Harris: ID not religion, just about God

| 131 Comments | 1 TrackBack

JEFFREY WEISS of the Dallas Morning News conducted two interviews, one with Dr. Harris

Speaking for the teaching of intelligent design is William Harris, a professor at the University of Missouri medical school in Kansas City. He’s a researcher in nutritional biochemistry, a Methodist and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, an online information site supporting intelligent design.

and one with Dr. Miller:

In the other corner is Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, Catholic and the author of Finding Darwin’s God.

I found the answers by Dr Harris quite interesting. First he responds with the standard ID response, with a slight but devastating deviation, namely that ID does not demand any particular godhead to be credited.

Q: Dr. Harris, for all the claims your side makes about intelligent design being science, isn’t it also religion?

Harris Wrote:

It’s consistent with a theistic explanation but does not demand that any particular godhead be credited with that activity.

Unwittingly perhaps, he has opened up the flood gates by deviating from the script and limiting the intelligent designer to be outside nature.

Q: But you’re talking about an entity who stands outside the limits of time and space with the power to affect the physical world. Isn’t that a god by most definitions?

Harris Wrote:

Yes. Is that impossible? Science should be seeking the truth about the natural world regardless of the implications. Why do the implications [that God may be responsible for creation] stop something from being scientifically valid?

In other words, ID is not about any specific God but it is surely about one or more Godheads.

Why can’t more ID proponents be more clear about this? Harris then continues with a response which I find quite hilarious as it undermines fully any ID approach as proposed by Dembski or Behe for instance.

Q: But how would a public school teacher legally present that point of view in science class? Even if the teacher didn’t specify who did the designing, wouldn’t students ask?

Harris Wrote:

Why can’t teachers say, “We don’t know,” and leave it at that? Why is that such an awful outcome?

Interesting because instead of ‘we don’t know’ ID proponents typically draw a conclusion of ‘thus designed’ when science fails to provide sufficient detailed explanations.

ID proponents may want to explain why indeed can they not accept “we don’t know” as an answer?

Dr Miller has a far more balanced approach to science and religion.

Miller Wrote:

How can science approach such an issue? It cannot. By definition, the work of such a god, designer, or creator exists outside the natural world. That’s reason No. 1 why ID is not science and cannot ever be part of science.

Q: But doesn’t that say science can never explain physical reality, if reality includes ID? Isn’t that a serious flaw in science?

Miller Wrote:

As a Christian, I believe that God is active in my life and yours, and that God’s purpose for our lives is evident in the world around us. However, I never pretend that this theological understanding of nature is scientific. That’s where I part company with the ID crowd.

1 TrackBack

131 Comments

Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God? To me that seems silly.

Paladin Wrote:

Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God? To me that seems silly.

Do most on this board make this assumption? I doubt it. What most on this board however realize is that when ID proponents are talking about intelligent design, they are talking about the supernatural. After all, it’s presented as an alternative/extension to methodological naturalism for instance. Too many little hints show that ID proponents confuse intelligent design and ‘rarefied’ design

Well Paladin, who do you have in mind?

“Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God? To me that seems silly.”

Do you know of any non-Godly intelligent being that “stands outside the limits of time and space with the power to affect the physical world”? Because if you do I’d like to meet them.

“What most on this board however realize is that when ID proponents are talking about intelligent design, they are talking about the supernatural.”

Some perhaps, but to say that all appeal to the supernatural is an overgeneralization. Not all of those who affirm Intelligent Design even believe in the supernatural.

Harris argues that we shouldn’t be bothered by not having answers to some things.

Why can’t teachers say, “We don’t know,” and leave it at that? Why is that such an awful outcome?

It seems the same could be said to Demski and his followers. Why can’t we say we don’t know everything about evolution? And fortunately, we don’t have to leave it at that because knowledge is constantly being revised and expanded.

L.T. Paladin Wrote:

Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God? To me that seems silly.

I think I speak for most on this board when I state that we recognize at least one other, truely intelligent being other than Humans and the christian God. Yes, I speak of Him, the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster, who holds us all with his noodley appendage.

WWFSMD?

RAmen. Arrrgh!

Why can’t teachers say, “We don’t know,” and leave it at that? Why is that such an awful outcome?

