Evidence for God from Science

I understand perfectly that undesrstanding the way other animals work can give us a glimpse of how genetics work, but fruit fly reproduction does not have an exact correlation to mammalian reproduction (not the same sex chromosomes, courtship, reproduction, etc...). I doubt we could unravel the complexities of human sexuality simply by examining insects.

BTW, please don't make such overbroad statements such as your last. Certainly not contributing to the discussion.

Sorry, I sincerely apologize... trying to be funny. Not very well. But anyway I think it IS a valid point that the reason that scientists can use things like fruit flies as model organisms for human disease and/or pyschological states is due to evolutionary theory.

They can be used as model organisms because of some similarity, but does this similarity necessarily point to the exclusion of a creator or the necessity of evolution?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:One wonders why this gene hasn't died off yet? Since gays don't usually reproduce, you would think that the number of homosexuals would decrease from generation to generation, not increase.

Actually I'd expect it to remain at the same level, much like that of most birth defects (I don't consider homosexualtiy to neccessarily be a "defect." I'm merely pointing to the fact that there are many reoccuring traits that lead to a lack of reproduction).

Re - increasing: We have no way of knowing how many homosexuals there are or were other than on the basis of self reporting. I don't believe we have more now. They just aren't as afraid of losing their job or getting beat up for letting people know they are gay.

Forum Monk wrote:If there were a 'gay gene'. Would God have been justified in executing the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah?

If I remember the story correctly, wasn't this where the king offered to GIVE his daughters to the men so that they wouldn't sleep with each other? This brings up many more moral issue, if you ask me.

Like my comment about the flood on the other thread, God can do whatever he wants. However, if you want MY answer, then it is "no," he was not justified.

Of course, you can look at this on different levels. If there is a gay gene, then God created homosexuals.....but then commands them (through less than clear means) to not be homosexual. That doesn't sound very reasonable if you ask me. So I can conclude one of two things: God didn't make homosexuals so they must be horrible terrible deviants (by their own choosing) who wish to do something that I would consider vile and disgusting despite the potential of spending an eternity in hell for it (which, BTW, is in no way consistent with what I know about homosexuals) OR the fallible men that wrote this into the Bible simply got it wrong on this one.

Keep in mind, God can send you a message by talking to me in a dream.......but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to deliver that message correctly. Especially if I'm in a position of power, it's far to easy to say, "Oh yeah.....and the....uh......ELEVENTH commandment is...don't be gay....and send me money while you're at it."

OR the fallible men that wrote this into the Bible simply got it wrong on this one.

What other ones did they get wrong? Did they get any of it right? And how do you know which is which?

Let's not forget that all creation is corrupted by the fall (I know Banky that you don't believe this, but we as Christians do. )

We don't know what this mean on a concrete level, but we know that much of our behavior, including anger, lust, jealousy, etc, is governed by biological causes. Although a case could be made that this excuses us (indeed several Law and Order episodes address this question....can we hold criminals accountable if they are suffering from some disease or disorder? at what point do we consider mental anguish, PMDD, rage, brain tumors to be an reason to excuse someone from their criminal deeds?), one would hope that we see that problem with the arguement. At some point guilt is guilt.

Even avoiding such religious terms such as sin or evil, a society that agrees to this arguement ("my behavior should not be judged as moral or immoral because of my genes") leaves itself open an impossible justice system. At what point do we convict a rapist? We must agree that people are held accountable for their actions. (let's try this with the IRS the next time...hmm didn't turn in my taxes because my genes make my lazy)

This is a dangerous road.

Also, not to belabor a point. But a righteous and just God could hardly be judged by those who are unrighteous and injust. We can claim injustice from HIm, but as Job simply pointed out "I place my hand over my mouth".

You do not remember the story correctly as well (although this would hardly dissuade you of your opinions ). The daughters were offered as a desperate attempt to appease the evil men of Sodom and Gomorrah who were trying to rape the guests of the house, who were men of God.

Forum Monk wrote:

OR the fallible men that wrote this into the Bible simply got it wrong on this one.

What other ones did they get wrong? Did they get any of it right? And how do you know which is which?

Those are very good questions. A good historian, investigator, or judge might have a better answer than I, but I do know that they rarely rely on the literal accounts of what "some guy" said.

Particularly when you look at how we got the information, how it has been managed over the last couple of millinea, and how we have seen evidence of the abuse of religion in general (look at muslim extremists, for example, and ask if even a fraction of that was possible with Christianity). All it takes is ONE person (or group of people) with enough power and influence in his hands who simply thought that being gay is "wrong" to alter what we perceive as God's command.

I'd like to qualify this with the fact that I mean no disrespect to those that interperate the book literally. This is merely how I perceive it.

From a purely biological standpoint homosexuality is unnatural. All it takes is ONE person (or group of people) with enough power and influence in theirs hands, who has considered that being gay is "unnatural", to begin a movement against it.

Genes may influence our behaviour, and there may be a "gay" gene. However, while animals act according to their given natures, we think human persons ought not to behave like animals but behave in a certain way. We even give bad names for certain behaviours or habits that are naturally formed. For example, the person whose nature it is to sit around all day and not work is lazy, the person who eats a lot is a glutton or pig, the men who are only looking for one thing from women are creeps, and so on.

Now I see the question of a "gay gene" ultimately boils down to whether or not we are called to live according to our nature, or whether we are in fact called to try live above our nature to behave a certain way. Then it is a matter of questioning who is doing the calling (e.g., society, God, religion) on how we should be behave, and whether we should bother listening to them and trying to change our ways.

Enigma7457 wrote:Even if there is a "gay gene", it doesn't mean it is okay. We are all responsible for our behavior, even if some of us have a harder life/situation/gene-makeup than others.

I agree - whether or not there is a gay gene does not seem relevant to the question of how one ought to behave.

This is insane. Do Christians have brains? I hope that one day each and every one of you knows what it feels like when you aren't accepted into the world. The bible is corrupt and immoral. How can one person make you follow so many rules? Don't just jump on the bandwagon because a historical textbook tells you to. Understand what it feels like on the other side. Maybe then you could be considered "holy."

Bart: "One would think as well since the human genome has been fully recorded that one could research on that basis instead of the behavior of rodents."

Ummmm, let's see, Bart, how we would do that. I got it! We'd do a double blind controlled study. We'd take the half the volunteers and assign them to heterosexuality and the other half has to be gay. Then.... no, just kidding. Fact is though, many epidemiological hypotheses can't be ethically tested on humans.

DB

>>According to our Calvinist friends he [God] predestines some to damnation and them judges them for it<<

I agree with the poster that this concept is not a good one, and like sparse references against homosexuality in the Bible, was written by a fallible person or persons during the Bronze age. Interpreting the Bible literally, in my opinion, leaves one with lots of 'splainin' to do.

DB

I find it unlikely there is a "gay gene", I do however believe that some gene combinations may lead to more sexual drive than others. The end behavior is still a choice of the individual

I know that there has been an active campaigne of gay activist over the last 40 years. There has also been an active campaigne of the atheist but for a shorter time. The increase in the gay population is due to many factors but I am sure that the legal inroads into the school system has had a giant effect. To offset this education of the young the Christians of the United States should have actively pushed back. We did not I am afraid to say. The result is what we are living with today. If today they started teaching our kids that the Civil War never happened then in 20 years 1/3 of the U.S. would believe that lie. That is of course if no one pushed back.