; male = XY; intersex = when the SRY gene (“Sex-determining Region Y” gene) is translocated or deleted; or mutation of the AR (androgen receptor) gene on the X-chromosome which influences sex hormone balance (e.g. estrogen <> progesterone). 

According to gender theory, biological sex which is based on anatomy differs in meaning from gender which is based on one’s attitudes, feelings, and behaviors.  The American Psychological Association (APA) defines gender as the “attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex.”  A person is considered either gender-normative or gender-nonconforming based on whether or not the person’s behavior is viewed as compatible or incompatible, respectively, with the cultural norms for that person’s biological sex.  

Having defined gender, we can understand that gender identity is one’s internal sense of who they are with respect to their concept of male, female, neither or both as defined by cultural norms.   In other words, one’s perceived sex is based on performance (e.g. behavior, clothing, cosmetics) that society expects from those it designates as “man,” “woman,” or “nonbinary.”  A person whose gender identity differs from (or is “across from”) their assigned biological sex at birth is considered transgender (or trans).  Cisgender describes persons whose gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth.  So-called gender dysphoria is the psychological distress a person experiences when they sense a discrepancy between their gender identity and their biological sex assigned at birth.

Those who accept the claims of gender ideology as noted above generally accept that gender (behavioral role, performance) is not always coupled to one’s biological sex (anatomy).  But this claim needs further examination.  To understand why, we need to define another biological term—epigenetics. 

Epigenetics [(epi = “on top of”) + (genetics = “pertaining to genes, genetic variation, heredity”)] is a relatively new field which studies how behavior and environment cause changes that promote or suppress the expression of our genes.  Epigenetic research reveals that two people having the same gene or genes can differ in appearance and/or behavior when the environment of one person triggers difference(s) in gene expression.  In other words, our DNA (genes) inherited from our biological parents only partly influences our physical traits and behaviors.  This is true because environmental factors are constantly operating “on top of our genes” to determine how and when those genes can be expressed to influence our metabolism, hormones, etc.

Can Gender Be Uncoupled from Sex?
Returning to the gender ideology that claims gender is uncoupled from biological sex, we see that epigenetics disagrees.  Research reveals that individuals who respond to social influences leading them to choose to adopt a transgender identity and then express their identity in a trans lifestyle may experience an “epigenetic imprint” on their brains as a result of their transgender behavior.  This imprint in turn, influences the person’s neuro-hormonal physiology which consequently influences the individual’s biological sexual expression.  That is, our thoughts, choices, behaviors, and other factors associated with gender expression can produce real, physical, neurological imprints or changes in our brains; and therefore, how we think about ourselves and behave.  This relationship has major implications which we will expand upon later.  But first, consider a simpler example of epigenetic imprinting.

Epigenetic imprinting has been shown to occur in numerous ways when chemicals from the environment enter the human body.  Related to our discussion of gender identity, research has shown that certain chemical ingredients of cosmetics can exert an epigenetic imprint on the brain.  This imprint can in turn affect one’s sexuality through hormonal and physiological changes.  It is therefore possible that transgender expression in a trans male could combine with the person’s use of cosmetics to further drive trans behavior and identity.

In order to apply the above concepts, consider how growing up in a dysfunctional home can influence the gender identity of a child.  The child is deprived of the loving nurture of a father or a mother, doesn’t receive proper nutrition or health care, and experiences rejection by peers.  These unfortunate stressors are called adverse childhood experiences (ACE’s; Click HERE to read more.).  ACE’s can among other things, increase the likelihood that the child will question their identity, including their gender identity.

If the child chooses to become transgender, the internal patterns of thought associated with the new gender identity may give way to gender expression.  As the child outwardly performs his or her gender role via behavior, clothing, cosmetics, and voice, these behaviors can cause epigenetic imprints upon the child’s brain.  Epigenetic imprints represent changes in thoughts reinforce and reaffirm the child's transgender mindset and behavior.  n turn, the child may seek to undergo hormone therapy or gender confirmation surgery.  We can hope that this child and many like him or her will first be willing to seek and receive wise counsel.  [Note that this scenario is given as an example while hopefully avoiding our being overly simplistic.]

