Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Friday, November 11, 2005

Sin is Just Bad Genes?

Craig Sowder of Through The Eyes Of Faith opined recently on homosexuality, specifically on how, given his Christian worldview, he can justify criticizing their lifestyle. Although he begins by suggesting that homosexuals aren't born with that orientation, he does admit that he's arguing the nature/nurture question, and in fact goes right after the nature itself. He says,
Now, from here we could ask all kinds of deep philosophical questions about the nature of a 'nature' and what the relationship is between our natures and our physical bodies. But really, what I want to suggest is that it is not a stretch at all when thinking about original sin to see that this also has effected our very DNA itself. After all, as Christians, we believe that our physical bodies themselves are fallen and are in need of glorification. So if our DNA is fallen, is it not possible that homosexuals are born the way they are because of fallen DNA? Is not sin in general, in fact, a problem with our genes? If you grant this point, then all of the scientific arguments that homosexuals bring forth against our position lose all their force. After all, not only are people born as homosexuals, but they are born as liars, rapists, murderers, and idolators as well.
In fact, it might have been in Craig's best interest to spend some time asking the "deep philosophical questions" about the "relationship between our natures and our physical bodies." Because he begs on hell of a question by assuming that a 'nature' can cause a body to 'fall.' His entire argument rests on the premise that something immaterial can affect something material. How exactly does "sin" interact with DNA, I wonder? Does "sin" fit into the major groove or the minor groove of the molecule? Does "sin" bind to polymerase? If so, what is the Kd of that relationship? Can I use "sin" to design and carry out mutations in a gene I'm working with for my fellowship project? I'm sure I don't need to go any farther to illustrate how non-sensical and absurd this hypothesis is.

This is an archetypical example of the fallacious way in which Christians approach Science. Begin with a faith-based conclusion (homosexuality is a sin), add just enough science to be dangerous (homosexuality is genetic), and come to the obvious conclusion (sin is genetic).

The solution is obvious, then. Christian churches the world over need to raise billions of dollars to fund molecular biologists such as myself to find the Sin Gene, and remove it from the human genome. Something like that shouldn't take more than five years, after all, and think of all the benefits! No crime of any kind and everyone in church on Sunday morning.

And of course, I'd be happy to be the first researcher on the Christian dole to find it.

Post a Comment


At 11/11/2005 5:09 PM, Blogger Niels declaimed...

Yes, in trying to be sciency, they try to apply non-science to science. Or: magic to reality. That's a no go.

At 11/11/2005 6:53 PM, Blogger UberKuh declaimed...

Well, they did found the gay gene. Gay gene, sin gene... same thing!

At 11/14/2005 6:10 PM, Blogger ollywompus declaimed...

It cracks me up to see articles like the one you are blogging about, where the author will throw around 'if you follow this to it's logical conclusion' type of statements. First off, why is this person trying to argue that science is wrong by using science? Isn't that something like trying to argue that the Yankees suck by using Red Sox player statistics?

Secondly, even if somewhere in there there WAS a logical argument, it's irrelevant. What most people don't seem to understand is the difference between 'logical' and 'true'. Most logical systems throughout human history are very specific about not claiming truths. You can very easily prove that the sky is green, in a logical manner... the problem is that the premise used to get there is not true!

So the next time you see someone making a 'logical' argument for Theistic principles, make sure to remind them that logical or not, it's irrelevant to the truth.


At 11/20/2007 2:57 PM, Blogger Mark declaimed...

The article feeds the religious ideal of humanity being born of sin, in need of a cleansing only the church can provide. Heads straight on guys... the church is a business, you dedicate your time and funds, the church helps you get to heaven (while not paying taxes on the profits, of course)

How do you put a price on such a service? Its not like your buying a 1 way ticket to eternal bliss, your entire life is *still* built on a maybe - there is *always* more you could have done.

The whole born of sin ideal demands *life long* commitment to the church. Its impossible to not sin in some way, from some perspective, on a daily basis. Any sin is against god and could land you a cozy spot in the fires of hell.

Christianity makes it followers dedicate their life to death. This world is of no concern, the afterlife is all that is important... so while your here, you must follow the church, the church is all that may get you into heaven.

Catholicism brainwashes its followers to be sheep to shepards that preach thou shall not kill sunday, then send you to kill who disagrees monday.

Thats a religious logical conclusion.



Create a Link

<< Home