Dr Pollnitz’s Anti-Gay Submission. Part 2. An Unholy Association with Hate Mongers and Hypocrites.
A post by Neil Hart on homosexuality, lesbian and gay stuff and the Lutheran Church of Australia.
(I repeat this introduction from Dr Pollnitz’s Anti-Gay Submission. Part 1. )
I don’t know Dr Robert Pollnitz. I have critiqued his submissions in the past and was initially very hard on a 2003 paper that he wrote on homosexuality. When I write critiques I try to go hard at the issue and not the person but, sometimes I may blur the line. I imagine Dr Pollnitz as a loving father, grandfather and husband and as a devoted pediatric doctor over many years saving lives and helping people. I know that he has also been nationally recognised for his long and faithful service to the church.
I mention all of this just to express my regret that I need to critique this submission so harshly. I do so because it has serious problems that really need to be shown for what they are. And I do it because, ultimately, this is not about Dr Pollnitz or me. It is about the LGBT members of the Lutheran Church of Australia and the campaign that the church is waging against their rights. It is about my friend who is called sinner because of his God-given sexuality and whose love is rejected as abomination. So, I go hard at the issue. Sometimes, I confess, the exercise of my sharp tongue gives me pleasure. This is not one of those times.
In part I I referred to an “unholy trinity of hate” Who are referenced in Dr Pollnitz’s Submission. The first of those was George “Rentboy” Rekers.
We now move on to the other two.
The sections in the box are from Dr Pollnitz’s Submission and my comments follow.
The full submission can be seen here. Just scroll down to No. 100 and press the PDF link.
The “American Study” refered to by Dr pollnitz was authored by anti-gay campaigner Paul Cameron. I have been actively researching homosexuality as it relates to the Christian Church only for the last 6 months. In that time, I quickly came across 3 names that stand out as an embarrassment to any fair-minded christian . One of those is George Rekers. We have heard his story in Part 1. The second name is Paul Cameron.
Where do I start with Paul Cameron? Perhaps the study that is quoted by Dr Pollnitz’s above is a good starting point. It is a “literature review emphasising the Golombok and Tasker longitudinal study of lesbian’s children. Psychological Reports. “ Sounds impressive doesn’t it. Yes, but it is an “American College of Pediatricians” type of impressive. Lets look under Paul’s academic gown, and see what we can uncover.
You will note, reader that, the 5 frightening findings above come from a “literature review”. The findings of that review are even more frightening than the points presented here. take, for example, point 3. Cameron’s review actually found that the figure of up to 50% of children raised by LGBT parents were likely to become gay. That is a rather astonishing figure. But not so astonishing when we look a little closer at Cameron’s “literary review”.
Cameron obtained 3 books from Amazon which, by their titles, appeared to speak about families with same-sex parents. He then went through those books and counted up the numbers of children mentioned who were straight and who were gay. In one of those books (Abigail Garner. Families Like mine. Children of gay parents tell it like it is.) He found that the figure was 50 percent. Garners book accounted for a full one half of Cameron’s entire study. There was only one problem with Cameron’s “genius” review. The writer, Abigail Garner, had actually, deliberately sought out gay children of LGBT parented families for the purposes of her study. In fact, Abigail said that her book was intentionally non-random: She states…
In fact, I had made a point of having a roughly even number of straight kids and second generation [gay, bisexual or transgender] kids so that both views would be evenly represented in the book. In other words, because of the goals of my book, I deliberately aimed to have 50% of the kids interviewed to be queer. Not because it is statistically reflective of the population, but to give it balance of perspective. (1)
So much for Cameron’s Literary review.
The following Fact Sheet on Paul Cameron was published by Dr Gregory Herek, Professor Of Psychology at the University of California at Davis.
- On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists” by the APA Board of Directors.
- At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it “formally dissociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.”6
- In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research.”7… At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee’s report and passed the following resolution: The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.
- In August, 1996, the Canadian Psychological Association adopted the following policy statement: The Canadian Psychological Association takes the position that Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism and thus, it formally dissociates itself from the representation and interpretations of scientific literature in his writings and public statements on sexuality.
- Cameron’s credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985),Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to “Cameron’s sworn statement that ‘homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,’” and concluded that“Dr. Paul Cameron…has himself made misrepresentations to this Court” and that “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron” (2)
The Southern Poverty Law Center in the US is a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society. The SPLC is internationally known for tracking and exposing the activities of hate groups. They produce public facts sheets and, where possible and necessary, take legal action against such individuals and groups. In their sights are holocaust deniers, white supremacist, black separatists, KKK Leaders and the infamous Westborough Baptist Church.