Why indeed. It would go something like this: “No one knows for sure how life originated. Some people believe in an intelligent designer, but offer no research or other evidence of scientific investigation. Others believe that life arose spontaneously and there is a lot of scientific research going on in this area. Now let’s talk about evolution.”

Some perhaps, but to say that all appeal to the supernatural is an overgeneralization. Not all of those who affirm Intelligent Design even believe in the supernatural.

No they believe in Aliens that ummm errr, evolved and evolved enough complexity to be able to design other complex lifeforms. Which is a totally consistent and valid position of course.

[Note, sarcasm meters should be exploding about now…]

LT Paladin wrote: Not all of those who affirm Intelligent Design even believe in the supernatural.

WTF???!!! What else CAN you be referring to?

L.T.Paladin Wrote:

Some perhaps, but to say that all appeal to the supernatural is an overgeneralization. Not all of those who affirm Intelligent Design even believe in the supernatural.

If the “designer” is not supernatural (ie: natural), then we must then ask who/what created that designer? I believe even the IDiots have noticed the circular reasoning in this argument (or maybe they just wanted Tom Cruise to stop calling them) and have decreed (or at least quoted individually) that the designer shalt be supernatural. Someone else with more free time will have to do the leg work and dig up their quotes.

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: Any alien being that is sufficiently advanced to have designed and created life on Earth is indistinguishable from a deity.

L.T. Paladin wrote:

Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God? To me that seems silly.

Here is a passage which explains the central problem with having a natural intelligent designer:

Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an “intelligent designer”?

It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that “design” proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of “designing” the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own “designer.” If “design” can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian “designer” would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another “designer.” One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.

By the very nature of its approach, “intelligent design” cannot be satisfied with a “designer” who is part of the natural world. Such a “designer” would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only “designer” that would stop their quest for a “design” explanation of complexity is a “designer” about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study–a “designer” that “transcends” nature and its laws–a “designer” not susceptible of rational explanation–in short: a supernatural “designer.”

The Bait and Switch of “Intelligent Design” Creationism By Keith Lockitch (07/05/05) http://www.americandaily.com/article/8086

Ginger wrote: “Do you know of any non-Godly intelligent being that “stands outside the limits of time and space with the power to affect the physical world”? Because if you do I’d like to meet them.”

According to my wife, the being in question is George Clooney.

“then we must then ask who/what created that designer?”

Why must we? Darwinian evolution explains the origins of life as well, yet no one demands to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern Evolution.

“Here is a passage which explains the central problem with having a natural intelligent designer:

…Any natural being capable of “designing” the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own “designer.”…”

Using this logic our ability to design other complex features would also merit itself as evidence of our design. All life in biology is carbon based and we find it cannot come about naturally… why couldn’t other life come about randomly? Perhaps the designer did come about from randomness.

L.T. Paladin Wrote:

Using this logic our ability to design other complex features would also merit itself as evidence of our design. All life in biology is carbon based and we find it cannot come about naturally… why couldn’t other life come about randomly? Perhaps the designer did come about from randomness.

So, what you are stating is that evolution is fine for other beings, just not for those of us that live on earth. Why not illiminate the middleman, and go with what the evidence tells us?

You see, you can’t have a “non-evolutionary” model of existance in your form of IDC. A complex designer evolved from the same forces that could have created us, but didn’t. Does that make sense? It doesn’t to most of “us”.

L.T. Paladin Wrote:

Darwinian evolution explains the origins of life as well, yet no one demands to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern Evolution.

This statement deserves the PT equivalent of Chez Watt? recognition.

All life in biology is carbon based and we find it cannot come about naturally…

Where has anyone found that life cannot come about naturally? How could anyone prove this? It would be as difficult as proving that, um, “God” doesn’t exist.

L.T Paladin wrote:

“then we must then ask who/what created that designer?”

Why must we? Darwinian evolution explains the origins of life as well, yet no one demands to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern Evolution.

Laws aren’t brought about by processes – laws govern processes. Evolution is a process governed by laws – such as those of inheritance and natural selection.

…Any natural being capable of “designing” the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own “designer.”…”

Using this logic our ability to design other complex features would also merit itself as evidence of our design. All life in biology is carbon based and we find it cannot come about naturally… why couldn’t other life come about randomly? Perhaps the designer did come about from randomness.

