 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired |
 |
|
April 4, 2007 - Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."
Dr. Francis S. Collins
In reviewing the heritability (influence of genetic factors) of personality traits, Dr. Collins referenced the estimates of the percentage of various human personality traits that can be ascribed to heredity from the Bochard and McGue research.
The heritability estimates for personality traits were varied: General Cognitive Ability (50%), Extroversion (54%), Agreeableness (42%), Conscientiousness (49%), Neuroticism (48%), Openness (57%), Aggression (38%) and Traditionalism (54%).
Kirk et al. (2000) in their research using a community-based cohort of Australian twins reported a heritability estimate of 30% for homosexuality. Whitehead (1999, 2006) in his extensive review of the research cites 30% as the estimate of heritability for homosexuality as well, though he views the estimate as a maximum.
Estimates of heritability are based upon careful analyses of studies conducted with identical twins. Such studies are important and lead to the conclusion that heredity is important in many of these traits. It is important however, to note that even in such studies with identical twins, that heritability is not to be confused as inevitability.
As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present.
Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations."
Dr. Collins noted that environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate, not provide support to idealogues.
Citing such dangers, Dr. Collins referred to the book written by activist Dean Hamer who declared the discovery of the God Gene (this same author also is associated with "discovering the gay gene").
Dr. Collins noted that the "evidence" in Hamer's book "grabbed headlines," but was "wildly overstated."
A reviewer in Scientific American suggested that Hamer's book on the God Gene should have been titled, "A Gene That Accounts for Less than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study."
Unfortunately, much of the research in areas such as homosexuality, has been not only misrepresented in the media but by the scientists themselves through the tendency to overestimate the quantitative contribution of their findings.
the rest of the story....
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two things:
1. Do scientists have to prove that homosexuality is hardwired in order to for it to be true?
2. If homosexuality is hardwired, does that mean that scientists should be able to prove it? I would think that not all things will or can be proven by science.
Last edited by summertime on Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And studies of the brain have shown that the brains of homosexuals act like those of heterosexuals of the opposite sex when it comes to things like attraction.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think y'all should actually read what the evidence shows.
Very clearly this article points out that the 'evidence' that homosexuality is genetic, or 'hardwired' is simply overstated.
It doesn't say that such could not be the case, but that the evidence science has thus far is very inconclusive and often presented as much stronger support for the idea than it really is.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | I think y'all should actually read what the evidence shows.
Very clearly this article points out that the 'evidence' that homosexuality is genetic, or 'hardwired' is simply overstated.
It doesn't say that such could not be the case, but that the evidence science has thus far is very inconclusive and often presented as much stronger support for the idea than it really is. |
No, I did not read the article. Seeing the thread and the title of the thread just prompted those questions I posted. Not particularly interested in reading about it at the moment. Whatever it may say, I think my questions are valid ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No, I did not read the article. Seeing the thread and the title of the thread just prompted those questions I posted. Not particularly interested in reading about it at the moment. Whatever it may say, I think my questions are valid ones. |
Valid in what sense of the word?
If you would have read the article you would have determined for yourself that your questions are irrelevant in terms of this thread.
However, for the record:
| Quote: | | Do scientists have to prove that homosexuality is hardwired in order to for it to be true? |
No, they do not. However, they must do so in order for the idea to be presented as a 'fact' or as truth. As it stands, those who push forth such an idea are simply expressing an opinion.
| Quote: | | If homosexuality is hardwired, does that mean that scientists should be able to prove it? I would think that not all things will or can be proven by science. |
The problem is that there are those who tout 'medical research' and science as evidence for support of the idea that homosexuality is genetic, when the facts are not as reliable as they would want us to believe.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Do scientists have to prove that homosexuality is hardwired in order to for it to be true? |
No, they do not. However, they must do so in order for the idea to be presented as a 'fact' or as truth. As it stands, those who push forth such an idea are simply expressing an opinion. |
So then you're doing the same in your title, yes?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | quote="RevJP"-
No, they do not. However, they must do so in order for the idea to be presented as a 'fact' or as truth. As it stands, those who push forth such an idea are simply expressing an opinion. |
When a Christian (or anybody else) opens up the bible and quotes scripture from it while at the same time trying to interpret what is being said in the texts, this too is opinion. Why? Because the process of reading is taking place. It's a process we take for granted because it's going on when we are not consciously aware of it. It's a process we all partake in, but because we all ar not the same, we often do not share the same interpretation process. You may not consider things I would consider and vice versa. There are a lot of things involved in reading. For example, Leviticus 18:22:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Now, at face value this is bad news for homosexuals. You read this verse and as you read it, you are interpreting it. Interpreting is reading. Interpreting means "getting the meaning out of a text". To show that it's all opinion, you can ask various persons what this text means. Some of the responses you might get are:
1. It's simple. A man should not sleep with another man.
2. I need to know more. What is the context of this text?
3. What is an abomination? How was it defined by the author?
You get various opinions from this one verse simply because people have differing approaches to how they come to understand things. Questions are asked by one that were never considered by the other. Some people take option 1.
Response 1 - This is a very common approach to the bible. You take it as it reads. You need nothing else. The only problem with this is that if you take this verse as it reads then you'd have to take other verses as they read. At face value. It says what it means and that settles it. Point out a verse on slavery to someone who takes this approach and you will find it to be a different story. Mention the text on women being silent in church and it will not be such a simple approach to scripture as is the approach to Leviticus 18:22. Get my point? Needless, to say, there are those who, even after reading this, still stick to this approach. It's how they interpret the bible. It's one example of how an opinion on what the bible is saying is formed. It's the response that sends an innocent person to jail because the evidence shows the person sitting over the dead body with blood on his hands and holding the weapon. Sometimes it is that simple, but if you stick to this response every time, you will miss out on the other possible possibilities because you're set in your ways.