Guess what! (OK, I know….you guessed already havent you.) Yes, The Southern Poverty Law Centre has its own page dedicated to anti-gay “researcher” and full-time hate monger, Paul Cameron.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/paul-cameron
Have a look Reader but, fair warning,… take an anti nausea tablet first.
Now we move to Dr Schumm. The third member of our “unholy trinity of hate”
Schumm is a close associate of Cameron. He took Cameron’s discredited research as his starting point and built on it with the same dodgy methodology. While Cameron looked at 3 books, Schumm took Cameron’s initial 3 and added 7 others. (Sigh…)
I will let some quotes from the Boxturtle Bullletin help paint the (Schumm) picture.
Back in 2007 when Cameron tried to launch an online “journal,” Schumm agreed to be part of Cameron’s editorial board. Cameron’s “journal” failed to get off the ground, but Schumm continues on. More recently he served as an “expert” witness alongside George “Rentboy” Rekers in Florida’s gay adoption trial. As far as I can tell, Schumm comes off appearing more “sciencey” than Cameron, but his methodology is exactly the same. And when you use the same methodology, you end up with the same result: junk science.
At the end of the Florida Gay Adoption Trial the Judge’s findings included the following comment.
When re-analyzing studies on outcomes of children raised by gay parents, he [Schumm] found some differences in outcomes as a factor of parental sexual orientation where the original researchers reported no differences (the null hypothesis). He suggests that his reanalysis, mostly unpublished, should be accepted over the analyses of well-respected researchers in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Schumm admitted that he applies statistical standards that depart from conventions in the field. In fact, Dr. [Susan] Cochran [of UCLA] and Dr. [Michael] Lamb [of Cambridge University] testified that Dr. Schumm’s statistical reanalysis contained a number of fundamental errors (3)
So, there we have it… The unholy trinity of Rekers, Cameron and Schumm, shamed and discredited by every reputable organisation in the field but quoted as authorities in consecutive paragraphs in a submission to the government by the head of the LCA’s Committee on Social and Bioethical Questions, a leading group in the LCA’s discussions on Homosexuality.
Reader, My concern doesn’t end there. The issue runs much deeper in the LCA than just this submission. I have been informed by a member of the Church’s Commission on Theology (CTICR. The major theological “think tank” of the LCA) that the work of Cameron and Schumm have been a part of that group’s consideration of the LCA’s review of its statement on homosexuality.
There is also a book by Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practise which has a large measure of acceptance within the Leadership of our Church. Another member of the Commission referred me to the book which I have studied extensively. I have profound reservations about Gagnon’s Biblical analysis but his investigation into the sociological issues are of equal concern. He relies heavily on the work of….(yup!, You guessed it!) Cameron and Schumm.
How is it that discredited researchers continue to be quoted and referenced as authoritative sources? Well, sadly, they are treated with the disdain they deserve ,everywhere, except in conservative Christian Churches. Now why is that? How is it that a man like Dr Robert Pollnitz who has dedicated his life to science and health can be so completely uncritical of such sources? Is it possible that, when it comes to the question of Homosexuality, the prejudice overrides the desire for substantiated facts?
When I critiqued a 2003 statement by Dr Pollnitz on homosexuality he wrote back to me to say that, 8 years on, he hopes that he is better informed. Well, sadly it appears as if he remains as uniformed as ever.
Dr Pollnitz, you have presented yourself as an authority on homosexuality in our church. You are the Chair of the LCA’s Committe on Social and Bioethical Questions. You have been and continue to be an influential figure in the debate. I’m sorry Dr Pollnitz but you appear to have one of two choices. Get informed. Or get out of the debate.
BTW. Reader, you may remember that in an earlier post I told you that had contacted the CTICR and asked for access to all their documentation so that I could publish them and allow all of us to see who and what is informing their deliberations. Well, The CTICR met a few weeks ago to consider my request. I still havent heard anything but, rest assured, I am on the case. I should be hearing something very soon.
(1) http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/journal-of-biosocial-science
(2)
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
(3) http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/tag/walter-r-schumm
Pingback: Dr Pollnitz’s Anti-Gay Submission. Part 1. An Unholy Association with Hate Mongers and Hypocrites. | Lutheran Church of Australia: In my opinion.
Nice work again. Take back your church from these “authorities”. Is there any way you can get more actively involved in leadership? That is assuming you are just criticizing from the sidelines at the moment. Plese correct me if I’m wrong.
I have been out of the active ministry for a while. Down with depression for a few years. I’m not sure that being in leadership is necessarily the answer. The freedom to press hard on one issue without having to balance competing needs and demanding timetables is a good thing at the moment. it takes time to track down sources, form blogs, contact sources…all of that…
In the end, it isnt about the leadership and the leaders are foolish if they think it is. it will always be about the people of the church and in regard to the question of gay rights and acceptance…the traffic is all one way. Things will change…but how much damage will be done along the way?