Only if one first accepts the Intelligent Design premise that life is sufficiently complex that it requires an intelligent designer for its explanation. If one assumes that the complexity of life requires an intelligent designer for its explanation, then any intelligent designer sufficiently powerful to account for the complexity of life would himself be complex enough to require the same sort of explanation. If on the otherhand, one admits that such an intelligent designer may have evolved by means of a natural evolutionary process, then one is admitting that the complexity of life is not so great that it requires such an intelligent designer in the first place, but may have simply evolved by means of a natural evolutionary process.

Do you see the problem?

Incidentally, I find the following two statements interesting in terms of how they were phrased:

why couldn’t other life come about randomly? Perhaps the designer did come about from randomness.

Life does not come about randomly. Life comes about by means of random mutation and natural selection. Without natural selection, there is no adaptation. But there are some who focus on random mutation while always omitting natural selection.

Why is this?

“no one demands to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern Evolution”

I’m no physicist, but I’m fairly sure that a lot of physicists are very interested in the question of how natural laws arose in their current forms.

“Using this logic our ability to design other complex features would also merit itself as evidence of our design.”

The point is that this isn’t scientific logic. It’s ID logic. We (proponents of science) don’t think an intelligent designer would need a designer. But we don’t think we need a designer either. It’s the ID proponents who end up in a logical paradox. Or rather, it’s only a logical paradox if they try to claim the designer doesn’t have to be supernatural. This is why ID is theology, not science.

L.T.Paladin Wrote:

Darwinian evolution explains the origins of life as well, yet no one demands to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern Evolution.

This statement doesn’t really make sense. But I will take a stab at what I think you mean.

First of all, the theory I think you are describing is “abiogenesis”, not evolution. While the jury is still out on that particular theory, there appears to be significantly more scientific evidence for that than ID. Second, demanding to know what natural processes brought about the laws which govern evolution is what evolutionary biology is all about. This is where there is *legitimate* scientific debate- scientists (you know, the guys with degrees relevant to their research) arguing over which mechanisms impact the way organisms evolved the most.

The most important point? None of those scientists throw their hands up and declare that the “designer” did it, or that since they’re perplexed by a problem it must be evidence of “design.” In my field of computer science, such things are called “open problems” and they get shopped around to grad students looking for work. Questions are asked, experiments proposed, and answers obtained. In short, ‘progress’ which is a very useful byproduct of scientific inquiry, is made. At the most pragmatic level- if ID wins out, progress halts. Or more accurately, progress in the US stops- and progress and its economic benefits moves to China, India, et al.

PvM Wrote:

I found the answers by Dr Harris quite interesting. First he responds with the standard ID response, with a slight but devastating deviation, namely that ID does not demand any particular godhead to be credited.

How is that a deviation? Isn’t the standard ID strategy to not commit to any designer?

Whether it’s a new admission (e.g. “it must be a godhead, any godhead, but not a non-godhead”) or the same old same old, the more important point, and very standard ID strategy, is that, in all the excerpts and 20-odd comments there is no hint of what the designer did, when, or how. No hint as to an alternate explanation of the Cambrian explosion, origin of flagella, or heaven forbid, human/chimp ancestry.

And that’s just what IDers want. Let’s all stop playing along, huh?

JPD Wrote:

LT Paladin wrote: Not all of those who affirm Intelligent Design even believe in the supernatural.

WTF???!!! What else CAN you be referring to?

He may be referring to the Raelians, a science fiction cult which promotes the teaching of Intelligent Design creationism

On Designers

Designers have big designers O’er their heads to design ‘em And big designers have bigger designers - And so ad infinitum.

Yeah, I know, it’s ripped off, and it doesn’t rhyme. But, dammit, it’s designed!

Bruce

I assume that if ID is going to say that any godhead could be responsible, then it’s getting around the legal prohibition on promoting a particular religion. Schoolkids will get the information about which godhead is really meant by reading supplementary information and by asking their parents and pastors. I’m sure the ID people have got some plans in mind to ensure that kids get the message somehow that it’s gotta be Jesus. Even if they don’t, though, the ID stuff has planted in their minds the notion that it has to be a god of some sort and that science has therefore proved that God exists (and we all know which God we really mean, don’t we, children? {wink wink}). That’s all they need to do, isn’t it? Get it into the minds of the young and the uneducated that the scienbtific method shows that God is a nonnegotiable reality, use a bunch of PR stuff to let them know which God we’re talking about, and then it’s on to demanding that the laws and goodness knows what else be changed accordingly because we now have no choice. This is what God wants, and science has proved that he exists. So abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, etc etc must be outlawed forthwith, and the country must become a truly Christian state. That is, after all, the long-term goal stated in the Wedge Document.

