Some Thoughts On Evolution
Evolution is under attack again in Kansas. Many liberals are alarmed that the religious right are now trying to bring creationism back into the schools. They characterize the pro "Intelligent Design" (ID) folks as religious rubes with no respect for science. But this is not quite true.
Evolution has some serious gaps in it’s credibility. Here are a few.
Falsifiability
One way good science tests it’s theories is by elucidating the conditions that might falsify their theory. Evolutionists are not fond of doing so. So here’s one.
How about if you found a morphologically modern human bone that was very old, say, near the beginning of the proposed evolutionary time scale? That would mean that modern humans existed at the beginning of your timeline when only primitive men should have lived. Do such fossils exist? Quite possibly.
What about if we produce lots of random mutations in test subjects and see if we can produce a higher order of creature? Not just a new species – I mean, speciation is not evolution in the larger sense. I have not heard of anyone doing this successfully, not even with fruit flies.
Historical Evidence
The claim that evolutionary biology can not be tested through experimentation and observation is a good criticism – basically we only have historical evidence, not empirical evidence. That leaves a lot of room for guessing and assumptions. With such a foundation, I would be slow to believe in evolution. (BTW, this is assuming that natural selection is not evolution, and NS’s existence is not proof of evolution in itself – it’s just the proposed mechanism).
Not only that, the creationists have done a good job of discussing the "gaps and contradictions" in the fossil evidence, such as the lack of precursors before the "Cambrian explosion," the continued debunking (by evolutionary scientists) of fossil ancestors in the human fossil record (debunked by both the discovery of new evidence as well as frauds and just plain bad science), not to mention the chaos that each new significant animal fossil find creates in the phylogenetic trees.
Statistical Impossibility
The ID people have one common sense principle on their side – the level of complexity we see in nature does not look like an accident. It appears self-evident that despite the arguments of Dawkins and Stephen Wolfram (the latter who does really interesting work), the improbability of evolution by random mutation and natural selection still seems absurd. And evolutionists have not done enough to convince people that their theory could really, as creationists like to say "create a prince from a frog."
While evolutionists go on convincing themselves that their theory is ironclad, they are steadily losing ground in the public arena because, in their arrogance and need to comfort themselves that no reasonable person would question their religion, worldview conclusions, they consider their opponents rubes and religious fanatics.
Unfortunately, they have miscalculated just as the liberal democrats did in the last election. They only listen to one another and can’t believe that any reasonable person would disagree with them. And when they find that many disagree with them, they panic, thinking the whole world has abandoned reason. However, what has actually happened is that they have become so enamored with their theory, and need it to be true so desperately (since to not have it would throw their understanding of the world into chaos), that their paranoia only allows them to see the rubes and charlatans opposing them, while they miss their reasonable colleagues who don’t want to be locked into their poorly supported world view.
BTW, I’ve always wondered. For a mutation to be passed on to progeny, wouldn’t it have to occur in the germ cells, not just the somatic cells? What’s the chances of that? Have we done that in the labs? Maybe.
Hey, are you mad yet? ;)
Is evolution science?
One of the best things that has come out of the whole debate is the questioning and clarification around what the scientific method, and science are and are not.
However, when creationist try to apply the principles of falsifiability, forming hypotheses, using empirical data, using your model to incorporate facts and predict future discoveries, etc. to evolutionary biology, they seem to have a case that it fails on some accounts.
The typical evolutionary responses are that creationists are creating a straw man (misrepresenting true science), or are not true scientists but religious folks with other motives (ad hominem attack), or other such disingenuous responses. I admit, in some cases, creationists do create straw men (as do evolutionists when representing creationism or ID), but the truth is, most evolutionists don’t answer even the valid challenges and questions around what true science is, and how it is limited with regard to macro evolution, since it can not be directly observed.
Is ID science?
Here’s another arena where evolutionists are losing ground because they have a knee jerk reaction to anything that doubts evolution or looks like religion in scientific garb. While evolutionists opine about how ID isn’t a full-orbed explanation of origins (which it does not pretend to be), people notice that they are totally missing the simple point that it is making – that when we apply the rules of information science and math to the genetic and biological systems we see, the statistical impossibility of such systems arising by chance seems astronomic. That’s it! What evolutionists should be doing is engaging that argument rather than throwing up their hands saying "the creationists are at it again!" So what? When evolutionists resort to ridicule, not to mention the hubris found in words such as "surely" and "certainly," the thinking (and unthinking) public look at them and say "the ID folks sound reasonable, but you sound like the fanatic? Why are you not engaging them?"