Response 2 - This approach comes from someone who is open to hearing more rather than making a conclusion so suddenly. The are aware of how important context of a text is. They know that first impressions can be misleading. After all a text taken out of context is to mislead (ie. a pretext). If you flip a station on the tv or the radio and you hear half of a conversation, you can be misled to thinking one thing was meant by a speaker when he or she really didn't mean what you thought they meant. Context is key. Taking response 2 into consideration leads to another opinion of what the bible is saying. An opinion that will likely differ from one who responds similar to response 1.
Response 3 - Like response 2, this response values terms and their meanings (in addition to context). If you look at the term "abomination" and you only look it up in a Webster's dictionary, you miss the biblical author's intent. You fail to realize that terms that may look familiar to you at face value are terms that were not defined (back then) like they are defined in today's modern world. Webster's did not exist in the times of Levitical law. Response 3 seeks to define terms as they were originally defined when originally written. Today, we may say someone is "out in left field". If you were not familiar with this modern phrase, you might go looking for someone out in a field to the left or in a field that is on the left. Differing cultures, societies, and times use familiar words and phrases in different ways than other cultures. If you consider this response, you too may form a conclusion that differs from those who use response 1 and even response 2.
All of these and more are why you have posts on this forum that are not always in agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ryck
Lion King
Joined: 05 Dec 2002
Posts: 1094
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | And studies of the brain have shown that the brains of homosexuals act like those of heterosexuals of the opposite sex when it comes to things like attraction. |
You mean like male acting male homosexuals being attracted to female acting male homosexuals?
Why go half way when the 100% real thing is available?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure why all the fuss from you two (summertime and FFT) I simply posted an exerpt of an article expressing the facts as presented by the leading geneticist in the field of genomics.
Usually when someone cites a credible scientific source for expressing something of science people would actually pay attention to it rather than have knee-jerk reaction to disagree with it because it goes against their personally held opinion.
In fact, I recall many threads in this forum where participants have posted studies that indicate that homosexuality was genetic and pushed forth the claim that this was proof. Now when faced with the hard reality that what they pushed as proof was an overstatement of the reality of the situation they want to reject it out of hand rather than actually examine the evidence for themselves.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1566
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The article lends credence to the idea that being gay is not a choice. There is a physical component to sexual orientation - it's just not the only determining factor. This ties in just fine with that study where prenatal testosterone levels influence sexual orientation. The article says environment influences genetic predisposition, which isn't anything astonishingly new. If a person is gay, then it's because their brains were genetically predisposed to being built as certain way (as FFT said).
All in all, this article isn't exactly earth-shattering. All it says is that a genetic predisposition doesn't necessarily mean that the particular genes in question will be expressed during development. However, I think 'hardwired' is the wrong choice of words, because if the genes are expressed, then homosexuality does become hardwired because of the brain's development.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.
Ana's Bananas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
summertime
Rattlesnake
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 447
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | I'm not sure why all the fuss from you two (summertime and FFT) I simply posted an exerpt of an article expressing the facts as presented by the leading geneticist in the field of genomics. |
There is no fuss on my part, JP. Despite not having read the article, I simply posted some questions that immediately came to mind when I saw the thread. Just thoughts that I had and decided to share. My post about opinions came about because it is always said or implied that when someone quotes texts from the bible, they are simply sharing God's word. They do and say this without considering all the things I spoke of in my post about interpretation. So, that's why I posted that. To share that whether it's the science article or the bible, after one reads these and other things, the process of reading or interpretation differs from one person to the next. So, no fuss on my part. Not my intention. Just plain and simple responses. From my humble personal point of view, ofcourse:) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 676
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JP wrote: | | No, they do not. However, they must do so in order for the idea to be presented as a 'fact' or as truth. As it stands, those who push forth such an idea are simply expressing an opinion. |
What about those who have seen it up close & personal affecting their life or family member's life? In a world where environment was "normal" (if there is such a thing)?
Would this still be expressing an opinion?
_________________
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking you know everything God has to say b/c you've read the Bible. Remember, God is STILL speaking. And surprisingly, through people we DON'T expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryck wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | And studies of the brain have shown that the brains of homosexuals act like those of heterosexuals of the opposite sex when it comes to things like attraction. |
You mean like male acting male homosexuals being attracted to female acting male homosexuals?
Why go half way when the 100% real thing is available? |
What? No, that's not ... seriously where are you coming from here?
Link and link, showing that gay men respond to a male sex pheremone the same way heterosexual women do (not the way heterosexual men do) and that gay women respond to a female sex pheremone the same way heterosexual men do (not the way heterosexual women do).
| RevJP wrote: | | I'm not sure why all the fuss from you two (summertime and FFT) I simply posted an exerpt of an article expressing the facts as presented by the leading geneticist in the field of genomics. |
Well, | RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Do scientists have to prove that homosexuality is hardwired in order to for it to be true? |
No, they do not. However, they must do so in order for the idea to be presented as a 'fact' or as truth. As it stands, those who push forth such an idea are simply expressing an opinion. |
Now look at the title of the thread.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
The title of the thread is the title of the article quoted. What's the big deal?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