This is the same sort of thing that’s being done in the Dover, Pa, disclaimer, where kids are encouraged to ask their parents or other authority figures (aka their pastors) - NOT their biology teachers - about the implications of the existence of intelligent design in nature. It’s the same sort of thing going on in Kansas, where Cathy Martin has said that she doesn’t need creationism to be taught but would settle for a “compromise” where neither creationism nor evolution is taught, presumably so that kids can get the creationist message from parents and pastors and the biology teachers are shut out of the process altogether.

I hope the FSM stays the course as a viable alternative to this dishonest attempt to create a Christian theocracy.

Comment #47637 L.T. Paladin

Why do most on this board assume that we are the only intelligent beings that can exist other than God? To me that seems silly.

Do they? Or are you just trying to paint people as arrogant so you can hate them easier? Or do you have some other philisophical axe to grind?

L.T. Paladin

Some perhaps, but to say that all appeal to the supernatural is an overgeneralization. Not all of those who affirm Intelligent Design even believe in the supernatural.

There is no choice. Either non-supernatural intelligences evolved to create us (because you can only regress so far in time and there must be a first), which means evolution is correct even if we were seeded from some other race, or people were made with supernatural help.

There is no way the Intelligent Designer, as promulgated by ID, can fail to be anything but a supernatural force.

Albion Wrote:

I’m sure the ID people have got some plans in mind to ensure that kids get the message somehow that it’s gotta be Jesus.

I think that few, if any IDers would have a problem with “God, but not Jesus,” as they want as many Jews as possible under the big tent.

But the ID leaders, if not their clueless followers, have realized that there is enough misinformation planted in most heads that they don’t need to mention any designer. All they need to do is recycle the laundry list of misrepresentations of evolution that they plagiarized from classic creationists (who don’t mind of course). Common misconceptions then fill in the blanks - with God, various mutually contradictory “literal” interpretations of Genesis. Even a few aliens. A small price to pay for the strategic necessity of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Posted by Dan Someone on September 12, 2005 01:06 PM (e) (s)

To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke: Any alien being that is sufficiently advanced to have designed and created life on Earth is indistinguishable from a deity.

That’s nice. It still doesn’t support the circular, non-supernatural (and abandoned) position formerly held by ID.

But, if we’re quoting artiists, how about my daughter? According to her magical flying ponies exist because she said so… Even though she’s quite well-educated about biological and scientific principles that would tend to indicate “magical flying ponies” don’t exist. Ah, to be 8 1/2 again…

ts (not Tim) “Who has more children, the rich or the poor?”

It doesn’t matter. You’re thinking top-of-the-line artists and sports stars, but those are only a manifestation of far more common traits even the poor need to breed. It’s not about rich and poor. It’s about functioning well enough in the culture to find a mate.

“Who has more children, scientists or non-scientists?”

It doesn’t matter, non-scientists are enough of a scientist to pass the cultural tests.

“Artists or non-artists?”

If you have no interest in art at all, I think you’ll find yourself a cultural failure and have little chance of breeding.

“How about priests — do they have a lot of children?”

Some Catholic priests have had a lot of children, but not in the way you mean. You still have to have some priestly traits to get by in this culture even if you’re not a priest.

“What about … people with symmetric faces? I guess you would have to read a book to know about that one.”

There is an ordinariness to most people – but that ordinariness would be an incredibly high standard for monkeys to meet. I don’t think you’ll find many human women who want to mate with monkeys.

ts (not Tim) wrote: “Do you have any idea how many girls drop out of school because they’re pregnant?”

Actually no, I don’t. Do you? And if so, how significant are the numbers? There only has to be a tendency – and the tendency is toward the ordinary and our ordinary is a pretty high standard for any other primate species. I don’t think it’s many girls who drop out because they’re pregnant. I think we do instill values. If there are – then we’ve got problems that will cost us down the line. And if given a choice I think a lot of those girls do choose abortions.

