Nice article.
I have become skeptical of authority. No, I’m not talking about the Pope. I am talking about the press and many academics. I reject Marx, Malthus, Freud, and global warming. I even have my doubts about Darwin. Those who rebuke me often claim to speak for an enlightened consensus, or to speak for “science.”
It seems to me that people who believe in God, people who believe in Darwin (evolution), and of course those who believe in God and Darwin, should agree that homosexuality is a perversion. Whether it is a perversion of God’s intention, or a perversion of instinct, does not matter. The purpose of the sexual act is reproduction, and this purpose is not advanced by men having anal sex with men. It’s not just gross, it’s a perversion. Yet Hooper sees it otherwise. This only goes to show that evolutionary theory predicts little, can be used to “explain” anything. That is not a characteristic of true science.
I also think that naturalism should come under sustained scrutiny. The notion that my five senses are real but that my self-consciousness is an illusion is absurd. I see. The “I” who sees is just as real as the sights themselves. “I” exist. Related terms, possibly synonyms, are “self,” “mind,” and “soul.” I exist and I am a supernatural entity. I’m a supernatural entity because my self/mind/soul cannot be seen, felt, touched, smelled, or heard. I am a supernatural entity and so are the people reading my post. If “I” don’t exist to “science” then clearly it is science, so called, that is deficient.
For all the claims about naturalism and what science is capable of dealing with, scientists are continually overstepping those bounds and speaking on things which they, by their own admission are not qualified to speak on.
It involves far more than just the soul and consciousness.
There are whole levels of reality that are not touchable by science. Science is a useful tool for learning about the world around us and improving the human condition through technology. It is the wrong tool for deciding morals and setting political policy.
Great post. This business of natural science as the only acceptable model for scientific discussion is an absurd strawman.
Explain what’s natural about doing surgery on a child still in the womb?
How about a partial birth abortion...is there anything more UNnatural?
Removing, no sterlizing God/ethics/religion from sicentific discussions is a recipe for disaster and is the PC kind of godless liberalism that delivers idiocy like global warming to our doorstep.
The so-called "Journal of Evolutionary Philosphy" has this to say...
Evolution and HomosexualityHomosexual behavior is common in many animal species. As to whether this behavior has evolved to perform some kind of useful social function, like strengthening social bonds between members of the same sex, or whether animals do it simply because it presents another opportunity to do something they enjoy, is open to speculation.
Some evolutionary scientists say that human homosexuality may have evolved because of the benefits of having additional non-reproductive members contributing to the needs of the wider community. They say that as long as enough people continue to breed then there would be very little evolutionary pressure against homosexuality.
Others say that the flexibility of the human brain and the wide range of reactions to early childhood experiences will naturally result in a wide diversity of adult sexual behaviors. They say that homosexuality is common because it unites a diverse minority of people, giving them an opportunity to fulfil their physical and emotional needs, in the same way that the diverse majority of straight people are united by their heterosexuality. From this point of view, the commonality of homosexuality would be largely cultural.
Evolutionary scientists should be very careful about making any unprovable claims about whether homosexual inclinations are biologically determined or formed through experience. Like every other victimized minority, the social status of the gay community rests entirely upon its political power. Frivolous theories of homosexuality, whether scientific or religious, have the potential to be abused as propaganda in the power struggle against gay freedoms.
Throughout history, in most parts of the world, homosexuality was a crime and those who were discovered were either arrested or killed. Even in the mid 1900s, the prisons of Europe and America were full of otherwise innocent men and women convicted of homosexuality, and those who were able to avoid arrest were often blackmailed by opportunists who knew their secret.
During the Great Social Revolution of the 1960s and 70s, as women were gaining equal rights and institutionalized racism was coming to an end, in the big cities of the western world, gay activists began to publicly protest against their continued persecution.
Street demonstrations were often broken up by baton wielding riot police, and many gay rights activists were beaten to death. People who witnessed this brutality on television were sickened by what they saw. The long suffering gay community soon gained the sympathy of the masses. Eventually the laws against homosexuality were repealed, and despite the continuing influence of traditional religion, the conservative culture of gay discrimination is gradually losing support.
Attitudes towards homosexuality continue to be a battleground between cultural tradition, social necessity, individual needs and desires, the dictates of ancient religious scriptures, the political activism of the oppressed, the prejudice of the unenlightened masses, and the sympathies of freethinking liberals.
Whether you like it or not, in the evolutionary jungle, almost anything is possible. And in the world of human politics, the laws are written by those with the power.
So much for keeping the supernatural out of science. That non-scientific part of man is what's passing judgment on science; deciding what science is and interpreting it.
VERY WELL SAID!