I kid you not. Via Allahpundit…….

Soyka’s suggestion indicates one good reason why some of the acts described in Dekkers book are clearly wrong, and should remain crimes. Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca, an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse, strung upside down on a conveyor belt and killed? If not, then it is no worse than what egg producers do to their hens all the time.)

If you can’t tell from that sentence in parens that professor Singer is considered the founding father of the animal rights movement.

The modern (animal rights) movement may be dated to the 1975 publication of the book ‘Animal Liberation’ by Australian philosopher Peter Singer.
— Newsweek

About a year ago a Seattle area man died as a result of having sex with a horse. It is suggested that this was not an isolated case of an invididual but that the farm was used by several people for the purpose of sex with animals. As disgusting as that may be consider that now a filmmaker is going to make a movie of it.The movie will be titled (i)In the Forest There Is Every Kind of Bird.(/i)Heh, ain’t it the truth.
I realize that some of this is dated but I put it out there as examples of how the opinion makers buttress their agenda.

Obviously, such entailments are destroyed, and their premise with them, as soon as one starts to consider specific cases. But the premise survives as a moral principle, held as it is by later-day warriors of Enlightenment who have more anger than insight.

If anyone on the American Left is so convinced that teaching evolution by the crudest means is healthy, let him start by teaching it first to the Democrats’ most reliable constituency. Let him start by teaching it in black people’s Baptist churches. But it stabs me just to think of the wounded pride and anguish that would cause.

The need to take the logic of natural selection and evolution and run it through the strainer of this complete op-ed idiocy just points out that some people couldn’t find “reasonable” if they were dropped into a steaming pit of it. They need the extreme outside. They crave it. It’s as if they hope to move the center far enough over to their side to create a comfort zone.

Leave the sphinxes, griffins and other odd beasties to their useful, happy lives in the pages of fantasy novels. If the world ever REALLY needs them to exist, they’ll show up…Whether it’s a question of evolution, or a supreme being with a wicked sense of humor.

Hell, find another reason for the existence of a platypus.

Oh the humanity….

Furthermore, advancing an understanding of evolution does not involve ad hominen attacks nor denigration (…know-nothing anti-evolutionism, with religious fundamentalist…). We can see the process of natural selection around us every day, and there are literally a trillion data points to support it. The sequence of every gene in every organism tells a compelling, fascinating story that the sort of rubbish in the op-ed undermines.