I wrote: You don’t think being able to invent atom bombs and stealth aircraft are aiding our civilization’s survival? Art and science are part of that. Religion seems to be part of war too.

ts (not Tim) wrote: “Well now you seem to be arguing against yourself, but these aren’t operating on the level of evolutionary selection.”

I’m not arguing against myself - you don’t understand the argument.

Those processes do operate at an evolutionary level is what I claim. Before we had atom bombs our ancestors had to first organise into bigger and bigger armies thus making civilizations. Then they invented stone tipped spears and axes for those armies. Then they came up with bows and arrows. Along the way we killed off the ones who could only organise into small tribes, who couldn’t chip a spear point, who couldn’t invent better weapons.

They’re all dead because we killed them.

Speaking of Catholic priests – there are questions I have no answer for, such as why does pedophelia and homosexuality survive. Those seem like traits that would get wiped out. There are theories, but I’m not impressed by them.

But looking at the human race from my little corner of the world it does look like our tendency to war with other humans probably did create a selective pressure that made us scientists and inventors like no other species. I think it helped create civilization and culture – and yet it could now destroy us. So things do have to change – I’m not advocating war. I’m just seeing what’s there.

Someone would have to explain how it couldn’t have been such evolutionary pressure.

Norman Wrote:

why does pedophelia and homosexuality survive

The ancient Greeks seemed to regard homosexuality as normal, a phase one passed through to manhood, involving fixation on young boys. There are I recall similar “rites of passage” in New Guinea cultures. Maybe there was a survival advantage in adopting a homosexual posture in the adolescent period of development to avoid threatening the alpha-male, and being able to fight for his position on achieving full size and maturity.

Alan wrote: “The ancient Greeks seemed to regard homosexuality as normal, a phase one passed through to manhood, involving fixation on young boys.”

That’s weird. I’ve always been basically heterosexual and I don’t think I had such a stage. However, there is an old joke by George Carlin, I think, where he’s talking about how we are conditioned into rejecting homosexuality – you turn off the lights and you think you’re making out with a beautiful woman – then the lights come on and you react, Yuk!, because it’s a guy – but while the lights were out you enjoyed it. Why can’t you continue to enjoy it when your knowledge changes?

Then there is a scene in the movie “Hair” where one of the long haired hippies is questioned about whether his long hair is a sign of homosexuality. He says no, “but I’m not sure I’d throw Mick Jagger out of bed.” That’s a paraphrase. My memory is fuzzy on it. So, it seems possible for a normally heterosexual male to engage in homosexual behavior.

“There are I recall similar ‘rites of passage’ in New Guinea cultures.”

Does “cultural homosexuality/bisexuality” count in the same way that “natural homosexuality” does? – I’m not even sure what I mean by those terms. But it seems the kind of homosexuality that people like Andrew Sullivan write about isn’t a mere posture as you suggest here:

“Maybe there was a survival advantage in adopting a homosexual posture in the adolescent period of development to avoid threatening the alpha-male, and being able to fight for his position on achieving full size and maturity.”

Sullivan is at full size and maturity. It doesn’t really explain to me why he would desire males over females. Why does that continue through our history when homosexuals wouldn’t be breeding as often (but it does seem our culture has pushed homosexuals into marriage with females for its cultural value – until recently – it is possible that if we change our culture so homosexuals don’t feel inclined to marry women but accept them as men that will be decreasing the number of gays).

But is that the way it works? Do gay men have gay children? I don’t think so.

The only explanation that seems to make sense to me is that the mental software that fuels our sexual desire is very fragile and buggy and that the same mistake (whether nature or nuture or a combination of both – I have no idea) keeps cropping up so you get – what 13%? – homosexuality in all cultures because that error is so easy and common.

Does anyone know for sure if there is a gay gene?

And I have heard there are gay penguins.

While evolution is, technically speaking, a biological phenemenon and theory (as far as I know, anyway), at least part of the proposed mechanisms for evolution (RM+NS) form the foundation for a complex adaptive system. These systems can be (and have been) usefully modeled, in the sense of both accurately describing past events and correctly predicting non-obvious future events. Neural network systems have been trained to do these things as well, and I suppose such models could be considered AI.

No argument from me.

I am simply pointing out, though, that none of Norman’s “predictions” comes from any biological theory of evolution. They are, as he correctly points out, “metaphysical and political” predictions.