Considerations - Before Gender Affirming Treatment
Two considerations should be entertained by children, adolescents, and adults in regard to gender identity.  First, each candidate for gender affirming treatment should be informed of the risk and potential negative medical, emotional, and social consequences.  For instance, a recent article in Lancet: Child and Adolescent Health (Malone et al (2021) concludes that “There is growing acknowledgment worldwide that the practice of providing gender-affirming care for youth is far from settled science.” Read more, HERE.

Second, as we have noted, personal identity is a complex, multi-faceted component of personhood.  Therefore, gender alteration involves more than reshaping the physical body by the surgeon’s scalpel or by hormone treatments.  Humans are also comprised of soul and spirit which can be positively or negatively affected by these treatments.  More on this subject in Part 2.

Ultimately, we must ask the question, “Who gets to define the social norms for what is “male” and “female?”  And, “Is there an Authority that exists above these human definitions—One who knows more about biology, psychology, and theology, or body, soul, and spirit than any of us know?”  In our judgment, this Authority is the God of the Bible who reveals Himself as our Creator, Helper, and Counsellor.  He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present through His Spirit.

Returning to our analogy of the all-knowing AI-robot featured in our introduction, by faith, we believe that our Almighty God meets the requirements of One who is worthy of our attention and obedience in matters of body, soul, and spirit.  This is because His Word in the Bible affirms the following line of reasoning:
1)  Because God is our Creator and knows all about us, and…
2)  …because God is “good,” then…
3)  …why shouldn’t I trust Him to lead me on a path to make my life more fruitful and more likely to fulfill the purpose for which I was born?

Recap.  And What Comes Next?
Thank you for reading and thinking through these complex issues with us.  So far, we have defined some of the terminology of gender identity.  But we must realize that knowledge of the terminology, while necessary is not the same as understanding and helping those who struggle with their gender identity.  We must understand with humility and compassion the underlying assumptions behind gender identity and transgenderism.  By understanding these concepts and engaging with those struggling with gender identity with compassion we are better prepared to build relationships of understanding.

We are humbled when we recognize the challenge all of us face, beginning from our birth: the challenge of knowing ourselves and discovering our abilities and purpose in the world around us.  The pursuit of personal identity has gotten even more challenging in recent years with the growing cultural pressures particularly on children and adolescents to “discover their identity.”  In Part 2 of “Knowing as We Are Known,” we will attempt to focus the Light of God’s Word upon the issues of our biological sex, gender identity, and gender affirming strategies.
  
May We Ask You?
When you think of your own personal identity and how it has been shaped, and continues to be shaped, what thoughts come to mind?  Maybe you would like to share your response or a question from your reading of this blog via the “Comment” link below.  You may choose to respond privately via our e-mail:  silviusj@gmail.com. 

Personal Meditation:  The Word of God in Scripture affirms God’s loving character and counsel to you and to all of us throughout its pages.  Our favorite passage of Scripture that speaks to His intimate knowledge of each one of us is Psalm 139.  We urge you to read this very personal revelation from God and written by a Hebrew shepherd, musician, poet, warrior, and king whose name was David.

Additional Reading:
A Guide To Gender Identity Terms, Laurel Wamsley, NPR.  June 2, 2021.  Click HERE.

Does Gender Leave an Epigenetic Imprint on the Brain?  L.R. Cortes, et al.  Frontiers in Neuroscience, 26 February 2019.  Click HERE.

What is Epigenetics?  Center for Disease Control.  Click HERE.

Coronavirus Resistance:  Biological and Spiritual.  Oikonomia, March 22, 2020.  Click HERE.

Key Terms and Concepts in Understanding Gender Diversity and Sexual Orientation Among Students. American Psychological Association Divisions 16 and 44.  2015.  Click HERE.

Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria: The Science Is Far From Settled.  Malone, et al.  2021.
Lancet:  Child and Adolescent Health  Click HERE.

Sexuality vs. Gender: What's the Difference?  Cynthia Vinney, Verywellmind.  April 18, 2024
Click HERE.

