I say that it would be a disservice to refer to the Bible as the most reliable science textbook. It is simply the most reliable book ever written. 600 years ago the finest scientists in the world would have told you that all available empirical evidence would show that the world was flat.
You replied:
But do theologians and Bible readers have a better record? There's evidence that the most learned scientists of Columbus's day knew that the earth was in fact round. Two centuries after his voyage, clergymen were still burning witches because of what it said in the Bible. Catholics and Protestants were killing each other about the same time, because their interpretations of the Bible differed.
Well, first of all, we both know that at some point in history the commonly accepted scientific fact was that the earth was flat. The people whose lives were most affected, the mariners, depended on it. We've seen the maps showing "the edge". But, you do have a point in comparing that to Christians of a similar time making mistakes based upon faulty Biblical interpretation.
I see a difference in that the eternal truth of the Bible has always been available since it was written, regardless of whether it was understood. The eternal truth of science has never been available as such, it must be invented/discovered as we pass through time, and under the direction or allowance of God. (I say "allowance" because we both know that many useful and important discoveries/inventions have been made independent of that person's reliance on God. I just believe that God has a hand in EVERY good thing.) IOW, and comparatively speaking, the Christian has no need to "search" for the truth, he needs only to accept it. The scientist, without God, is completely on his own. That's why I trust the Bible over any textbook.
Secular learning isn't something to be scorned. If someone writes about navigation or aviation or genetics relying wholly on quotes from the Bible it's an indication to me that they aren't using all the information at hand, and that their arguments may not be the best grounded in the facts.
I don't have anything against "secular learning", as long as it is true. Jesus himself learned the fine trade of carpentry wholly independent of mechanical scriptural teaching (since there isn't any on carpentry). In learning, he used true information outside the Bible, but I would say that does not at all mean that true information did not originate from God anyway.
In addition, when you talk about "using all the information at hand", I would comment that all true information, whether specifically mentioned in the Bible or not, comes from God. Mature Christians know this, so they should not be afraid of discussing ideas from both a Biblical and a secular perspective. Truth is truth.
Finally, when you say that Biblically-based arguments "may not be the best grounded in the facts", you do not imply that there are additional, extra-Biblical facts that the Christian may be forgetting or ignoring. You are verily implying that there are extra-Biblical "true facts" that directly contradict what is in the Bible. This leads me to ask you if you would care to comment on your view of the truth of the Bible, and whether you believe every word of it is divinely inspired, without error?
Thanks for the response. I've sent a private reply with answers to your questions. It was more the title of the article that got to me. If Rev. Green or whoever put the article on the Internet had done so under the heading "What Christians Should Think About Homosexuality" I wouldn't have objected. But to pose the question about whether homosexuality's genetic or an evil force -- and those are hardly the only two options -- without looking at other sources strikes me as far from the best approach. If you ask why or where it comes from, you ought to look at all the evidence.