Thursday, March 25, 2010

“I won't lecture you on theology if you don't lecture me on science”

If you're anything like me, the week-before-Holy Week is not the week you have the elbow room to digest the 95 pages of theological reflection lobbed out of the House of Bishops meeting yesterday.

So join me in thanking goodness someone else is doing that work for us -- IT ... a frequent commenter on this blog and a contributor to "Friends of Jake" (among other things) offers this important reflection which I commend to you:

“I won't lecture you on theology if you don't lecture me on science”
(written by a bona fide scientist)
Now that the TEC Bishops' Super Secret Theology committee has released its report (or rather, its two competing reports), I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion.

I have read through the conservative's arguments against acceptance of GLBT people and my blood pressure is skyrocketing over the same old tired flat earth arguments.

I will leave it to others to dissect their theological aspect (Tobias Haller comes to mind) but I will point out one direct quote that I find breathtakingly outrageous.

... we are left with three fallacies that need correction: (1) that current science points to sexual orientation as basically innate; (2) that the attempt to change orientation is bound to cause harm; and (3) if homosexuality is something “given,” it cannot be considered in the category of “unnatural.” The rest of this section on scientific evidence will counter the first two points, and the section on natural law that follows will clarify what a theological notion of “unnatural” implies, and why this still applies.

Their discussion of genetics (a field I know a little something about) shows a complete failure to understand basic principles--what it means to say something is innate, and the fallacy of a single gene theory. They embarrass themselves. And rather than take your time here with lecture, I will refer you to Gay Married Californian, where tomorrow I will begin a series on Genetics.
Read the rest here … and may I just say: Brava! Amen! Alleluia!!


IT said...

thank you susan.

My series on genetics will shortly begin at Gay married Californian. Such a bargain: no tuition, and no examinations!

While sexual orientation is not my precise area of research, I am a bona fide geneticist and am confident I know more about this particular thing than all four of those theologians. Who have earned a failing grade in the subject.

Jim said...

Genetics is not a field in which I can claim expert knowlege. My limited study however suggests the authors of the paper knew even less than I. IT's work will I am sure make interesting reading.


uffda51 said...

My great-uncle was a geneticist as well as a charter member of the Society for the Study of Evolution in the U.S. and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

He was also a devout life-long Congregationalist.

About reconciling the two, he once wrote, “I believe that life is everlasting transformation, and that evolution is continuous in the spiritual realm as in the physical.”

Elaine C. said...

not surprising that those who are committed to old theology are also committed to old, out-of-date inaccurate scientific theories