Human Sexuality: A Nexus of Scripture, Science, and Sociology

Surrendering Standards for Sexuality

During my boyhood in the 1950’s, human sexuality was very much on people’s minds but it was not openly discussed in most homes, churches, and schools.  Although sex was a “hush-hush” topic in our farm home, I am thankful for parents who modeled gender differences and helped guide me toward manhood and to faith in God. 

Meanwhile, all around us, the so-called “sexual revolution” was emerging while the intactness and values of many American families were deteriorating.  Many fathers and mothers in post-war America became consumed with their dreams of the good life.  Many chose paths that led them away from honoring God and loving their spouses, children, and families.  Churches that once were an integral part of family and community life also began to compromise the Gospel message.  Divorce and adolescent rebellion became more and more common.

Some churches watered down the Gospel message of salvation by faith in the blood of Christ, God’s provision for redeeming fallen man.  Like ships without an anchor, they began to drift in the current of the morally deteriorating culture.  Other churches fired up their message about the “wages of sin” but failed to welcome sinners with the love and mercy shown by Jesus who welcomed sinners.  Consequently, many conservative, fundamentalist churches fumbled their chances to attract the spiritually lost who were left alone, groping in the dark to find love and purpose.  Ignored and rejected, many young Americans rejected God and set out to find a “love” apart from His plan.

Fast forward to the present.  We can now see the harvest of the seeds sown in the 1960’s-1970’s.  What started as a minority counterculture of rebellion against spiritual and social norms has become a dominant force that threatens to upend the moral foundation of America.  The movement has been given legitimacy by calls for “individual rights” which accompany a “liberal” education and persuasive messages from Hollywood and the main stream media.  As a result, our culture is drowning in moral confusion while being caught up in angry debates over God’s gifts of marriage, family, and human sexuality.

Ignoring or Suppressing the Science of Sexuality
Our understanding of human sexuality is being distorted not only by misguided social influences but also by those who publish misleading scientific reports or who suppress valid findings from the scientific community.  A lack of “good science” and “good social science”  have been misleading our culture ever since the now-discredited Kinsey Report on human sexuality.  In 1954, leading statisticians issued for the American Statistical Association a critique of Kinsey's 1948 report, stating that “conclusions drawn from data presented in the book are often stated by much too bold and confident a manner…[and] the writing in the book falls below the level of good scientific writing.”

More recently, neuroscientists and sex researchers like Dr. Debra Soh are providing mounting scientific evidence that sex differences between men and women are biologically based and not socially influenced.  In a podcast interview with Ben Domenech on the Federalist Radio Hour, Dr. Soh explains that gender differences are real, and are caused by different levels of the hormone testosterone between developing boy and girl babies.  According to Dr. Soh, contrary to politically correct views, there is no scientific evidence that gender is a social construct such that each individual can therefore be free to choose their gender. 

Dr. Soh laments the fact that left-based thinking gives the false impression that men and women should think the same in regard to how and why they engage in sexual relationships and how they respond when relationships go bad.  False, politically correct notions that men and women are not different causes much confusion among women who are left wondering why they do not feel the same as men in judging the quality of sexual relationships and in how they feel compared to men when relationships go bad.  Gender misconceptions combined with the continuing “hush-hush” attitudes about sex that tend to prevent good communication between partners is an ongoing threat to developing strong monogamous relationships.

Given the fact that our moral standards have been eroding; and, that left-leaning, agenda-driven politics is denying the science of human sexuality, it is no wonder that gender identity has become so confusing that it requires a glossary of terms to help us determine who we are sexually.  If Dr. Soh and the large body of scientific research to which she refers is correct, determining our gender ought to be as simple and straightforward as simply being observant during diaper changes, and then “training up our children in the way they should go.” (Proverbs 22: 6). 

I do not mean to oversimplify here.  As Dr. Soh admits, there are differences in degrees of maleness and femaleness among members of each gender.  Dispositions toward increased maleness and femaleness can arise, respectively, in males who developed under lower prenatal levels of testosterone, and in females with higher prenatal levels.  Then, whereas gender is determined by a person’s prenatal neurophysiological development as noted above, I believe variations in hormonal levels within-gender can predispose a boy or girl to respond by developing secondary traits of the opposite sex depending on parental and other social influences.  We’ll return to this point.

Speaking into the New “Hush-Hush” about Sexuality
Although a majority of people are concerned about sexuality and pursuing sexual fulfillment, anyone who dares to speak up about what God’s Word says about sexuality risks being called a hateful bigot.  Thus, western culture has transitioned from a “hush-hush” about human sexuality in the 1950’s and 1960’s to a new form of “hush-hush.” The current “hush-hush” is given to anyone who wishes to address what God’s revelation in Scripture has to say about our sexuality.  How then can a Christ-follower keep his or her call to be “salt and light” in a world that largely rejects the authority of God and His revealed Word?

Given the current climate of moral relativism, you may be asking, “What right does any person have to question the gender preferences and sexual behavior of anyone else?”  Indeed, many people regardless of sexual orientation do not acknowledge the existence of God or the authority of the Bible.  Others may respect the authority of Scripture but question whether God views homosexual behavior as being worthy of eternal judgment in Hell.  Still others argue that Jesus offers love, mercy, and forgiveness of sinners and did not condemn homosexual behavior.  But there is a clear message in the Scriptures--God does exist, His design for sexuality is objectively defined in the Bible, He remains a righteous judge with whom all of us must give account, and He remains ready to forgive and redeem all repentant sinners.
 
If we acknowledge God’s authority revealed in the Bible, then we must accept that God has called us as Christ-followers to love our neighbor and to share His gift of love in the Person of Jesus Christ.  In His “Great Commission,” recorded in Matthew 28: 18, Jesus said, All authority is given to me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples… Jesus calls His disciples to “make disciples”—i.e. make more teachable followers who live by my example and are empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, if Christ-followers are being obedient to Christ’s commission, it is our responsibility to express our faith in word and in deed.

But there are right and wrong ways to share God’s message.  The Apostle Peter (apostle = “one who is sent”) teaches us the manner in which we ought to approach others to witness of God’s love and purposes for mankind.  He wrote (emphasis mine), But sanctify the Lord God (i.e. set apart and honor God as holy) in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with gentleness and reverence… (1 Peter 3: 15).  According to Peter, our lives must first be a reflection of the humility and love of Jesus Christ as described in the Gospel accounts.  Second, we must be ready to speak the truth as God’s Spirit gives us the opportunities to answer or respond to questions.  And, third, our approach to those who need to hear God’s truth must be with gentleness and respect for both God and our neighbor.

Returning specifically to the matter of sexuality, sexual preference, and sexual behavior, Christ-followers must be able to respectfully explain God’s plan and purpose for sex in the context of marriage as being between a man and a woman.  In response to a question about God’s view of divorce, Jesus answered as recorded in Matthew 19: 4-6 by quoting from the Old Testament (Genesis 1: 27 and 2: 24):  Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

Christ followers must also be able to answer the claim that, although the Bible does condemn sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage (e.g. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11) Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.  If Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality, how can Christians claim that God will judge homosexuals?  Dr. Robert Jeffress provides an excellent response to this claim in his short article, “Did Jesus Condemn Homosexuality?”

Conclusion and Recommended Resources
Truly, today’s culture is saturated with sex, erotic imaging, sexual innuendo, and all the preoccupation, confusion, and frustration that results in lives lived apart from God’s plan and purpose for sexuality.  It also follows that a sex-saturated culture can make Christ-followers forget that God sent His Son to redeem humans from all kinds of sins, not only sex outside of the biblical marriage bond, but also such sins as lying, stealing, gossiping, murdering, coveting, etc. (see 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; Galatians 5: 19-21).  As David wrote in Psalm 51: 5, every one of us were born into this world as sinners.  As fallen offspring of Adam, we are prone to commit any or all of the sins listed above that are outside of the moral bounds established by a loving Creator in His Word.  Because this article focuses on how Christ-followers ought to approach our neighbor when he or she is caught in immoral sexual behavior, I will conclude by reference to two excellent resources.

Allen Atzbi, General Manager at Living Waters, has written an online article, “Coming Out of the Closet on Homosexuality.”  This article provides an excellent resource for individuals and for group discussion.  It is also an excellent preparation for viewing the movie, Audacity, written and produced by evangelist Ray Comfort.  This free online movie provides good insights on homosexuality and good examples of how Christ-followers can address this sensitive issue as loving ambassadors with an informed, gentle, and respectful approach to anyone in need of Christ’s love and forgiveness.   Audacity is also a good resource for group discussion.  The movie subtitle is “Love Can’t Stay Silent.”  I’m thankful that God’s love reached me-- because He couldn’t “stay silent.”

How About You?
1.   What would you do if you saw a same-sex couple approaching a malfunctioning elevator in a high-rise building, knowing that if they step on the elevator, they will plunge to certain death?  Do you have a right to warn them?   Should they feel offended if you approached them with the warning?  The article, “Coming Out of the Closet on Homosexuality” and the movie Audacity uses this analogy and others to emphasize the obligation we have to minister to those around us.

2.  What must a Christ-follower do to earn the right to approach a person or couple who is openly rejecting God’s moral standards?  Watch Audacity and see what one person chose to do and how his action opened the way for him to share his faith.

3.  I welcome your comments, questions and corrections where I may be misrepresenting the issues surrounding human sexuality and the role of Scripture, science, and social science in shaping a proper response to this important issue.

Evolution Theory Has a “Secret Sex Problem”

During the century and a half since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, many books have been written on the subject of the origin of life.  Some provide an in-depth technical treatment of evolution but attract a relatively small audience.  Others treat evolution as “strictly science.” In so doing, they ignore or dismiss the fact that evolution has philosophical and moral ramifications that influence how we define our purpose and destiny in life.  Still other writers present religious attacks on science.  They ignore or dismiss the fact that science has a legitimate role in explaining how genetics and natural selection allow populations to adapt to gradual changes in their environment.

Today, if you would like to get your hands on a book that provides a solid critique of evolution while also being understandable and enjoyable to read, let me recommend one for you.  Darwin’sSecret Sex Problem: Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw—The Origin of Sex (Westbow Press, 2018), by F. LaGard Smith*, combines sound scientific logic, a thorough understanding of the biology of sexuality, and the author’s unique blend of humor to uncover what is perhaps the “greatest secret of sexuality”—that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the origin of SEX!

Allow me to entice you into obtaining a copy by mentioning a few reasons why Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem will be excellent reading for researchers, teachers, pastors, laypersons, and anyone else who enjoys curling up to read a witty, engaging page-turner about a topic that is never far from the minds of any of us.  After all, we are all sexual beings and if you have followed what has been published about sexuality in the past fifty years or so, you know how influential views of origins and sexuality are on the formation of our worldview.  Specifically, philosophical naturalism and its offspring, including Darwinism and genetic determinism, have had a major influence on worldview formation with respect to human origins, sexuality, marriage, and personhood.  Professor Smith’s stated reason for authoring Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem is based on his concern over the “wide-ranging ramifications of evolutionary thinking.”

Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem is different from most books about evolution in at least three ways.  First, to his credit, Professor Smith clearly distinguishes the legitimate scientific theories of population genetics and natural selection which attempt to account for micro-evolutionary changes (or, what Smith calls “’little-e’ evolution” or “bounded evolution” within recognized taxonomic classes of organisms) from macro-evolutionary changes (or, what Smith calls “microbe-to-man evolution,” or “Big-E” Evolution).  Many writers fail to make this distinction.  Instead, they build out of the shadows of ambiguity what only appears to be a strong case for “Big-E” Evolution (unverifiable scientifically) on a foundation of “little-e” evolution (verifiable and within narrow limits).  Professor Smith argues that latter cannot account for “microbe-to-man evolution.”

As a second unique and wise approach, Smith has chosen to ignore “…religious assumptions altogether and [introduce] a fresh, powerful argument solely from within the realm of science.”  Instead of using biblical revelation to counter Darwinian claims, Professor Smith uses Darwin’s own logic to challenge Darwinian evolution head-on with a scientifically logical argument. 

You may recall that Darwin offered an “admission” of potential vulnerability in his theory of descent with modification through natural selection (“Big-E Evolution”).  “Darwin’s admission,” as stated in his own words:  If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (Darwin, 1859).

Professor Smith’s clear challenge to “Darwin’s admission” is to expose Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem with this daunting question:  How could asexual (non-sexual) replication have evolved by natural selection into fully-gendered sexual reproduction?   In other words, how can asexual replication deliver the genetic variation necessary for natural selection to act upon in order to form the complex mechanisms and behavior necessary for sexual reproduction?

It follows, according to Smith’s direct challenge to Darwin, that if there is indeed an unbridgeable gap between non-gendered asexual replication and male/female sexual reproduction, then that Achilles’ heel is the fatal undoing of microbe-to-man evolution.

A third unique feature of Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem is best captured in the words of Dr. Geoff Barnard, retired reproductive endocrinologist, Cambridge University.  Dr. Barnard describes the book’s author as “a non-specialist whose careful research demonstrates that he understands the crucial issues surrounding evolution’s fatal sex problem, and who has a remarkable ability to communicate complex concepts to a broad audience.” 

I was also impressed immediately at LaGard Smith’s ability to insert wholesome humor, helpful analogies, and illustrations to make the technical science aspects inviting and clear to the reader.  Still, parents may want to provide some age-suitable guidance.  Here’s a sample of how Smith addresses some specifics of how the first sexual forms might have arisen by evolution:

When it comes to having sex, there’s always a first time.  This particular “first time” must be a prototype life form fully capable of “having sex” and thereafter “sexually reproducing.”  We’re not talking here about human sexuality, complete with all the external and internal apparatus we normally take for granted.  We’re talking about the ability to produce a “male” and a “female” (don’t rush past that not-so-minor detail!) who “mate sexually” (don’t take that for granted!) and then reproduce in a radically different (even counter-intuitive) way from any and every form of sexual replication that previously might have been in play.  So, it’s not just one “first time,” but three “first times”—somewhere along the line “all at the same time. And “all in the same place.”  That’s a huge ask!

Even the chapter headings and section titles are inviting.  Here are a few examples:

“When the Dog Doesn’t Bark”
”Extinction of an Unfit Paradigm”
“X and WHY Chromosomes”
“Hox Genes, or Hoax Genes?”
“Not Even the Sexiest Asexual Could Ever Be Sexual”
“When the Church Buried Darwin…A Case Study in Compromise”

Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem has already received strongly favorable reviews on Amazon.com.  For example, “Cookeville Reviewer” submitted this helpful review:

For the honest seeker of truth, whether a skeptic or a believer, this writing by LaGard Smith will make one wrestle with his/her preconceived notions about origins, particularly the origin of sexual reproduction. It is even-handed, yet challenging. It is fair, yet fearless. Thoroughly and vigorously researched, it is an open and well organized discussion of the tenuous assumptions that humans--whether religious, scientific, or both--make regarding Darwin's Grand Theory of Evolution.  It successfully reveals what Darwin himself said would be the undoing of his theory, that sexual reproduction "could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Then, if that is not enough, theistic evolution is shown to be, though perhaps entertained by scientist/believers of good intention as an honorable compromise of science and religion, rather an idea that pays homage to flawed science to give support to flawed religion.  If you are an honest reader, this book will not disappoint, and it will illuminate. Its goal is to encourage knowledge of the truth.

Professor Smith provides over 300 reference citations, a helpful index, and a glossary of biological terms, defined at an understandable level for anyone who has had a good secondary level or introductory college biology course. 

Now I’m finished and will dismiss you to go purchase a copy of Darwin’s Secret Sex Problem:  Exposing Evolution’s Fatal Flaw—The Origin of Sex.  And, please pass this review on to your friends who will thank you for the referral.
---------------

* F. LaGard Smith is a retired law professor, having taught for 27 years at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California; then, 5 years as Scholar in Residence for Christian Studies at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee.  Prof. Smith retired after 2 years at Liberty University School of Law and 4 years at Faulkner University's Jones School of Law in Montgomery, Alabama.  He is author of over 30 books.