I fear the damage from men like this is far too deep in some people. Just reading this makes me think of how my dad will read something from one of these men and believe it because they are from the church and if someone tries to prove them wrong, they are being influenced by the devil. How do you argue with that logic? There is no common sense, no willingness to listen to reason.
Hi NC. Nce to hear from you again. I am close to a lady who is nealy 90. When i started this 6 months ago, she was sad for me. “IT” is an abomination and I was a tool of the Devil. Last week she told me she understood what I was doing and why…
There is ALWAYS hope…But…damn its hard! This lady has been an observer of what has been happening here, listening to the conversations of lots of other people, constantly being challenged by intelligent, articulate people. Maybe thats what it takes to deprogram…but it gave me encouragement.
That is beautiful! There is hope, it is just hard to see it sometimes.
:)
I’ve never really understood before how heart breaking this struggle is for you folks. Neil mentioned being depressed. Well, no wonder. But yes, there is hope.
I attended a lesbian wedding in Canada a few years ago. It was just like any other wedding, with the aging aunts and uncles and obviously straight family members, kids, grand parents, all totally accepting. I’m sure many of them felt it was very strange to see the bride dancing with the… uh, bride I guess. But you could see that they had all overcome their prejudices and were there to witness the love between two people who wanted to be together as a married couple. That’s what our world can be like in a few years. People appreciating love, and applauding when they see it manifest. Love is what it is all about.
To see the older generation at that wedding, enjoying themselves, enjoying the ceremony and the fellowship, really showed me what is possible if people simply communicate with each other, and keep the goal of acceptance and emotional support without judgement in their hearts.
Good luck everybody.
Great words Darwin. Thanks.
My Finnish lessons are progressing far too slower for my liking… :(
Jesus loves me, this I know!
It does not take a rocket scientist to evaluate evidence presented. Yet sometimes it is much easier to turn a blind eye, to avoid the pursuit of truth, to compromise one’s integrity and to relinquish one’s authority, especially when doing so supports our agenda, our prejudices and our cause. We will lie, cheat, use faulty research, bully, intimidate, silence, condem
people to hell, for a good cause. The defense of God’s word. Because God is so small that
he needs our protection.
And Jesus wept…
And all of us scientists wept….
And the world wept……
Because when you use “theologic” rather than “logic” , the rules of evidence used in the rational world do not apply…..
Thats really it isnt it….The thought that God is so small that he needs to be carefully boxed and violently defended. :(
I think it’s much less selfless than that. I reckon the hate and lack of acceptance of glbt people comes from a personal bigotry and ignorance rather than a more altruistic need to protect a deity.
Look at the fantastically hyoocritical views in the messages those pastors were sending about you. (have you spoken to a lawyer about a defamation suit?) These are supposed to be men whose job is dealing with love.
To be able to really see where the prejudice is coming from, ask them if they would accept glbt people and same sex marriage (and women clergy) in the church if it said in the bible that this was ok. But I guess you’ve already done that and they still reject change. Plus, I’m not sure you’d get a truthful answer.
I had one discussion by phone with a pastor over this. I kept pushing the issues one by one showing the inconsistencies in his arguments. His final statement was “Neil, I would march into Hell for all eternity rather than give up the truth of the Bible.” I think i was supposed to be impressed by his dedication/ commitment or something. He was not defending God. He was defending a book. And, yes, I believe that the emotional motivation is prejudice which comes from fear.
I have no desire to pursue legal action. I cant see what that accomplishes other than feeding the beast If the beast is fear…I’d rather kill it. But thanx for your concern M.
The tourist bus went through the apprentice training facility where I started out. Young men love to draw erect penises….fact. This was a problem for Mt. Isa Mines. We were all taken aside for a special meeting and asked to refrain from such artistic expression. It was explained to us that it may become a problem if an elderly tourist with a weak heart catches a glimpse of the aforementioned “art”. I mention this because sex is a thing that causes a lot of mixed emotions in people – Our first “sex talk” was the first of a string of embarrassing bumblings. We all have some kind of story to tell (mostly kept silent) – whether it is sexual abuse, playing doctors and nurses, pornography, masturbation, masturbation with friends or just the awkwardness of teenage romance and the first date. I think all of this “stuff” is largely undealt with and affects how we respond to adult discussions on things related to sex. People are stuck on the sex issue so I feel there is a need to repeat certain issues despite my unwillingness to do so.
I watched an episode of “All Saints”….it’s on TV its gotta be true…anyway one of the male characters is raped by a man. After long and drawn out scenes of depression it is revealed that he is struggling to come to terms with what has happened because he had an erection while being physically abused, he enjoyed it. I know “All Saints” isn’t a great factual resource to be drawing from but it is I believe one of the emotional problems that people suffer in instances of abuse – sex is enjoyable, manipulation of genitalia will produce the same results whether it be heterosexual or hot apple pie.
It becomes a problem when we allow the sex act define who we are sexually. I followed one of Neils links about that guy quoted by Rob Pollnitz. (Cameron) Anyway he was abused as a child and he says something a bit weird….. something about the lure of homosexuality becoming too strong against the boringness of heterosexual sex. Cameron and I believe others are making decisions about homosexuality based around personal feelings and experience, based on “stuff” not on fact. You can’t get lured into being a homosexual – you can get lured into having sex with someone of the same gender. Being homosexual is a different issue. I apologize to some who have heard all this before but I believe this is something that needs to be repeated until we are all on the same page. This isn’t going to convince a theologian that it is OK to have a homosexual relationship but it is a strong starting point. The issue is not about trying to condone a certain behaviour it is all about accepting a person, once we can accept the person then perhaps we can make progress in our discussions.
Thankyou again Tapio. You always say it so well. The whole issue of young men/ boys being sexually abused and responding sexually (I was about to say “enjoyed it” but that would be a horrible distortion) is an important thing to address for those who need to deal with that abuse. That is perhaps one of the hardest things for a male victim to admit. To throw the whole gay discussion into the mix is also such a distortion of the question. I remember one comment that was made in a post I made about Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby. Jim Wallace and Rod both confuse rape and abuse with homosexuality.
Rod Wilson on November 25, 2011 at 9:22 am said: Edit
Side question, if the RC Priest’s (who by definition must be Male) abused boys in their care were not homosexual, what sexual orientation were they then? in my book they were not only homosexual but were also peadophiles.
This is the type of distorted logic that causes men who have been abused and have responded physically to be confused and fearful of talking about what happened to them.
Time to start just treating people as people…yeh?
BTW…YOU broke the LCAi List. It was in perfectly good working order when i gave it to you! :)
It wasn’t me, last I seen it it was OK……
Neil, I must say, you really make me happy!
really elijah? Why? Its my good looks isnt it? My nose? I always liked my nose….
Anyway…glad ur happy.
thank you, neil. you give me hope that there are others ‘in the church’ who think the way I do. thank you for speaking out.
more people than you would believe possible. :)
neil you should know better thant this.You know that All scripture is given by the inspiration of god and as such is profitable for the making of doctrine.You also know that God says of himself I the lord am a jealous god.I changeth not.Gods is above and beyond change His word because he spoke it too us does not ever change.The Gay issue can be seen as one of being an inherited disorder or illness because it is a part and parcel of original sin.One can only maitain the position that you present if one doesnt understand the doctine of original sin,Even when veiwed from the position of baptism and new life in Christ it iiys axiomatic that the gay issue is tied to original sin..There is more that i could say on this but being polemical isnt my thing nor is shooting the messenger in the head.His tougue should just be cut out methinks!lol
Good to see that being polemical is not your thing Kevin. But, I’m confused… you seem to be saying that my tongue be cut out as opposed to shooting me in the head? I think that if you want to remove the polemic you need to use the bullet. The knife still leaves me able to type.
the rights of others which you so elegantly put it.can only be a moral wrong.eg;A viable feotus a is still a viable human being and doesn’t just magically become so at some declared time further done the track.This is immorality and mengeleian immorality at its worse. The word of God isn’t just some dead thing like historians regard mythology. It is living because God says so. Just like him,t exists both inside and outside time and space.. t he view darwin presents
false. It doesn’t accept this because there is a moral imperative to do so disagrees with his ethic of the individual right supersedes any other consideration. If this was so then there would be nothing to stop paedophilia or murder add nauseum.At some stage one must accept that God exists.When one does one readily accepts that what he says about himself is outside the vacumn that is reason and rationalism. Faith exists outside of this vacume because it is gift and a great divine imperative.It means there is no individual right except God’s will for us Original Sin exists because original man-Adam and Eve who were not some darwinian dimorphic accident,but were the resault of special creation.This is what people like darwin are afraid of.It takes their fate of of their hands and places it in Gods. Knowing this they realise realise that their position is wrong and untenable.
Kevin, you wrote: “If this was so then there would be nothing to stop paedophilia or murder add nauseum” Really? Really? Kevin, are you telling me that without God and the threat of divine punishment there’s nothing to stop you from molesting children? Don’t you know the difference between right and wrong? I certainly do. And I don’t need your fairy tales to convince me that murder is wrong. What on earth is the matter with you?
So now you are telling me that you don’t believe in evolution? That takes some serious ignorance in this day and age. Read “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins and get yourself the start of an education. If Dawkins’ reputation scares you off, read “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne. There’s stuff they didn’t know about two thousand years ago. We’ve actually made some progress. You should learn about it.
i have read those books you mentioned and they are seriously flawed and very polemical.Particularly later in the books. Even Charles Darwin knew and admitted that the theory had seriously dangerous flaws. the glaringly obvious on is if there is change from one stage to another where are the intermediate or transitional remains living and dead. Darwins was at a loss to explain where they were as they were not there to be found. All you get in nature is death and decay. the ancients far from being troglodytes as you say were far more inteligent than we are languages cannot just appear fully formed and functional as they did .Darwinianism has never been able to explain this .Nor has it been able to explain why these very same people were familiar with the concepts and use of fissile weapons ie; the Indus valley civilisations this same civilisation knew about and used aero technology as did a number of others.They also knew and used advanced mathematics such as pi, the golden ratio and knew about trigonometry,They also knew about and used mersine prime numbers.This is very serious math and much of it has only been rediscovered in the last 150 -200 years ce .So dont try and con us into believing we are the only ones who have had technology. It also shows like us they were quite able to destroy their societies through all ways such as plundering their environments and mutually destructive wars. Modern medicine has gone so far as to prove the old testament dietary code as being the best diet to use.So daniel and moses were not old fashioned cave menas you would have us believe.The mosaic law has through time been shown to be the best and fairest system devised to keep individuals and society as a whole safe . Our english common law and the roman laws of the justinian code a based on its precepts,again shown through time to be the best we have. But all we moderns can do is to stuff it up.So try again and show me who are the cave men..Show me again who knows best!
be gentle DH…. :/
Kevin, I think I have figured out the source of your confusion here. When I said that we know things now that the ancients didn’t know, what you heard was me calling them stupid. Far from it. I’m in awe of the ancient minds, who figured out all the mathematics you so correctly mention, measured the circumference of the earth to an accuracy of within a quarter mile (Eratosthenes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes if you are interested in how he did it.), and set in place all our rules of logic and reasoning. There was nothing stupid about those people. But you are confusing stupidity with ignorance. The two are not the same thing.
What I said was that we know things now that those ancient people did not know. If you argue that this isn’t true, then I’d have to point out that the ancient Greeks had not discovered the truss, and that Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator to cool the head and chiefly functioned to produce snot. I’ve known people who could cause somebody to make a mistake like that, but you must admit that although he was certifiably brilliant, there were a few things about which Aristotle was ignorant. The same goes for all those other brilliant minds of two thousand years ago. They were plenty smart enough. But in terms of our present understanding of reality they were terribly ignorant. How could they not be ignorant? They had none of the tools we have now, from the simple microscope, to space based telescopes that can see the farthest reaches of the universe, to computers capable of sequencing the human genome. They didn’t even have accurate ways to measure time. Most of all they didn’t have the scientific method. Aristotle believed that everything could be determined by logic and deduction. He had no use for experiments and evidence. (Ah, this may be a clue to the way you yourself think.)
I admit that I was working under the assumption that you are ignorant, Kevin. Not stupid. I didn’t think you are stupid. But I did think you are ignorant. You have disabused me of this misapprehension. You tell me that you have read the books I recommended. This amazes me, and I can now see only two possibilities: Either you are a liar, and have not read those books, or your ignorance goes beyond the normal to a level I can only call brilliant, in a sad and twisted way. Nobody who has read those books, with any level of comprehension at all, could possibly make a statement like “Even Charles Darwin knew and admitted that the theory had seriously dangerous flaws. the glaringly obvious one is if there is change from one stage to another where are the intermediate or transitional remains living and dead. Darwins was at a loss to explain where they were as they were not there to be found.” This statement is so obviously and glaringly untrue that anybody with eyes to see and a mind to comprehend should laugh at it, even without reading the books you claim to have read. Professor Dawkins spends an entire chapters in his book discussing this fallacy, and detailing to the point of tedium why we have no trouble at all establishing intermediates between species. As for “living or dead” I myself have observed the mud skippers of Vietnam, and if that isn’t an intermediate between creatures that live in the water and creatures that live on land I’d be hard pressed to imagine one.
Nobody who has spent any time in nature, looking at nature with an open mind, could possibly make a statement like “All you get in nature is death and decay.” What you get in nature is infinite variety, and infinity of ways to fit into an infinity of environments and solve problems of survival. There are places in the desert where it hasn’t rained for fifty years, but when it does there will be brine shrimp in the puddles. There are places where it hasn’t rained for years, but when it does there will be frogs singing in the water. Those frogs had been buried ten feet deep in the mud until the rain brought them out again. How could any thinking person claim that all you get in nature is “death and decay”.
No, Kevin, you can’t possibly have read “The Greatest Show on Earth”. If you had, you wouldn’t use words like “accidental” when talking about evolution. There is nothing accidental about evolution. It is a process, a result of physical laws that are now well understood. It is no more an accident than are the waves that march in orderly rows to the sea shore.
We humans have demonstrated the power of selection with our animal husbandry, creating dogs with the variation between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua. There’s no question that selection can greatly alter a species. For a time there was confusion about how selection could create a new species, but that’s been pretty much cleared up in the centuries since Darwin came up with his breakthrough explanation for how life evolves. We now know that selection can and does create new species. Where Darwin was brilliant was in recognizing that there can be such a thing as natural selection. It’s obvious when we think about it, and even more obvious when we look for it.
And that is the ultimate proof of the theory of evolution, Kevin. It has been predictive to an astonishing degree. There have been so many predictions made because of the theory, and then confirmed by observation, that evolution is now considered a fact by any educated biologist, no matter what you might read in Answers in Genesis. For example, humans have one less pair of gene than apes. For us to have a common ancestor, there must have been a point at which the genes fused. If this hadn’t happened the theory of common ancestry would have been thrown out, or at least brought into question. But with modern gene sequencing we now can actually identify the point at which those genes fused. That’s the kind of prediction, and verification, that the theory of evolution has had in the many years since Darwin.
If you look at the wing of a penguin you can see the transition from scales to feathers. Again, it’s obvious and irrefutable once you look.
We can see evolution happening before our eyes. Scientists have spent lifetimes observing and testing it. (Read “The Beak of the Finch” by Jonathan Weiner if you are interested in learning about one such life work. Weiner and his family spent years on the Galapagos Islands, carefully measuring the beaks of finches and recording the changes that correlated to changes in the environment.) Other scientists have spent great efforts trying to disprove evolution, for religious reasons, and have all failed completely. There is no contest. It isn’t a question any more.
Which brings me back to your assertion that you have read “The Greatest Show on Earth” and “Why Evolution is True”. I admit that both have a polemic quality to them, but this is understandable given the frustration that biologists feel when a century of careful research run into the brick wall of ignorance and dogma. But seriously, Kevin, did you read those books? If you did, then you have had my best shot. I have nothing more to tell you. If you could read those books and still deny that evolution is a fact, you could deny that human beings are animals. There is no hope for you.
One observation DH. I pretty sure that, most of the time, my brain still produces nothing but snot.
My brilliant wife has just corrected my last entry. We do not have a pair of genes fewer than apes. We have a pair of chromosomes fewer. The ancestral ape chromosomes fused, and we can determine exactly where. Sure helps to have a smart woman in my life.
Kevin, if your submission is not an example of Poe’s law, then you are one ignorant fool who doesn’t know his own Bib file. This is getting to be old news now, and actually formed the basis for that West Wing scene, but here’s your unchanging Word of God:
On her radio show sometime prior to 2004, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22,
and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the
Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. … End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God’s Law and how to follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
Anonymous
Thanks for that timely piece Darwin.
Bib file = bible. I hate typos. Sorry about that.
ahhhh… i thought u were talking about book lovers :)
you would have to be some sort of yellow chicken to hide behind a psuedonym when I gave my real name.So obviously then then I dont have much regard for such none biblcal opinion as expressed by you. I note that you are very good at pulling bits out of context. not a good debating technique. You forget that scripture alone interprets scripture and the fallible reason of fallible sinfull man.You also forget that issues such as sexual sin and others are all a resault of origiBnal sin.To make this simply one could define original sin as a terminal illness with one outcome-death..there is no other outcome under the law.that is why Jesus is so neccessary to this picture.He alone paid the price for sins demands.That doesnt mean that we are now exempt in anyway from living our lives the way a holy and just God would have us do.In fact he expects us to live and conform to his his will now in the the gospel as new creatures in Christ..In line with this,Paul in his writings makes this very point very clear that sin and the new life in Christ are both mutually exclusive to each other,just as matter cannot exist in the presence of anti-matter.on this very point another issue has raised its head this week in the media-that of killing viable feotus’s in the multiple ivf situation.The Bible is quite clear on this when it says’You shall not kill.In the Psalms and elsewhere God makes quite clear that he knows us from the moment of conception and that from that moment we are sentient living viable human beings not some useless addendum or piece of offal.To do what some mothers and their Ivf drs are doing and killing multiple feotuses is nothing short of Mengelian murder of the first order.Kevin
Thanks Kevin. WOW! Lots to say there…even moving into the abortion debate. I guess I’ll leave that for others to comment on if they wish. Thanks for your participation in the discussion. It is appreciated. I must however ask for some clarification about the “yellow chicken” who “hides behind a psuedonym.” Who are you referring to? Which comment? The Letter to Dr laura was an internet circular letter doing the rounds a few years ago. It was picked up by the writers of West Wing and used in one of their episodes. Darwin referred to it in an earlier post.
If you are referring to Darwinharmless I’m sure that you can just go to his blog to find out more about him. I really dont think anyone is hiding behind anything. I’m also sure that he will feel more than comfortable with responding to your comment. (Keep it clean fellows..nothing below the waist…)
(BTW…I think the little yellow chicks are the cutest…but they don’t lay eggs…sooo…whats best? cute or productive? I guess its lucky I’m both)
lol.my point in using that picture of the chicken is that in any debate if it is to be open,frank and honest I prefer a person to at least use thier first name and not hide behind some psuedonym.If a person wants to espouse an idea they will always get points from me for owning them. never shoot the messenger only a bad argument or iidea. kevin.ps:many of darwins arguments are taken out of context.This is something I really hate One should never take a biblical passage out of context and twist it the way he does.The Bible is living literature.Because as Gods word to is it is both in time and space and because it his totall message to us it is also outside time and space just as he is.
I hear what you are saying but I think the letter to Dr Laura and Darwin has a point. Where does the line get drawn to determine which bits of the Bible are literally true for all time and which bits arent?
Kevin, I assure you that I am not a chicken. But I am a responsible husband, father, grandfather, and hopefully valued employee at an institute of higher education, all of which could be put at risk by revealing my true identity to the kind of religious wackos that populate the Internet. Many bloggers have been forced to go into hiding because some fanatics think that insulting their God, or their prophet, is an offense calling for the death penalty, as if their God or prophet can’t take care of himself and needs their help. I’m sure you are familiar with the Danish cartoon of Muhammad, which caused a true believer to attempt to murder the cartoonist with an ax in front of his grand daughter. That’s an extreme case, of course, and unlikely to happen to me. But I’m not putting my life and family at risk for the sake of macho posturing.
As for your arguments, they are specious in the extreme. If I were a Christian, and bought into your nonsense, it might have some meaning for me. But in my world view, there is no such thing as original sin. There never was an Adam nor an Eve, and without them there never was a garden of Eden. You can throw biblical interpretation at me all day and you might as well be talking Swahili for all it matters to me. Your whole reality is built on utter illusion, fairy tails that some ancient ignorant desert tribesmen invented. You may hate it when people take quotes out of context, but the truth is the bible is wildly contradictory. As a moral guide, or a guide to the thoughts and feelings of God, it is laughable. And that was my point.
You say the bible says “Thou shalt not kill.” I assume you mean by that “Thou shalt not kill unless you all agree on it, and do it as a collective effort, and the person you kill really deserves it.” Are you against capital punishment? Or is it only a collection of cells that arouse your compassion?
By the way, I consider it incredibly arrogant to presume to know what God thinks and wants. I don’t believe that God exists, but if I did believe it, I’d be damn careful not to put words in his mouth. That could seriously annoy the big guy.
But here’s a question for you, Kevin. I’ve been told that your God is a God of love. Do you really think that if I lead a good life, am kind to people and animals, obey the ten commandments (including the first, because I have no intention of putting another God ahead of yours), don’t engage in any of the sexual depravity that seems to be so much on your mind, and do my best to be a good person, that your God will punish me with eternal damnation simply because I’m human and got confused about whether He exists or not. I admit that I’ve never even tried to believe in God or Jesus. But is that a good reason to burn me in fire for all eternity? Doesn’t that sound a bit excessive to you? If God loves me?
Yup. Sounds pretty excessive to me! I dont think I would follow that God either.
I must say that I have never had time forreligius wackos either. This is for numerous reasons as neil well knows.As Dr Pollnitz is both aloving father and grand father and one of south australias formost Dr’s you do him a great in justic. he also happens to be a cousin of mine and a very honourable person.To say that he is a hate person is nothing short of character assassination.such tactics are very poor debating tools. If you disagree with the message attack that but never the messenger.
i
I must say that I have never had time forreligius wackos either. This is for numerous reasons as neil well knows.As Dr Pollnitz is both a loving father and grand father and one of south australias formost Dr’s you do him a great in justice. He also happens to be a cousin of mine and a very lohonourable person.To say that he is a hate person is nothing short of characterassassination.such tactics are very poor debating tools. If you disagree with the message attack that but never the messenger.
i
again darwin you miss the the point faith and what it believes exist on a different level to fallible human logic. Your says to that because you are ostensiblely a good moral person then a good just goo will have you in heaven. but it doesnt work that way. Paul says that …all men have fallen short of the glory of God. God is a righteous and he doesnt live in a vacume but that doesnt mean he tolerates evil either. in fact Gods holiness demands evil be dealt with.just because one chooses to bury ones head in the sand doesn’t mean that sin, evil , original sin or the devil doesn’t exist. In fact natural logic dictates that they should and do exist.But the position people like you argue from is the most illogical one there is.It can niether allow for or answer the question of good and evil existing side by side apparently.The position you believe is that of the ostrich which when seeing something that it either doesn’t like or is afraid of puts its head in a hole in the ground untill it thinks this problem has gone away when in fact the lion is about to pluck its tail feathers out and promptly eat such a delicious target.Like the giant turkey[sic] just because you dont like part of a reality it doesn’t mean that because you choose not to believe it that the problem either doesn’t exist or is going to leave you alone. It will always come back to bite your elegant posterior untill you do one of two things put your head in the air and deal with the problem or you are eaten alive by the lion.
Kevin: Like most Christians you seem to be trying to convince me that I have a problem, or will face one in the future. I don’t know why you think you know me well enough to tell me this, but there you go.
If I agree with you that I have a problem, and ask you for the solution to this problem, you will direct me to a book that was cobbled together by many different men over several centuries, and you will tell me about a man named Jesus who will supposedly solve my problem.
But if I look at this book you direct me to, as I have on many occasions, I will find it full of horror stories, abominations and contradictory information. For example there are two different versions of Genesis in the Bible. If the bible is the word of God, and the gospel truth, which should I believe?
There’s very little about Christianity you could tell me that I haven’t heard before. I grew up on stories of fathers willing to murder their beloved son because your God told them to do it; of men, women and innocent children drowned because your God was not happy with humanity, his own creation; of talking snakes and a man living in the belly of a big fish and Daniel in the lions den; of a woman turned to salt for the crime of looking back at the city that had been her home; of a father who sent his own beloved son to earth so that we could kill him and thus be, somehow, magically redeemed for sins we didn’t commit ourselves, sins committed at some point in the ancient past. What a God you have there.
But before we even get to that, you need to convince me that there is such a being as God. And if you manage to convince me of that, you need to explain to me how you know the mind of this being, how you can be so certain that this God you want to tell me about is the correct God. After all, there are thousands of different religions in this world, each with many believers who think they have an absolute lock on the nature of God. Some of those believers are willing to die, or to murder, to please or defend this supposedly all powerful God of theirs. That’s pretty strong belief. How can you convince me that your God is the correct one?
When I explain to you that nothing you are saying to me makes any sense at all, you will tell me that I am burying my head in the sand like an ostrich. Again, I don’t know how you me well enough to make this determination. It happens that I am extremely well read. It happens that the study of reality is a passion of mine, and I pay particular attention to people who seem to be questioning and testing their theories about the nature of reality. There are thousands and thousands of these people in the world, and they have been responsible for all the wonders of our age.
The people like you, who think you can get an understanding of reality from a book written by iron age nomadic tribesmen, have a very poor track record when compared to the people I pay attention to. It wasn’t your kind who gave me the technology to see the surface of Mars, or to peer into deep space and appreciate the true vastness of this amazing universe. Compared to what my people have shown me, your ancient, musty book is not worth reading.
I do not happen to think I have a problem you can help me with. Nor do I think you have any understanding of my mind or situation. Plus, you seem to have completely missed my point about the arrogance of thinking you know the mind of God, and are in a position to comment on what He thinks and desires.
As for the good Dr. Pollnitz, when a man ignores scientific evidence and tries to influence the government to restrict the rights of others, presenting odious misinformation because he has made up his mind that he should be the judge, that he is righteous and they are sinners, I think it is fair to point out that he is a hater and a bigot. I’m sure to many he is a very nice person, as apparently was Uncle Adolph to his close family, but to people he judges, again assuming he knows the mind of God, he is an evil man. This is not character assassination. This is simply what he reveals himself to be. One cannot attack his message and policies without attacking the man, because it is the mind of the man that produces these policies. The policies he promotes have been demonstrated to make people miserable and prone to suicide. That’s how he manifests his Christian love. This man you think is so wonderful is responsible for people dying. So please don’t ask me, or Neil, to speak gently about him.
I look forward to your response to this, but please try to hit me with something other than an argument from a belief system which, to me, is utter nonsense.
ok Kevin. There is the challenge. All christendom awaits your response. Don’t let us down. Do us proud. I don’t want to have to step in and rescue you…
Pingback: Should the head of the CSBQ stand down? | Lutheran Church of Australia: In my opinion.
Pingback: Drs Cameron and Pollnitz and a call for change. | Lutheran Church of Australia: In my opinion.
Pingback: CTICR. A Lack of Transparency and Credibility. | Lutheran Church of Australia: In my opinion.