Science Intrudes Into Morality (Evos scold the Pope)

Dec 23, 2008 — The Pope recently declared that we need to save humanity from self-destructive behaviors, like homosexuality. Can science intrude on questions of human behavior and morals? New Scientist thought so; a blog entry today says the Pope “misuses science to attack homosexuality.”

One would think that moral behavior would lie outside the field for a scientific news source, but online news editor Rowan Hooper went on, mocking the Pope’s claim that the church has a role in saving “human ecology” like scientists have a role in protecting tropical forests. Hooper called this “a bizarre misunderstanding of science” and “religious values imposed on” a scientific subject.

Justifying homosexuality with appeals to genetics, neuroscience and Darwinism, Hooper claimed that “genetic evidence” suggests homosexuality is “hard-wired before birth,” and that “The idea that homosexuality evolves by natural selection is also well supported.” Pointing to homosexual behavior in animals, too, he said, “This all strongly suggests that it is an outdated metaphysics to insist on ‘the nature of the human person as man and woman’.” Most people come in man or woman forms. His complaint only makes sense if he is endorsing transgender identities and transsexual behavior as well as homosexuality – the whole gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender package. Would he draw the line at any other sexual behaviors, like pedophilia, necrophilia or polygamy? Apparently not. If natural selection is capable of producing one non-reproductive behavior, why not others? The word “moral” appears nowhere in his blog entry.

Hooper called on ecologists and other scientists to complain about the Pope “misusing science to dress up outdated ideas,” which obviously includes the Pope’s reference to creation and a Creator. It’s not an “outdated metaphysics,” the Pope had said, “if the church speaks to the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected.”

What business of it is New Scientist to lecture the Pope on morals? You would think that is the province of a religious leader. Who is he to talk about outdated metaphysics? You would think that is the province of philosophy and theology. The Pope was speaking to his own Curia, for crying out loud. Do you understand what is going on? You thought science dealt with ammeters and microscopes and polymerase chain reactions. Wrong; New Scientist is not like Old Scientist. It asserts its tyranny over all realms of thought.

Thousands of good scientists quietly continue to do great research in their respective fields, but the scientific institutions of our day have dirty hands. They have become part and parcel of the radical leftist, atheist, social-progressive empire that controls the courts, media, education, labor unions, the UN, journalism, Hollywood and science.

Did you notice that Hooper justified a sexual behavior that religious (and rational) people have for millennia described as perverted with an appeal to natural selection? Did you notice he said behavior is genetically hard-wired? Well, then, out goes any argument based on reason. You see, Mr. Hooper, natural selection made you say these things. You can’t help it. You thought you were preaching a polemic on rationality and values, but you are a captive of impersonal forces from your animal past. If we wanted to really tease Mr. Hooper, we could say that to be consistent, he would have to agree that natural selection produced the Pope as a mechanism to save the human population from self-destruction. It’s pointless to fight it, then.

Consistency is apparently not a value to this dogmatic Darwinist. Without consistency, though, one can prove anything; therefore one proves nothing. Don’t talk to us about truth, then, Mr. Hooper, you have nothing to say. Your reason has left you. You want to model your life on the animals? Fine; go out into the field, and live like a king of beasts. We hope it doesn’t take seven years for you to stand up like a Man and get your reason back.

This commentary is not endorsing the Pope; it is simply insisting that science stop looking silly by refuting itself. The essence of being human is using your reason and conscience to guide your physical passions. That reason is the basis for science; it presupposes intelligence, which presupposes judgment, which presupposes absolute truth and morals. Science cannot breathe without these things.

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.

The so-called "Journal of Evolutionary Philosphy" has this to say...

Evolution and Homosexuality
Homosexual 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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.