So I am wondering what they have to do with biology. Or why “evolution” makes these “predictions” and ID doesn’t.

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank : “…none of Norman’s ‘predictions’ comes from any biological theory of evolution.”

Not completely. Evolution’s algorithms are proven to have power in their use in AI and other fields. That power is part of demonstrating evolution. Also, neurophysiology is biology and even evolutionary biology and knowing the brain is the product of natural selective forces gives us some of the necessary insights needed to make such predictions.

“They are, as he correctly points out, “metaphysical and political” predictions.”

In part, yes. A lot more than the known science has to work out. But only in part.

“So I am wondering what they have to do with biology. Or why ‘evolution’ makes these ‘predictions’ and ID doesn’t.”

I think ID necessarily makes negative predictions about AI. In essence, if ID is true we shouldn’t be able to do the things we are in fact doing.

If the intelligence in ID and in us is somehow supernatural, then why can we make material neural nets do this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release[…]01064257.htm http://www.scienceblog.com/communit[…]9904166.html

“Machine demonstrates superhuman speech recognition abilities. University of Southern California biomedical engineers have created the world’s first machine system that can recognize spoken words better than humans can. A fundamental rethinking of a long-underperforming computer architecture led to their achievement.”

Why should we believe in a supernatural/non-material intelligence when we can make a natural/material intelligence?

And what is Intelligence if that neural net doesn’t qualify?

The reason more intelligence like that neural net is coming is because, in part, we know what made us intelligent – evolution.

Those processes do operate at an evolutionary level is what I claim. Before we had atom bombs our ancestors had to first organise into bigger and bigger armies thus making civilizations. Then they invented stone tipped spears and axes for those armies. Then they came up with bows and arrows. Along the way we killed off the ones who could only organise into small tribes, who couldn’t chip a spear point, who couldn’t invent better weapons.

They’re all dead because we killed them.

OK, so you don’t know the difference between “biological evolution” and “cultural development”.

Gotcha.

Sounds like the same sort of crapoloa that the New Agers like to yammer about.

Are you gonna bring up quantum mechanics any time soon?

I said “They’re all dead because we killed them.”

‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank wrote: “OK, so you don’t know the difference between “biological evolution” and “cultural development”.”

When you kill off your evolutionary cousins it’s not just “cultural” anymore. The cultural has become a form of selectionism and is at least as deadly as anything in natural selection.

Comment # 48110

Norman Doering Wrote:

Comment #48110 Posted by Norman Doering on September 14, 2005 05:17 PM … Does anyone know for sure if there is a gay gene? …

There is a study that corrolates hypersexuality in women with an increased rate of gay male offspring. The study showed that, proportionatly, women that had more children then average had a higher rate of male offspring with homosexual tendancies.

Its a very fuzzy area. There are probably many contributing factors. We also have to remember that homosexuality isn’t an all or nothing situation. There are many shades of “gayness”. Personally having friends that are in the gay community I notice that even the, as one man told me he was, “Flaming Gay” males like intimate contact with women. I’d be more inclined to say that most of the homosexuals are actually bisexual and that many straight people also have bisexual tendancies.

Genetics is only part equation. In studies with twins its found that ~52% of identical twins where 1 of the twins identified as being gay the other was gay. So you can look at it that in twins where homosexuality is present there is a 48% chance that one of the twins actually identifies as being straight.

fraternal twins the number was down to just 22% of both identifing as being gay. Now they only share about 1/2 the amount of genes so this still shows a genetic component as it is higher then the average population would have predicted.

There are a three parts to sexuality. Gonad developement Sexual identity Sexual orientation

Now these 3 are also fuzy What would you classify a XY Female that physically appears to be a female from exterior examination, identifies themselves as being female and is attracted to men? Is that a gay man that just doesn’t need surgery to become a female?

What do you call a XY male that identifies himself as female but also is still attracted to females?

We have to realise that sexuality is not black and white but there is a whole range of sexuality from completely “straight” to completely “gay”. Some of it is evironmental, some social and some genetic.

I don’t believe we’ll find any gene that we can just turn on and off. I believe it is much more complex and honestly don’t think its something we should try to interfer with.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on September 12, 2005 12:31 PM.

Hang your head in shame, Grauniad! was the previous entry in this blog.

Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter