Pepe Le Pew, the French “Looney Tunes” amorous skunk, perpetuates rape culture. That’s the latest claim by the cancel culture police. As a result, Pepe Le Pew, “will not appear in ‘Space Jam: A New Legacy.’ The cartoon skunk was set to make an appearance in the sequel to the beloved 1997 film, ‘Space Jam.’ The news comes as Pepe Le Pew and other cartoon characters face heavy criticism for their alleged perpetuation of rape culture, stereotypes, and racism.”

Given evolutionary assumptions—survival of the fittest, “nature, red in tooth and claw,” and “survival genes”— why is rape wrong? Richard Dawkins, author of the book The Blind Watchmaker, claims: “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” In another place, Dawkins writes that “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” And that would include what we today define as “rape.” (The Blaze)

Did you know that according to two scientists “rape is a ‘natural, biological’ phenomenon, springing from men’s evolutionary urge to reproduce”? Natural selection favored certain advantageous behaviors, including rape, as “strategies” for passing on survival genes. These are the opinions of anthropologist Craig Palmer of the University of Colorado and biologist Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico in their book A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion that was published by MIT Press in 2000. This is not to say, the authors insist, “that something is good even if it’s natural…. Plainly, rapists are responsible for rape and should be punished.”

But why? We don’t punish animals in the wild when they “rape.” Aren’t we just highly evolved animals? There is no such thing as “rape” if you are an evolutionist—it’s just natural sex to propagate the species—so why is it wrong for so-called human animals to propagate the species in the same way other animals do?[1]

If Evolution is Right Can Anything be Wrong?

If Evolution is Right Can Anything be Wrong?

Atheistic evolutionists express moral outrage against murder and rape, but if evolution is true, how can there be moral outrage since it was killing and rape that got us where we are today as a species? Animals kill and rape every day. Why are killing and rape OK for animals but not for humans, who are only supposedly highly evolved animals? If evolution is true, at death we are nothing more than dust in the wind and in life we are nothing more than a bag of meat and bones.

Buy Now

The Bloodhound Gang’s song Bad Touch has this line (and a video to match):

“You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals; so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.”

Let’s take it a step further. Why is killing someone to advance his or her genes in the survival for life morally wrong? According to evolutionists, we are here because the strong won over the weak in the struggle for life. Why has this evolutionary process stopped? The modern-day eugenics movement is based on the premise that there are good genes and bad genes, and those with bad genes needed to be stopped from reproducing. Consider the 1927 Buck v. Bell Supreme Court case:

Carrie Buck was a “feeble minded woman” who was committed to a state mental institution. Her condition had been present in her family for the last three generations. A Virginia law allowed for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions to promote the “health of the patient and the welfare of society.” Before the procedure could be performed, however, a hearing was required to determine whether or not the operation was a wise thing to do.


Citing the best interests of the state, Justice [Oliver Wendell] Holmes affirmed the value of a law like Virginia’s in order to prevent the nation from “being swamped with incompetence … Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

What ultimate standard is there today that judges can use to declare certain behaviors morally right or wrong given the operating assumptions of atheistic evolutionary absolutes? The main paradigm holding back a consistent naturalistic ethic are the remnants of a biblical worldview that are rapidly being used up. Here are some examples.

In March 2000, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned the death sentence in a murder case because an assistant district attorney urged jurors to follow certain biblical mandates related to the death penalty. “During closing arguments in the penalty phase of the trial, D. Brandon Hornsby, the assistant district attorney, cited passages from the books of Romans, Genesis, and Matthew, telling jurors ‘all they who take the sword shall die by the sword.’ Hornsby argued that the Bible says society must deter criminals by taking the lives of people who kill other people, the justices noted in their ruling.”[2]

In explaining the ruling, Justice Norman S. Fletcher wrote that such references “inject the often irrelevant and inflammatory issue of religion into the sentencing process and improperly appeal to the religious beliefs of jurors in their decision on whether a person should live or die.”[3] He’s begging the question by describing such references as “irrelevant” and “inflammatory.” A death penalty opponent would certainly see them that way, but since there is no prohibition against the death penalty in constitutional terms, how is referencing the Bible irrelevant? Inflammatory? What does this mean? Here’s a judge manufacturing the law out of thin air, but given atheistic and evolutionary assumptions, he doesn’t have a choice. Murder is wrong, but on what ultimate grounds?

This issue came up again. On March 28, 2005, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 3–2 decision, issued a similar ruling and “threw out the death penalty in a rape-and-murder case because jurors had studied Bible verses such as ‘eye for eye, tooth for tooth’ during deliberations.”[4] These jurors dared to look up Bible verses, copy them down, and talk about them while they were deliberating the penalty phase of the trial. So instead of the death penalty, the convicted murderer-rapist got life without parole.

Let’s follow the logic of these two rulings. Both men were convicted of murder. The Bible says that murder is wrong and should be punished. What if the jurors were using their understanding of the Bible when they came to the decision that these men were guilty of murder based on their beliefs about the Bible? Would the murderers have been set free?

Why are murder and rape wrong? What standard are these courts and judges using to make legal determinations? If it’s not the Bible, then it must be natural law. But it can’t be natural law. The courts gave up on natural law a long time ago. The Supreme Court is turning to international law. International law only pushes the question back a step. Why is something right or wrong for the international courts?

If we’re going to toss out the Bible when it comes to the death penalty for murder, it won’t be too long before we toss it out when considering whether murder is a crime. Silly me … We’ve already done that. We allow women to murder their unborn children.

By This Standard

By This Standard

Millions of Christians, sadly, have not recognized the continuing authority of God's law or its many applications to modern society. They have thereby reaped the whirlwind of cultural and intellectual impotence. They implicitly denied the power of the death and resurrection of Christ. They have served as footstools for the enemies of God. But humanism's free ride is coming to an end. This book serves as an introduction to this woefully neglected topic.

Buy Now

[1]Dan Vergano, “‘Natural, biological’ theory of rape creates instant storm,” USA Today (January 18, 2000), 8D.

[2]Jingle Davis, “Death ruling quashed for Bible quotes,” Atlanta Constitution (March 7, 2000), B1.

[3]Davis, “Death ruling quashed for Bible quotes,” B1.

[4]“Bible flap spares killer,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (March 29, 2005), A4.