Of course, many polite and intelligent discussions have gone on from both sides of this issue, but I’d say by the tenor of most posts on evolutionary boards and in science itself, the general response is one of lip smacking and condescension, not intelligent, clear responses.
Resorting to Obfuscation
This is probably just my perspective, but I have been watching the debate for over 20 years now, and one thing I notice. When evolutionists first started "losing ground" over the fossil record, they would berate their "low brow" opponents, and then would retreat to more esoteric fields of knowledge, or other scientific disciplines in order to maintain their superior position. "You see," they would intone, "all of science disagrees with you, and we have an integrated system of belief thought that proves that evolution is the best explanation for the natural world we see."
Now, they are being challenged in the molecular world, where will they retreat to next? Choose a discipline – but maybe not physics, since those guys keep becoming religious as they peer into the sub molecular world (though, not Christian per se).
I am sorry that I am short on facts on this point, but it is getting late, and besides, that’s just my impression. I certainly don’t have enough evidence to make a conclusion. But then, if I was an evolutionist… ;)
Gosh, what with all of those holes in the theory of evolution, I guess I am totally willing to believe that there is single being that created everything we know and manipulates everything that goes on around us. And in the same breath, I'm willing to believe that even though this all-powerful-man created everything that we can understand and imagine, he didn't think far enough ahead to not create homosexuals and plagues and starvation. In fact, even though God is totally all-knowing, he somehow didn't know that some of his humans might "choose" to be gay, which he wouldn't like.
I guess, on the basis of that alone, we should all bow to the heavens and pray to God and teach everybody in school that God created the world and loves everyone – except for gays and Africans and especially gay Africans.
Damn Sam, how many more issues do you want to bring into this? Hehe.
However, if I *try* to elucidate the points you are making (somewhat sarcastically?), while keeping on topic, I reply:
1. Do holes in evolutionary theory mean the bible is true and God created everything?
Of course not. Nor does it mean that we should embrace anyone's religious idea of origins just because our "scientific" one is shaky.
What it does mean is that we should treat evolutionary theory honestly – as a theory that is not fact, and we should entertain other valid scientific approaches, including the information-theory approach of ID. Evolution is poorly supported by facts, and we should admit that so that we can continue to look into other models that may explain origins better.
We should also treat evolution as a world view, which has impact on many other disciplines, not the least of which are science policy and ethics.
For example, eugenics and social darwinism, not to mention other types of devaluation of human life like abortion, are natural extensions of evolutionary ideology. We should admit and discuss these things.
2. If this omnipotent God created all things, but allows all of this so-called evil, did He create evil too? You expect me to believe that?
Welcome to the hardest theological question of all time – The Problem of Evil.
There are lots of standard answers to this question, which may satisfy you, may not. For me it comes down to this – man has free will, man creates evil, not God. The biblical model of reality, despite the enigmas I can't understand, is still the most accurate to me, when I compare it to reality.
3. Does God hate gays and Africans?
Well, some conservatives might, but of course, God does not – nor do the hundreds of missionaries (and non-religious aid workers) working to rescue them from living patterns that kill. You know why aids is wracking the gay community and many countries?
It's not primarily the lack of health care or technology (although those are a great help in stemming the tide) – it's the fact that their cultures do not condemn promiscuity, nor encourage faithfulness to spouses.
One of the reasons Uganda has had success in fighting Aids is due to its use of the ABC approach to fighting disease – Abstinence before marriage first, Be faithful to your spouse second, and Contraception if you fail in the first two. Notice that contraception is for those who fail to use the common scientific, and biblical wisdom. Of course, this type of program is not popular among liberals because they seem to have little faith in such common sense, and would rather see man as helpless in the face of fleshly desires – i.e. self control is not possible or even disirable. In the past, we called self-control a virtue – now we call it a rediculous impossibility except for the few who seem to have some supernatural endowment for purity.
4. Why do Christians keep picking on homosexuals as if God hates them?
As I admitted, dislike for gays has been observed in many Christian preachers and congregations. But there are many who see homosexuality as a treatable disorder, and treat gays with kindness, and accept them as people with faults like themselves. While many gays find this seemingly oxymoronic approach laughable (how can you condemn me and say you love me at the same time?), it is analagous to the alcoholic who says "how can you attack me for my drinking and say you love me?")
Denial that there is a problem means you will always see those offering help for change as disingenous. It reminds me of the scripture:
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who do not understand it, but to those being saved, it is the power of God (my paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 )
commented a bit on this over in the Philosophy of Bio comments, but you didn;t have the ICR link there. That either shows good debating skills, dishonesty, or that you hadn’t found it yet. of your dad, looking just like he did when you were a kid, but dated 100 years ago (that is, if you are not pushing high double digits yourself) would mean something was up. But that’s not what the article is talking about.
From my brief look at the ICR link, this has nothing to do with what you are saying. You would want to see H, sapiens remains from 5mya, or something. All this proves is that H. erectus survived in Asia into relatively recent times. There was a debate in paleoanth between whether modern humans sprung from a single point – ie, Out of Africa – or whether earlier people all over Eurasia evolved into modern humans (ie, Asians descended from earlier Asian folks, etc.) – the multiregional hypothesis. At this point, multiregionalism seems to have been smacked down mightily , but I’m not following the field closely enough to give an accurate report. That’s real science, not – oh, you made a mistake and admitted it!!! Everything you believe must be wrong, because that’s how *my* fundamentalist belief system works! (and this, this is the fear that drives me to try to destroy modern science!) Plus, I don’t actually understand evolutionary biology, so the idea that a species could coexist with another one descended from it (actually from its ancestors) (kinda like how I can hang out with my cousin) is completely incomprehensible to me! note: I am attributing these statements to the folks over at ICR, not to you.
Human evolution is weird and still relatively muddled. We’re still working on it. Well, understanding it, I mean (although the other would be true too!)
Message of the ICR article, as I understand it:
1) Scientists can get things wrong.
Yep. They can. They will. Then other folks eventually (if we’re lucky) find new evidence, or reevaluate old evidence, and go – hey! you’re wrong! That’s science – not revealed revelation, but lots of stumbling around in the dark, trying to guess what on earth that big thing with tusks and a trunk could be, getting with painstaking slowness an ever-slightly-better idea . . . Ironically, the article relies on scientific research being done by people working within an intellectual framework, and using scientific tools and methods, which (if I remember ICR’s stance correctly – all these organizations blur together in my little head) they don’t at all agree with. Sort of a scientific version of the devil citing scripture, I suppose.
2) “”An evolutionary sequence is falsified when a specific form in that sequence turns up woefully outside its proper evolutionary time-frame.”
No. This is based on misunderstandings about evolution. Open up your family photo album. You may find a picture with yourself and a grandparent. In most cases, this won’t lead you to a soap-opera style frenzied re-evaluation of your history. If someone thought that grandparent had died when you were 18 (for whatever reason), and that photo was dated some years later, that would more or less prove that your excuse for missing a week of classes because of the funeral was bullpucky, but otherwise . . .
Now, if it turns out *all* H. erectus specimens were only (say) 10,000 years old, that would be weird.
Also, something like finding a faded daguerotype
We have other erectus fossils that predate any H. sapiens-ish people we’ve so far found.
please engage the actual science. otherwise you’re just wasting electricity, not to mention little gray cells . . .
Talk.Origins Archive. You call this fighting?? Stop beating on the straw man and find some real opponents! (Or – find out what scientists actually say)
*****
” While many gays find this seemingly oxymoronic approach laughable (how can you condemn me and say you love me at the same time?), it is analagous to the alcoholic who says “how can you attack me for my drinking and say you love me?”)”
No, it’s not. It’s as if I condemned you for being a Christian, but said I love you anyway. Except worse.
“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who do not understand it, but to those being saved, it is the power of God.”
That makes a lot of sense. And this is one way science and religion differ, because evolution is foolishness to those who don’t understand it, but they get the increases in crop productivity and better medical treatments that result from evolution-based research *anyway*. Lightning rods are foolishness to those who don’t understand them (actually, for some they were blasphemy!), but stick them on the church steeple without them noticing, and you’ll save a lot in construction costs and bell-ringer replacements. No, I’m not making this up. This is probably how the jihad against evolution will be viewed in the future – as an embarassment to religion and fuel for those who would attack it.
forgive me for the endless link. I was trying for this:
<a href = "http://www.talkorigins.org" rel="nofollow">Talk.Origins Archive
but forgot to close the tag. My bad.
"When evolutionists first started "losing ground" over the fossil record, they would berate their "low brow" opponents, and then would retreat to more esoteric fields of knowledge, or other scientific disciplines in order to maintain their superior position."
yeah, isn't it great how new discoveries in molecular bio, genetics, etc. helped support (and add to – and there were some suprises, too – ) a theory first developed about 15 decades ago? Almost as if it was more or less accurate, or something . . .
" but I'd say by the tenor of most posts on evolutionary boards and in science itself, the general response is one of lip smacking and condescension, not intelligent, clear responses."
You know, you're absolutely right. It makes me very sad. Do you know why it's like this? Well, I'm sure there are a number of reasons. One very big one is:
Scientist: The sky is blue. (1920s)
Creationist:No it isn't!!
Scientist:Painstaking explanation.
Creationist: No, it's not! Is not, Is not!
<repeat. and repeat. and . . .>
Scientist:Painstaking explanation. (1980s)
Creationist: fingers-in-ears nyahnyahnyahnah!
Scientist:Painstaking explanation.
Creation scientist: laughable "science,"
court case over teaching said science.
Scientist:Painstaking explanation.
Creationist: Misrepresents Newton
Scientist:Painstaking explanation.
Creationist: Misrepresents basic statisics
Scientist:Painstaking explanation.
Creationist: misrepresents fossil record
Scientist:Painstaking explanation.
Creationist: quotemines painstaking explanation, exclaims,
"see, Scientist doubts the sky is blue!!"
Scientist:Painstaking explanation.
ID Creationist: same old, same old
Scientist:Painstaking explanation.
ID Creationist: multiple well funded attacks on highschool biology
Scientist:Irritable, annoyed explanation.
ID Creationist: repeat above indefinitely
Scientist (or other evolution supporter) online: Frickin' troll! (2005)
Creationist: Oh, you're so rude and unreasonable! *Hand to brow; swoons.
Please feel free to correct this if I have some of it out of sequence. Didn't put much thought into it.
"when we apply the rules of information science and math to the genetic and biological systems we see, the statistical impossibility of such systems arising by chance seems astronomic"
AHHHHHRG! This is why people get a little pissed. Real scientific debates – while by no means entirely logical, emotionless Spock-like set pieces – have some basic rules of evidence and argument. You don't have to keep disproving the same basic, incoherent misunderstandings.
"the thinking (and unthinking) public look at them and say "the ID folks sound reasonable, but you sound like the fanatic? Why are you not engaging them?"
It's called the PR gap. It exists because 1) science folks don't always have the very best social skills, 2) they spend most of their time doing science, not PR. 3) fewer trial lawyers explicitly on the science side, in the sense that Johnson etc. are on the ID side., 3) When your side has people who make stuff up, and lie, it's pretty easy to sound reasonable, and even win debates!
At the end of that long dialogue above (all of which occured off-stage) the creationist turns to the audience, rattles off a few crowd pleasers, bows, and the less-scientifically-informed ask each other why the scientist sounds like such an incomprehensible fanatic . ..
And the "no, it's not" was supposed to follow:
"While many gays find this seemingly oxymoronic approach laughable (how can you condemn me and say you love me at the same time?), it is analagous to the alcoholic who says "how can you attack me for my drinking and say you love me?")"
(ie) No, it's not. It's as if I condemned you for being a Christian, but said I love you anyway. Except worse.
See – makes sense. I mean, it doesn't, and people in the future will gape and gasp at you comparing homosexuality to alcoholism, but at least you're not busy beating the nice fellow down the street into a insensible pulp, just inadvertently facilitating, in a small way, the fear-ridden bigots who do.
Umm, Seeker, there's no point in us doing battle. I find it abhorrent that an all-knowing God forgot to prevent the homosexuality that he allegedly dislikes (or, for that matter, the shellfish that he allegedly dislikes) and you disagree with me.
And so, I am left only with this – I enjoy sex. I like having it. I am perfectly capable of not having sex (the Lord knows!), but that isn't the point. I have a long time girlfriend. And we want to have sex with one another. Suggesting that liberals are arguing that people are INCAPABLE of preventing themselves from sexual relations is absurd – they are simply arguing that teaching those who want to engage in sexual relations how to do so safely isn't a bad idea. And, frankly, it isn't a bad idea. I have no idea how you can disagree with me on this. The two Christian kids who "stray" from the "flock" should know how to use condoms, lest they begin a family at an age younger than they are capable of handling. Surely you agree with this.
And yet, from your post, I am forced to think otherwise.
Sam,
1. God made gays?
God didn't prevent homosesexuality, adultery, promiscuity, or beastiality. That doesn't make God the author of sin – but we humans, who have free will, may be at fault.
Even if you think that God made homosexuals (which is contested – perhaps bad parents make homosexuals), from a bibilcal point of view, sickness and death entered the human race due to man's error.
2. God didn't prevent sin?
This is a good objection to God's foreknowledge and goodness. I don't have a good answer for that objection, but as I have said before, there are answers out there, and even if they don't seem sufficient, the many things that do have good biblical answers convinces me to put such doubts like this on the backburner while I live out what I *am* convinced of.
3. God disklikes shellfish?
He just told the israelites not to eat them, probably for health reasons. Jesus made it clear that it's not what you eat or don't eat that makes you spiritual, it's what is in your heart.
4. Enjoying Sex
Hey, God made sex to be enjoyable, and expects us to enjoy it, but within the bounds that it was created – as a powerful force of union between a man and a woman inside the covenant of marriage. The biblical principles is "a promise of fidelity (or a covenant) must precede intimacy." This is what courtship and marriage are about.
Just like any good thing (and sex is often compared to a fire in the bible), it can be destructive if not restricted and limited in it's use. A wildfire kills, but a controlled fire can warm an entire household.
Now, a good argument against this might be, "why was God not pissed at people in the OT who had multiple wives?" The answer is, monogamy seems to be intended from the beginning, from Adam and Eve to the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's *wife*). As the arcticle above says, "not everything recorded in the Bible is approved in the Bible."
Dan S. says "No, it's not. It's as if I condemned you for being a Christian, but said I love you anyway. Except worse.
You see, this is one of the problems with addresssing homosexuality – this gender identity is rooted so deeply in their ego, they can't separate it from their *self* – if you condemn their actions or belief system, they think you are condeming them. Not to be patronizing, but this is a level of maturity thing.
If I disagree with you, am I condeming you? If you take it that way, there are only two possible reasons – (a) you sense that I really don't like you, or (b) you are responding childishly.
It is possible to declare that homosexuality is sin, just like you would adultery, without saying that the person is bad. It's like when you correct your kids – you tell them that the behavior is bad, but you love *them*.
I'm sorry you find that abhorrent. But God disciplines and corrects those he loves (just like a parent who cares would), and we should not despise such correction because it leads to life.
Regardless of what religious beliefs say, I would like to point out that homosexuality is not really a matter of gender identity, but sexual preference. For most people, their sexual preference is indeed pretty inseperable from their self. This isn't really a matter of simple "disagreement. Obviously we can condemn *some* sexual prefs – of pedophiles, for example. Homosexuality is clearly not in that category. Given the extremely weak scriptural foundation for this brand of bigotry, you really should just stop.
"It is possible to declare that homosexuality is sin . . ."
Yep. It's possible to declare lots of things to be sins. Tha doesn't make it so. Until you a) stop eating lobster* and/or b) start yelling at women in church to shut up, shut up! you really should just stop. Focus on real sins, k?
*The anti-parasite explanation for the OT dietary code is only one of several possibiliies. Another, associated with anthropologist Mary Douglas, notes that most of the unclean animals cross categories – they didn't fit into traditional standards of classification, something which tends to single out animals for special attention of some sort in a range of cultures. Indeed, this is a reoccuring theme in this part of the bible – keeping things seperate, neat, and 'pure,' in a sense – unmixed textiles, men sleeping only with women, etc.
But back to evolution. While the "serious gaps . . . in credibility" you raise just . . . aren't, we both know this debate isn't going anywhere. So I would like you to think about something else: you are driving people away from Jesus. Consider what Augustine of Hippo said:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although /they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion./ [1 Timothy 1.7]"
Now, the situation isn't exactly parallel, but it is quite close enough. Knowledge about evolution and related science bits is not nearly as widespread – thanks in part to creationist pressure -but there will be people who will hear this kind of psuedoscience and veer away from Christianity as a result, when they otherwise might have embraced it. There probably aren't many, some will simply find a home in more modern strains of Christian thought, and it's quite possible that none will be directly influenced by your writings, but, as the great theologian Dirty Harry once said, "you've got to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya?
Hey Dan and Seeker,
I remember the day I chose to be straight. I was twelve, and looking at a magazine with pictures of scantily clad ladies, and I remember saying to myself, "Self, I think straight's the way for me."
What was it like when you chose to be straight? Was it a hard decision? Did it take you guys a lot of time?
(I mean, you guys can't possibly be serious. Do you really think that there are humans out there who willing choose to enter into relationships that will likely get them beat up in high school, then politically and socially repressed for the rest of their lives? Honestly? God created gays, because God created everything, right? Or are you saying that God, in his infinite wisdom, created the sin of homosexuality just to really screw around with the poor saps who "chose" to be homosexuals? You're not even being REMOTELY fair to gays here.)
Sam – chill. I wrote "sexual preference" as meaning strictly that, not intending to imply anything whatsoever about whether this was a freely selected or inborn thing (I believe the latter, but don't think it's really relevent to the argument. Made or born, either way there's no justification for this sort of bigotry, morally or in terms of the Bible. However, I hoped a little that the comparison between hetereo- and homosexuality in terms of self would make ol' seeker think – jeez, loving someone yet condemning their hetereosexuality (understood in essence not to be a choice!) would be weird, and indeed taken as a criticism of their self – silly, I know . . .
On Science and Christianity
This is a two-edge sword. If we complicate faith by implying "to be a Christian means you must also believe in Creationism, conservative politics, and/or our extensive system of pharisaical rules" (for those who have them), I would say that we are surely putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way. We should allow Christians to disagree on these "non-essentials."
However, for growing Christians, we must also help them develop a biblical world view in all areas of life, including science. Just because an academic discipline is not "essential" to the faith doesn't mean Christians should not develop thinking around it.
As Paul said, we must "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5). Despite the existence of "theistic evolutionists," many people find evolution a stumbling block to believing the bible.
You may counter that they only do so because of the Creationists who say that evolution contradicts the bible, but I think that you are putting the cart before the horse. Many people like myself, with a degree in the sciences (Biochemistry), came to faith while believing evolution, but then began to question – how can this be true in light of the scriptures? I could not reconcile evolution, along with it's theological implications, with the scriptures. Thank God for creation scientists, who spoke to me in the language of science, showing me that evolution is not ironclad, and in fact, the special creation model may fit the facts better!
What is really interesting is that, for a period of years, I left my Christian faith, but never doubted creationism because the *scientific* case for it was convincing to me – it had nothing to do w/ the bible!
And to not counter the notorious bad science of evolutionary biology, not to mention it's world view and theological implications (social darwinism, eugenics, etc.) would be intellectual abdication, if not cowardice.
BTW Dan, that's a really nice quote by Augustine.
On Homosexuality
Sam, I don't think you quite understand the idea behind Reparative Therapy of homosexuality. While some idiotic Christians may call it a simple "choice," this is not really in line with the therapeutic model.
The model says something like this (for male homosexuality – female is similar but not identical):
- boys start to form their gender identity as early as age 2
- if they have a poor (macho or weak) or absent male role model, they may reject the masculine
- in doing so, they never develop a sense of themselves as masculine (they have not internalized it into their self-concept)
- because they *are* male, they still crave the masculine in their souls, but because they haven't internalized it, they seek it through romanticized and sexualized relationships w/ men
The therapy involves helping them see the true masculine and appropriating it within themselves.
The implications of this are:
- since the roots of the identity disorder began before cognitive memory (age 2), many men feel like they've felt this way "ever since they remember" – hence, they feel they were born that way
- since it is rooted in the earliest stages of self-concept development, it is deeply rooted, and most find that they can not differentiate it from their true self
- as with all recovery work, recovering the true self is very hard because it is often locked up with all of our hurts. Most of us are afraid of venturing into the dark world of our deeper self, in part because we don't want to experience the pain. However, it can be done with patience, gentleness, love and truth.
Again, God is not cruel. All of us have deep inner self-concept wounds because we live in a hurtful world. Homosexuality, in this therapeutic model, is merely seen as another coping mechanism which ultimately can be healed so that the true self can be liberated.
I understand how this view can be offensive. However, the growing number of ex-gays testifies that for many, these ideas ring true:
I Do Exist Project
Parents and Friends Of ExGays (PFOX)
Dr. Throckmorton
NARTH
Seeker,
While I have no doubt that you are a nice person, a decent person, even a fair person, I simply can't pretend to even tolerate the notion that gays can be "cured" through therapy.
First, the idea there assumes that gays NEED to be cured, which, of course, they don't. They're gay – no big deal.
Second, to equate sexuality with something like alcoholism (or, earlier, beastiality) is horrifically innappropriate. Gays are gay. They're born gay. And there's nothing wrong with being gay – and I'm not even gay.
Third, the science of reparative therapy is so filled with holes – how many "repaired" gays relapse, for example – it's insane. Reparative therapy is nothing more than hogwash that convinces gays to go straight inexplicably. Those who do are either lying to themselves or were never gay in the first place, IE they were experimenting. More than likely, they're simply hopping back into their closets because their communities firmly believe that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.
And ALL of this totally ignores one other significant fact – none of this religious talk matters in terms of America. Ours is a land of freedom and opportunity for everybody. Oppressing any group is fundamentally wrong, even if that group is opposed.
Anyway, this isn't going anywhere. You're no more likely to ever agree with me than I am with you.
Well, perhaps we can agree on this. *Some* gays may fit the reparative therapy model. Others may not – they might even be "born that way." Who is to say that there is just one model for the homosexual preference?
I don't think that you can just push aside the growing number of people who seem happily adjusted to an ex-gay life just because you don't like the idea – are you prejudiced against ex-gays? Do you think they have a psychological problem because they believe they are ex-gay? That seems to be the same kind of cruelty you accuse me of.
At this present time, we have no evidence to prove that people are born gay. You can believe that, but science has yet to support such an idea. It's certainly not established fact. And the evidence of ex-gays actually would seem to indicate that there *are* environmental factors. This means that we *have* some evidence that it is environmental, but *none* that it is genetic.
Regarding relapse, in any recovery model, people relapse. That in itself is not sufficient to disprove the theory. Besides, it's a relatively new discipline, so perhaps they aren't as sophisticated yet. Again, just because you find this model distasteful doesn't mean it's not true.
Seeker, you bring up a valid point: We really have no basis for assuming that there's only one cause for homosexuality. The truth is that no one knows for sure what the absolute cause is, if there even is one, and there is certainly evidence to suggest several causes could exist separately, or in combination.
That's about where my agreement with you ends, though. There's just no evidence whatsoever that suggests the cause of homosexuality is a masculine craving "in their souls", as your preferred model suggests.
Sam's belief (that gays are born gay) may not be a proven fact, but it is at least a theory that's based on actual science. Behavioral changes based on genetics and hormones are an established fact, and would be precisely where one would expect to find a cause for homosexuality. Your model, on the other hand, is based — as far as I can tell — on nothing but a combination of pseudo-science and Christian dogma. Exactly how many behavior conditions have been scientifically proven to be caused by a soul's longing?
The bottom line, though, is that it is hugely hypocritical for you to attack Sam's very reasonable (and certainly plausible) theory of homosexual causation, while promoting your own, wholly unfounded theory. In particular, it disgusts me that your theory passively castigates gays as diseased, suggesting that there is something developmentally wrong with them and that they are in need of fixing.
Many people are angry at the ex-gay movement, because it so often focuses on exactly those things that I just mentioned. The very name "reparative therapy" is designed to make perfectly healthy people feel like they are broken. If you can find me an ex-gay movement that believes being gay is morally acceptable, and acknowledges that the vast majority of gay people are capable of happy, healthy lives, then I will not stand in their way.
Sadly, the ex-gay culture is almost entirely composed of Christians who espouse the millenia-old prejudice that being gay is a moral failing. Forgive us if we don't believe them (or you) when they claim to have gays best interests in mind.
And finally, your "growing number" of happy ex-gays is pitifully small. It's so numerically miniscule as to be statistically insignificant. I have yet to find a single study that showed more than a small cluster of surveyed ex-gays who claimed to be happily living as heterosexuals, without any homosexual desires. And even the most favorable of those studies have been found to be conducted over self-selected groups, completely eliminating their scientific usefulness. You wear your anti-gay bias on your sleeve, and invariably so do others who support "reparative" therapy.
Sam's belief (that gays are born gay) may not be a proven fact, but it is at least a theory that's based on actual science.
I read into this that you believe that in the nature/nurture balance of causation, you believe that personality characteristics are mostly based in nature, that is, physiology – you seem to value physical causation as the most "scientific", while environmental factors are unscientific. I am not trying to create a straw man, but why would you say that believing that homosexuality is mainly environmental in origin as unscientific?
Extending this opinion, it would seem that any personality trait or disease, could be attributed primarily to physiology. As I am sure you agree, this is just not true. Some conditions are more related to environment (e.g. abusive environments are more prone to create certain personality traits), while others are firmly rooted in physiology (some cancers).
Your model, on the other hand, is based — as far as I can tell — on nothing but a combination of pseudo-science and Christian dogma.
Reparative therapy merely postulates that homosexuality is primarily an environmentally caused condition. You can definitely draw up scienctific experiments, esp. epidemiological studies, around that hypothesis. And that is what reparative therapy has done. And, having done so, they have gone one step farther – they have proposed a therapeutic model based on their studies. That is science, even if you don't like the results.
The bottom line, though, is that it is hugely hypocritical for you to attack Sam's very reasonable (and certainly plausible) theory of homosexual causation, while promoting your own, wholly unfounded theory.
In my compromise position, I have admitted that homosexuality could have physiologic origins, but I find strong evidence of environmental factors. It is not unfair to criticize his position as poorly supported by the current facts, and as I mentioned above, my perspective is not "wholly unfounded." That appears as merely your wish in the matter.
The very name "reparative therapy" is designed to make perfectly healthy people feel like they are broken.
Well, calling adultery a sin might offend people who like to cheat on their wives, or calling overeating a sickness or a sin (gluttony) might offend people, but for those who are owning up to their dysfunction, the truth of these claims is what they need to wake up.
As a counterpoint, I don't like a negative "sin-focused" approach to presenting such matters – I like a life and health focus, which focuses on people's value, and the need to forsake perspectives and actions that are unhealthy for them. Homosexuality is one of those items.
I always cringe when I see the hyper-fundies with their "God hates gays" type of signs – but for those who DO want a way out, it is ignorant and wrong for people with NO science behind them to say "you can not change, you were born that way."
You wear your anti-gay bias on your sleeve, and invariably so do others who support "reparative" therapy.
I am not anti gay *persons* – I have good friends and family who are gay, as well as ex-gay. But I still take a prinipled stand that it is a dysfunction that can be healed. There is not hatred here, no disgust, no wagging finger. Just an opinion informed by what few facts are out there, and what few facts I have observed.
Those who are against reparative therapy often have good criticisms, but their refusal to consider the growing therapeutic evidence, and the fact that they can not step outside of their bias in such matters, is something that this up-and-coming movement will have to face for years.
Seeker,
this is why we can't argue – you're suggesting that there's no evidence to support anything but your own belief. Of course, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that what you're saying is wrong, but you don't seem interested in any of it.
But more important, how is cheating on somebody the same as homosexual behavior? Answer – it isn't at all, but by comparing the two, you're lending credence to the notion that they're somehow related, which, of course, they're not. Simply put, suggesting that beastiality and homosexuality are the same is damned innappropriate, especially to those "loved ones" of yours that you claim to know and love. You really think that their behavior is akin to screwing animals? Really?
you're suggesting that there's no evidence to support anything but your own belief. Of course, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that what you're saying is wrong, but you don't seem interested in any of it.
This is the pot calling the kettle black – YOU said that the reparative therapy position is "[not] a theory based on actual science." YOU said " no evidence whatsoever that suggests the cause of homosexuality is a masculine craving 'in their souls'".
Meantime, I presented some links for consideration, which I put forth as the starting place for evidence. Did you even look at the Narth site before you replied?
Second, I said that science has *yet* to provide any credible evidence in support of a physiologic origin of homosexuality. You have yet to provide any evidence to support your position at all. You just say "there is plenty out there." Not very convincing.
Romans 2:19-22 comes to mind:
"If you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, … you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?"
And I would add "you who say opponents should consider your evidence, do you consider their evidence? You who demand evidence, do you provide it?"
I *have* considered the evidence that I have seen, and as I said, while science is still looking into it, the experiments to date do not show that homosexuality is physiologic in nature.
And note that I didn't take a condescending attitude calling it "not science" nor did I resort to attacking your character, saying "it's useless to argue with you."
I bring what I consider to be good counter arguments, and you bail out because you are disgusted with my position. Not very intellectual.
One more thing. Regarding bestiality, that was probably not smart of me to include it in the same list, and probably counterproductive. I was not intimating that they are the same. I included it as part of the typical list of sexual sins listed in the bible, and did not mean to infer that they are all equally bad.
*** humor filter on ***
For the sake of discussion, if you want, you could group them into bad sins (homosexuality and adultery) and really bad ones (pedophila and bestiality).
Or maybe assign a moral badness rating, where -5 is really abhorrent, 0 is neutral, and 5 is morally perfect. Here's my scale:
-5 pedophilia
-4 adultery (gay or straight)
-3 bestiality (gay or straight ;)
-3 fornication / promiscuity (gay or straight)
-2 homosexuality (monogamous)
-1 masturbation
-1 Oedipus complex
-1 taking that second look (if married)
0 taking that first look
1 taking the second look (if not married)
2 waiting till marriage to be sexually involved
3 waiting till marriage for first kiss
4 sex within marriage
5 sex within marriage with love