« Oregon cougar sighting really a kitty cat | Main | DeLay’s duplicitousness, Oregon’s openness »

September 28, 2005


Interesting post. I think you are evaluating the situation somewhat correctly. However, I don't find that there is very strong convincing evidence that proves evolution to be a theory (and a theory it still is) that holds any water. So to say that "Christians want intelligent design/creationism enshrined in the classroom even though there is zero—repeat, zero—scientific evidence in favor of this utterly unproven hypothesis. There is equal reason to believe that the universe is being guided by a Flying Spaghetti Monster as by a willful conscious metaphysical force" can equally be turned on the theory of evolution. There just isn't enough evidence to prove either theory to be scientific fact. Blatant stupidity is applied to the situation by both sides, not just the right wing.

Also, your comments about the issue of gay rights were surprising. Some christians may be arguing that God doesn't love homosexuals....but clearly you have to recognize that it isn't the person that God is not loving, but rather the act of homosexuality. You are correct, God did indeed come so that all would accept his love and forgiveness...but you are incorrect in saying that God is just as accepting of someone who is gay as opposed to someone who is not. God is just as opposed to someone who is a chronic liar as he is homosexuals. God is opposed to sin. He is not opposed to people. However, in order for God to remain to be God (being just, holy, perfect, 100% righteous and 0% evil) he must not tolerate sin. And homosexuality is a sin, that much is clear from an honest reading of scripture. God does not hate homosexuals. God does hate homosexuality. And yes God does desire a patriarchal family structure.

I agree that right wing christians are dominating the christian realm which is the reason that christian thought is not counted as legit anymore. I thank you for your post and your thoughts. I hope I challenged your mind with some of this. Let me know what you think,

Patrick, thanks for sharing your thoughts--even though I disagree with several of your main points.

There's plenty of scientific evidence in favor of evolution. Read this Washington Post story:
(registration required, but it's worth it)

As a scientist is quoted, "What makes evolution a scientific explanation is that it makes testable predictions. You only believe theories when they make non-obvious predictions that are confirmed by scientific evidence."

Intelligent design doesn't make testable, non-obvious predictions. That's why it isn't a scientific theory. It's a religious hypothesis and thus should be taught as a philosophy, not a science (by the way, "pagans" such as Plato and Plotinus believed in intelligent design, but certainly not in a Christian god, so Christians should be wary of embracing intelligent design).

Saying that "God hates gays" also is a matter of belief, not of fact. Who knows the mind of God? Or whether God even exists? There are many holy books in the world, not just the Bible. What makes one holy book believable and the others not? And what makes some statements in any holy book more believable than other statements?

Didn't Jesus teach unconditional love? Isn't this at odds with hating gays? Lastly, I find utterly unconvincing the "I hate the sin, not the sinner" argument. That holds water when the supposed sin and the sinner can be clearly distinguished, as would be the case if I shoplifted something.

That is, my essential identity isn't that of a shoplifter. I'm still me even when I'm not shoplifting. So you can separate shoplifting from me. But gays almost universally say that their sexual identity is an intimate inseparable part of them, just as heterosexuality is a part of me.

If you're attracted to women (as I assume you are), could you will yourself to enjoy having sex with men? If not, then you'll understand why gays are offended by the statement "hate the sin, love the sinner."

Your sexual identity is so much a part of you, it is virtually impossible to distinguish from the bodily you (perhaps you are pure soul, as are we all, but that's not a reality for us yet).

Science has shown that sexual identity is basically hard-wired at birth. Many animal species have a high proportion of "gay" members. Are these animals "sinners" also, because they have chosen to be homosexual? We are human animals. Evolution has proven that.

I suggest reading some books by experts in the field, instead of relying on what gays "feel."
Would you believe me about something just because i had a 'feeling' about it? Of coarse not.

In my decade of working at various psychology clinics, I have queried all of my ‘homosexual’ clients as to whether they were erotically attracted to the opposite sex. All of them said that they were, and most all said that they liked women as friends. I have always found it intriguing that virtually all of them did not fit the common definition of homosexual—a person sexually attracted to their own instead of the opposite sex—but all were to some degree bisexual. Many were once married and most had sexual encounters with the opposite sex. Furthermore, Masters’ and Johnson’s scientific studies of persons labelled homosexual and lesbian have found that both groups consistently listed heterosexual encounters as highly erotic, actually at the top of a list of their erotic fantasies. In one study both male and female homosexuals listed a ‘heterosexual encounter’ as their third most common sexual fantasy!

‘To understand how biological factors influence sexual orientation, one must first define orientation. Many researchers, most conspicuously Simon LeVay, treat it as a sexually dimorphic trait: men are generally ‘programmed’ for attraction to women, and women are generally programmed for attraction to men … The validity of this ‘intersex’ expectation is questionable … sexual orientation is not dimorphic; it has many forms. The conscious and unconscious motivations associated with sexual attraction are diverse even among people of the same sex and orientation. Myriad experiences (and subjective interpretations of those experiences) could interact to lead different people to the same relative degree of sexual attraction to men or to women. Different people could be sexually attracted to men for different reasons; for example, there is no a priori reason that everyone attracted to men should share some particular brain structure.’
Byne, W., 1994. The biological evidence challenged. Scientific American 270(5):26-31 (p. 26).

Sorry this is one of the books you might consider.
Wilson, E.O., 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 281.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.