Based on both Darwinism and Christianity, incest is less morally correct than bestiality.

Opening StatementI will first point out that the burden of proof is entirely on my opponent to show that a with morality founded on both Christianity and Darwinism in mind, incest is less morally correct than bestiality.My argument can be summarized as follows: No morality can be based on Darwiniasm as defined because it is only a scientific theory that explains natural phenomenon and says nothing about what is proper. Furthermore, my opponent has provided no support from the teachings of Jesus or from the Bible that suggest that incest is less morally correct than bestiality.DefinitionDarwinist- One who accepts Darwinism as defined aboveMorality Cannot Be Drawn From DarwinismA "true Darwinist" merely accepts the theory of evolution as a valid. The morality my opponent has constructed is not based on Darwinism, but has been arbitrarily chosen based on the assumption that an outcome with "greater variety" is somehow better. Darwinism does not lead to any such assumption. The theory of evolution only explains why, for example, a bottleneck event that leads to a drastic decrease in genetic variation can be more likely to result in the extinction of a population or in the widespread of appearance of genetic disorders in a population [1]. It says nothing about whether or not variation is "desirable." This can be said to be embracing the common misconception that evolution is somehow goal oriented [2]. In actuality, this "morality" was chosen specifically with supporting a particular statement in mind. With this manner of doing things, any number of very different so called moralities could be drawn from explanations of evolution and observations of nature on a whim. For example, it would be no less absurd to claim that because 99.9% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct [3] that humanity "should" follow this pattern; in such a morality, high levels of incest that would lead to a higher probability of extinction would be considered "good." In both situations, the conclusion cannot logically follow from the observations. To make this clear, let me word my analogy in terms of my opponent's argument: "Darwinism revolves around extinction of most species at some point. Therefore, it is clearly counter-Darwinist to wish for a species to survive for so long and to take measures to prevent actions that would make extinction more likely." To claim that my analogy is wrong because survival is somehow better than extinction is false because this claim involves preconceived notions of morality and is therefore not founded on Darwinism. The theory of evolution explains how organisms that are better adapted to their environments will be more likely to survive and reproduce [4]. However, it makes no normative statements about whether survival or extinction of a species is "better." By definition, scientific theories do not involve opinions or normative claims. Were my opponent's argument phrased in terms of formal logic, it would be a non-sequitur. In expectation of my opponent's counter-argument, I will point out that whether Darwinism is a "valid source of morality" certainly is relevant to the debate when this is taken to mean whether or not a morality can logically be derived from Darwinism. If a morality cannot be derived from the theory of evolution as I have argued, then making any claim involving a morality based on the theory of evolution is nonsensical. Even By Pro's Stated Goals Incest Cannot be Seen to Less Morally Correct Even if it were determined that variation and higher quality children could be said to be "better" based on Darwinism, my opponent's claim would not hold up. First of all, "an extremely varied child" cannot be produced by bestiality. My opponent's point about mules and ligers is irrelevant as there is no evidence of any hybrids being produced through bestiality. I won't resort to a semantic argument, but I will also point out that in some contexts, "close relative" can include one's partner or people with lesser genetic relationship than implied. Reproduction, however, is possible even with a close relative in the sense that you mean. I will not contest that incest is more likely to lead to deformations, but it does not necessarily lead to birth defects. When looking at the alternative of non-existent offspring, either it will be determined that a child that possibly may have birth defects is of a higher quality than one that does not exist or more likely it will be determined that there is no basis for comparison. If there is no basis for comparison, incest cannot be decided to be less moral. Even if humans were able to reproduce with chimps, for example, I do not think that my opponent would claim that the offspring would be of a higher quality.My opponent's argument also might be considered a fallacy of special pleading because he demands special considerations for people who engage bestiality. He suggests that one can "rape a goat" and get "on with life," but assumes that one who engages in incest can only engage an incest and not "get on with life." On the other hand, it might better be considered a false dichotomy as the argument makes the assumption that the only two possibilities with bestiality and incest in mind are either only having sex with a sibling or having sex with an animal and then moving on (implying having sex with humans who are not close relatives). In actuality, it is quite possible for someone to have sex with both siblings and those who are not closely related. When the assumption is that humans are only engaging in bestiality or incest, then, as I just pointed out, bestiality results in no offspring while incest can result in offspring. If the human species only engaged in bestiality, it would die out as soon as the last human alive today died. Variation would end.Furthermore, incest as defined does not necessarily result in children. One can engage in the act of incest frequently using birth control and still produce "the best quality children" by having sex with others. When producing the best quality children is seen as the most moral action and there is no false perception that one can only have sex with animals or close relatives, then neither bestiality nor incest can be seen as a "better" way to achieve this outcome. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that incest is less morally correct.Rebuttal to Contention 3My opponent did not give any evidence to support this claim, but I will address it anyway despite his refusal to meet his burden of proof. This point is irrelevant. Simply because the Bible says nothing about about family being there for "pleasure" like animals is not evidence for my opponent's claim. To equivocate "for pleasure" to include "for sex" is a stretch. I do not think that it would be any less of a stretch to use the following verse as evidence that incest is moral by equivoating "love" to "sex": "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." [5] Both are far-fetched interpretations.Rebuttal to C4There are many actions in the Bible labelled as sinful that do not involve beings with "souls." Where does Jesus or the Bible teach on bestiality or incest? Unless my opponent can specifically show that the Bible is clear on this matter, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. In fact, my opponent seems to give evidence against his argument by pointing out that Eve committed the first sin by "falling victim to an animal's allure" and that, according to the Bible, incest was necessary for the commanded growth of the human population. Instead of providing evidence that this would be considered a sin, my opponent merely speculates that it would be forgiven.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]1 John 4:20 ESV